Disney to Pull Movies From Netflix, Launch New Streaming Services

[melendezest]

I've been cable-free for 3 years now. I'll NEVER go back. And I have a family of 6. That says a lot.

I personally love Netflix, and use it almots exclusively, with Amazon Prime as a backup. That's it. No Hulu, nor individual network/cable subscriptions.

That said, I couldn't care less for sports (other than extreme sports I can watch on YouTube), I despise ALL "reality"TV, especially all these singing/dancing shows.

Netflix has awesome original content, and I find myself watching it over most network or studio stuff. I love that they pick up shows networks cancel and continue the series for the benefit of fans, to at least get closure wih series (Longmire, the Killing, etc).

Their BBC content is also very good (Sherlock, Luther, Marcella, etc).

So it's sad Disney's pulling their stuff (but don't they own Marvel? THAT would be bad if the pull that too).

But I'm NOT paying for a subscription service. I'd rather buy the discs.

 

[Shirasaki]

When every company is claiming user experience is their top priority, I am pretty sure it is in fact their lowest priority.

 

[TheAppleFairy]

As long as Netflix doesn't lose the Sharknado rights they should be successful.

 

[yankinwaoz]

Will I be able to rent Disney content on Netflix DVD? The article isn't clear if this is streaming, DVD/BluRay, or both.

If streaming only, then I will stick with my Netflix DVD 1-disk+streaming package.

 

[0098386]

Yep, and just wait until physical media dies. We're right back where we started. Downloading pirated content on Usenet or torrenting.

I used to torrent everything when I was younger, but when I got money I started buying my favourites back and all future purchases on DVD. It's funny how convenient and fuss-free torrents are. I can be out and about, connect to my iMacs torrent app, and it'll download in a few minutes. I've got finished torrents auto-move to a video folder where Plex will auto-organise it complete with genre, poster art.

Piracy on PC games dropped because of Steam, as it was more convenient than the alternative - still is. Why can't film studios be equally consumer friendly?

 

[TheAppleFairy]

Why are you even wasting our time commenting then? Bully for you, you are a hipster and better than us mere mortals who do like cable tv.
[doublepost=1502230889][/doublepost]

Why do Chord Cutters feel a need to tell the world that you are a Chord Cutter? And do it with such anger and vitriol? Guess what most of us don't care that you cut the chord.

I've cut the cord myself. Netflix, Hulu and antenna only. Life is good.

 

[HermanMunster]

Here's a thought: Maybe Netflix should bundle content and charge customers for additional content in a similar way as traditional cable.

Let's say:

Basic Netflix $8
Want Disney? Add $5
Want HBO? Add $7

The benefits for the providers may be some economies of scale as they wouldn't have to invest individually in the technology for delivering the content. For us viewers: ease of use, as we would have a single menu to look for things to watch, and maybe lower cost if the providers pass some of their savings due to economies of scale to us.

In essence, same billing structure as before but with shows and movies on demand.

 

[Beerstalker]

I've seen stuff like this coming for a while, eventually you will subscribe directly to the studios.

You'll have a Sony subscription for all their movies/TV shows/Music, a Warner subscription for all theirs, a Disney subscription for theirs, a Universal subscription for theirs, etc, etc.

 

[Ken Linger]

I've seen stuff like this coming for a while, eventually you will subscribe directly to the studios.

You'll have a Sony subscription for all their movies/TV shows/Music, a Warner subscription for all theirs, a Disney subscription for theirs, a Universal subscription for theirs, etc, etc.

And this is where I start scratching my head. Would it really be all their movies/TV shows/music? That would certainly make sense and provide some value. What I don't get is why those that exist today don't include all. Or, worse, there's something that they do include and it magically disappears the following month. What is the end goal? That I say, "darn, I missed my opportunity. Let me shell out $15 to buy it instead."

 

[Coffee50]

And this is where I start scratching my head. Would it really be all their movies/TV shows/music? That would certainly make sense and provide some value. What I don't get is why those that exist today don't include all. Or, worse, there's something that they do include and it magically disappears the following month. What is the end goal? That I say, "darn, I missed my opportunity. Let me shell out $15 to buy it instead."

According to the trades, Disney's streaming site will include Disney & Pixar content.

Marvel & Star Wars could still be possibly licensed to Netflix......

Still this is 2 years away, plenty of time for things to change. Their previous deal with Netflix was for 3 years I believe, so this would be taking place after that.

 

[chriscrowlee]

Here netflix is 12$ month for the cheapest, 18$ for the most expensive, cable is only 5$ a month. So ye canceling cable is not worth it, and netflix is extremely expensive if you compare to cable. We have both, netflix and cable. But what is not on Netflix, still is downloaded. So who loses here? Actually only the companies that deny netflix access. Besides even if we wanted hulu, not available, netflix is the only streaming service you can get here....so not my loss i have to download most movies/series, if i can't get it legally, you have to get it somehow.

cable is $5 a month where? I've been all over the world, never heard of $5 cable. even for crap non HD cable in SE Asia it was like $12 a month no DVR, no HD, no amazing channels

 

[Abazigal]

What bonehead moves? They are losing Disney because Disney thinks they can make more money by rolling their own. There is a number there: how much does Disney think it can make on it's own? If Netflix will offer more than that number, Disney probably just re-ups with Netflix and enjoys making more than they thought they could make on their own.

The problem? How does Netflix pay up for that number? They need more revenue to do that. Where do they get their revenue? If we disallow debt and similar for long-term viability, they have to get us consumers to pay Netflix more. Basically, what we pay now is not enough to give Netflix it's target profit AND give Disney enough to stay with Netflix.

Netflix has tried raising prices even $1/month in the past and been pounded with backlash & defections. So, in a manner of speaking, we consumers refusing to pay more to Netflix is basically enabling this suicide you foresee. Else, put on your business hat and answer this: HOW does Netflix pay up for Disney's new number and keep prices where they are?

Short answer - they can’t. Netflix simply isn’t sustainable at $10 a month. They will need to charge similar to what cable companies are charging to be profitable in the long term.

Netflix also realised the risk of being held ransom by content providers, which is why they are producing their own content, but to be honest, I have not found them worth watching outside of the marvel tv series. New shows are also very slow in coming to Singapore. I am sticking around for Defenders, but after that, I am not exactly sure what I am paying for.

Which is why Netflix ultimately faces the same risk as Spotify - running out of cash. They have just one product. Yes, Netflix enjoys a massive subscriber base today, but how many do you think will stick around when Netflix starts charging $50 or even $90 a month?

 

[Abazigal]

I've cut the cord myself. Netflix, Hulu and antenna only. Life is good.

For now.

 

[jimbobb24]

This will be sad. Its pretty awesome to have them available. But another new streaming service? Forget that. Even with the amazing Disney catalog I am not trying a new service. If its not Prime or Netlfix I don't care.

 

[nt5672]

That makes no business sense. Lets keep it simple. Say "The NetWork TV" provider has "Popular Channel" and "Minority Channel" bundled together. 95% of people never watch "Minority Channel" but are happy to pay to receive "Popular Channel" which in-turn funds "Minority Channel". 5% of people are happy to pay the bundle fee to receive "Minority Channel." Now unbundle the two channels and "Minority Channel" goes out of business and "The NetWork TV" provider loses 5% of paid subscribers from "Minority Channel" as they have no interest in "Popular Channel".
Still believe that's how the World works?

Yep!!!!! I do. If "Minority Channel" can't survive, then it needs to go away.
[doublepost=1502299731][/doublepost]

They had cable TV a thousand years ago?

Nope, but if any animal can't find a way to survive, then it dies. If any corporation can't find a way to survive, then it dies. There is absolutely no reason the same 1000 year old rules don't apply to cable TV channels. I know they are the new media and a lot of young people think it should be protected and provided for free. But that's not really a very well-informed idea, nor is it supported by any sane view of the world.

 

[mmm1345]

.

 

[WatchFromAfar]

Yep!!!!! I do. If "Minority Channel" can't survive, then it needs to go away.

If everything had to pay it's own way or disappear what an uncultured world we would live in seeing as theatre, libraries, community colleges/centres, public access TV, NPR, BBC all rely on Government funding without which they would go under. But hey, don't worry Rupert "successful so deserves to survive" Murdock will be there to entertain us.

 

[jimbobb24]

I like how Chronicles of Narnia are the first Disney movies mentioned. They just scream disney...

I wish Narnia movies were on Netflix - but they aren't. A few were really good for kids shows.

 

[MadeMyDay]

Why is this up for debate? This new Disney service will just be another channel, or app, to access via Apple TV, Roku, etc.
[doublepost=1502226396][/doublepost]

isnt the Jobs estate still the largest shareholder?

Laurene Powell Jobs, previously Walt Disney’s largest single shareholder, recently cut her beneficial stake in the company in half, to about 64 million shares, or a 4.0% stake, according to regulatory filings.

http://www.barrons.com/articles/steve-jobs-family-cuts-disney-stake-in-half-1485946054

 

[HippyRabbitFish]

A few thoughts for consideration relevant to streaming services vs. traditional cable as well as actions of the megacorp studios and our patterns as consumers:

• Turn on. Tune in. Drop out.
• Creator or Consumer
• Pavlovian instrumental transfer
• Vote with your wallet
• Ebay v. Newmark

 

[farewelwilliams]

Thanks for the link. It doesn't really answer my question, though. There's the rights issue, there's the standards issue, but the question remains: why is no-one able to solve these problems?

Of course I know the answer: money. No-one wants to give up total control over their piece of the cake.

your question was: "Why can't it be like music streaming where you can (in many cases) find the same songs on different platforms?"

eddy answered "solving (TV) is complicated because there's a lot of parties involved...when we do deals with the music labels, i dont have to worry about getting music in a different way, i dont have to worry about the rights associated with it, i know i can distributed, stream it, can put it on itunes radio...with TV that's not the case...content varies widely on what you can and can't get".

it literally answered your question...


it's not that no-one wants to give up total control. it's that Apple wants everyone (or at least a majority) to give up total control.

 

[dank13]

yes, because segmenting the market is the way to go.... (not). I'm still waiting for a service that will offer everything in one place, like Spotify for videos... having multiple streaming services is not going to achieve anything, as no one is going to keep adding extra $10/ month for every single streaming service out there.

they either have to charge $1/month each so we can all afford all the services for 10/month combined.

Just follow the steps of the music industry, i'm pretty sure music piracy ended now, since we have Spotify, apple music, they offer pretty much everything you can imagine in terms of music for a reasonable price.

I'm happy to pay for a good video streaming service that offers everything, but i'm not happy to pay for 10 different video streaming services to have everything. Well that's not to mention, even if i wanted to pay for 10 different streaming services i wouldn't get everything, because i live in Australia, and here Mr Dkhead Murdock from Foxtel owns every right to every tv show on earth, so the only way to watch an up to date tv show here is by paying $160/month and wait for the show to air on foxtel, as they don't have a proper streaming service either. No wonder why Australia is the biggest country in terms of piracy in the world.

 

[Tech198]

*waves googbye to Disney*

Just another service to sign up to... because companies reckon they can do batter and Netflix is just not doing enough for blocking efforts. So we'll go off on our own and inconvenient users.

Ya, that's the ticket... This was what i got away from originally..

 

[LethalWolfe]

Exactly. The cable companies are making bad choices about which channels to fund. If a channel can't get enough subscribers at a willing price point to be viable, then the channel needs to go away. That is how it is supposed to work. Welcome to natural selection. Welcome to the way the world has worked for 1000s of years.

Channel bundles start with media companies like Viacom, FOX, Disney, Discovery, etc., that sell the channels they own as a bundle to cable/sat providers. So if DishNetwork wants Nickelodeon it's going to have to buy MTV and Comedy Central too. Why would Viacom want to only sell channels individually if it can make more money selling them as a bundle? It's like saying Apple should always sell MacOS and computers separately even though Apple obviously thinks that bundling MacOS with computer sales 'for free' is a much better path to profitability for them on the whole. Or that printer companies should make the same margins on printers that they do on ink (as opposed to the razor-razorblade that they use).

The whole can be worth more than the sum of it's parts.

That makes no business sense. Lets keep it simple. Say "The NetWork TV" provider has "Popular Channel" and "Minority Channel" bundled together. 95% of people never watch "Minority Channel" but are happy to pay to receive "Popular Channel" which in-turn funds "Minority Channel". 5% of people are happy to pay the bundle fee to receive "Minority Channel." Now unbundle the two channels and "Minority Channel" goes out of business and "The NetWork TV" provider loses 5% of paid subscribers from "Minority Channel" as they have no interest in "Popular Channel".

In some situations yes, in other situations no. Popular channels can generate a lot of income when their shows are successful, but they can also generate a lot of loss when their shows tank. The 'minority channel' might not generate as much income, but it also won't lose as much money either. And if you have a lot of minority channels giving you relatively small but steady income, that can help you weather the storm caused by a popular channel tanking. The diversity of the Minority channels also keeps you from cannibalizing the audience away from your Popular channel. Look at Discovery, for example, they also own Velocity (cars), Animal Planet (outdoors), OWN (women focused), Science (what Discovery used to be), etc., which target various demographics.

Think of it more like investing than selling a product at a store. You put some money into high risk investments (Popular channel) and you put some money into low risk investments (Minority channel). Hopefully the former makes you rich and the later keeps you from going bankrupt.

 

[EdT]

Disney's stock went down a little ( -3.88 points ) in reaction to the news. Not a huge drop, but evidently analysts don't immediately like what Disney announced either.http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stock-futures-pull-back-as-north-korea-threatens-guam-2017-08-09