Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Disney to Pull Movies From Netflix, Launch New Streaming Services
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Disney has to protect it's own ecosystem. Don't be mad, try to understand. This way they Disney will be able to provide you with a lot more better experience with their products.
Life is so much better with dozens of walled gardens instead of one big one with dedicated arrangment sections who are connected to one another.
Well Netflix brought this one on themselves, they are not streaming platform they are production company and as such they want to push their own product by using someone else's to hook up users. That's exactly going with music streaming app crap and their exclusives. There should be law in place where you strictly have to choose are you a stage or you are a content for the stage. You can't be both as we have seen in cable example where cable content providers also own fiber infrastructure. But guess what happens in energy market like natural gas and the pipelines? Providers of the natural gas cannot own the pipeline. Wow what a revolutionary thinking.
Life is so much better with dozens of walled gardens instead of one big one with dedicated arrangment sections who are connected to one another.
Well Netflix brought this one on themselves, they are not streaming platform they are production company and as such they want to push their own product by using someone else's to hook up users. That's exactly going with music streaming app crap and their exclusives. There should be law in place where you strictly have to choose are you a stage or you are a content for the stage. You can't be both as we have seen in cable example where cable content providers also own fiber infrastructure. But guess what happens in energy market like natural gas and the pipelines? Providers of the natural gas cannot own the pipeline. Wow what a revolutionary thinking.
People think somehow all of these companies would magically stop charging for content, or it'd cost them 50 cents a channel, once their dream "cable free" world became reality and once Net Neutrality is officially gone, good luck getting your streaming only content without paying more for internet only. This is the future chord cutters and people who constantly whine about their cable bill wanted.
Yes but the cost of entry on making an album is very low. Most albums are advertisements to get people out to concerts, where the actual money is made.
Are tv shows and movies advertisements to get people to live events? I highly doubt it.
if content creators make their content less convenient than downloading, people will download.
if content creators make their content more convenient than downloading, people won't download.
...it's not rocket science.
Damn, i wont drop netflix anytime soon. I actually enjoy some disney movies. But i wont be adding another service just to stream them.
I don't disagree with you that people will download. I think people here and at other websites overestimate the amount of people who will download consistently. At some point there is a time value proposition to seeking out downloaded files that some people simply chose to not do or aren't capable of besides the legality of it all(which I'm not judging, just pointing out). I'm not teaching my 65+ year old parents how to download tv shows and movies illegally to save $100 dollars a month, nor do I chose to do it myself.
Tv and movie consumption is way bigger than just what tech savvy people on the internet. It is a lot of people who have trouble with the cable boxes too(sadly).
It's not ideal, but I just rotate what I am subscribed to. Game of Thrones on? Subscribe to HBO, cancel the others, and focus on HBO content for those seven-ten weeks. American Gods? Switch to Starz. The only one I continuously subscribe to is Amazon, but I really have that for shipping.
There is currently one SW movie available on Netflix (Rogue One) and two Marvel movies (Dr. Strange and Capt America: Civil War).
So I reiterate--nothing is being lost here.
How is TiVo expensive? The boxes alone basically hold their own in resale value. And why do you have boxes sitting around if you're so concerned with cost, sell them. Streaming on a PC isn't a clean process. Sure the sites make it easy with apps and stuff, but it's nothing compared to the ease of turning on the TV and seeing breaking news. If someone calls and says wow there's a police chase down the street, you have to go to your computer, login, open the streaming site, then re-authenticate every so often, then turn your projector on and have it streamed. With Tivo, you just press power and bam it's there.
Not downplaying the importance of streaming content, but it's 4 steps for every 1 of traditional TV service. And say you're in Europe and want to watch the episode of Law and Order that was just on 20 mins ago (or is still in progress)... with online streaming, you have to wait until the next day, or subscribe to a cloud service (often more $$ than cable) to do it. not ideal.
I guess it's a diff strokes for different folks kinda thing. TiVo is the best product it's ever been though. The software and features, especially out of home streaming are unmatched by any competitor.
I see your point, but at the same time some aspects of movies/TV are indeed changing. One could say that Netflix spends a lot of money producing unique content as an advertisement to get people to subscribe for it's service. That's sort of similar in a roundabout way if a group of music artists banded together to increase their marketing power.
Kind of reminds me of Christopher Nolan disliking Netflix for releasing a movie to be streamed right away, instead of giving theatres the rights to it for an initial period. I'd rather have the choice if I want to go to a movie theatre or watch it at home and don't want to wait. Or I could go to Amazon and let them charge me $20 for an "early release" movie, bleh.
I'm on Xfinity and I only pay $115 a month for Blast Internet (200 MBPS), all the HD Channels and 3 Pay Channels and Xfinity supports almost every Channel app (except they don't like AndroidTV). I'd gladly pay $170 a month for all I get. Talk to Xfinity they are usually good about cutting you a good multi-year deal to keep you. If I cut the chord my Xfinity Internet is $80 + $30 for a service like PSVue or DirecTV + $12 for Netflix + $12 for Amazon + $12 for Hulu +12 For the Premium Channels (which I can cycle through as their shows air the seasons I watch). That's $158 not counting taxes and fees and if you think Xfinity won't eventually increase their Internet Only packages and set a tier system in place in the future you are crazy.
I don't see how they do unlimited NOW, when you have people like me who use 800gb of data a month. Wait until 4K becomes mainstream and more and more "chord cutters" appear. You don't think they'll throttle the heck out of non cable subscribers? Of course they will. Chord cutting isn't as cost effective as people seem to think, for some people - especially those that live in expensive cities.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
They did cooperate and it yielded a unified interface and not a byte of the content viewed counted against ever-tightening broadband caps. It even had a system in which other entities- advertisers- paid a huge subsidy to help drive having a ton of programming individuals wanted to watch and didn't want to watch all available in one place for one monthly fee. It was called cable or SATT. It had a real DVR without many streaming service DVR limitations. It had Dolby Digital surround on just about every "channel" unlike all of the cable-like streaming services available now. It had selections of VOD too. Etc.
Commercials running on those "hundreds of channels I never watch" flowed into Studio pots to help fund some of the bigger & better programming on channels "I do want to watch." FAVS features in those unified on-screen guides made it possible to even hide all the channels individuals didn't ever want to watch while keeping the OPM subsidy model rolling.
And we wished all that away in a mass delusion that at a huge monthly fee discount, al-a-carte would bring us all the same, often commercial-free too, let Apple step in and take a big cut and all that we wanted would just keep on coming... and all that we want in the future would just keep on getting piloted too. Now reality increasingly shows itself.
Aesop's modern day moral: be careful what you wish for.
Last edited:
Where you live determines how much you can LOL. If you live in an area where there's competition you can LOL a helluva lot. I live in suburban Atlanta. L.O. to the L. You can get service from Comcast, Charter, and AT&T. Each company is offering triple play deals with at least 200 channels - AT&T offering U300, free DVR and no contracts; all for around $100-$110. Even including taxes and fees you may reach $115-$130. Most of them throw in a combination of HBO, ShowTime, or Starz for free.
There are other areas of the country where the competition is just as deep. Bundles aren't for everyone. But neither is cord cutting. Generalities tend to break down at the applied level.
And the issue at the moment is that the movie and tv show business is terribly fragmented ! Is so bad, that if I want sport in Denmark I need one, for good to shows I need another one, for good movies a third one and now for kids stuff a fours.
I’m all for cable cutting but when one of these cost me a pretty substantial amount of money, how on earth do they expect me to be able to pay for four?
No one will ever make a service that has the backing of all major studios and most cable channels for a set price for online access. People wanted a la carte, now you're paying for it. 10 here, 6, 5 here, 12 there....it adds up. Plus whatever you pay for your home internet service.
I don't mean to sound cheap, but honestly sometimes I am. TIVO is $14.99 so I can skip commercials, which isn't an issue for me. Don't get me wrong, this is only my take on it, and I do not blame you in the least if that's worth it to you. God knows I paid TIVO right from the beginning of their company up to about 4 or so years ago.
I should sell the boxes, I just haven't had the time. What really frustrated me was that I'd pay this huge lifetime membership, something like $600 or so plus another $600 or so for the box, I think it was even more, but then technology would move on and my 480p TIVO box wasn't good anymore but my lifetime sub couldn't be transferred. Then 1080p, then 4k, etc, that's why I have multiple boxes sitting around.
But we definitely disagree, streaming content from a PC connected to my projector is the most liberating experience I've had in consuming content. I just sign on once with my cable (optimum) login, and never have to sign in again. I can browse all the content at my leisure, save it for later, or watch it right away completely commercial free. Plus my PC runs much faster than the TIVO boxes, although maybe they have gotten faster since I stopped using them. But I remember using the TIVO was sometimes a very slow, laggy experience. Once again maybe the hardware has improved over the last couple of years. I also have access to the content on any PC, my surface in bed, my projector, my PC at the office, etc.
You do have a point on the waiting period, although that differs from provider to provider. HBO, for example, lets you stream right away. Conversely AMC makes you wait 24 hours. But the nature of having any show available means I don't have to schedule it, I just pop into the website and if it's ready I watch it, and if not I watch something else, it's not like I'm killing myself to watch it *right now*.
Anyhoo I'm certainly NOT disagreeing with you, I just lost my taste for TIVO even though I was definitely diehard at one time. But the advent of Netflix, amazon prime, and vast improvement of each providers streaming experience let me ditch the hardware shackles and cost of TIVO.
Last edited: