Disney to Pull Movies From Netflix, Launch New Streaming Services

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Have you looked at Sling TV? Run by Dish with 3 packages topping out at $50.00. I probably would try this if my internet speeds were able to handle it.

Yes. It DOES have most of my favorite programming. BUT, none of it has surround sound and I've had a good home theater since way back in the 1990's. I don't want to fall back to mono or stereo to save about $25/month.

If I was going to go with a streaming service (foundation), PS Vue looks strongest for my television tastes/wants. But it too is limited to stereo sound.

And neither of the above have a software DVR comparable to a real DVR.

I've actually tried pretty hard to get on this streaming train myself. But they all fail (for me) on surround sound, DVR capabilities/limitations, etc... worse if the solution requires jumping from app-to-app or box-to-box... especially when the monthly "savings" for me is basically chump change to an Apple product consumer.

In the end, so much worry/whining/hassle to save as little as $10 or $20 or $30/month in many cases (yes there are those with 10 television homes that can save more than that). Yet we're Apple people who will camp out to pay $1000 for a new iPhone that might have 3 tangible new features vs. the one we already have. Or we'll pay $2X00 for a laptop that might be just modestly faster than the one we already have. Etc.

And we'll go to a few movies each month and blow $50+/pop for a 2-hour film but then practically freak over 200 channels of about 18 hours-per-day of programming costing us $70, $90 or $110/month (for many of us- national average is only about $73/month last I checked). About 4 hours of movies at the cinema for maybe $100 for us and a date vs. 200 times 18 times 30 days = 108,000 hours of programming for the same $100. What a fickle bunch we are.

 

[Rommelnoodles]

I wouldn’t pay for a Disney streaming site. Maybe parents would be I assume it’ll be 10-12 dollars a month. I have Prime, Netflix, HBO, Hulu and Funimation. That covers almost everything.

 

[3NV7]

As far as my kids are concerned the House of Mouse pulling their content from Netflix is no big deal.. Sure, they'll miss Moana and Clone Wars, but there are be dozens of other shows to occupy their time.

 

[kruegdude]

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.

They had cable TV a thousand years ago?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

But the longer-term reality is: people will not sign up for all the accounts, some firms will build a competitive advantage while others wither and die, and consolidation will set in.

Maybe, or if people are NOT willing to keep paying cumulatively more and more for their product, they may do what most businesses do and tighten their belts, making less and less programming to cut costs, funding fewer and fewer pilots (which is the source of programs "we" may love in the future), or favoring cheaper productions such as reality-type programming over quality written & produced programs with bigger budgets.

And even with the "survival of the fittest" mentality, something you love may not be something the masses love... so you'll lose it. One other great fallacy in our delusion is some belief that there is a base group of programming that everyone wants and that the crap on "190 channels I never watch" is crap to everyone. If nobody watched that crap, there would be no eyeballs counted for the commercials the run on those channels. No eyeballs means no revenue from commercials. No commercials means the channel would die.

In short, one viewer's crap programming is somebody else's favorite. If it consolidates down to only the most popular programming, everybody probably loses a few favorites. Those who lose many may give up on television completely. And if you cut out the masses revenue, the bigger & better programs feel the pain too.

 

[Carlanga]

Don't even get me started on the authentication song and dance I have to go through every damn month. I have multiple devices and have to re-authenticate 20 apps every month. It's painful.

I turned off automatic app updates on my atv4. That stops most of them from having to do the dance. If an app doesn't work any more then I know is time to update it on the App Store.

 

[sinsin07]

I don't watch any superhero movies or tv series, I just don't enjoy any of them. The only film that I really like is Blade, which I have on DVD. Is Blade from Marvel?

I understand the concerns that other people have with Disney's actions, but it doesn't affect me much as long as other networks don't start pulling their own content from Netflix. Then we'll have a problem.

Here you go:
20th Century Fox And FX Are Pulling Some Of Their Most Beloved Shows From Netflix
If this trend continues, eventually something you do watch will be affected.

 

[OneMike]

By 2020 nearly every network, record label, and production company will have it's own app, where only there can you get their content.

 

[InsoftUK]

The problem with all of these streaming services is that if a series or season isn't offered on one that you're paying a dozen dollars a month for, you would theoretically need to jump to the other to get it.

It seems Disney will now just be perpetuating this issue even further, despite the increase in competition.

And they wonder why illegal content is streamed from Kodi boxes, they only have them selfs to blame, all greed and forcing us to stream illegal contents as they is no legal alternative when you end up in a situation were you have to sign up to all these streaming services due to the fact all content is spread over them all, needs to be on all else the film industry will end up in the same boat that the music industry got them selfs into

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

By 2020 nearly every network, record label, and production company will have it's own app, where only there can you get their content.

And maybe rentable only so you can't own the content by not too many years thereafter.

 

[TheRealAlex]

Here you go:
20th Century Fox And FX Are Pulling Some Of Their Most Beloved Shows From Netflix
If this trend continues, eventually something you do watch will be affected.

Inside the entertainment Industry there are about 8 Major Players and Their Subsidiaries run most Movie Studios.

CBS, FOX, Time Warner, Sony, ABC, Disney, NBC, And VIACOM. These Guy Control Content and Entertainment Period.

All the CEO's are friendly and know each other well. They have regular get togethers.

From the moves they are making They are colluding and have declared all out War on NETFLIX.

NETFLIX needs them FOR Its Very Survival. Now They tollerated NETFLIX But Now that NETFLIX became a Threat to them. They have Decided to Slowly Kill Off Netflix. By starving it Slowly.

I'll Keep Amazon Prime (Studios will never go after Amazon while they are still selling Hundreds of Billions Worth of Movie SWAG physical items)
and HULU. Thats more than Enough Content.

Netflix will be $4.99 a Month and Fade into Nothingness Like BlockBuster Video. If Employees were Smart they would Pad their resume Max out their 401Ks while they can and try and get a Promotion and get Hired by Amazon Streaming Services or Disney Streaming Service departments.

 

[iop]

There's a chance Disney is going to lose money on this. Some people will subscribe to their service, but many people will simply start pirating. At the same time they aren't going to be getting any royalty fees from Netflix. I'm not suggesting they didn't do their NPV calculations, but I am concerned their estimations are based on too many assumptions. I hope the board of directors won't regret their choice of management.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

And they wonder why illegal content is streamed from Kodi boxes, they only have them selfs to blame, all greed and forcing us to stream illegal contents as they is no legal alternative when you end up in a situation were you have to sign up to all these streaming services due to the fact all content is spread over them all, needs to be on all else the film industry will end up in the same boat that the music industry got them selfs into

No one is "forced" to steal. If everyone rationalized it that way... and did it... there would be no more new media created. The whole entertainment media industry would collapse into self-made, mostly junk quality homemade stuff.

Here's a spin of your same thinking to illustrate a point: I don't want to pay for Apple's new stuff knowing that a big chunk of the money is going to Apple's profit. So why don't I just steal Apple's products? And why don't people like you get mad at Apple's "greed" and opt to only steal Apple's products too? And if everyone can be "forced" by all that Apple greed to only steal Apple products instead of anyone buying them, not only can we stick it to their greedy ways... but we can also delude ourselves into believing that Apple will keep on cranking out new products that we'll want in the future anyway... right? Because that what professional product producers do, right? If they aren't paid for their work, they'll just go to work anyway and keep right on producing.

If your boss decides to stop paying you because wherever you work's products or services are being stolen, you'll just keep showing up at work and doing your job anyway, right?

 

[tennisproha]

Well, everyone wanted to pay for channels a la carte. Now you can.

I think the main reason people complained about cable subscriptions was not the price but the actual availability of their favorite shows. That frustration simply got lost in translation and price became the scrapegoat.

If cable subscribers had started offering all their programming on-demand (something they still haven't managed to do right), most would've probably been happy keeping them around.

 

[Rigby]

I've looked at every streaming option and they all lose me at simple- but common- wants. For example, none of them have surround sound.

Netflix, Amazon, HBO Now and others all support 5.1 sound.

and I think hopping app-to-app or box-to-box hunting

The beauty of over-the-top services is that they just require standard IP connectivity and can run on any device, not just some crappy proprietary box. The Roku already supports all major subscription services, and the Apple TV 4 will soon (once the new Amazon Video and Vudu apps are released). And of course mobile devices are widely supported as well.

for what I want to watch is just overcomplicating such a conceptually simple thing... only to save maybe $10 or $20/month on a net basis.

My prime motiviation isn't even the money. It's really more about not being locked into contracts and generally not having do deal with Comcast's scummy business practices.

And here's the ultimate catch. If we all embrace the hassles of streaming such that we collectively kill off cable, what do we really expect cable to do?

Are we supposed to feel sorry for the cable giants with their quasi-monopolies? They are free to adapt and offer their own competitive services. But in my opinion they should really be broken up into smaller companies to encourage true competition.

 

[jonnysods]

Dang. They own Star Wars and Marvel.

Thank goodness for Kodi?

 

[jujufreeze]

Subscriptions to Adobe, Sony, Microsoft, Netflix, HBO, Amazon, Apple Music, a freaking diary app, next Disney. Can't wait. Keep em coming!

 

[Braderunner]

Consumers still have a choice. Disney's new stand-alone service is not a necessity. If enough people stay away...
The only thing keeping these business models alive are the suckers who pay for it. How else can a company like Time Warner Cable/Spectrum lose subscribers and keep revenues up?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Netflix, Amazon, HBO Now and others all support 5.1 sound..

Yes, it should be pretty clear I'm referring to the cable-like services: Sling, PS Vue, DirecTV NOW and so on. None of them offer 5.1 surround on their channels. Select apps like those you mentioned will offer movies with surround sound. But I want something better than what I'm giving up, not something that takes a few steps back other than select programming on separate apps. $10-$30/month savings is just not worth it (to me). But I'm glad for those that don't care much about surround sound, fully featured DVRs, etc.

The beauty of over-the-top services is that they just require standard IP connectivity and can run on any device, not just some crappy proprietary box. The Roku already supports all major subscription services, and the Apple TV 4 will soon (once the new Amazon Video and Vudu apps are released). And of course mobile devices are widely supported as well.

No doubt, but I like the fuller service of DISH with DISH Anywhere App running DISH on a spare television in another room. Only one proprietary box, which happens to be a terrific DVR with features far superior to any software DVR on any of the cable-like streaming service.

My prime motiviation isn't even the money. It's really more about not being locked into contracts and generally not having do deal with Comcast's scummy business practices..

No doubt. However, contracts- while still around- are no longer the only option for traditional television. They've evolved to try to challenge this threat.

And unless Comcast is not your only source of broadband, their "crummy business practices" are going to get their revenue from you anyway... by upping the broadband rate if enough people drops cableTV. Ultimately, you'll still pay Comcast at least as much PLUS you'll be paying for some combination of streaming services. It is inevitable.

Are we supposed to feel sorry for the cable giants with their quasi-monopolies?

Nope. We should feel sorry for ourselves. We wished this change upon ourselves. Some of us think we are "winning" right now but watch what happens when the masses join us. Broadband rate will rise to make up for cableTV revenue losses and we'll be paying more for less programming. Again, it is inevitable.

But in my opinion they should really be broken up into smaller companies to encourage true competition.

I agree but I'll buy you a new iPhone when either party of government takes such action when they are in control. The last time this kind of entity was broken up was AT&T way back before many on here were born. AT&T learned it's lesson, mergered itself back together again (bigger than ever) and makes the necessary "contributions" to stave off that kind of action from ever happening again. The rest know where to "share the wealth" too. I'd love to see real competition in this and several other industries again. That would be good for us consumers. But- I fear- that ship has long since sailed. Hopefully I'm wrong. I'd prefer to buy some stranger an iPhone by being wrong than keeping that $1000 and being right on this topic.

 

[richpjr]

So many complained but so few of them understood that this is what was going to happen.

Around 25% of your cable bill each month goes to ESPN. That's right, a single channel gets a huge chunk of the money. The rest is divided amongst the rest. People are cool paying $60/month for 100 channels but when you start looking at $15 a month for just ESPN, that seems crazy to most. Thanks to bundling, you get a price that seems more reasonable as it includes far more for the money.

With unbundling, a number of things happen. First, you have less subscribers. This means that each channel has to increase their rates. ESPN can't afford to charge just $20 a month because now they have far less subscribers. So they have to increase their price in order to make the same amount.

The sad second thing is that you put a lot of channels out of business. Within your typical subscription bundle, there are plenty of channels you might not watch but some others do. With a bundled service, everyone helps pay for those. Maybe you even really enjoy one of the small channels. But now that they aren't bundled, they aren't going to make enough to survive. Say goodbye to channels like FX and others that don't have the huge viewership of the big 10 to keep them in business.

There are goods and bads to bundled TV subscriptions. But most don't understand the goods, only believing they'll be able to pay less than what cable companies charge now for even greater choice. That simply isn't true. Enjoy having subscriptions to Netflix, HBO Go, and a dozen others if you want the same choices you use to enjoy.

ESPN currently charges $7.21 per month per subscriber. But your point about them charging the highest content per month is correct (aside from the premium channels, of course);

 

[joueboy]

I hardly use Netflix anymore. The only reason why I still have is because my kids keeps on watching those disney shows. I can finally leave Netflix because they've been milking me for a long time. When they raised their price I was really looking for a reason to leave and I thought that was a good excuse.

 

[GigabitEthernet]

I've had Netflix since the day it became available in the UK and I've finally cancelled it this month. The quality of content has just got worse and worse and now I can't use a VPN I can't get content from anywhere else either.

I get video through Amazon Prime which seems better than Netflix - although not great either - or I pirate it like I used to as I feel it's just ridiculous the cost of TV series and films on services like iTunes.

Why can't the movie industry get with the times and having like Spotify but for movies. I am convinced piracy would reduce hugely if they did just like it has with music. In the current state because of all of these exclusives and agreements it is impossible for me to easily legally get everything at a reasonable cost.

 

[Coffee50]

I don't think is a huge deal. It's not like the content is being pulled off of Netflix tonight.

It would, technically, take the appearance of the many of Netflix titles. Most major studio films eventually cycle off of Netflix all the time. So it's not like any studio title is permanant on the site anyway.

I think it has to do with the fact that it was stated that "titles would be pulled".....so people react.

Plus, they said it wouldn't even launch until 2019, (and who knows in what quarter of the year that will be).

Anything can change between now & then......and it's not like Disney titles have been on the site for that long.

It's not surprising that Disney wants it's on streaming site (Boomerang, Lifetime, CBS, etc. all have streaming sites) Disney is one that actually makes sense due to the amount of content.

And none of these streaming sites have contracts, so you can sign up when you want & cancel when you want.

 

[0007776]

Fragmentation will be the death of this.
Eventually consumers just wont have the money to keep adding a monthly subscription service.

At that point they will go back to bundled cable deals. I never got why people thought a la carte pricing would end up being cheaper.

 

[ftaok]

That's not the "a la carte" that everyone is talking about.

Well the saying goes something like "be careful what you ask for"

The little known second part of that does like this "you might not get what you want but you might get exactly what you asked for."