They keep spending money remaking movies they already've made and turning them into flops.
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 Start Cracking Down on Password Sharing in November
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
what netflix did not report are all the people that discontinued service with them.
In corporate accounting they have to PAY the division that produced the content. They don't get it for free. Overall the entire organization is making money, but that particular division is not bringing in enough income to cover its expenses.
Other examples of this would be like if a Camera Man from production worked in the Park taking tickets for 30% of the year, the Parks division would have to pay (via intracompany transfer) Production for his time/salary.
Also, this is legally required. It is one of the things that prevents companies from hiding corporate fraud and ensuring fiduciary responsibility when investors review balance sheets.
They can have all the password crackdowns they want. I haven’t bothered to have a TV, nor watching TV for about 7 years now, and don’t miss it at all. Too much stuff to get done out in the yard.
As soon as the ads start, I'll be gone. Blu-rays and Usenet could have a renaissance.
you wont pay for little mermaid black edition but youll pirate it?
Excellent! Why should ethical people be supporting those who choose to be unethical?
Sadly, poor parenting has its consequences.
Sadly, poor parenting has its consequences.
Netflix grew subscriptions by 8 percent during their last reported quarter. That's an increase of 5.9 million subscribers.
Disney+ allows seven profiles on one subscription, four of which can be watching in parallel at any given time. However, they have to be in the same household, and that's what Disney will probably be "cracking down" on based on location data.
Disney+ is very good for some movies + they have Simpsons/Family guy so I guess this makes sense. However Netflix is an awful platform that I wouldn’t use for free. Sadly some family members watch some rubbish on it so I have subscription 😡
...and destroying any franchise they can get their hands on.
We pay so our Granddaughter can watch when she is visiting. Price is going up and now she can’t finish a movie at home (on her iPad). Frankly, the new content is garbage. Mouse won’t be in this house.
2024 is going to be the year when folks start cutting streams; Amazon, ESPN, Paramount, Peacock, YouTube, Hulu, BritBox, NFL, Max … and you still have to pay for internet. Just saying no.
2024 is going to be the year when folks start cutting streams; Amazon, ESPN, Paramount, Peacock, YouTube, Hulu, BritBox, NFL, Max … and you still have to pay for internet. Just saying no.
What irritates me is I have two houses. Why should I pay double for a service? I can only be at one house at a time.
Just not worth it. I remember when I would complain about DirecTV and cable. Streaming was gonna save so much money.
Exact opposite is the case.
Amazon Prime, Netflix, Disney+, Max, Peacock, Paramount+, Discovery, Hulu, Motor Trend, Discovery Plus... I have them all and still struggle to find a decent movie or show to watch more often than not. Now they want to charge me per location?!?! Nope.
Ready to drop the lot and go back to cable.... WAY cheaper.
Just not worth it. I remember when I would complain about DirecTV and cable. Streaming was gonna save so much money.
Exact opposite is the case.
Amazon Prime, Netflix, Disney+, Max, Peacock, Paramount+, Discovery, Hulu, Motor Trend, Discovery Plus... I have them all and still struggle to find a decent movie or show to watch more often than not. Now they want to charge me per location?!?! Nope.
Ready to drop the lot and go back to cable.... WAY cheaper.
Love how the pursuit for infinite growth keeps making everything worse. Lovely system 😀👍
They must pay the producers a negotiated rate to carry the content, even if Disney are the producers. So Disney+ must pay Disney Animation Studios, 20th Century Studios, Touchstone, Disneytoon, etc. and all the affiliated producers of the content, which triggers profit sharing payments and residual payments.
I never thought about that until they started pulling content OFF Disney+ to reduce the losses, and they explained why they were doing it.
Personally I think they should move to a VOD model with low rental rates for obscure content rather than pulling it off.
Glad you enjoy that hobby. But it’s just as inconsequential.
“if I subscribe to a newspaper I can lend it …” would be more analogous to a streaming service scenario, maybe.
Well, back to sailing the high seas I guess.
You paid for 8 users and a certain amount of streams. What’s illegitimate here?
Your analogy is way off. You didn’t buy all of Disney’s entire catalog for $10–that’s ludicrous. You paid $10 for access to it for a month. Just like you don’t buy all the equipment in a 24 Hour Fitness gym for $30. Are we also entitled to open the back door of the gym to let our friends in because we have a membership?
If you want to own (and lend out) your media, you have to buy Bluray discs. Subscriptions exist for people who don’t want to own and would just rather have access to a ton of content for dirt cheap.
Last edited:
Why not a family plan that offers multiple households?
$15.99 for one household
$19.99 for two households
$22.99 for three
or something... up to some maximum.
You keep all of them under the same user/pass to discourage people using this discount beyond families and trusted friends.
Like a per-household additional charge that is still less than the other person getting their own subscription outright? Think of it like how people add a friend, partner, etc. to their phone plan since splitting the cost of a two-line plan is usually cheaper than a single user plan.
Streaming services used to explicitly charge for "more screens" - I'm sure this is part of why people felt sharing was OK, because to them they were paying more to allow someone else to use their account.
All in all though, this is the consequence of every single media company deciding they need to do their own streaming service. Netflix will tell you - running the infrastructure to support streaming is expensive. It would have made so much more sense in the long term if companies just let a handful of providers handle the streaming stuff and license their content, like with cable TV. It would have been better for consumers too. Easy to budget, consistent experience, no "which app do I open to watch ___", no "We can't carry ___ anymore, go pay an extra $15 to subscribe to ___ to see it", and so on. Instead, media companies saw what Netflix did, saw their success, and stupidly believed "let's just tell Netflix to screw off and start our own service!" Not realizing that Netflix's success (and the success of ANY media platform like this) was content - specifically the wide variety of content from many different sources. Imagine if you had to sign up for "Disney Cable" just to watch Disney, then you also needed to sign up for "CBS Cable", "Paramount Cable", etc. each with its own cable box, TV interface, etc. Cable would never have worked. Too bad the executives were so focused on potential short-term gains and not on long-term success...
$15.99 for one household
$19.99 for two households
$22.99 for three
or something... up to some maximum.
You keep all of them under the same user/pass to discourage people using this discount beyond families and trusted friends.
Like a per-household additional charge that is still less than the other person getting their own subscription outright? Think of it like how people add a friend, partner, etc. to their phone plan since splitting the cost of a two-line plan is usually cheaper than a single user plan.
Streaming services used to explicitly charge for "more screens" - I'm sure this is part of why people felt sharing was OK, because to them they were paying more to allow someone else to use their account.
All in all though, this is the consequence of every single media company deciding they need to do their own streaming service. Netflix will tell you - running the infrastructure to support streaming is expensive. It would have made so much more sense in the long term if companies just let a handful of providers handle the streaming stuff and license their content, like with cable TV. It would have been better for consumers too. Easy to budget, consistent experience, no "which app do I open to watch ___", no "We can't carry ___ anymore, go pay an extra $15 to subscribe to ___ to see it", and so on. Instead, media companies saw what Netflix did, saw their success, and stupidly believed "let's just tell Netflix to screw off and start our own service!" Not realizing that Netflix's success (and the success of ANY media platform like this) was content - specifically the wide variety of content from many different sources. Imagine if you had to sign up for "Disney Cable" just to watch Disney, then you also needed to sign up for "CBS Cable", "Paramount Cable", etc. each with its own cable box, TV interface, etc. Cable would never have worked. Too bad the executives were so focused on potential short-term gains and not on long-term success...
Because offering something for 2% of your user base is not something companies generally do.
Maybe so, but it might also be possible the streaming business model itself isn’t sustainable, not at the prices people are willing to pay.