No, now it’s called AT&TTTTTTTTTTVNow or something. Every time you launch it now you have to click past an annoying screen that reminds you that the app you just launched has a new name. It’s delightful.
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+ Will Offer up to Four Simultaneous Streams and 4K Content for $6.99 a Month
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes it is pointless. Because no one cancels. If you want to cancel to make a point, go right ahead. You've done nothing but lose content to watch, and had no effect on the out-of-control streaming market.
The point is we need to do everything we can to patronize the reasonably priced services. Disney+ offering such a big catalog and 4 simultaneous 4K HDR Dolby Vision + ATMOS streams is spot on for value and what we need to be supporting.
People should be canceling Netflix in droves in response to this. And many are, just not enough.
Wow... So YOU get to
dictate what’s reasonable? No one is allowed to like Netflix because YoU deam it unreasonable and we’re all supposed to get rid of Netflix and subscribe to Disney+ simply because YOU told us to? What if I LIKE Netflix and don’t want Disney+?
[doublepost=1566836397][/doublepost]
Netflix gives me MORE than I want at a price I think is reasonable.
I’m with you. I like Netflix for lots of reasons, mostly for the originals and the foreign content they are bringing to the table. Movies and shows that require me to think a bit are so much more interesting to me than the DC Universe and Marvell stuff. And with no kids in the house most of Disney’s stuff isn’t all that interesting either.
Disney is coming out swinging. I was going to subscribe at $9.99/1 User. At $6.99 and 4 Users, this is a no brainer!
i agree i dont see this as a good value primarily because of the lack of catalog.
Disney+ can offer all the simultaneous streams and high quality bitrates it wants but the (initial/announced) lineup of shows is lackluster at best and they have barely dipped into the back catalog.
so really its disney saying we have live sports and the Mandalorian
(yet with all the damage disney has done to the starwars brand thats less of a draw) and realistically for a single unique show like that i expect many people will just "sail the high seas"
despite the many current issues with Netflix it still has the advantage
Same. And it's cheaper it you pay up front for one year. Even if the price goes up I got a year paying less than I would have thought.
At one point, if I am remembering correctly, Apple was a major stockholder in Disney. Then, they divested. At the time I thought it was an odd move, wondering why they would not want to have a special relationship with such an amazing content provider. Then I thought, well maybe Apple doesn’t want an association with any content provider so they can remain “neutral“ and become the favorite platform for allll content providers. When they passed on buying HBO (when Time Warner was for sale) that hunch grew stronger. But now that they are creating their own content, I’m a bit confused. They had the chance to purchase vast libraries of fantastic, best in class content (which fits the Apple brand) along with the brilliant minds who produced it. But instead they are choosing to start from scratch in an area that they have zero expertise in and no latent workforce skills or synergy with. Is their strategy to create something truly better and conquer all? Or to be just compelling enough to snag the low hanging fruit of Apple users who are lazy or interested in a bundle? I’m super curious to see what their strategy is.
My only question is... the name. The Disney brand is overwhelmingly associated with kids shows and family fare. To have Star Wars and Marvel and ABC and Fox content all under “Disney” is a potentially risky strategy. I’m really curious how the Disney name appeals to single, hardcore sci-fi comic book fans in their 20’s, 30’s, and 40’s. “Netflix” is cool. “Disney” is a lot of amazing things. But it’s not cool. I think creating another brand that could house all of their content seems like it could have potentially reached a broader audience. Very curious to see how it plays out.
Last edited by a moderator:
The “other brand” will likely be Hulu.
The Criterion Collection caters to a very select group of movie buffs. Their catalog seems to have much more variety than their actual customers would suggest but they are very successful so I don't think pandering is always a bad thing. The ratings system is a government mandated thing and not designed to foster competition. No matter what path Apple takes, it's just another form of competition but if they are too niche, they will have to create competitive bundles as you suggest.
We don’t know. On the one hand, Apple doesn’t have to worry much about content rights (other than any music they use). On the other hand, they would have to have things translated/dubbed/subtitled, and there is no indication they are doing any foreign-language stuff. They are generally slow to roll out things in other countries.
If I had to guess, I would assume it will be released first in English-speaking countries, with other countries added over time.
For the Disney service?
Launches on November 12th in the US, Canada and the Netherlands. November 19th in Australia and New Zealand.
Rest of the world is set to roll out over the next two years. Western Europe sometime before March 2020 and the rest by the end of next year.
I could be wrong but I think I remember that Disney+ was steering clear of most adult content, but that Disney was going to put “Adult” oriented content on Hulu and that was (part of) the reason that a Disney+ subscription would include the ad supported tier of Hulu.
Edit: Err sorry in reviewing the whole thread I think you were referring to Apple+ but my brain was stuck in Disney+ mode.
I actually don’t know for Apple, I had ASSUMED they might provide various levels of content. For Apple’s price point they need a breadth of content for varied audiences to compete with other streaming services.
Last edited:
Doubtful. Netflix original content is garbage. Movies are trash even with big time actors and shows are good until they get to around the 3rd season then everyone loses interest. Netflix is dying especially since they keep raising prices.
If you mean "RIP Apple" then that's silly. Even if Apple TV+ doesn't get a single subscriber it will have no effect on Apple.
if you mean "RIP Apple TV+" then it has not been "an ok time" with it. It doesn't exist yet.
Holy blank! I was just able to sign up for three years for $141. I would have been happy with $7 a month. They extended the "founders circle" deal to D23 members.
http://www.mouseinfo.com/new/2019/0...device-availability-intl-pricing-au-nz-ca-nl/
http://www.mouseinfo.com/new/2019/0...device-availability-intl-pricing-au-nz-ca-nl/
I am ready to sign up already. At this price their back catalog plus new shows are a bargin. Especially with no upcharges for HD content.
This is not true. Netflix is not choking on debt. They are doing just fine. And they are not struggling to get subs any more than anyone else and are doing better than HBO, Starz, and all the other networks to include CBS. Disney also had debt, and down areas and times, most companies do. Amazon also has highs and lows. This is the nature of business. Your comment seems more to be rooted in some strange desire to create a zero sum gain... Someone has to lose in order for me to win. There are many people, myself included who will sub to both. Amazing on a site like MacRumors we have people making a issue over the cost of things.