13 ms·
Netflix Will Be the Exclusive US TV Home of Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilm and Pixar
- a_thro_away 10y agotranslated as... "they are asking more money for their content than we can give them from monthly subscription fees alone... we'll have to force advertisements".
- NicoJuicy 10y agoI reïnstalled Plex after 5 months of Netflix... I think the "not coöperation" of content creators is killing it all. I'm not paying for 3-4 streaming services with all exclusive rights, nor i'm willing to constantly change apps for finding the right movie.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- putzdown 10y agoYes. The article is as notable for the dreariness of the movies available before September as it is for the exclusive content available in September. The message seems to be, "If you can tolerate three months of Adam Sandler, obscure indie documentaries, a couple of oldies from 2001, and unheard-of Netflix originals, you get to watch Disney! And that's your only option!" Thanks Netflix.
- LukeB_UK 10y agoSeems unaccessible, archived copy: http://archive.is/Zqo56 http://archive.is/Zqo56
- stevecalifornia 10y agoIt's like a conspiracy to annoy the hell out of the average consumer. I'm not sure why Netflix would be proud of this. How about we also get Spotify, iTunes and Google Play to step up the exclusives on their music services so I can never have a single place to go to listen to music.
- baby 10y agoIt's dumb, but monopoly is another way to have everything available at the same place.
- cookiecaper 10y agoThat's not the right solution. The right solution is opening up intellectual property and copyright laws so that unfair and anti-competitive market conditions stopping forming everywhere around them. Because the companies that profit off our extremist copyright laws control the media, they don't talk about this very much, but copyright, as currently implemented, is extremely unfair for the consumer, to the extent that many consumers break copyright laws several times a day and often don't even know they've done anything illegal. We need serious intellectual property modernization and reform.
- rayiner 10y agoWhy shouldn't content creators get to choose where they sell their content? Should Tesla be forced to sell its cars through GM and Ford dealerships so you don't have to go to more than one place to go car shopping? Anyway, the alternative would be worse. If there was no reason to pick one streaming provider over another on the basis of content, one would quickly become a monopoly, which would be bad for both content creators and consumers.
- cookiecaper 10y ago>Why shouldn't content creators get to choose where they sell their content? Should Tesla be forced to sell its cars through GM and Ford dealerships so you don't have to go to more than one place to go car shopping? This is addressed by something called the "first sale doctrine", which states that IP holders only have control over the direct sale between themselves and the other party, and cannot exert control over second, third, or later sales. Tesla, of course, is not obligated to offer their cars for sale in any particular venue. They cannot, however, stop someone else who possesses a Tesla car from offering it for sale either as a private party or through a third-party dealer. This is why you can go to the Ford dealer and leave with a used Honda. Honda didn't give that car to Ford, but it legally came into the dealer's possession through an intermediary, and thus, the Ford dealer has every right to sell it on their own terms. The difference here is that we're discussing direct physical goods that may contain intellectual property, whereas Netflix and the internet remove the necessity of the physical medium. This is really where our existing technology access laws begin to fall down. They just do not adequately contemplate a world that does not require transactions of hard physical tokens to exchange substantial sums of information. Of course, the very fact that computer networks don't require that is what gives them their power. >Anyway, the alternative would be worse. If there was no reason to pick one streaming provider over another on the basis of content, one would quickly become a monopoly, which would be bad for both content creators and consumers. I don't think this makes sense. Just the opposite is true. If everyone could license the content at a reasonable price and show it on their streaming service, the best streaming service in terms of actual quality would be able to win. Under the current regime, if you don't have both the capital and the clout to spend months in secret meetings with the big media companies, your video streaming startup will simply never gain steam at all. It's much better for the competitive landscape if everyone is legally allowed to show the content.
- marricks 10y ago> From September onwards, Netflix will become the exclusive US pay TV home of the latest films from Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilm and Pixar. Does that mean we will have to pay to watch them? Makes sense from a market standpoint since they are likely to be highly sought after but this pay per movie looks like new turf for netflix. Perhaps it shouldn't be too surprising given the ongoing spat between Amazon and Disney. Sad to see we are at a place where competition is high but rarely makes the best decisions for users.
- hsod 10y agoI agree it's a bit confusing but I think they mean "pay TV" in the sense that Netflix costs money. So these movies won't be available on HBO or Showtime or any other cable networks.
- smacktoward 10y agoHBO and Showtime are both "pay TV" as well, you can't get either without paying a separate subscription fee on top of your basic cable package.
- cgriswald 10y agoFairly certain you can get HBO without cable now. Not sure about showtime.
- toast0 10y agoI would think "Pay TV" refers to monthly subscription TV, as opposed to free over the air TV, and a generic term for cable/satellite. Pay per movie is usually called pay per view. I would have assumed the US pay TV Home of the latest films from Disney and its subsidiaries would be the Disney Channel?
- bearcobra 10y agoYou'd think but even historically that's been pretty rare. It's so family focused that a large amount of content isn't appropriate for their audience. I thought Freeform (formerly ABC Family) was going to get some of it, but I guess guaranteed revenue from Netflix is worth it in a world of declining cable subscriptions.
- benologist 10y agoThis is probably why they started blocking proxies all over the world in the last couple of months, after years of not caring.
- peterwwillis 10y agoHey look, more reasons to pirate media due to a lack of options for receiving it.
- hellogoodbyeeee 10y agoNetflix is easier to use and safer than pirating. Seriously, for the price of a chipotle (steak) burrito a month you have access to their entire online library. You'd pay more than that to go see one movie a month at the theater. Pirating content is morally wrong. If you actually disagreed with the media industry, you would not consume their products instead of stealing access to them. Disregard me if you live in a place where you don't have legal channels of media consumption available...
- peterwwillis 10y agoSo after you pay for direct tv to get access to sports, and netflix to get access to this premium content, and hulu to get access to that premium content, and amazon to get access to the other premium content, and cable to get cable channels, and hbo to get access to game of thrones, it's a little bit more than the price of a burrito. I would not stand on morality for an industry that thrives on economic inequality and lack of diversity.
- hellogoodbyeeee 10y agoFine, then prioritize what you want to pay for. Don't resort to stealing your entertainment. We aren't talking about a necessity of life here.
- JakeAl 10y agoYou'd have better luck telling people to stop doing illegal drugs.
- rhino369 10y agoWhat other industries do demand access to all products for a flat fee? Any one of those providers has more content than any one person can reasonably consume. If you want to have a huge variety of premium content, don't get angry it costs a lot more than a barebone package. If I go to an Indian buffet, I'm not angry they don't have general tsos. Even though it would be great if they did.
- HemanHeartYou 10y agoMONEY and movies you don't care about
- sutiam 10y agoIt's a brilliant deal from business standpoint; from consumer's standpoint, not so much.
- serge2k 10y agomore accessible than having to get Starz.
- Animats 10y agoNetflix is now behaving like a channel, rather than a library. Originally, they had a huge library from which you could choose. Now, they announce "Here are some of the great and varied selection of films coming to our U.S. service in the next few months". Some of those films are decades old. Gradually, their back catalog has shrunk.
- branchless 10y agoCancelled it the other day. Rubbish choice if you do t want to watch fairly boring series vaguely aimed at kids. Waste of money!
- mynameisvlad 10y agoI'm pretty sure at least half of their original programming would not be appropriate for kids, let alone the rest of the catalog.
- branchless 10y agoI mean in part teenagers when I say "kids". I've found their selection to be really poor. As someone else said their back-catalogue for movies is wafer thin.
- milkytron 10y agoCertainly they have to have some decent content if people are willing to pay for it. I can find a fair share of entertainment and documentaries on there, especially the ESPN 30 for 30 films
- ghaff 10y agoTheir movie catalog has always been thin. A few years ago, I was chatting with one of their tech guys I knew and he told me that people come for the movies and stay for the TV. In any case, this trend toward increasingly fragmented content subscriptions has pretty much been on the wall for a while.
- 10y ago
- sdca 10y agoIn other words they made a deal with just Disney, which happens to own those other three studios.
- elliotec 10y agoAnd they'll probably own Netflix soon too.
- zjaffee 10y agoWhat? netflix's market cap is ~25% of what disney is worth, I would be shocked to see disney or really any company make such a large acquisition without it really just being a merger.
- elliotec 10y agoI wasn't serious.
- potatosareok 10y agoWhat? I get Netflix is valuable but to say they would merge with Disney really seems delusional to me. Disney which owns ABC, ESPN, other tv channels, movie studios, merchandise. You can look at stock price sure but Disney revenue has been going up by billions year over year and I don't see that changing much, even if ESPN starts to shrink, because of the valuable movie IP they have. Some of the recent chip maker mergers come to mind but that's a different market - when does a company merge with a company that by revenue is ~10x smaller and by net income 2 orders of magnitude smaller?
- dmritard96 10y agoThis is reminiscent of 'patented' in consumer literature. In my mind, exclusive content is great for a business and bad for the consumer but for some reason people think its a good idea to market it to consumers. If you said Netflix has popular XYZ shows and they stopped being available elsewhere, it would avoid people realizing that Netflix is now playing the same games as the cable mafia did/does and instead people would just be happy that they could watch things fully on demand with all the conveniences of netflix.
- Osiris 10y agoI completely agree. Exclusive deals are anticompetitive. I can understand why they would market it. If you love Disney, now you know that you need to have a Netflix account to watch it, so Netflix is using it to attract customers.
- wutbrodo 10y ago> for some reason people think its a good idea to market it to consumers. I'm skeptical of the assertion that most people care, at all. Outside of specific circles (overrepresented on HN), I know vanishingly few people who are willing (able?) to tie company's actions to their market-level consequences. Marketing this seems like a no brainer: allowing consumers to think this feature isn't exclusive to you just means that they're more comfortable switching to or picking your competitors. Being clear about exclusivity means that you're shifted well up the "must-have" spectrum for many consumers.
- dmritard96 10y agototally agreed that US consumers != typical HN reader. and also agreed on it being possible the good outweighs the bad from a user acquisition standpoint. "I'm skeptical of the assertion that most people care, at all" - agreed BUT - do you think them advertising exclusiveness is something people care about? because if only a few people remember its exclusive (and wouldn't otherwise have picked up netflix) then it could be that the effect of the consumers paying attention and being annoyed is greater than those converted by exclusiveness
- pbreit 10y agoThat seems like a pretty low-key announcement for what sounds like a blockbuster (no pun) deal? If I were Disney, I'd create my own service. HBO claims such a thing is hard but I don't buy it. Charge $50-100 for some ever-changing sub-set of the library. Profit. Still provides plenty of room to cut deals with all the movie services and maintain some artificial scarcity.
- Osiris 10y agoI hate the idea of having to subscribe to a dozen different services for different content I may or may not want, but I guess it's more along the line of paying for only what you want.
- pbreit 10y agoMe, too. But Disney is pretty unique, especially for kids.
- skywritergr 10y agoThey did in Europe. It's called Disney Life. https://disneylife.com https://disneylife.com
- r00fus 10y ago> Netflix will become the exclusive US pay TV home of the latest films from Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilm and Pixar What does that even mean? Can someone who understands the lingo clarify this for me? Does that mean I'll have to pay per-view to see Disney content on Netflix?
- smacktoward 10y agoNo, "pay TV" means TV you have to pay extra (outside the cost of a basic cable package) to access. Usually this payment is made in the form of a monthly subscription fee. That category includes Netflix, but it also includes HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc.
- khedoros 10y ago> No, "pay TV" means TV you have to pay extra (outside the cost of a basic cable package) to access. "Pay TV" is in contrast to "broadcast TV". A basic cable package would be included in "pay TV". HBO, Showtime, and Starz are "premium channels", which would be a subset of pay TV. Netflix is also a subset of pay TV, but I think that most people wouldn't include it in a list of premium channels. CNN, FX, and other cable networks are examples of "Pay TV" that would be left out of your definition, as I understand it.
- jachee 10y ago"Netflix will become the only place in the US that you can give money ($8/mo for streaming-only, for example) to see Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilm and Pixar films. Not Comcast, Not Starz, Not HBO. ONLY Netflix. Woo! Go us! (They may still appear for free on Disney-owned-ABC over-the-air stations, but don't count on it.)"
- Steko 10y agoYou will still be able to buy and rent these films of iTunes or Google Play, just not on subscription packages from HBO, Amazon, Hulu, etc.
- 10y ago
- eggoa 10y agoIf you're upset about exclusivity in this deal I don't understand. These movies won't be on Hulu or Prime after this deal, but they aren't there currently. A whole bunch of movies are going to become more available for more people.
- degenerate 10y agoNew content: positive reaction. Exclusivity: very negative reaction. The negative reaction wins in this case. If I'm paying either way, you are simply limiting the services I can pay on. That sucks.
- wutbrodo 10y ago> If you're upset about exclusivity in this deal I don't understand. I don't personally care a whole lot but it's not difficult at all to understand why. The fact that they weren't on any services earlier left the possibility open for them to come to an arbitrary amount of services. Given how ubiquitous streaming services are becoming, one could reasonably consider this somewhat inevitable. The announcement of the exclusivity deal has collapsed the possibility space so now it's certain that they won't be coming to the other services (for the lifetime of the deal).
- zach 10y agoThis is the culmination of some very old news, when Netflix outbid Starz in 2012 for Disney's "pay TV" rights: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2012/12/04/netflix-outbids-pay-tv-for-rights-to-disney-movies/1746037/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2012/12/04/netflix-outbid... Why September if the deal started in 2016? It covers movies that premiere in 2016 or later, and September is nine months after the January 29 release of The Finest Hours[1], the first Disney movie expected to be exclusive to Netflix. [1] — I earlier opined that Zootopia would kick it off, but The Finest Hours was Disney's first 2016 release and since 7-9 months is the typical wait for a pay-TV window, it seems Disney movies will be on Netflix 9 months after release.
- aaronbrethorst 10y agofamily favorite franchises such as Back to The Future & Lethal Weapon. When did a movie that depicts a PTSD-afflicted Vietnam vet being tortured by electric shock become a "family favorite," and what does that say about us as a culture?
- dsl 10y agoIt says that we live in a society where some kids watched Lethal Weapon and Die Hard, and worked hard to grow up and protect others from the bad things in this world. Bad things that you don't have to worry about because others stand to keep you safe.
- mac01021 10y agoSome time in the '90s, I would guess.
- shmerl 10y agoExclusive releases are sickening. I wonder when creators will start releasing their films through all distributors evenly?
- rjvir 10y agoIf it's ever clear that eliminating certain types of deals (eg exclusive) is beneficial from a revenue standpoint, studios would likely do so.
- shmerl 10y agoNormally it should be beneficial for creators simply because no exclusivity increases reach. Wider reach = more potential users who pay for it. Why would anyone avoid it, unless there is some sick collusion or unhealthy market situation when publisher and distributor are merged?
- jedberg 10y agoGenerally today the cost of an exclusive license is more than the cost of the sum of all possible non-exclusive licenses. So for the creator it's more profitable to seek an exclusive license. It's true that "Wider reach = more potential users who pay for it" but it's the amount they pay that's more important.
- Keyframe 10y agoIt's easy to see why it's like that. For example, there's a market (a country) with 5 players. Each offers you 500 Euros for a run of your long-forgotten movie. That's 2500 Euros if you got them all to buy it. One of them says they will buy it, as an exclusive, for 5000 Euros. It's as simple as that. I work in this sector (not the business side though) and that's what I see each day. To add onto that, sometimes it's even that one (from our example here) offers you 2000 for exclusive, and that's what you take because others won't buy it, or one or two will. You get the idea.
- shmerl 10y ago
- p_eter_p 10y agoI'd be thrilled if this meant I could rent any of the recent Marvel movies. Prime and Google video seem to be pushing the buy option exclusively for new movies these days.
- chaostheory 10y agoThis is big news but I'm not sure how big it will impact consumers because of Disney Anywhere i.e. When you buy any Disney movie from any platform and link it to DisneyAnywhere, it's available to watch on any major service e.g. Apple, Amazon, Vudu, Google One thing people aren't mentioning is that this is 'pay TV'. So Netflix is starting to sell short term rentals?
- maxerickson 10y agoI think the 'pay TV' just refers to the specific monthly payment for Netflix. It's setting it up as a competitor with HBO but not bundled channels with hidden payments like the Disney Channel.
- makecheck 10y agoI know that companies want to set up exclusives and other things so consumers will feel “forced” to buy entire services just to obtain the killer apps (or movies, or games, or whatever). In reality, I am sick and tired of being expected to pay for stuff I don’t want just to get what I do want. I have been buying far less over time, and I have been discovering how little I care about movies and TV shows after all. Oh hey, it’s sunny outside! Oh look, there’s so much more to do in life! Media companies have refused to learn from the $0.99 iTunes store years ago: people don’t want albums anymore, they want songs. They do want your TV show, they just want to download it from anywhere they damn well please. They do want your game, they just don’t want to have to buy an entire new console to get it. And so on. If you’re supposed to be in the business of selling X then sell it; don’t conjure up scheme after scheme to try to force consumers to get other crap. And definitely don’t complain when they see through it all and refuse to give you a dime.
- saryant 10y agoiTunes and Amazon sells shows a la carte. What's the problem?
- shogun21 10y agoWe'll bring the Netflix, you bring the chill (AC).
- Fiahil 10y agoHi Netflix, can you be the exclusive US TV Home of Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilm, and Pixar in France too? It would be nice, thank you.
- rottyguy 10y agoAmazon is taking my money for newer films. Bizarre that nflx hasn't followed suit. Price points are 4.99-6.99 for (ha) HD and a dollar less for SD. And if I can rant for a bit, why is there no amazon channel on Apple TV?!
- gdulli 10y agoThere are two words OP omitted in the title from the quote in the article that make the scope of the statement seem bigger than it is: "Netflix will become the exclusive US pay TV home of the latest films from Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilm and Pixar."
- dfar1 10y agoExclusive rights is only good for the two people that made the deal.
- jimjimjim 10y agooh well. back to buying old dvds whenever they go on sale. As long as you don't buy anything recent some of the prices are dirt cheap. It's still more expensive than monthly netflix but at least I own it rather than having anxiety over losing access to it.
- wj 10y agoDisney movies never get cheap. They have done really well for themselves in their ability to maintain prices even for movies that are decades old.
- MBCook 10y agoSomewhat OT question: I'd like to watch Avengers: Age of Ultron, but as far as I can tell there is no way to rent it digitally. You can only purchase. If you want to rent it you have to rent a physical disc from RedBox. Yet I can rent Deadpool and many other Marvel properties. Does anyone know why Ultron seems to be singled out?
- CrazedGeek 10y agoDespite Deadpool being a Marvel property, the movie itself was primarily produced/distributed by 20th Century Fox, so it's probably just different licensing between different companies.
- zrail 10y agoThis SciFi StackExchange answer has a good explanation: http://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/90394 http://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/90394 Essentially, Fox owns the rights for X-Men and Deadpool is an X-Men universe character. Fox and Disney have different views on rental and sale windows.
- sbashyal 10y agoI recently digitally rented Avengers: Age of Ultron on VidAngel. https://www.vidangel.com?vip=yvkbv6kw https://www.vidangel.com?vip=yvkbv6kw I love the $1 SD or $2 HD rental VidAngel offers on latest DVD releases. Not sure how long this will last though.
- ianburrell 10y agoAge of Ultron is not available for rent because it is on Starz. This is similar exclusivity deal but with traditional premium TV channel. This happens with most movies. They are available for rent for a while on streaming sites, then can't be rented when on pay TV, and finally can be rented again after year or two.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- xufi 10y agoInteresting to see how all these film industries will compete on the home living room space.
- DavideNL 10y ago...meanwhile 90% of the world keeps torrenting because Netflix (or most of the content ON Netflix) is not available in their country - or the content becomes available 3 years after release. And trying to Pay for Netflix by using a VPN (which costs extra $) to stream from the US is obviously cheating and has to be banned as well. /flabbergasted
- rhino369 10y ago>..meanwhile 90% of the world keeps torrenting because Netflix I bet the real number is closer to 0% than 90%.
- IgorPartola 10y agoThis is I think the point where I am starting to get a little afraid of Netflix instead of rooting for them. They are becoming a monopoly that is going to be tough to displace. While they were producing their own original content, it was awesome. Now it seems like you'll basically be either subscribing to Netflix or torrenting content, but you won't have a third option. Having said that, this is a brilliant move on their part.
- ctdonath 10y agoDemonstrates the error of the "long tail" fad some years back. Dazzled by the prospect of everything being available online, pundits failed to grasp the value of content and the ensuing turf wars. Netflix was the prime example, hoping to carry every movie for a trivial flat fee; didn't work out that way. Closest we've got is the likes of iTunes, with a broad spectrum available $1-7 rental (vs the unfulfilled promise of Netflix, $8/month).
- mrep 10y agoThat's cause the movie/television television industry is valued at 150 billion dollars a year where as the music industry is 15 [1]. Multiply the music industry price standard by their relative sizes and you'd get a $100 dollars a month which is about the cost of your top cable prescription for having access to just about everything [2]. Did you think they were going to get the same value for 1/10 the cost? [1]: first google search result :/ [2]: more googling
- mrgreenfur 10y agoAt least until these brands have the tech stack to vertically integrate and do it on their own, or until they get preferential treatment on another digital supplier, or better terms (like vevo).
- jalami 10y agoLike others have said, Netflix is acting like a channel. Unfortunately, Americans love exclusives. When people talk about Playstation v. XBOX, they're not talking about the UI or controllers anymore, but the exclusives. Exclusives are bad for the content and for the consumers. Content tied to a platform that loses, moonlights or just fades away also fades away. I know a friend that really wanted to play an oldschool Buffy XBOX 1 game and would pay for it, but it was only released on the XBOX. Other titles from the period released on PC still exist in markets, but Microsoft obsoleted not only the console, but the content. Maybe Microsoft will make it so you can buy it again in HD on the XBOX TWO, but it really wasn't that popular so most old content is now dead until someone illegally emulates it. Bad for content, bad for consumers, but unfortunately good for business. What I want from a content delivery service is for them to deliver content, not produce it and not cultivate exclusives. Their business-model changes when they wear three or four hats and who they're serving also tends to change. I like to keep it simple. If you make your service convenient and the content you sell convincing enough, I'll shop there. Just like any store. You don't have to be the only store in town that can sell pickles as long as your store is in a convenient location, you take cash and have a value-priced variety of products. You can bypass all that if you convince all pickle-manufacturers to only sell to your store though. People shouldn't applaud this. The subscription model makes this more difficult because you become dependent on the store and not the product-producer. Ownership is more ambiguous and who gets paid and how much becomes the storefront's decision as they gain adoption (see Amazon). I wrote more about what I think would be great at an airplane level on another post[0]. I think it's going to get worse before it gets better. It might take a MtGox level Steam shuttering for people to start valuing ownership again. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11623806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11623806
- isaiahg 10y agoI find it funny that when exclusivity is ever brought up it's talked about like some kind of conspiracy to take money from customers. It isn't a conspiracy and there aren't men in boardrooms laughing menacingly while smoking cigars. The truth is this is just the result of how the system works. That is capitalism and normal competition. If all the streaming services offer the same content then none of them are special. And if one service ends up offering something you can only get from them then they have a leg up on the competition. Soon other services start trying to compete by getting exclusive content and eventually anyone who doesn't play the game is pushed out. If we're serious about hating exclusive and if we want to move away from them then you need to talk about the system that causes it to happen.