9 ms·

If every studio thinks I'm going to pay them $10+ a month to stream their content, they are going to be very mistaken. I can't imagine that a lot of people wan

If every studio thinks I'm going to pay them $10+ a month to stream their content, they are going to be very mistaken. I can't imagine that a lot of people want to spend the collective hundreds of dollars to sign up for all the streaming services. It's almost asking to drive people to torrents. Now, if Disney does something like $30/year or something really affordable - sure. I might do that on a whim. I guess it's all about volume vs. price. Netflix, however, I'll keep paying for gladly because of the library size. For the streaming price, it is well worth the value.

BMorearty 9y ago
Netflix's streaming library size has become absurdly small for people like me who: - Want to stream movies (not TV) - Want general movies as opposed to Netflix content Earlier this year, Netflix' DVD division released their Top 10 most popular movie rentals. Only one of the 10 was available on Netflix streaming.
- swsieber 9y ago
  Well, the top 10 thing makes sense - why get the DVD if you can just stream. I think there's sampling bias there. I do however agree that their streaming movie collection is bad.
  - BMorearty 9y ago
    I should have clarified: there's no sampling bias. These are incredibly popular movies. Here are some movies not on Netflix streaming that I've wanted to watch this year: Gladiator. Star Wars IV. Shawshank Redemption. The Wizard of Oz. When Harry Met Sally. The Princess Bride. All Star Trek movies. Goodfellas. Lord of the Rings. Gone with the Wind. All Godfather movies. Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Airplane. American Graffiti. The Usual Suspects. All Jim Carrey movies except a bad one (the Grinch) and one I've never heard of (the Number 23). Toy Story. There's Something About Mary. All Austin Powers movies. The last time I tried searching for a good movie to watch on Netflix streaming, I gave up after 10 minutes. I'd think of one movie after another after another. Nothing was there. All it could suggest was "related titles," as if that's what I would want.
fullshark 9y ago
I would pay $20 a month if it had every disney movie ever, and every new release after a certain time period. I imagine there are a lot of parents that would as well.
- theseanstewart 9y ago
  If it also included every episode of all of their Disney Jr. shows, then it would be a no brainer.
- bradly 9y ago
  Yes. I think a lot of people commenting here are mid-20s adults without children who devour Disney content. I'd gladly pay a monthly subscription for access to all Disney content. Currently Netflix is already missing so many Disney titles that you already need to use something besides Netflix to watch Disney content, so this isn't actually adding a new service for core Disney viewers.
- bluedino 9y ago
  I'd pay $5/movie to just own them
  - fullshark 9y ago
    Disney movies are $20/movie mostly.
- throwaway5752 9y ago
  How long would it take you to break even with installing Plex, buying the worthwhile Disney movies on DVD, and ripping them at $20/mo? 2 years? They have the same problem with ESPN. I want 15-30 minutes a day of MLB scores and highlights and don't want to pay $30/mo for it, even if it includes a channel for every college sport, the ESPPies, and original programming.
  - newman8r 9y ago
    I don't know, but I've seen 250+gb torrents with disney content, although I'd never dare to partake.
distances 9y ago
Right, I read the title as Disney would pull Netflix content to their own service and was wondering for a moment there. Anyway, can confirm, I won't be signing to Disney as Netflix still has quite a bit more good content than I can watch.
choward 9y ago
I for damn sure won't be subscribed to more than 1 at the same time. I would alternate every month. It makes no sense to be subscribed to all the things.
- spo81rty 9y ago
  Are you married and have kids? That changes the dynamics. Streaming Disney will be great for kids.
alkonaut 9y ago
This. And I also don't want to switch between various different and poorly designed UI's to navigate from the content of one provider to that of another. This problem needs to be solved, fast. We were promised a steaming tv revolution but I enjoy flipping channels and keeping track of broadcast times more than switching apps.
nxsynonym 9y ago
Agreed. I only pay for netflix and HBO (and amazon, but that's a bonus for paying for prime). HBO doesn't feel like "extra" because it's always been an optional add-on that costs more. First all the "major" studios will split and start charing $10/month. Then adds will start creeping back in. Before you know it everyone will be paying for an ad-hoc cable subscription. I think a better option would be to do what Amazon is doing for HBO - offer a small portion of the studio (in this case Disney) included with the platform (Netflix) with the option to pay additional fees for the entire catalog. The biggest deterrent, for me at least, is not the price but the need to switch platforms. I'm already annoyed when I have to go from Netflix to Amazon to find a movie/show I want to see but can't remember where it is. No chance I'll add a third, forth, or fifth platform to the mix.
- amag 9y ago
  > The biggest deterrent, for me at least, is not the price but the need to switch platforms. Agree, especially when most doesn't work nearly as well as Netflix. I prefer to use the TV app and the horrible user experience I had with HBO (for instance) made me quickly stop using it. For a streaming company user engagement should be taken very seriously, but it seems that most studio-turn-streaming-company miss this. They think content is everything because that's what a studio is about. But content doesn't matter if I can't stream it easily and many studios are so over-protective of their content that they forget about usability.
- jacobr1 9y ago
  > I'm already annoyed when I have to go from Netflix to Amazon to find a movie/show I want to see but can't remember where it is. This problem was solved for me by Roku search on my roku device. It still is something I'd rather not need to do, but the search interface is just as good as the dedicated ones for amazon or netflix and shows you the results across all services.
  - funkaster 9y ago
    yup. same for me. Having a search that centralizes all subscriptions you currently have really makes it easy to access that content. I remember the Wii U was supposed to have something similar, it never worked for me. The roku search on the other hand, works just fine. Even the voice search is not that bad.
codazoda 9y ago
We asked for a la carte TV pricing. I think this is what it looks like. I'll probably pay for a few channels and forget the rest.
- kbutler 9y ago
  Or pay for a channel for a month or two, then drop it.
  - rev087 9y ago
    Pretty much what I would do. Netflix has such a large catalog, that I don't bother cancelling during periods when I'm not even using the service. If the content I'm interested in is spread through various services, I'll simply sign up, watch what I wanted to watch, then cancel. One month's subscription is enough for me to catch up on a season's worth of some series I like. This however creates the incentive for providers to start enforcing long term contracts for the regular price, or a much higher price for a monthly plan, in which case DVDs will be relevant again for me.
  - olyjohn 9y ago
    That's what I do with HBO right now. Only thing I'm interested in is Silicon Valley and Game of Thrones. Once GoT is done for the season, my account will get closed just like I did last year.
- joezydeco 9y ago
  Sadly, cable bundling is what allowed small channels like AMC and TNT to develop programming and reach an audience that wouldn't have been possible otherwise. That's all going to consolidate into the hands of a couple of major producers (Disney, HBO, Amazon, Netflix, maybe Hulu) and that's about it.
  - kthejoker2 9y ago
    I mean, not to belabaor the point, but when you also include: NBC/Universal/Comcast Viacom Fox Sony Time Warner BBC Plus some other deep pockets who are slowly getting in the game (Verizon, AT&T, Apple) I think there'll be enough competition even among the oligopolies to make it palatable for consumers.
netsharc 9y ago
I've heard a friend complain about having to subscribe to Amazon Prime, Apple Music and some other service because each had their own "exclusive artist"...
- dgfgfdagasdfgfa 9y ago
  And yet, you can't play apple music on a fire stick, and you can't play amazon music on an apple tv.... It just all sucks for the consumer.
macspoofing 9y ago
>If every studio thinks I'm going to pay them $10+ a month to stream their content, they are going to be very mistaken One of the biggest misconceptions about the post-tv-cable world is that people actually thought they could cut their TV bill from $50-$100/mo to $10/mo.
- AzMoo_ 9y ago
  With Netflix my bill has gone up to $10/mo. I doubt I'll pay any more.
- throwaway91111 9y ago
  I'm not even sure i could watch $50/month of streaming content. I can barely keep up with HBO and Netflix pumping out content on a weekly basis. I could see a family buying a plethora of bundles, but I strongly suspect it will continue to be cheaper than the equivalent cable package. I can't speak at all for sports; i imagine that alone could be hundreds a month to watch a local game.
  - macspoofing 9y ago
    >I could see a family buying a plethora of bundles, but I strongly suspect it will continue to be cheaper than the equivalent cable package. You may be right but I just don't think the industry can go from taking in $50-100/mo to $10/mo - they will figure out a way. And people didn't mind paying that amount. What people disliked was the forced bundles and less flexibility compared to what pirating gave you. >I can't speak at all for sports; i imagine that alone could be hundreds a month to watch a local game. NBA is about $200/season - which isn't bad given that's for every game. When local telecoms that bought rights for local games wise up it won't even be that much.
    - throwaway91111 9y ago
      I thought NBA access gave you everything BUT your local team?
fweespeech 9y ago
> If every studio thinks I'm going to pay them $10+ a month to stream their content, they are going to be very mistaken. https://geekalabama.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/500x1000px-ll-85bebeb4_googlesinternet.jpeg https://geekalabama.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/500x1000px-l... That is what Media companies like Disney want. People always blamed the Cable companies for it but in reality it was the big Media companies pushing Cable and Cable not caring. :\ > Netflix, however, I'll keep paying for gladly because of the library size. For the streaming price, it is well worth the value. To a point yes. However, the balkanizing of streaming services is growing at an alarming rate.
wnevets 9y ago
Fortunately there is enough competition in the space that maybe the prices for each channel will go down. I've already switched to watching free content on youtube for my primary source of video entertainment.
sjs382 9y ago
Remember when á la carte tv was the dream?
- monocasa 9y ago
  We assumed it wouldn't be ~$10 a channel.
  - timfrietas 9y ago
    It already was, though. HBO, Cinemak, Starz were all in that range.
    - monocasa 9y ago
      But it wasn't because it was ~120 channels for ~$120/m.
  - tjohns 9y ago
    Ya, but each channel only showed a limited selection, on their own schedule, with commercials. Compare that with the amount of binge watching that you can do with a $10 Netflix subscription. Things are infinitely better online than what I was getting with my cable subscription.
- throwaway91111 9y ago
  Did that dream still involve channels? They only make sense as an economic bundle.
aidenn0 9y ago
If all major studios pull their content from Netflix, then it will not have the large library size anymore. Also Disney is currently in a strong position for this right now. They released ~10 movies in 2016 and had the 4 highest grossing films of 2016. This, of course, assumes that Marvel and Lucasfilm properties are put on the Disney streaming service (I would expect that Touchstone label will not be included in this, as it's always been distinctly branded). Either way, $10 per month is a bit steep up until the point that they stop selling discs; right now it's not much more than $10 per month to buy every single new release on bluray, and it's less than $10 per month to buy them on dvd, if you shop around. The thing that scares me is that this puts them in a position where they could stop selling media altogether, and it's no longer possible to pay a flat fee to watch a movie any time you want. At that point the only competition with the streaming service would be piracy.
- notatoad 9y ago
  Netflix already doesn't have that big of a library, and it's been steadily shrinking. But if it comes down to it, i'm willing to pay for $10/mo to netflix purely for their original content. I'd also pay for HBO Now if they would let me (I'm in canada). I don't think there's any other company putting out enough quality first-party content that i'd be willing to pay a monthly fee for their service. maybe a couple bucks here and there for a one-off movie rental, but if i have to think about money before i watch something - even a completely insignificant amount - i'm probably going to find other options. And as you say, there's always piracy to fill the gaps in any streaming catalogue.
  - true_religion 9y ago
    In 2004, my cable budget was $160/mo in a bundle. Now it is $100/mo for a half-gigabit internet connection. I'd have to sign up for 6 different services in order to add up to my previous budget. So far... its' not come to that point, but if it does I'll be happy to cut out some services. After all do I really need Netflix? I don't watch if for months at a time, and only keep it out of laziness. I'll happily cut it and swap in Disney for that time period of budget constraints become an issue.
dyarosla 9y ago
The funny thing is, I don't think executives think this way. One example is Bezos where he says he imagines theres enough demand that people will subscribe to netflix and prime and hulu and hbo and ... https://youtu.be/guVxubbQQKE?t=42m41s https://youtu.be/guVxubbQQKE?t=42m41s
- fooey 9y ago
  I'd drop 90% of the crap Amazon is shoveling under the Prime umbrella if I got 2 day shipping at a lower rate and didn't have to subsidize all their media ventures. When they inevitably raise rates again I might actually have to reconsider if it's worth the cost any longer
jtbayly 9y ago
"Netflix, however, I'll keep paying for gladly because of the library size. For the streaming price, it is well worth the value." Well sure, assuming you only want to watch content created by Netflix itself. That's the direction it's going with Netflix.
- mathgeek 9y ago
  Will be interesting to see where the Netflix content based on Disney properties goes from here.
Buttons840 9y ago
I've been wanting to build a PC to host my home media, and I wonder if there would be a market for a device like this: I'd like to have a small computer where I can insert a DVD and press one button and walk away (and latter remove the disk), and then the movie is available to stream from my small media computer to my home network. It could look up the right metadata online, or you might pay a very small amount for a service that maintains accurate metadata. For as much as I watch TV I could probably buy the few shows I'm interested in on DVD for cheaper than what I pay for Netflix. Until I get a media server like I described though, it's just more convenient to pay for Netflix. I suspect that no such products exist because copying the DVDs would almost certainly get the creators of the device sued into oblivion.
- timfrietas 9y ago
  Been done: https://www.kaleidescape.com/products/premiere/#disc-vaults https://www.kaleidescape.com/products/premiere/#disc-vaults
- conception 9y ago
  Check out MakeMKV. That + Plex will be your solution.
- majormajor 9y ago
  You could also just buy* seasons on Amazon/iTunes/Google/whatever of only the shows you want and stream them to the store app on whatever devices you have. If you're only interested in a few shows a year than that gets you potentially price-competitive with Netflix+whatever else, and you don't have to worry about when Netflix loses the rights. * the common complaint here is DRM, long-term-ownership compared to DVD, but the flip side is much better resolution than DVD and if the competition is streaming services, it puts you in much more control than that.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    My problem is where to buy them to ensure 1) that I can access them for a long time, and 2) that I can access them on any device I need to. If the iPhone starts sucking and I switch to Android, can I watch my iTunes purchases there or did I just lose all that money? Can I shop the Google Play video store and stream on my iPad? Will Microsoft pull another PlaysForSure and invalidate all of my purchases at some random point? Right now I'm buying from Amazon because even though they have the worst UI, they're the most vendor-neutral.
JigglyGigalo 9y ago
Think about it from Disney'd point of view. Netlfix is becoming a content creator. They're becoming "a Disney" type of company. Disney has no choice but to stream direct. That is they way all video content is all going.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  I can't imagine it was anything other than Disney looking at the numbers and saying "we're generating this revenue for the streaming companies, but only taking this much in profit; if we run or own distribution we can overcharge more, give shorter rentals, block content when we want to push things in other distribution channels .. and the only cost will be more money for the customer paying for redundant distribution means, more money from the customer to pay for our increased profit, and more inconvenience". I imagine at that point the meeting chairman said "fuck the customers, show me the money" whilst chugging a glass of bolli and sucking on a fat cigar. ... But I may be getting a little imaginative there.
tootie 9y ago
If anyone can do it, Disney can. They have an absurd amount of high-quality content. In addition to their own branded content, they own Pixar, Marvel Studios and Lucasfilm.
bogomipz 9y ago
Agreed and for "cord cutters", subscribing to each of the different content providers a la carte will eventually just recreate the exorbitant monthly price points of regular cable.
dottrap 9y ago
> If every studio thinks I'm going to pay them $10+ a month to stream their content, they are going to be very mistaken. I agree. But taking a step back, Disney is probably the one company that can justify this the most by owning so many properties: the traditional Disney stuff, Star Wars/Lucasfilm, the Marvel movies, Pixar, The Muppets, Touchstone, ESPN, ABC, A&E, Lifetime, History channel. They even have a 30% stake in Hulu.
true_religion 9y ago
Every studio... nah. But they don't care about being available to everyone, just the people that would choose them above another studio in the family budget. You'll end up with people who subscribe to Amazon + Disney, or Amazon + Netflix, and some who do HBO + Disney + Hulu. Studios want to compete with one another directly for customers, not go through some middleman. Is it less convenient, sure, but customers (like me) used to go out to video stores and physically purchase DVDs, so its obvious what we're willing to accept a whole lot more inconvenience than what Netflix offers.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  Isn't it so sad that the rich capitalists response to greater convenience is "well now we have breathing room to make things much worse, they sucked in comparison before, let's see if we can make it as horrible as that again". Replacing technological limitations with unnecessary, arbitrary financial limitations doesn't seem like progress. Still, at least they're helping to inch us closer to a popular 'uprising' against Disney's perversion of copyright legislation.
ChuckMcM 9y ago
I feel similarly. The success of HBO Now has been a challenge because it holds out the hope that if you are "good enough" you too can get $10 - $15 a month per subscriber. This is easily 10x the revenue share from a cable bundle deal according to NAB publications. But does anyone think I'll pay $10 per month per 'network' for entertainment? It would rapidly cost more than cable or satellite. What I find curious is how difficult it appears to be to sell advertising on streaming channels. If you've streamed one of the 'minor' brands like SyFy or Discovery you can see a 2 minute commercial break with three identical 30 second commercials back to back. It is hard to imagine that the people who put these things together are so clueless in terms of how their product is perceived.
- matt_wulfeck 9y ago
  I totally agree. It's clear that the people in charge are concerned only with their bottom line and margins.
  - velmu 9y ago
    I think most people are. While they are at work.
- notatoad 9y ago
  >The success of HBO Now has been a challenge because it holds out the hope that if you are "good enough" you too can get $10 - $15 a month per subscriber. it'll be interesting to see how this changes when the Game of Thrones ends.
  - SllX 9y ago
    HBO is in an interesting place. I actually did sign up just to watch Game of Thrones, and also to finally watch Westworld and maybe they're betting that they have enough for people to watch to actually continue their subscriptions. I mean, I decided to keep the service for about 3 or 4 months including the 2 that it'll take for Game of Thrones to finish up, but there's not denying that HBO actually does have quite a catalog. That said, after 4 months, I doubt there will be much to interest me anymore, and even if there were, I could always just watch it next year when the next season of Game of Thrones comes out. That said, if they offered $60/year, I would probably keep it around for a few years rather than paying between $20-$40 once a year.
DigitalJack 9y ago
I mean no offense, but I found amusement in this post. It used to be that people hated cable bundles so much that they would say they would rather pay $10/month a channel for the few they watch rather than the $80/month for a bundle of hundreds of channels with only a few worth watching. Now that we have that, are we living the dream? No, we want it for a tenth of the cost.
- bendauphinee 9y ago
  I don't think it's about paying that high a cost, I think it's about having to chase it all over the place. I'd pay double or maybe triple for Netflix, as long as it meant I could get most or all of the streaming content I wanted in one place. This is one reason why Steam is so popular.
  - ehsankia 9y ago
    So then your issue isn't the cost, and if someone came with an app that would "merge" all service into a single app where you can stream for all of them from a single place, you'd be happy? I don't think that's what others are complaining about though. Price was definitely the issue of the top commenter as they mention 10$/month and 30$/year. But it makes no sense because back in the cable days, people paid 50-100$ if not more for packages. Now, even with all 4 big services, you're still only at 40$, and imo, having an ondemand service where you can stream anything you want at any time (not only that, but with most of them, with multiple people watching in parallel) is a far superior service. I think people are just getting more entitled for content that has had billions of dollars poured into it. 10$ a month is nothing. It's literally two coffee. If you watch one episode per week and don't even share your account, you're already getting value out of it.
    - freehunter 9y ago
      >10$ a month is nothing. It's literally two coffee. This is, has been, and always will be a ridiculous argument. $10/mo is nothing, it's the price of two coffees. But I need four services, so it's $40/mo, which is eight coffees. So now to afford the same content that was 1/4 of the price last month, I need to give up drinking coffee on Monday and Tuesday, every week. "It's the price of a cup of coffee" is a terrible argument because I don't want to give up drinking coffee just to watch Disney movies. I want to drink my coffee and watch my movies like I did last month before Disney decided they needed to make more money.
koolba 9y ago
$10/month for every Disney cartoon movie alone would immediately get millions of families to sign up. That's easily worth not fiddling with disks. But that's only if the catalog actually has that content. If they do the digital equivalent of the Disney DVD vault then yes screw that.
- satysin 9y ago
  Agreed. For around £8/month I would probably get Disney's streaming service but only if it actually has all of Disney's content available to watch. If they do something stupid like only 5 Disney classics at a time then sorry but they can fuck off.
mastazi 9y ago
> I can't imagine that a lot of people want to spend the collective hundreds of dollars to sign up for all the streaming services. Don't you like to have many options to choose from? You don't "have to" sign up for all of them, it's your choice. > It's almost asking to drive people to torrents. I am a Netflix subscriber but there are a couple of shows that I watch and are on competing streaming services, however I didn't want to subscribe to all of them. So I rented them on Google Play and/or iTunes. I know it sounds incredible but there are ways to consume content without breaking the law.
debt 9y ago
Ha nah. They have their eyes on something much larger than a measly $10/month. Disney/Netflix/Amazon etc. are gonna partner with the carriers.
calafrax 9y ago
in the end "cord cutting" is going to be paying the same price as before for cable, but only getting internet, plus paying ala-carte licensing fees that are higher than what the content companies previously charge on cable because now they are selling to individuals instead of a collective. already cable companies and fios price internet so that you pay only a little more for a full cable package. even if you drop cable you still have to pay extra to subsidize it.
iammiles 9y ago
I think Netflix have been very smart for producing their own original content for the past few years. While losing Disney and maybe others is a blow, it doesn't leave a void in their library for quality content.
taurath 9y ago
Disney Owns: Marvel Disney Animation Pixar Touchstone Pictures ABC ESPN LucasArts If they have a whole streaming platform with all the content from each of these, no way its $30/year, more like $30/month.
- tjohns 9y ago
  $30/month? Even with Disney's entire lineup, no way it's worth that much. Given that online movie rentals are ~$2, that's watching a full length movie every other day. There's a limit to how much TV you can watch. (And if your goal is to binge watch, it's competing with Netflix at $10/month -- which even with it's limited library is a great value.)
  - djrogers 9y ago
    You’re stuck on movies, but Disney has many thousands of hours of TV co tent over hundreds of shows.
heygrady 9y ago
Most people pay north of $100/mo for cable TV [1]. Depending on your bundle you may pay as high as $150 (anecdotal from friends who have Comcast). If you pay $50/mo for your internet connection you could afford 5 or so $10/mo services on the same budget. Arguably, right now Comcast Xfinity has the most/best streamable content if you pay for HBO. This will likely change soon; this has been a long time coming. Cord-cutting is increasingly popular [2] and the studios are adapting. Disney is gambling that they own enough content to make your top 5 list of streaming subscriptions. [1] http://fortune.com/2016/09/23/average-cable-tv-bill/ http://fortune.com/2016/09/23/average-cable-tv-bill/ [2] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170531/05304937480/rate-tv-cord-cutting-is-actually-worse-than-you-think.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170531/05304937480/rate-...
- chalupa-man 9y ago
  It is worth noting though that those figures are American, but Netflix and the Disney decision are global. The US is a bit of an outlier in terms of both the cost and popularity of cable TV. For example in Australia, a country very similar to the US in terms of pop culture and entertainment, only around 25% of homes have cable TV and the most popular package is US$39. In the US the cost can be looked at as '5 services to replace cable TV' but in most countries it does instead look like broadcast-TV content being moved behind new paywalls, with increasing costs to watch the same shows.
  - heygrady 9y ago
    High-quality public television tends to make cable and satellite TV less attractive. SkyTV has been far less popular in its primary markets than DirecTV has been in the US. In the US, Comcast and Verizon are more analogous to the BBC in England -- TV is less expensive (as an individual monthly cost) when it is publicly funded. Interestingly, the BBC is investing heavily to compete with Netflix [1]. If you live in an area that the BBC serves, you will likely need fewer streaming services to get the content you want. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/04/uk-broadcaster-bbc-invests-44-million-to-compete-with-facebook-netflix-and-amazon.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/04/uk-broadcaster-bbc-invests-4...
kev009 9y ago
How many other studios can redefine copyright law though?
am1988 9y ago
I'm already up to netflix, hbo, hulu, prime, amazon video, and a couple channels on amazon video (which I am fine with because it's well integrated). oh and plex. yeah, it's getting to be too much.
samstave 9y ago
We need Aereo for streaming services....
mulmen 9y ago
That only holds if the content providers decide to continue providing Netflix with an attractive catalog. Netflix is the streaming equivalent of Comcast, it's not an attractive model to me. I would much rather I subscribed to the content separately from the display of that content. My Fire TV or Apple TV or whatever device should just show any content that I subscribe to (with all the benefits of a unified library) and I will pay the creators directly for access.
jackmodern 9y ago
This isn't for you, this is for parents looking for a cheap babysitter.
SN76477 9y ago
Netflix is the only game in town that gets my monthly sub.
II2II 9y ago
There is a lot more to it than the monthly rate. There are also those terms of service. To give you an example of what I mean: Netflix lets me subscribe and unsubscribe at whim. If they looked at my profile, they would also understand that changing that would result im my abandoing them altogether. I watch a low volume for a while, my viewing drops off for a while, then I unsubscribe for a while. Keeping track of the terms that allow me to do this is easy because it is one company. Now imagine that there were multiple companies that I subscribed to. Keeping track of those terms of service would change from an inconvenience to a pain. Seeming as most of them are traditional media companies, I also have far less trust in them. Adding 'activation fees', 'deactivation fees', and 'annual contracts' is in their blood. My apologies for the paranoia, but I have dealt with unilaterally changing agreements before. My response to them would be: thanks but no thanks. Their services/content are not important enough for me to deal with the headache of entering into an agreement with each studio.
andrei_says_ 9y ago
Maybe they'll have Disney exclusive content and a variety of non-exclusive content licensed from others. Like the current Netflix model.
WalterBright 9y ago
I keep the Netflix DVD service, which lets me watch whatever I want (with a year lag).
jasonkostempski 9y ago
I could see everyone getting away with $5 as long as they have the same "no-hassle, cancel anytime" policy.
OkGoDoIt 9y ago
Isn’t this kind of what we all wanted? Split up the monolithic cable package? The idea of getting almost everything we could ever want through one $10 a month subscription with Netflix is almost too good to be true, I would expect in the long term the average person will end up paying about the same as they used to with a cable bill, ideally spread among multiple providers.
jonnathanson 9y ago
Disney is the one studio with the brand recognition, loyalty, wide customer base across a variety of demographics, worldwide range, wide variety of content (including sports), and essential franchises to have a shot at pulling this off.
JoshMnem 9y ago
There are endless free programming, math, and other educational videos on YouTube. It just requires a small change in one's perspective on what is "entertainment". :)
ericfrederich 9y ago
They all need to figure out how to interoperate. It's not just all the services it's all the devices that can only connect to 3 out of the 5 services
Steeeve 9y ago
Netflix's library is pretty weak at this point unless you really like their own productions. It's mostly lionsgate which any studio can add to their service for next to nothing.
wodenokoto 9y ago
The complete Disney library is probably bigger than the current Netflix library.
lostcolony 9y ago
If they're smart they'll include their TV channel content. Obviously the Disney brands, but also ESPN. That would put them in a VERY strong position.

BMorearty 9y ago

Netflix's streaming library size has become absurdly small for people like me who: - Want to stream movies (not TV) - Want general movies as opposed to Netflix content Earlier this year, Netflix' DVD division released their Top 10 most popular movie rentals. Only one of the 10 was available on Netflix streaming.

swsieber 9y ago
Well, the top 10 thing makes sense - why get the DVD if you can just stream. I think there's sampling bias there. I do however agree that their streaming movie collection is bad.
- BMorearty 9y ago
  I should have clarified: there's no sampling bias. These are incredibly popular movies. Here are some movies not on Netflix streaming that I've wanted to watch this year: Gladiator. Star Wars IV. Shawshank Redemption. The Wizard of Oz. When Harry Met Sally. The Princess Bride. All Star Trek movies. Goodfellas. Lord of the Rings. Gone with the Wind. All Godfather movies. Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Airplane. American Graffiti. The Usual Suspects. All Jim Carrey movies except a bad one (the Grinch) and one I've never heard of (the Number 23). Toy Story. There's Something About Mary. All Austin Powers movies. The last time I tried searching for a good movie to watch on Netflix streaming, I gave up after 10 minutes. I'd think of one movie after another after another. Nothing was there. All it could suggest was "related titles," as if that's what I would want.

fullshark 9y ago

I would pay $20 a month if it had every disney movie ever, and every new release after a certain time period. I imagine there are a lot of parents that would as well.

theseanstewart 9y ago
If it also included every episode of all of their Disney Jr. shows, then it would be a no brainer.
bradly 9y ago
Yes. I think a lot of people commenting here are mid-20s adults without children who devour Disney content. I'd gladly pay a monthly subscription for access to all Disney content. Currently Netflix is already missing so many Disney titles that you already need to use something besides Netflix to watch Disney content, so this isn't actually adding a new service for core Disney viewers.
bluedino 9y ago
I'd pay $5/movie to just own them
- fullshark 9y ago
  Disney movies are $20/movie mostly.
throwaway5752 9y ago
How long would it take you to break even with installing Plex, buying the worthwhile Disney movies on DVD, and ripping them at $20/mo? 2 years? They have the same problem with ESPN. I want 15-30 minutes a day of MLB scores and highlights and don't want to pay $30/mo for it, even if it includes a channel for every college sport, the ESPPies, and original programming.
- newman8r 9y ago
  I don't know, but I've seen 250+gb torrents with disney content, although I'd never dare to partake.

distances 9y ago

Right, I read the title as Disney would pull Netflix content to their own service and was wondering for a moment there. Anyway, can confirm, I won't be signing to Disney as Netflix still has quite a bit more good content than I can watch.

choward 9y ago

I for damn sure won't be subscribed to more than 1 at the same time. I would alternate every month. It makes no sense to be subscribed to all the things.

spo81rty 9y ago
Are you married and have kids? That changes the dynamics. Streaming Disney will be great for kids.

alkonaut 9y ago

This. And I also don't want to switch between various different and poorly designed UI's to navigate from the content of one provider to that of another. This problem needs to be solved, fast. We were promised a steaming tv revolution but I enjoy flipping channels and keeping track of broadcast times more than switching apps.

nxsynonym 9y ago

Agreed. I only pay for netflix and HBO (and amazon, but that's a bonus for paying for prime). HBO doesn't feel like "extra" because it's always been an optional add-on that costs more. First all the "major" studios will split and start charing $10/month. Then adds will start creeping back in. Before you know it everyone will be paying for an ad-hoc cable subscription. I think a better option would be to do what Amazon is doing for HBO - offer a small portion of the studio (in this case Disney) included with the platform (Netflix) with the option to pay additional fees for the entire catalog. The biggest deterrent, for me at least, is not the price but the need to switch platforms. I'm already annoyed when I have to go from Netflix to Amazon to find a movie/show I want to see but can't remember where it is. No chance I'll add a third, forth, or fifth platform to the mix.

amag 9y ago
> The biggest deterrent, for me at least, is not the price but the need to switch platforms. Agree, especially when most doesn't work nearly as well as Netflix. I prefer to use the TV app and the horrible user experience I had with HBO (for instance) made me quickly stop using it. For a streaming company user engagement should be taken very seriously, but it seems that most studio-turn-streaming-company miss this. They think content is everything because that's what a studio is about. But content doesn't matter if I can't stream it easily and many studios are so over-protective of their content that they forget about usability.
jacobr1 9y ago
> I'm already annoyed when I have to go from Netflix to Amazon to find a movie/show I want to see but can't remember where it is. This problem was solved for me by Roku search on my roku device. It still is something I'd rather not need to do, but the search interface is just as good as the dedicated ones for amazon or netflix and shows you the results across all services.
- funkaster 9y ago
  yup. same for me. Having a search that centralizes all subscriptions you currently have really makes it easy to access that content. I remember the Wii U was supposed to have something similar, it never worked for me. The roku search on the other hand, works just fine. Even the voice search is not that bad.

codazoda 9y ago

We asked for a la carte TV pricing. I think this is what it looks like. I'll probably pay for a few channels and forget the rest.

kbutler 9y ago
Or pay for a channel for a month or two, then drop it.
- rev087 9y ago
  Pretty much what I would do. Netflix has such a large catalog, that I don't bother cancelling during periods when I'm not even using the service. If the content I'm interested in is spread through various services, I'll simply sign up, watch what I wanted to watch, then cancel. One month's subscription is enough for me to catch up on a season's worth of some series I like. This however creates the incentive for providers to start enforcing long term contracts for the regular price, or a much higher price for a monthly plan, in which case DVDs will be relevant again for me.
- olyjohn 9y ago
  That's what I do with HBO right now. Only thing I'm interested in is Silicon Valley and Game of Thrones. Once GoT is done for the season, my account will get closed just like I did last year.
joezydeco 9y ago
Sadly, cable bundling is what allowed small channels like AMC and TNT to develop programming and reach an audience that wouldn't have been possible otherwise. That's all going to consolidate into the hands of a couple of major producers (Disney, HBO, Amazon, Netflix, maybe Hulu) and that's about it.
- kthejoker2 9y ago
  I mean, not to belabaor the point, but when you also include: NBC/Universal/Comcast Viacom Fox Sony Time Warner BBC Plus some other deep pockets who are slowly getting in the game (Verizon, AT&T, Apple) I think there'll be enough competition even among the oligopolies to make it palatable for consumers.

netsharc 9y ago

I've heard a friend complain about having to subscribe to Amazon Prime, Apple Music and some other service because each had their own "exclusive artist"...

dgfgfdagasdfgfa 9y ago
And yet, you can't play apple music on a fire stick, and you can't play amazon music on an apple tv.... It just all sucks for the consumer.

macspoofing 9y ago

>If every studio thinks I'm going to pay them $10+ a month to stream their content, they are going to be very mistaken One of the biggest misconceptions about the post-tv-cable world is that people actually thought they could cut their TV bill from $50-$100/mo to $10/mo.

AzMoo_ 9y ago
With Netflix my bill has gone up to $10/mo. I doubt I'll pay any more.
throwaway91111 9y ago
I'm not even sure i could watch $50/month of streaming content. I can barely keep up with HBO and Netflix pumping out content on a weekly basis. I could see a family buying a plethora of bundles, but I strongly suspect it will continue to be cheaper than the equivalent cable package. I can't speak at all for sports; i imagine that alone could be hundreds a month to watch a local game.
- macspoofing 9y ago
  >I could see a family buying a plethora of bundles, but I strongly suspect it will continue to be cheaper than the equivalent cable package. You may be right but I just don't think the industry can go from taking in $50-100/mo to $10/mo - they will figure out a way. And people didn't mind paying that amount. What people disliked was the forced bundles and less flexibility compared to what pirating gave you. >I can't speak at all for sports; i imagine that alone could be hundreds a month to watch a local game. NBA is about $200/season - which isn't bad given that's for every game. When local telecoms that bought rights for local games wise up it won't even be that much.
  - throwaway91111 9y ago
    I thought NBA access gave you everything BUT your local team?

fweespeech 9y ago

> If every studio thinks I'm going to pay them $10+ a month to stream their content, they are going to be very mistaken. https://geekalabama.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/500x1000px-ll-85bebeb4_googlesinternet.jpeg https://geekalabama.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/500x1000px-l... That is what Media companies like Disney want. People always blamed the Cable companies for it but in reality it was the big Media companies pushing Cable and Cable not caring. :\ > Netflix, however, I'll keep paying for gladly because of the library size. For the streaming price, it is well worth the value. To a point yes. However, the balkanizing of streaming services is growing at an alarming rate.

wnevets 9y ago

Fortunately there is enough competition in the space that maybe the prices for each channel will go down. I've already switched to watching free content on youtube for my primary source of video entertainment.

sjs382 9y ago

Remember when á la carte tv was the dream?

monocasa 9y ago
We assumed it wouldn't be ~$10 a channel.
- timfrietas 9y ago
  It already was, though. HBO, Cinemak, Starz were all in that range.
  - monocasa 9y ago
    But it wasn't because it was ~120 channels for ~$120/m.
- tjohns 9y ago
  Ya, but each channel only showed a limited selection, on their own schedule, with commercials. Compare that with the amount of binge watching that you can do with a $10 Netflix subscription. Things are infinitely better online than what I was getting with my cable subscription.
throwaway91111 9y ago
Did that dream still involve channels? They only make sense as an economic bundle.

aidenn0 9y ago

If all major studios pull their content from Netflix, then it will not have the large library size anymore. Also Disney is currently in a strong position for this right now. They released ~10 movies in 2016 and had the 4 highest grossing films of 2016. This, of course, assumes that Marvel and Lucasfilm properties are put on the Disney streaming service (I would expect that Touchstone label will not be included in this, as it's always been distinctly branded). Either way, $10 per month is a bit steep up until the point that they stop selling discs; right now it's not much more than $10 per month to buy every single new release on bluray, and it's less than $10 per month to buy them on dvd, if you shop around. The thing that scares me is that this puts them in a position where they could stop selling media altogether, and it's no longer possible to pay a flat fee to watch a movie any time you want. At that point the only competition with the streaming service would be piracy.

notatoad 9y ago
Netflix already doesn't have that big of a library, and it's been steadily shrinking. But if it comes down to it, i'm willing to pay for $10/mo to netflix purely for their original content. I'd also pay for HBO Now if they would let me (I'm in canada). I don't think there's any other company putting out enough quality first-party content that i'd be willing to pay a monthly fee for their service. maybe a couple bucks here and there for a one-off movie rental, but if i have to think about money before i watch something - even a completely insignificant amount - i'm probably going to find other options. And as you say, there's always piracy to fill the gaps in any streaming catalogue.
- true_religion 9y ago
  In 2004, my cable budget was $160/mo in a bundle. Now it is $100/mo for a half-gigabit internet connection. I'd have to sign up for 6 different services in order to add up to my previous budget. So far... its' not come to that point, but if it does I'll be happy to cut out some services. After all do I really need Netflix? I don't watch if for months at a time, and only keep it out of laziness. I'll happily cut it and swap in Disney for that time period of budget constraints become an issue.

dyarosla 9y ago

The funny thing is, I don't think executives think this way. One example is Bezos where he says he imagines theres enough demand that people will subscribe to netflix and prime and hulu and hbo and ... https://youtu.be/guVxubbQQKE?t=42m41s https://youtu.be/guVxubbQQKE?t=42m41s

fooey 9y ago
I'd drop 90% of the crap Amazon is shoveling under the Prime umbrella if I got 2 day shipping at a lower rate and didn't have to subsidize all their media ventures. When they inevitably raise rates again I might actually have to reconsider if it's worth the cost any longer

jtbayly 9y ago

"Netflix, however, I'll keep paying for gladly because of the library size. For the streaming price, it is well worth the value." Well sure, assuming you only want to watch content created by Netflix itself. That's the direction it's going with Netflix.

mathgeek 9y ago
Will be interesting to see where the Netflix content based on Disney properties goes from here.

Buttons840 9y ago

I've been wanting to build a PC to host my home media, and I wonder if there would be a market for a device like this: I'd like to have a small computer where I can insert a DVD and press one button and walk away (and latter remove the disk), and then the movie is available to stream from my small media computer to my home network. It could look up the right metadata online, or you might pay a very small amount for a service that maintains accurate metadata. For as much as I watch TV I could probably buy the few shows I'm interested in on DVD for cheaper than what I pay for Netflix. Until I get a media server like I described though, it's just more convenient to pay for Netflix. I suspect that no such products exist because copying the DVDs would almost certainly get the creators of the device sued into oblivion.

timfrietas 9y ago
Been done: https://www.kaleidescape.com/products/premiere/#disc-vaults https://www.kaleidescape.com/products/premiere/#disc-vaults
conception 9y ago
Check out MakeMKV. That + Plex will be your solution.
majormajor 9y ago
You could also just buy* seasons on Amazon/iTunes/Google/whatever of only the shows you want and stream them to the store app on whatever devices you have. If you're only interested in a few shows a year than that gets you potentially price-competitive with Netflix+whatever else, and you don't have to worry about when Netflix loses the rights. * the common complaint here is DRM, long-term-ownership compared to DVD, but the flip side is much better resolution than DVD and if the competition is streaming services, it puts you in much more control than that.
- freehunter 9y ago
  My problem is where to buy them to ensure 1) that I can access them for a long time, and 2) that I can access them on any device I need to. If the iPhone starts sucking and I switch to Android, can I watch my iTunes purchases there or did I just lose all that money? Can I shop the Google Play video store and stream on my iPad? Will Microsoft pull another PlaysForSure and invalidate all of my purchases at some random point? Right now I'm buying from Amazon because even though they have the worst UI, they're the most vendor-neutral.

JigglyGigalo 9y ago

Think about it from Disney'd point of view. Netlfix is becoming a content creator. They're becoming "a Disney" type of company. Disney has no choice but to stream direct. That is they way all video content is all going.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
I can't imagine it was anything other than Disney looking at the numbers and saying "we're generating this revenue for the streaming companies, but only taking this much in profit; if we run or own distribution we can overcharge more, give shorter rentals, block content when we want to push things in other distribution channels .. and the only cost will be more money for the customer paying for redundant distribution means, more money from the customer to pay for our increased profit, and more inconvenience". I imagine at that point the meeting chairman said "fuck the customers, show me the money" whilst chugging a glass of bolli and sucking on a fat cigar. ... But I may be getting a little imaginative there.

tootie 9y ago

If anyone can do it, Disney can. They have an absurd amount of high-quality content. In addition to their own branded content, they own Pixar, Marvel Studios and Lucasfilm.

bogomipz 9y ago

Agreed and for "cord cutters", subscribing to each of the different content providers a la carte will eventually just recreate the exorbitant monthly price points of regular cable.

dottrap 9y ago

> If every studio thinks I'm going to pay them $10+ a month to stream their content, they are going to be very mistaken. I agree. But taking a step back, Disney is probably the one company that can justify this the most by owning so many properties: the traditional Disney stuff, Star Wars/Lucasfilm, the Marvel movies, Pixar, The Muppets, Touchstone, ESPN, ABC, A&E, Lifetime, History channel. They even have a 30% stake in Hulu.

true_religion 9y ago

Every studio... nah. But they don't care about being available to everyone, just the people that would choose them above another studio in the family budget. You'll end up with people who subscribe to Amazon + Disney, or Amazon + Netflix, and some who do HBO + Disney + Hulu. Studios want to compete with one another directly for customers, not go through some middleman. Is it less convenient, sure, but customers (like me) used to go out to video stores and physically purchase DVDs, so its obvious what we're willing to accept a whole lot more inconvenience than what Netflix offers.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
Isn't it so sad that the rich capitalists response to greater convenience is "well now we have breathing room to make things much worse, they sucked in comparison before, let's see if we can make it as horrible as that again". Replacing technological limitations with unnecessary, arbitrary financial limitations doesn't seem like progress. Still, at least they're helping to inch us closer to a popular 'uprising' against Disney's perversion of copyright legislation.

ChuckMcM 9y ago

I feel similarly. The success of HBO Now has been a challenge because it holds out the hope that if you are "good enough" you too can get $10 - $15 a month per subscriber. This is easily 10x the revenue share from a cable bundle deal according to NAB publications. But does anyone think I'll pay $10 per month per 'network' for entertainment? It would rapidly cost more than cable or satellite. What I find curious is how difficult it appears to be to sell advertising on streaming channels. If you've streamed one of the 'minor' brands like SyFy or Discovery you can see a 2 minute commercial break with three identical 30 second commercials back to back. It is hard to imagine that the people who put these things together are so clueless in terms of how their product is perceived.

matt_wulfeck 9y ago
I totally agree. It's clear that the people in charge are concerned only with their bottom line and margins.
- velmu 9y ago
  I think most people are. While they are at work.
notatoad 9y ago
>The success of HBO Now has been a challenge because it holds out the hope that if you are "good enough" you too can get $10 - $15 a month per subscriber. it'll be interesting to see how this changes when the Game of Thrones ends.
- SllX 9y ago
  HBO is in an interesting place. I actually did sign up just to watch Game of Thrones, and also to finally watch Westworld and maybe they're betting that they have enough for people to watch to actually continue their subscriptions. I mean, I decided to keep the service for about 3 or 4 months including the 2 that it'll take for Game of Thrones to finish up, but there's not denying that HBO actually does have quite a catalog. That said, after 4 months, I doubt there will be much to interest me anymore, and even if there were, I could always just watch it next year when the next season of Game of Thrones comes out. That said, if they offered $60/year, I would probably keep it around for a few years rather than paying between $20-$40 once a year.

DigitalJack 9y ago

I mean no offense, but I found amusement in this post. It used to be that people hated cable bundles so much that they would say they would rather pay $10/month a channel for the few they watch rather than the $80/month for a bundle of hundreds of channels with only a few worth watching. Now that we have that, are we living the dream? No, we want it for a tenth of the cost.

bendauphinee 9y ago
I don't think it's about paying that high a cost, I think it's about having to chase it all over the place. I'd pay double or maybe triple for Netflix, as long as it meant I could get most or all of the streaming content I wanted in one place. This is one reason why Steam is so popular.
- ehsankia 9y ago
  So then your issue isn't the cost, and if someone came with an app that would "merge" all service into a single app where you can stream for all of them from a single place, you'd be happy? I don't think that's what others are complaining about though. Price was definitely the issue of the top commenter as they mention 10$/month and 30$/year. But it makes no sense because back in the cable days, people paid 50-100$ if not more for packages. Now, even with all 4 big services, you're still only at 40$, and imo, having an ondemand service where you can stream anything you want at any time (not only that, but with most of them, with multiple people watching in parallel) is a far superior service. I think people are just getting more entitled for content that has had billions of dollars poured into it. 10$ a month is nothing. It's literally two coffee. If you watch one episode per week and don't even share your account, you're already getting value out of it.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    >10$ a month is nothing. It's literally two coffee. This is, has been, and always will be a ridiculous argument. $10/mo is nothing, it's the price of two coffees. But I need four services, so it's $40/mo, which is eight coffees. So now to afford the same content that was 1/4 of the price last month, I need to give up drinking coffee on Monday and Tuesday, every week. "It's the price of a cup of coffee" is a terrible argument because I don't want to give up drinking coffee just to watch Disney movies. I want to drink my coffee and watch my movies like I did last month before Disney decided they needed to make more money.

koolba 9y ago

$10/month for every Disney cartoon movie alone would immediately get millions of families to sign up. That's easily worth not fiddling with disks. But that's only if the catalog actually has that content. If they do the digital equivalent of the Disney DVD vault then yes screw that.

satysin 9y ago
Agreed. For around £8/month I would probably get Disney's streaming service but only if it actually has all of Disney's content available to watch. If they do something stupid like only 5 Disney classics at a time then sorry but they can fuck off.

mastazi 9y ago

> I can't imagine that a lot of people want to spend the collective hundreds of dollars to sign up for all the streaming services. Don't you like to have many options to choose from? You don't "have to" sign up for all of them, it's your choice. > It's almost asking to drive people to torrents. I am a Netflix subscriber but there are a couple of shows that I watch and are on competing streaming services, however I didn't want to subscribe to all of them. So I rented them on Google Play and/or iTunes. I know it sounds incredible but there are ways to consume content without breaking the law.

debt 9y ago

Ha nah. They have their eyes on something much larger than a measly $10/month. Disney/Netflix/Amazon etc. are gonna partner with the carriers.

calafrax 9y ago

in the end "cord cutting" is going to be paying the same price as before for cable, but only getting internet, plus paying ala-carte licensing fees that are higher than what the content companies previously charge on cable because now they are selling to individuals instead of a collective. already cable companies and fios price internet so that you pay only a little more for a full cable package. even if you drop cable you still have to pay extra to subsidize it.

iammiles 9y ago

I think Netflix have been very smart for producing their own original content for the past few years. While losing Disney and maybe others is a blow, it doesn't leave a void in their library for quality content.

taurath 9y ago

Disney Owns: Marvel Disney Animation Pixar Touchstone Pictures ABC ESPN LucasArts If they have a whole streaming platform with all the content from each of these, no way its $30/year, more like $30/month.

tjohns 9y ago
$30/month? Even with Disney's entire lineup, no way it's worth that much. Given that online movie rentals are ~$2, that's watching a full length movie every other day. There's a limit to how much TV you can watch. (And if your goal is to binge watch, it's competing with Netflix at $10/month -- which even with it's limited library is a great value.)
- djrogers 9y ago
  You’re stuck on movies, but Disney has many thousands of hours of TV co tent over hundreds of shows.

heygrady 9y ago

Most people pay north of $100/mo for cable TV [1]. Depending on your bundle you may pay as high as $150 (anecdotal from friends who have Comcast). If you pay $50/mo for your internet connection you could afford 5 or so $10/mo services on the same budget. Arguably, right now Comcast Xfinity has the most/best streamable content if you pay for HBO. This will likely change soon; this has been a long time coming. Cord-cutting is increasingly popular [2] and the studios are adapting. Disney is gambling that they own enough content to make your top 5 list of streaming subscriptions. [1] http://fortune.com/2016/09/23/average-cable-tv-bill/ http://fortune.com/2016/09/23/average-cable-tv-bill/ [2] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170531/05304937480/rate-tv-cord-cutting-is-actually-worse-than-you-think.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170531/05304937480/rate-...

chalupa-man 9y ago
It is worth noting though that those figures are American, but Netflix and the Disney decision are global. The US is a bit of an outlier in terms of both the cost and popularity of cable TV. For example in Australia, a country very similar to the US in terms of pop culture and entertainment, only around 25% of homes have cable TV and the most popular package is US$39. In the US the cost can be looked at as '5 services to replace cable TV' but in most countries it does instead look like broadcast-TV content being moved behind new paywalls, with increasing costs to watch the same shows.
- heygrady 9y ago
  High-quality public television tends to make cable and satellite TV less attractive. SkyTV has been far less popular in its primary markets than DirecTV has been in the US. In the US, Comcast and Verizon are more analogous to the BBC in England -- TV is less expensive (as an individual monthly cost) when it is publicly funded. Interestingly, the BBC is investing heavily to compete with Netflix [1]. If you live in an area that the BBC serves, you will likely need fewer streaming services to get the content you want. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/04/uk-broadcaster-bbc-invests-44-million-to-compete-with-facebook-netflix-and-amazon.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/04/uk-broadcaster-bbc-invests-4...

kev009 9y ago

How many other studios can redefine copyright law though?

am1988 9y ago

I'm already up to netflix, hbo, hulu, prime, amazon video, and a couple channels on amazon video (which I am fine with because it's well integrated). oh and plex. yeah, it's getting to be too much.

samstave 9y ago

We need Aereo for streaming services....

mulmen 9y ago

That only holds if the content providers decide to continue providing Netflix with an attractive catalog. Netflix is the streaming equivalent of Comcast, it's not an attractive model to me. I would much rather I subscribed to the content separately from the display of that content. My Fire TV or Apple TV or whatever device should just show any content that I subscribe to (with all the benefits of a unified library) and I will pay the creators directly for access.

jackmodern 9y ago

This isn't for you, this is for parents looking for a cheap babysitter.

SN76477 9y ago

Netflix is the only game in town that gets my monthly sub.

II2II 9y ago

There is a lot more to it than the monthly rate. There are also those terms of service. To give you an example of what I mean: Netflix lets me subscribe and unsubscribe at whim. If they looked at my profile, they would also understand that changing that would result im my abandoing them altogether. I watch a low volume for a while, my viewing drops off for a while, then I unsubscribe for a while. Keeping track of the terms that allow me to do this is easy because it is one company. Now imagine that there were multiple companies that I subscribed to. Keeping track of those terms of service would change from an inconvenience to a pain. Seeming as most of them are traditional media companies, I also have far less trust in them. Adding 'activation fees', 'deactivation fees', and 'annual contracts' is in their blood. My apologies for the paranoia, but I have dealt with unilaterally changing agreements before. My response to them would be: thanks but no thanks. Their services/content are not important enough for me to deal with the headache of entering into an agreement with each studio.

andrei_says_ 9y ago

Maybe they'll have Disney exclusive content and a variety of non-exclusive content licensed from others. Like the current Netflix model.

WalterBright 9y ago

I keep the Netflix DVD service, which lets me watch whatever I want (with a year lag).

jasonkostempski 9y ago

I could see everyone getting away with $5 as long as they have the same "no-hassle, cancel anytime" policy.

OkGoDoIt 9y ago

Isn’t this kind of what we all wanted? Split up the monolithic cable package? The idea of getting almost everything we could ever want through one $10 a month subscription with Netflix is almost too good to be true, I would expect in the long term the average person will end up paying about the same as they used to with a cable bill, ideally spread among multiple providers.

jonnathanson 9y ago

Disney is the one studio with the brand recognition, loyalty, wide customer base across a variety of demographics, worldwide range, wide variety of content (including sports), and essential franchises to have a shot at pulling this off.

JoshMnem 9y ago

There are endless free programming, math, and other educational videos on YouTube. It just requires a small change in one's perspective on what is "entertainment". :)

ericfrederich 9y ago

They all need to figure out how to interoperate. It's not just all the services it's all the devices that can only connect to 3 out of the 5 services

Steeeve 9y ago

Netflix's library is pretty weak at this point unless you really like their own productions. It's mostly lionsgate which any studio can add to their service for next to nothing.

wodenokoto 9y ago

The complete Disney library is probably bigger than the current Netflix library.

lostcolony 9y ago

If they're smart they'll include their TV channel content. Obviously the Disney brands, but also ESPN. That would put them in a VERY strong position.