4 ms·

Seems like crazy click-bait to me. Yes, the competition in streaming is heating up, but in reality most people are likely to pick and choose a few services, not

Seems like crazy click-bait to me. Yes, the competition in streaming is heating up, but in reality most people are likely to pick and choose a few services, not just one. Cable packages have been running $50+ per month for a while now, with millions of customers. Cord-cutting down to Netflix + Prime + Disney is still cheaper, and it’s getting closer to the system I think most people wanted all along, which was the ability to pick and choose your own bundle of just the channels you want. What has really changed is linear TV (aka traditional channels) is going away in favor of on-demand. People care about live sports, and to some extent live news. Other than that, on-demand is better. So instead of the future being what we might have imagined 10 years ago, building a bundle of just the channels you want, instead will be building a bundle of just the distributors you want — ie. Disney originals vs Netflix vs Prime etc. I expect we will see more and more content signing exclusive deals with these aggregators as a result, and we probably also see a few more big brands throw their hat in the ring.

TAForObvReasons 7y ago
The problem as articulated in the original article is that Disney's service is an existential threat to Netflix both because Disney will offer currently-unavailable content and because the Disney IPs are slated to be removed from Netflix. Netflix's problem is best captured in this sentence: > Netflix users are spending more time streaming “The Office” than any other show on the streaming platform. https://www.indiewire.com/2019/04/the-office-netflix-most-streamed-series-friends-1202127682/ https://www.indiewire.com/2019/04/the-office-netflix-most-st... Would a Disney streaming service cause people to switch or pay for both? That remains unclear, but I'd bet on a future of subscription fatigue where people pay for one video streaming service.
- ymolodtsov 7y ago
  Disney is just $7. It seems reasonable that cost-conscious people would choose only it, while others can still pay for it on top of their existing Netflix subscription.
  - Phillipharryt 7y ago
    Disney starts at $7. These services always increase their price once they have customers hooked. I feel the initial plan is to price it so people will layer it on top of existing services, then have enough content to make it worth having alone. Then increase the price so that users have to choose between the services, and pick Disney.
- IgorPartola 7y ago
  I would love to have one streaming service that includes 95% of the “regular” content. I currently pay for HBO, Netflix, Hulu, and have access to Prime Video because of the Prime membership. I think Hulu is closest to “just TV” and I would be most happy with Hulu + HBO. Realistically though, Netflix has the best selection of children’s programming that I have seen, Prime has most movies I would want, though the rent/buy model is obnoxious. The main problem I still run into is the unavailability of content. Original Ghost Busters? Nope. Labyrinth? Nope. Seinfeld? Nope. If Netflix tried again to license everything under the sun, I would just give them the $50/month I currently pay overall for the 3.5 services I use.
Fnoord 7y ago
> People care about live sports I don't. I don't want to pay extra for it. Things such as Olympics or football championship are on public broadcast TV. Which is the only stuff I watch from cable. The rest is encumbered with pulp advertising anyway. Time is money. However, if you want cable internet here, you get cable TV forced upon your throat...
- solatic 7y ago
  The leagues will eventually get around to offering live and on-demand direct to the consumer - the cable networks don't own the statiums or the teams, broadcast gear is freely available on the open market, and servers are a commodity. Cutting out the middleman is an inevitability. The bigger question in my mind is whether a company will come along to build and market such a solution to the leagues (seeing as how there are many local/minor and foreign leagues that could benefit from similar tech), or whether the larger leagues will build it in-house first.

TAForObvReasons 7y ago

The problem as articulated in the original article is that Disney's service is an existential threat to Netflix both because Disney will offer currently-unavailable content and because the Disney IPs are slated to be removed from Netflix. Netflix's problem is best captured in this sentence: > Netflix users are spending more time streaming “The Office” than any other show on the streaming platform. https://www.indiewire.com/2019/04/the-office-netflix-most-streamed-series-friends-1202127682/ https://www.indiewire.com/2019/04/the-office-netflix-most-st... Would a Disney streaming service cause people to switch or pay for both? That remains unclear, but I'd bet on a future of subscription fatigue where people pay for one video streaming service.

ymolodtsov 7y ago
Disney is just $7. It seems reasonable that cost-conscious people would choose only it, while others can still pay for it on top of their existing Netflix subscription.
- Phillipharryt 7y ago
  Disney starts at $7. These services always increase their price once they have customers hooked. I feel the initial plan is to price it so people will layer it on top of existing services, then have enough content to make it worth having alone. Then increase the price so that users have to choose between the services, and pick Disney.
IgorPartola 7y ago
I would love to have one streaming service that includes 95% of the “regular” content. I currently pay for HBO, Netflix, Hulu, and have access to Prime Video because of the Prime membership. I think Hulu is closest to “just TV” and I would be most happy with Hulu + HBO. Realistically though, Netflix has the best selection of children’s programming that I have seen, Prime has most movies I would want, though the rent/buy model is obnoxious. The main problem I still run into is the unavailability of content. Original Ghost Busters? Nope. Labyrinth? Nope. Seinfeld? Nope. If Netflix tried again to license everything under the sun, I would just give them the $50/month I currently pay overall for the 3.5 services I use.

Fnoord 7y ago

> People care about live sports I don't. I don't want to pay extra for it. Things such as Olympics or football championship are on public broadcast TV. Which is the only stuff I watch from cable. The rest is encumbered with pulp advertising anyway. Time is money. However, if you want cable internet here, you get cable TV forced upon your throat...

solatic 7y ago
The leagues will eventually get around to offering live and on-demand direct to the consumer - the cable networks don't own the statiums or the teams, broadcast gear is freely available on the open market, and servers are a commodity. Cutting out the middleman is an inevitability. The bigger question in my mind is whether a company will come along to build and market such a solution to the leagues (seeing as how there are many local/minor and foreign leagues that could benefit from similar tech), or whether the larger leagues will build it in-house first.