3 ms·

“Entertainment Company Releases Content on Well-Established Medium” If they keep this up people might suspect that they want people to watch that content and p

“Entertainment Company Releases Content on Well-Established Medium” If they keep this up people might suspect that they want people to watch that content and pay for it. Maybe next the Hollywood Reporter will break the story on how they “bet it all” on theatrical releases, network television, VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray and other things that people pay to watch. Bob Iger definitely knows how to buy good press. Hollywood Reporter is owned by Guggenheim partners and has deep ties with Disney, including acting as an advisor to the Disney-Fox acquisition.

scarface74 7y ago
It’s not easy for a company to give up short term profits like licensing content to other providers, start a money losing service that may take years to make up the difference. Business have failed to adapt to changing technology for decades. That is the entire thesis of the “Innovator’s Dilemma”. He could have not taken the risk, retired with millions and let the next CEO figure it out.
- kjksf 7y ago
  While late is better than never, Disney is too little too late. I'm not saying they will fail. Of established players they are the strongest and making the boldest moves so they have a chance at being a no 2. But they launch when Netflix has 150 million subscribers. They almost saturated the US market and are quickly devouring international. Taking market share from a dominant competitor is almost impossible. If Bob Iger wasn't asleep at the wheel, just like the rest of the industry, Disney would have launched a competitor when Netflix had 10 million US-only customers. They had a chance then but not now, competing against Netflix's 150 million subscribers and asymmetrical warfare from Amazon.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Disney’s definition of success and Netflix’s definition of success is completely different. Disney doesn’t have to depend on subscription revenue to fund its streaming content. It’s already made money on most of its content by the time it gets to Disney+. It’s just an additional revenue stream. Netflix lives or dies by being able to create or license content at one price and sell it via subscription revenue at a higher price - it has never been able to do that. It gets it more debt every year trying to keep up. In the words of Steve Jobs related to Dropbox. Streaming services are now a feature not a product.
    - cortesoft 7y ago
      Except we are still expected to pay for each one as if they were a product... the only one that is really treated like a feature is amazon prime streaming... it is one part of being a prime member. All the others are sold as stand alone products you have to individually pay for.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        In the case of Dropbox - the alternative OneDrive is a feature. For the price of Dropbox’s 1TB of storage, you can get a complete O365 subscription for six users and a combined 6TB of storage. But it’s almost impossible to have a sustainable business when your larger competitors can price your “product” at just above break even as a bundled offering and a platform play.
        cortesoft 7y ago
        I understand what your point is, I am saying that only amazon currently does that with its streaming service.

scarface74 7y ago

It’s not easy for a company to give up short term profits like licensing content to other providers, start a money losing service that may take years to make up the difference. Business have failed to adapt to changing technology for decades. That is the entire thesis of the “Innovator’s Dilemma”. He could have not taken the risk, retired with millions and let the next CEO figure it out.

kjksf 7y ago
While late is better than never, Disney is too little too late. I'm not saying they will fail. Of established players they are the strongest and making the boldest moves so they have a chance at being a no 2. But they launch when Netflix has 150 million subscribers. They almost saturated the US market and are quickly devouring international. Taking market share from a dominant competitor is almost impossible. If Bob Iger wasn't asleep at the wheel, just like the rest of the industry, Disney would have launched a competitor when Netflix had 10 million US-only customers. They had a chance then but not now, competing against Netflix's 150 million subscribers and asymmetrical warfare from Amazon.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Disney’s definition of success and Netflix’s definition of success is completely different. Disney doesn’t have to depend on subscription revenue to fund its streaming content. It’s already made money on most of its content by the time it gets to Disney+. It’s just an additional revenue stream. Netflix lives or dies by being able to create or license content at one price and sell it via subscription revenue at a higher price - it has never been able to do that. It gets it more debt every year trying to keep up. In the words of Steve Jobs related to Dropbox. Streaming services are now a feature not a product.
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    Except we are still expected to pay for each one as if they were a product... the only one that is really treated like a feature is amazon prime streaming... it is one part of being a prime member. All the others are sold as stand alone products you have to individually pay for.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      In the case of Dropbox - the alternative OneDrive is a feature. For the price of Dropbox’s 1TB of storage, you can get a complete O365 subscription for six users and a combined 6TB of storage. But it’s almost impossible to have a sustainable business when your larger competitors can price your “product” at just above break even as a bundled offering and a platform play.
      - cortesoft 7y ago
        I understand what your point is, I am saying that only amazon currently does that with its streaming service.