5 ms·

> So it's going to be interesting to see how they attempt to pivot now that shareholders expect it to be the future of the company, whereas internally its liter

> So it's going to be interesting to see how they attempt to pivot now that shareholders expect it to be the future of the company, whereas internally its literally a ghost town built by the lowest bid contractor. I think it's pretty clear from their last shareholder news release. 18,000 Star Wars expanded universe spin off series & movie trilogies, coming right up! Not that I'm really complaining :o)

kenhwang 6y ago
Disney always knew how to produce content, so producing more content isn't unexpected. Since this is HN, I'm more interested in how they'll scale their engineering systems. On one end, you have Netflix practically leading the field with the best of the best engineers and practices. Then you have Disney with makeshift off-the-shelf solutions assembled and aligned by multiple siloed armies of overseas contractors that rotate out every year as their contracts expire and some very expensive vendors.
- mikeyouse 6y ago
  Money affords a certain amount of incompetence.. Disney has nearly $20 billion cash on the balance sheet. Their product might never be as well designed and efficient as Netflix's (and I very much enjoy the Netflix technical blogs that lay out the complicated engineering to shave ms off of latency and compress things 1% better) but they don't really need to be if they have Pixar + Star Wars + Marvel + the Disney Vault and a streaming service that works well enough to launch those titles.
- rgblambda 6y ago
  I don't have a Disney+ account. Is there much difference as far as the user is concerned?
  - dpc_pw 6y ago
    Technically it feels the same to me. Content-wise netflix is kind of a dumpster buffet, with a tons of meh stuff and a couple of really nice things. Disney has less content, but almost no low quality fluff.
    - harry8 6y ago
      >almost no low quality fluff. Doesn't Disney own star wars nowadays. Is that sequel-mill of terrible writing really what passes for quality?
      - krageon 6y ago
        You don't have to enjoy it for it to be good to someone
      - patentatt 6y ago
        Yes. Where ‘quality’ just means halfway decent original programming that I can stand to watch for a half hour or so. I am having trouble finding that ‘quality’ on Netflix lately, for example.
      - someperson 6y ago
        The Mandalorian is far from perfect, but it has some excellent episodes and is based in a robust understanding of Star Wars. I have many qualms about The Mandalorian, but compared to the dumpster fire called the "sequel trilogy" it's very good content.
      - varjag 6y ago
        Regardless how you feel about the sequels, they are masterpieces next to endless stream of Netflix B-rate titles.
    - philliphaydon 6y ago
      Even tho Disney+ isn’t available to me in Singapore. Looking via a VPN there wasn’t anything I wanted to watch? While Netflix has tons of stuff me and the wife watch together. Each to their own!
    - timc3 6y ago
      Is isn't all high quality Blockbuster content in the Disney back catalog and that is reflected on Disney+. However I would agree it's seems better so far than Netflix which aims somewhat more on quantity over quality. Regions probably vary.
  - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
    The main difference is Disney+ leans towards a younger audience.
- suzakus 6y ago
  Disney acquihired bamtech to run DSS. My understanding is that it's not a full contractor house as described here, though I don't have insight into the contractor:fte ratio. Disclaimer: work at Hulu, opinions are my own
- randycupertino 6y ago
  > On one end, you have Netflix practically leading the field with the best of the best engineers and practices. I don't really think users will care at all about this, though. They just want high quality content. The users and the their dollars will flock to the high quality content. Netflix is feeling like H&M "fast fashion" where they churn out a bazillion low quality shows to throw everything against the wall and hope something sticks to keep people subscribing. Meanwhile the entire field is getting diluted by other platforms popping up and customers are getting fatigued enough to pay for premium content only (HBO/Disney/ESPN) and then pirate everything else, imo.
  - adwf 6y ago
    I think the technical quality does matter though. Everyday people may not care about how "cool" the Netflix engineering is, but they certainly care about the end product. For example, over the holidays I watched 3 different streaming platforms: BBC iPlayer - occasionally cut out and dropped back to main menu requiring me to find the program again. Amazon Prime - often had buffering problems requiring me to manually lower resolution (on a 150Mb/s connection...) Netflix - No problems, hit start on a movie and watch it to the end. This kind of thing does get remembered; I certainly ended up watching a heck of a lot more Netflix than any other platform.
  - toast0 6y ago
    Quality content is important, and lack of it is a reason to quit a service for sure. I haven't had any issues with the service of Disney+, so they're at least doing good enough (on my devices, on my home network). On the other side of the spectrum, Apple TV on my devices takes about 8 attempts to start a stream, including a reboot. They would have to have a big exclusive that I really wanted to see for me to use that again. Smallish differences in how long it takes to get a stream started (including browse/search time) probably drive long term behavior, when content quality is similar enough though; because I'll tend to use the service that gets me into watching something I'll enjoy sooner; and when the same content is available on multiple services, I use the one that's faster to get started.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  >On one end, you have Netflix practically leading the field with the best of the best engineers and practices. They may have the best engineers but content wise all I hear are complaints. Mediocre shows and cancelling shows after one season if specific metrics aren't good enough. When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
waihtis 6y ago
I wouldn't complain if even one of the spin offs would be from the KOTOR universe. But I guess it's not canon anymore.

kenhwang 6y ago

Disney always knew how to produce content, so producing more content isn't unexpected. Since this is HN, I'm more interested in how they'll scale their engineering systems. On one end, you have Netflix practically leading the field with the best of the best engineers and practices. Then you have Disney with makeshift off-the-shelf solutions assembled and aligned by multiple siloed armies of overseas contractors that rotate out every year as their contracts expire and some very expensive vendors.

mikeyouse 6y ago
Money affords a certain amount of incompetence.. Disney has nearly $20 billion cash on the balance sheet. Their product might never be as well designed and efficient as Netflix's (and I very much enjoy the Netflix technical blogs that lay out the complicated engineering to shave ms off of latency and compress things 1% better) but they don't really need to be if they have Pixar + Star Wars + Marvel + the Disney Vault and a streaming service that works well enough to launch those titles.
rgblambda 6y ago
I don't have a Disney+ account. Is there much difference as far as the user is concerned?
- dpc_pw 6y ago
  Technically it feels the same to me. Content-wise netflix is kind of a dumpster buffet, with a tons of meh stuff and a couple of really nice things. Disney has less content, but almost no low quality fluff.
  - harry8 6y ago
    >almost no low quality fluff. Doesn't Disney own star wars nowadays. Is that sequel-mill of terrible writing really what passes for quality?
    - krageon 6y ago
      You don't have to enjoy it for it to be good to someone
    - patentatt 6y ago
      Yes. Where ‘quality’ just means halfway decent original programming that I can stand to watch for a half hour or so. I am having trouble finding that ‘quality’ on Netflix lately, for example.
    - someperson 6y ago
      The Mandalorian is far from perfect, but it has some excellent episodes and is based in a robust understanding of Star Wars. I have many qualms about The Mandalorian, but compared to the dumpster fire called the "sequel trilogy" it's very good content.
    - varjag 6y ago
      Regardless how you feel about the sequels, they are masterpieces next to endless stream of Netflix B-rate titles.
  - philliphaydon 6y ago
    Even tho Disney+ isn’t available to me in Singapore. Looking via a VPN there wasn’t anything I wanted to watch? While Netflix has tons of stuff me and the wife watch together. Each to their own!
  - timc3 6y ago
    Is isn't all high quality Blockbuster content in the Disney back catalog and that is reflected on Disney+. However I would agree it's seems better so far than Netflix which aims somewhat more on quantity over quality. Regions probably vary.
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  The main difference is Disney+ leans towards a younger audience.
suzakus 6y ago
Disney acquihired bamtech to run DSS. My understanding is that it's not a full contractor house as described here, though I don't have insight into the contractor:fte ratio. Disclaimer: work at Hulu, opinions are my own
randycupertino 6y ago
> On one end, you have Netflix practically leading the field with the best of the best engineers and practices. I don't really think users will care at all about this, though. They just want high quality content. The users and the their dollars will flock to the high quality content. Netflix is feeling like H&M "fast fashion" where they churn out a bazillion low quality shows to throw everything against the wall and hope something sticks to keep people subscribing. Meanwhile the entire field is getting diluted by other platforms popping up and customers are getting fatigued enough to pay for premium content only (HBO/Disney/ESPN) and then pirate everything else, imo.
- adwf 6y ago
  I think the technical quality does matter though. Everyday people may not care about how "cool" the Netflix engineering is, but they certainly care about the end product. For example, over the holidays I watched 3 different streaming platforms: BBC iPlayer - occasionally cut out and dropped back to main menu requiring me to find the program again. Amazon Prime - often had buffering problems requiring me to manually lower resolution (on a 150Mb/s connection...) Netflix - No problems, hit start on a movie and watch it to the end. This kind of thing does get remembered; I certainly ended up watching a heck of a lot more Netflix than any other platform.
- toast0 6y ago
  Quality content is important, and lack of it is a reason to quit a service for sure. I haven't had any issues with the service of Disney+, so they're at least doing good enough (on my devices, on my home network). On the other side of the spectrum, Apple TV on my devices takes about 8 attempts to start a stream, including a reboot. They would have to have a big exclusive that I really wanted to see for me to use that again. Smallish differences in how long it takes to get a stream started (including browse/search time) probably drive long term behavior, when content quality is similar enough though; because I'll tend to use the service that gets me into watching something I'll enjoy sooner; and when the same content is available on multiple services, I use the one that's faster to get started.
marcinzm 6y ago
>On one end, you have Netflix practically leading the field with the best of the best engineers and practices. They may have the best engineers but content wise all I hear are complaints. Mediocre shows and cancelling shows after one season if specific metrics aren't good enough. When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

waihtis 6y ago

I wouldn't complain if even one of the spin offs would be from the KOTOR universe. But I guess it's not canon anymore.