4 ms·

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 engineer

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.
  - mtrovo 6y ago
    > Disney has less content, but almost no low quality fluff. I mean, if you count all the content they own and you already saw before on cinema or other medias then you're right. But after paying 1.5 years for Disney+ I think I'm paying 120 dollars a year just to watch Baby Yoda. I cannot find any other content over there really worth the Disney+ membership price. On the other hand it's really hard for me to decide what to watch on netflix because of the amount of content I'm interested.
    - jrnichols 6y ago
      I thought that too until one day I noticed that Disney has the National Geographic content as well. I've been watching a good amount of that recently. I wouldn't pay for Disney+ on its own, but getting it as part of a bundle with Hulu (ad free) was ok. ESPN+ is worthless.
    - TheCondor 6y ago
      The television content is mixed on Disney+ It’s for children so I may not have the best perspective but most of it is kind of weak. The marvel is star wars stuff is strong and they have the Disney movies, including the n-th straight to video sequels you never heard of.
    - vlunkr 6y ago
      > I mean, if you count all the content they own and you already saw before on cinema or other medias then you're right. If you don't count that then Disney+ probably isn't for you. It's ideal for parents who want a bunch of good kids movies and shows. Mandalorian, although it was the "killer app" is an outlier. The rest of the original content I've watched on there is almost literally advertisements for Disneyland. Just buy a membership for a month and watch Mando.
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    I thought Mandalorian was the definition of low quality fluff personally. Only saw season 1. Weakly designed fight scenes, several filler episodes with pretty poor plots (most egregiously the prison one), and my personal least favorite, the super ai droid that 360 no scopes everybody, dual wielding pistols. I've asked a few times why people thought it was good and most often the answer is Baby Yoda (on HN). shrug. ymmv
- 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.

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.
- mtrovo 6y ago
  > Disney has less content, but almost no low quality fluff. I mean, if you count all the content they own and you already saw before on cinema or other medias then you're right. But after paying 1.5 years for Disney+ I think I'm paying 120 dollars a year just to watch Baby Yoda. I cannot find any other content over there really worth the Disney+ membership price. On the other hand it's really hard for me to decide what to watch on netflix because of the amount of content I'm interested.
  - jrnichols 6y ago
    I thought that too until one day I noticed that Disney has the National Geographic content as well. I've been watching a good amount of that recently. I wouldn't pay for Disney+ on its own, but getting it as part of a bundle with Hulu (ad free) was ok. ESPN+ is worthless.
  - TheCondor 6y ago
    The television content is mixed on Disney+ It’s for children so I may not have the best perspective but most of it is kind of weak. The marvel is star wars stuff is strong and they have the Disney movies, including the n-th straight to video sequels you never heard of.
  - vlunkr 6y ago
    > I mean, if you count all the content they own and you already saw before on cinema or other medias then you're right. If you don't count that then Disney+ probably isn't for you. It's ideal for parents who want a bunch of good kids movies and shows. Mandalorian, although it was the "killer app" is an outlier. The rest of the original content I've watched on there is almost literally advertisements for Disneyland. Just buy a membership for a month and watch Mando.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  I thought Mandalorian was the definition of low quality fluff personally. Only saw season 1. Weakly designed fight scenes, several filler episodes with pretty poor plots (most egregiously the prison one), and my personal least favorite, the super ai droid that 360 no scopes everybody, dual wielding pistols. I've asked a few times why people thought it was good and most often the answer is Baby Yoda (on HN). shrug. ymmv
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.