Maybe when I am 60, 70 or 80 the film industry will get their shi* together and finally agree on a solution that has long been found in the music business.
For a truly complete platform, I would FOR SURE pay more than the 10$ a month for Netflix. 20, maybe 30! But then I want it ALL. All films they have in storage.
I mean, it is 2017 and there are a lot of films I can't find on Netflix, Amazon Prime or, when I am in spending mood, on Apple TV. Why? I mean how silly would you want to be as studios? There is no big DVD business anymore, BlueRay never totally took off. People have a net connection and multiple streaming devices at home, thats it. Thats the big asset they could build on! Instead they let their libraries die the death of the unseen film.
Still, many keep shuffeling around harddrives with terabytes of pirated films. And why shouldn't they, as long as there is no substantial offer?
So I decided for me (and the cloud guy I am), that with my 3 services I have, I am ok. If a film is not there, I don't care. I surely won't order a DVD of some old film somewhere and I surely will not subscribe to another service. If Disneys pulls their films from Netflix: thanks Netflix for their growing self produced content that often has a quality not seen before.
In 1999, Qwest had a 30-second commercial that seemed incredibly futuristic at the time, talking about a hotel where "every room has every movie ever made in every language anytime day or night" and it seemed impossibly futuristic.
Not 20 years later, the technology for this is already well-established; the only thing stopping it is that the owners of the films don't want to make them available this way.
...a solution that has long been found in the music business.
Perhaps you're fortunate that everything you want to listen to is on your preferred music streaming service, but what they offer is far from everything in the music industry's catalogue. Ask any classical music fan what they think of streaming services and you'll hear a tirade against the woeful offerings that streaming services make available.
The fact is that Disney is extremely savvy and knows how to produce content that sells with a nearly 100% success rate. They are simply a marketing and merchandising machine.
They use the vault the way diamond miners do- to restrict supply of extremely coveted goods so that they can charge premium prices for them. It's good business and it keeps things that are decades old in constant demand so they can charge higher prices for them.
Unfortunately for you and me that means that if we want access we have to pay more. While it may certainly be true that you don't place enough value on Disney products to pay a premium, there are lots of people who will and there are probably still going to be times that you want access to it and consider signing up. That's what they want- if they commoditized their content and you were able to get access to everything they own for $30 a month, that wouldn't serve their purposes at all. Companies like Netflix dream of having one franchise that's as successful as the countless ones that Disney has. Why on Earth would they just have a fire sale for all of their content when they can restrict supply and extract the most profit from it?
This and I want as much content as possible in 4K/HDR, I’m really sick of the second tier streaming services being limited to highly compressed 1080p.
If a service came along that truly had the TV and films I wanted with a preference for 4K content, I’d happily pay $40-$60AUD a month for it.
Right now I subscribe to:
- Netflix
- Stan
- Apple Music
- Usenet related services
- Audible
- Plex Premium
- Getflix content unblocking services
And in recent times:
- Pandora (cancelled as they’re leaving Aus)
- Amazon Prime video (cancelled as they have hardly any content and a terrible interface)
- Spotify (cancelled as I prefer Apple Music)
- Last.FM streaming (cancelled when the service went EOL)
- Several private trackers (avoid BT now)
There’s a lot of opportunity for consolidation there, I realise I’m probably not in the majority but I WANT to pay and I WANT media creators and artists to take my money.
For me I think movies mean less than they used to. We are spoiled with the amount of entertainment constantly being released to us nowadays. I will not go buy a movie or see a movie at the theater anymore - no matter what it is. It could be the most anticipated film in a half a decade and I'll still wait for it to be conveniently streamed to me. Maybe I'm getting old, but I feel like people don't create movie libraries anymore unless they're pirates. We don't have 1 specific night a week where we get everyone together for a special movie. We watch movies and shows all the time and that makes them less special/valuable. I don't think I'm articulating this well.
Disney thinks I'll tack on another streaming service to watch Mulan or Captain America: Civil War - but they're wrong...
> thanks Netflix for their growing self produced content that often has a quality not seen before
s/often/rarely
There are some good shows on Netflix, but they are in the minority, in my opinion. Tastes vary, of course. But a lot of their original programming is not so original, it just feels like filler content to increase the perceived value of the platform. For every good original show they make like House of Cards, there are at least 5x as many that are uneventful or boring.
But that's not unusual. Network television is the same way.
Sure, it's not as convenient as instant streaming, but the Netflix DVD shipping catalog is unparalleled. Every old movie you can think of plus new releases as soon as they release on DVD. Well worth what I pay since I'm patient enough to wait a couple days for the disk. Plus, if you pay a little extra for the blu-ray service the quality is way better than streaming "HD".
I got the urge to watch Total Recall, the original version. (Please don't judge me!) Is it available on Netflix where I am? Nope. HBO? No. Amazon Prime video? No! Now, Amazon does offer a digital rental - for 8 bucks!
I never thought I'd say this, but I'm starting to miss video rental shops.
I've completely given up on trying to stream movies
I also completely refuse to buy physical media too, so the end result is that I basically never watch movies at home any more unless I go to the effort of torrenting it
Even a 10 cents per movie pricing strategy would generate millions of dollars for older movies.
I just don't get why they don't just try this strategy..
Film studios are constrained by labyrinthine contracts between studios, distributors, actors, and unions. In cases where contracts are missing, any of the above parties can sue.
Even more confusingly rights for IP might have been transferred and sold many times leading to questions about who actually owns a film or franchise.
Distribution rights, production rights are separate. Actors may have been promised a cut of any of the above.
So if you track down 40 years worth of contracts, you can safely add a movie to your streaming service.
Add to that 100 years of studio mergers, consolidation, etc. It is a mess.
I am sure many companies would like to stream more, but simply can't.
I don't even care about flat rate, charge me a couple dollars (and more if it was just out in the cinema, I don't want to go to a room full of stranger to watch a movie) per movie/show but. I'm even OK to have to use 3 different providers, but not being able to watch a movie because there is no agreement for the country I'm in is ridiculous.
Maybe when I am 60, 70 or 80 the software industry will get their shi* together and finally agree on a solution that has long been found in the music business.
For a truly complete platform, I would FOR SURE pay more than the 10$ a month for Applix. 20, maybe 30! But then I want it ALL. All software they have in storage.
> a solution that has long been found in the music business.
A lot of people have commented that the music solution is not ideal in a number of ways from the 'demand' side, but I don't think anybody has mentioned how the music business is broken from the 'supply' side.
It is next to impossible to make a living from music for the vast majority of musicians and producers out there. The obvious argument is that if you cant sell, your quality isn't good enough but that's actually not true in my opinion. Distribution is severely unbalanced - and if the movie industry continued in this direction, all we will ever see is Spiderman remakes.
If there were a single service that had all the content, and no one else had content, you would be pirating because the cost could go to the 100s.
The competition of content is what makes the services cheap and pumps out new quality content on different platforms. At the same time it allows for the efficent satisfaction of the demand: those that care little pay little, those that care a lot pay a lot. With a single bundle, you either get all or you get nothing.
There are many arguments to believe this is more efficient. The music industry, also, its ridden with tremendous problems, I would not model my business after them if I had the choice.
> Maybe when I am 60, 70 or 80 the film industry will get their shi* together and finally agree on a solution that has long been found in the music business.
Except that the music business continues to shrink each year.
The only reason there was a slight pause in this is because suddenly vinyl sales, of all things, took off.
Somehow I don't think you are going to find many takers in the video industry for following any music model.
The situation is effectively also disrespectful towards the creators of movies and the whole art form. Who would happy about a movie being buried in the archives? A movie has to be watched to effectively exist.
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.
Some kind of surprising comments in this thread. I think many people (obviously not everyone here judging by what I'm reading) would happily pay for a Disney-only service, maybe upwards of $20-$30 per month. Why? Its the mecca for family entertainment. They have Pixar, Disney Animation, Star Wars and Marvel, plus all of their Disney television content from years past. Its a quality brand people trust. Much different than Warner Bros, Paramount, Universal or any of the other major studios. Netflix and Amazon are still establishing their video content brands and I know they don't come close to Disney's reputation for family content.
Its a very logical move from my viewpoint (I don't even have a family). If other studios follow suit they will likely perish from lack of brand loyalty and/or poor execution.
I hear everyone on the desire for convergence. But we don't want convergence without competition. The problem with a Spotify model for video content is that if Netflix becomes the de facto video provider and Amazon or some other provider can't capture a sizable portion of the market, then we don't have room for other competitors.
The current model for movie theaters is one born out of anti-trust lawsuits. Its not a perfect model, but it allows for some competition on things beyond just the movie you are watching. Theaters compete on ticket prices, food options, seating and convenience (by offering multiple films). This would be a suitable model for convergence, but unfortunately it also means legislation to get providers there. And does it apply to the numerous self-starts on youtube or elsewhere? I'm digressing, but my point is that I'd rather not have just one service to rule them all.
Right, and people on here also seem to forget that they own ESPN. There are seemingly endless ways that Disney could package their content in ways that it would appeal to customers in every segment.
Sell ESPN with SEC Network, ESPN 2, and all of its networks as a standalone service to sports fans who don't care about the rest of Disney's offerings.
Sell Disney's older catalog plus kids shows on demand for people who don't care about sports but have kids.
Sell a package with everything for people who fall into both camps for a discount.
This still leaves their existing movie business completely in tact.
I honestly think this is a great move on Disney's part. Netflix needs Disney more than Disney needs Netflix. Disney owns the most valuable content portfolio in existence. Netflix has a large customer base and a growing library of its own content, but at the end of the day people shop for cable/streaming packages based on whether ESPN/ABC/Disney is included.
Most apps are published to both iTunes and Google Play. Most songs to Goole Music, Spotify, Apple Music and probably a few others.
As long as it's within 10yrs old, even most games are available for purchase, anywhere in the world, from the different platforms. While the majority is exclusive to Steam, other providers have their own niche markets.
When I make an IP, I want to capture as much of the market as possible, anything else is throwing money away.
The anti-trust comes from the environment where three or four media companies own all of the production and redistribution and each one believes that they can become a monopoly and get all of the money.
I agree with this. Most families in the western world would pay upwards of $30 to be able to show Disneys back catalog to their kids. Unlimited nostalgia. But I hope they don't pull a typical Disney and portion out their content by arbitrary restrictions. Families will pay either way regardless though.
They own the Marvel franchise, the Star Wars, as well as some of the most loved children's movies in history. They also have a ton of children's TV programs.
If Disney really had a subscription service with all their movies and TV shows, I would choose them over Netflix.
They also own ESPN and ABC, back in the day Lost was something Netflix paid a ton for, and I'm sure there are other things that I have been forgetting that are relevant here.
Someone more clever than me could graph out the intersection of cost, convenience and the average consumer's willingness to pirate content for digital media.
I expect moving all Disney's non-live-sports content off the world's most popular streaming platform and on to an exclusive platform with its own monthly fee is going to push a lot of consumers over that line.
A large part why Spotify, Netflix and Steam are so successful is because they are more convenient than piracy, and they have most of the content you would want.
When you again have the choice to either check half a dozen services to see who has the show you want, or to go one-stop shopping at the pirate bay, guess what a lot of people will do.
Speaking of that, it's curious that there isn't a piracy version of Steam that integrates with tor, torrents and such.
How bizarre and awesome (in the way stuxnet was awesome tech but not exactly well meant one) of a concept would that be? And the outcry of the triple A industry, wow.
There is LaunchBox for emulators and DOSBox but that's it.. and it just downloads the metadata, not the emulators and ROMs themselves.
What about the engineering of Netflix? I see lots of comments here about pricing and how content distribution in Hollywood is messed, etc. If Disney has acquired a streaming facility, how will they compare to how Netflix is engineered?
Will they have apps, sub-accounts, lists of favorites, and be able to move from device to device and pick up where you left off?
I have to guess that Disney's depth of content is pretty shallow. You have kid movies, older Disney content, and then franchises they bought like Star Wars and Marvel. But those account for a handful of movies a piece. Maybe it won't be hard to technically serve that content up since it is much smaller than Netflix' library.
What about content delivery? The technical part of this is probably a very hard problem to solve, globally, where people's streams aren't interrupted or dropping frames, etc.
Just small things like when I fast forward, Netflix shows thumbnails of the content, will Disney have those small quality-of-life types of features?
Netflix's original business model was to ship DVDs in the mail which was great because they did not need any special deal with Hollywood to do it. In the meantime they built a strong brand.
After the first pivot, they streamed online, which required writing deals with the studios. Back then they were happy enough that somebody was paying them more money that they gave Netflix easy terms, in particular letting Netflix keep usage analytics so as to keep the studios in as much of the dark as possible as to what value Netflix got from it.
Pivot 2 was producing their own content. Any contract they are likely to get for studios is going to be on a per subscription basis, but if they produce their own content, the cost is constant but the value goes up as you add subs.
Owning their own IP scales better as they get bigger, and also as they've gotten bigger, studios are striking harder bargains. Thus the Netflix catalog has been shrinking. The real "Netflix optimization problem" is about buying a catalog of economical content then presenting it to users in a way that they feel they get enough value to pay for the subscription.
Disney is completely right to go direct to consumer because of the strength of the Disney and ESPN brands. The cable business will be eroded, but many sports fans are fanatics and will spend a lot for content if they want it. (Think of the market for AAA video games.)
Similarly, cable is not that enteraining to children, so many parents get Netflix for their kids, a package of Disney content without the crap you find on cable could be a hit.
I don't want to stream, which puts me in the minority. I want services similar to GOG.com or Steam. I want to buy something digitally, have it stored remotely, but allow me to pull it down locally and have it so I can take it elsewhere if I want. That way old, unpopular or niche media can exist on the platform forever and I get my content on my devices when I want it. No fancy monthly subscription with a subset of content, I'll buy each piece of content and pay full price for it.
I realize this is not the 'vision' Hollywood has for their media and most people just want to stream content and not own it anyway, but all of this is very anti-consumer.
With this, Disney is adding incovenience and introducing extra costs at the same time. Not very attractive for most people.
It will also be hard for them to create the ecosystem Netflix has (integrated in lots of TV's and other hardware, dedicated remote buttons and support in a lot of countries). The people outside the US don't care for FOX or ESPN. Maybe if FOX acquired the football (soccer) rights in all countries where Netflix is active and added that to the package or something, that would make it a bit more attractive.
Wouldn't it be better if Disney bought Netflix. Sure it's a much more expensive move, but consider their large (and pretty loyal) customer base, content library, data insights on what people want to watch, award winning movie and series strategy, etc. Disney could populate Netflix with more content of their own, own all the revenue, while still providing users with a vast variety of content. Netflix brought all the content together in an awesome and simple experience. Large co's are smelling dollars so they start to build their own Netflix clone with their own content. Customers don't want to pay for 20 different subscriptions. Give us 1 simple app, with all the content, and we'd probably pay a lot more for it.
Disney is obviously thinking they have the winning strategy with their large license database. They'll obviously lure people in with Star Wars exclusive content, Pixar, etc. But if they'd go the extra mile of buying Netflix, and giving us 1 subscription 'to rule them all', they'll prove their care for their customers.
I feel like the title might be jumping to conclusions. From the article, emphasis mine:
> With this strategic shift, Disney will end its distribution agreement with Netflix for subscription streaming of new releases, beginning with the 2019 calendar year theatrical slate.
I don't read this as "Disney will pull content currently on Netflix from the platform", and I can't see anything else in the article that would suggest this.
Everyone realizes that content is king, which is why Amazon and Netflix are busy making their own content. Disney already has the content. This is them building the distribution network. People complaining about how this will lead to each studio having their own service, are missing that this is where things are going anyway, just with Netflix and Amazon playing the role of studio.
This isn't really out of character for Disney anyway. They really like vertical integration (they own their own film distributor, for example).
It seems crazy that BAMTech grew out of MLBAM - no one would ever have predicted that Major League Baseball would end up being the starting point for one of the biggest companies in online video streaming.
I think this is a terrible idea, but time will tell. As a former Hulu employee, I can say that the media rights business is a mess. It took us (and Netflix) a very long time to convince media companies that the future is streaming. Now that they understand that, it's natural that they want to control all the revenue streams for their content.
What they fail to understand is that online streaming is not easy. Netflix and Hulu have invested a lot of resources into their tech stacks. Also, have you tried building an app that works on all the different streaming devices out there? It's annoyingly difficult. You have to do all that, keep up with the latest technologies (e.g. 4K), and still provide unique features and value. Storing the content is the easiest part.
Point is, media companies should stick to what they do best and let the likes of Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon do what they do best.
Piracy shifted power towards consumers. If content creators were going to see any money, they needed to offer consumer-friendly services that were better than piracy. The orgs that did this (Steam, Spotify, Netflix) dominated their markets.
As the web becomes more controlled, regulated and tracked, this power shifts back to the hands of the content creators. If there's no (legal or illegal) alternative people will go back to paying $120/mo for tv+movies. Mass media is how people bond, relate to others and fit in; and that's worth a lot. The studios know how valuable the culture they generate is, but over the past few years have been unable to successfully control their consumers.
I think that we'll see more studios shifting over to their own platforms. We'll also probably start to see renewed anti-piracy enforcement.
Because that's what the streaming ecosystem needs; more fragmentation.
I understand production companies wanting to have control over the distribution of their content, but consumers are not going to want to signup and pay for multiple streaming services.
Are there any companies out there working on a solution where they can 'buy' subscriptions in bulk from all the various streaming services, package them all under a single streaming product, and sell that to the consumer?
[+] [-] geff82|8 years ago|reply
For a truly complete platform, I would FOR SURE pay more than the 10$ a month for Netflix. 20, maybe 30! But then I want it ALL. All films they have in storage.
I mean, it is 2017 and there are a lot of films I can't find on Netflix, Amazon Prime or, when I am in spending mood, on Apple TV. Why? I mean how silly would you want to be as studios? There is no big DVD business anymore, BlueRay never totally took off. People have a net connection and multiple streaming devices at home, thats it. Thats the big asset they could build on! Instead they let their libraries die the death of the unseen film.
Still, many keep shuffeling around harddrives with terabytes of pirated films. And why shouldn't they, as long as there is no substantial offer?
So I decided for me (and the cloud guy I am), that with my 3 services I have, I am ok. If a film is not there, I don't care. I surely won't order a DVD of some old film somewhere and I surely will not subscribe to another service. If Disneys pulls their films from Netflix: thanks Netflix for their growing self produced content that often has a quality not seen before.
[+] [-] raldi|8 years ago|reply
Not 20 years later, the technology for this is already well-established; the only thing stopping it is that the owners of the films don't want to make them available this way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ9qcp6Lcno
[+] [-] onion2k|8 years ago|reply
Perhaps you're fortunate that everything you want to listen to is on your preferred music streaming service, but what they offer is far from everything in the music industry's catalogue. Ask any classical music fan what they think of streaming services and you'll hear a tirade against the woeful offerings that streaming services make available.
[+] [-] dkrich|8 years ago|reply
They use the vault the way diamond miners do- to restrict supply of extremely coveted goods so that they can charge premium prices for them. It's good business and it keeps things that are decades old in constant demand so they can charge higher prices for them.
Unfortunately for you and me that means that if we want access we have to pay more. While it may certainly be true that you don't place enough value on Disney products to pay a premium, there are lots of people who will and there are probably still going to be times that you want access to it and consider signing up. That's what they want- if they commoditized their content and you were able to get access to everything they own for $30 a month, that wouldn't serve their purposes at all. Companies like Netflix dream of having one franchise that's as successful as the countless ones that Disney has. Why on Earth would they just have a fire sale for all of their content when they can restrict supply and extract the most profit from it?
[+] [-] mrmondo|8 years ago|reply
If a service came along that truly had the TV and films I wanted with a preference for 4K content, I’d happily pay $40-$60AUD a month for it.
Right now I subscribe to:
And in recent times: There’s a lot of opportunity for consolidation there, I realise I’m probably not in the majority but I WANT to pay and I WANT media creators and artists to take my money.[+] [-] blitmap|8 years ago|reply
Disney thinks I'll tack on another streaming service to watch Mulan or Captain America: Civil War - but they're wrong...
[+] [-] hellofunk|8 years ago|reply
s/often/rarely
There are some good shows on Netflix, but they are in the minority, in my opinion. Tastes vary, of course. But a lot of their original programming is not so original, it just feels like filler content to increase the perceived value of the platform. For every good original show they make like House of Cards, there are at least 5x as many that are uneventful or boring.
But that's not unusual. Network television is the same way.
[+] [-] cletusw|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rebuilder|8 years ago|reply
I never thought I'd say this, but I'm starting to miss video rental shops.
[+] [-] fooey|8 years ago|reply
I also completely refuse to buy physical media too, so the end result is that I basically never watch movies at home any more unless I go to the effort of torrenting it
[+] [-] SN76477|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tiku|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rpiguy|8 years ago|reply
Even more confusingly rights for IP might have been transferred and sold many times leading to questions about who actually owns a film or franchise.
Distribution rights, production rights are separate. Actors may have been promised a cut of any of the above.
So if you track down 40 years worth of contracts, you can safely add a movie to your streaming service.
Add to that 100 years of studio mergers, consolidation, etc. It is a mess.
I am sure many companies would like to stream more, but simply can't.
[+] [-] dorfsmay|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Keyframe|8 years ago|reply
For a truly complete platform, I would FOR SURE pay more than the 10$ a month for Applix. 20, maybe 30! But then I want it ALL. All software they have in storage.
[+] [-] almostarockstar|8 years ago|reply
A lot of people have commented that the music solution is not ideal in a number of ways from the 'demand' side, but I don't think anybody has mentioned how the music business is broken from the 'supply' side.
It is next to impossible to make a living from music for the vast majority of musicians and producers out there. The obvious argument is that if you cant sell, your quality isn't good enough but that's actually not true in my opinion. Distribution is severely unbalanced - and if the movie industry continued in this direction, all we will ever see is Spiderman remakes.
[+] [-] conanbatt|8 years ago|reply
The competition of content is what makes the services cheap and pumps out new quality content on different platforms. At the same time it allows for the efficent satisfaction of the demand: those that care little pay little, those that care a lot pay a lot. With a single bundle, you either get all or you get nothing.
There are many arguments to believe this is more efficient. The music industry, also, its ridden with tremendous problems, I would not model my business after them if I had the choice.
[+] [-] bsder|8 years ago|reply
Except that the music business continues to shrink each year.
The only reason there was a slight pause in this is because suddenly vinyl sales, of all things, took off.
Somehow I don't think you are going to find many takers in the video industry for following any music model.
[+] [-] blubb-fish|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ZoomZoomZoom|8 years ago|reply
Which is what?
[+] [-] Anatidae|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] TheGRS|8 years ago|reply
Its a very logical move from my viewpoint (I don't even have a family). If other studios follow suit they will likely perish from lack of brand loyalty and/or poor execution.
I hear everyone on the desire for convergence. But we don't want convergence without competition. The problem with a Spotify model for video content is that if Netflix becomes the de facto video provider and Amazon or some other provider can't capture a sizable portion of the market, then we don't have room for other competitors.
The current model for movie theaters is one born out of anti-trust lawsuits. Its not a perfect model, but it allows for some competition on things beyond just the movie you are watching. Theaters compete on ticket prices, food options, seating and convenience (by offering multiple films). This would be a suitable model for convergence, but unfortunately it also means legislation to get providers there. And does it apply to the numerous self-starts on youtube or elsewhere? I'm digressing, but my point is that I'd rather not have just one service to rule them all.
[+] [-] dkrich|8 years ago|reply
Sell ESPN with SEC Network, ESPN 2, and all of its networks as a standalone service to sports fans who don't care about the rest of Disney's offerings.
Sell Disney's older catalog plus kids shows on demand for people who don't care about sports but have kids.
Sell a package with everything for people who fall into both camps for a discount.
This still leaves their existing movie business completely in tact.
I honestly think this is a great move on Disney's part. Netflix needs Disney more than Disney needs Netflix. Disney owns the most valuable content portfolio in existence. Netflix has a large customer base and a growing library of its own content, but at the end of the day people shop for cable/streaming packages based on whether ESPN/ABC/Disney is included.
[+] [-] waddlesworth|8 years ago|reply
As long as it's within 10yrs old, even most games are available for purchase, anywhere in the world, from the different platforms. While the majority is exclusive to Steam, other providers have their own niche markets.
When I make an IP, I want to capture as much of the market as possible, anything else is throwing money away.
The anti-trust comes from the environment where three or four media companies own all of the production and redistribution and each one believes that they can become a monopoly and get all of the money.
[+] [-] zapt02|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RcouF1uZ4gsC|8 years ago|reply
For example, here is the list of top grossing movies of 2016 http://www.imdb.com/list/ls074920894/
Disney had the following films
1. Captain America: Civil War
2. Rogue One
3. Finding Dory
4. Zootopia
5. The Jungle Book
11. Doctor Strange
12. Moana
19. Alice Through the Looking Glass
For 2017 so far (http://www.the-numbers.com/box-office-records/domestic/all-m...)
Disney has
1. Beauty and the Beast
3. Guardians of the Galaxy V2
11. Pirates of the Caribbean
13. Cars 3
They own the Marvel franchise, the Star Wars, as well as some of the most loved children's movies in history. They also have a ton of children's TV programs.
If Disney really had a subscription service with all their movies and TV shows, I would choose them over Netflix.
[+] [-] joezydeco|8 years ago|reply
If Disney streams only feature film content, it will go nowhere. No parent will pay $10-$20 month to access the same 50 to 100 films over and over.
[+] [-] zouhair|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] driverdan|8 years ago|reply
There's no such thing.
[+] [-] zjaffee|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wtf_is_up|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VeejayRampay|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] atourgates|8 years ago|reply
I expect moving all Disney's non-live-sports content off the world's most popular streaming platform and on to an exclusive platform with its own monthly fee is going to push a lot of consumers over that line.
[+] [-] reitanqild|8 years ago|reply
It is more than I ever spent on music before though (not a pirate, just didn't buy much music.)
Same with netflix.
I'll not be happy with paying monthly for n different channels to watch a film.
I want to pay. But either one service with all I need like Spotify or paying for the stiff I actually watch.
[+] [-] wongarsu|8 years ago|reply
When you again have the choice to either check half a dozen services to see who has the show you want, or to go one-stop shopping at the pirate bay, guess what a lot of people will do.
[+] [-] FRex|8 years ago|reply
How bizarre and awesome (in the way stuxnet was awesome tech but not exactly well meant one) of a concept would that be? And the outcry of the triple A industry, wow.
There is LaunchBox for emulators and DOSBox but that's it.. and it just downloads the metadata, not the emulators and ROMs themselves.
[+] [-] matt_s|8 years ago|reply
Will they have apps, sub-accounts, lists of favorites, and be able to move from device to device and pick up where you left off?
I have to guess that Disney's depth of content is pretty shallow. You have kid movies, older Disney content, and then franchises they bought like Star Wars and Marvel. But those account for a handful of movies a piece. Maybe it won't be hard to technically serve that content up since it is much smaller than Netflix' library.
What about content delivery? The technical part of this is probably a very hard problem to solve, globally, where people's streams aren't interrupted or dropping frames, etc.
Just small things like when I fast forward, Netflix shows thumbnails of the content, will Disney have those small quality-of-life types of features?
[+] [-] PaulHoule|8 years ago|reply
Netflix's original business model was to ship DVDs in the mail which was great because they did not need any special deal with Hollywood to do it. In the meantime they built a strong brand.
After the first pivot, they streamed online, which required writing deals with the studios. Back then they were happy enough that somebody was paying them more money that they gave Netflix easy terms, in particular letting Netflix keep usage analytics so as to keep the studios in as much of the dark as possible as to what value Netflix got from it.
Pivot 2 was producing their own content. Any contract they are likely to get for studios is going to be on a per subscription basis, but if they produce their own content, the cost is constant but the value goes up as you add subs.
Owning their own IP scales better as they get bigger, and also as they've gotten bigger, studios are striking harder bargains. Thus the Netflix catalog has been shrinking. The real "Netflix optimization problem" is about buying a catalog of economical content then presenting it to users in a way that they feel they get enough value to pay for the subscription.
Disney is completely right to go direct to consumer because of the strength of the Disney and ESPN brands. The cable business will be eroded, but many sports fans are fanatics and will spend a lot for content if they want it. (Think of the market for AAA video games.)
Similarly, cable is not that enteraining to children, so many parents get Netflix for their kids, a package of Disney content without the crap you find on cable could be a hit.
[+] [-] mrhigat4|8 years ago|reply
I realize this is not the 'vision' Hollywood has for their media and most people just want to stream content and not own it anyway, but all of this is very anti-consumer.
[+] [-] spiderfarmer|8 years ago|reply
It will also be hard for them to create the ecosystem Netflix has (integrated in lots of TV's and other hardware, dedicated remote buttons and support in a lot of countries). The people outside the US don't care for FOX or ESPN. Maybe if FOX acquired the football (soccer) rights in all countries where Netflix is active and added that to the package or something, that would make it a bit more attractive.
But even then. I don't see this ending well.
[+] [-] softwareqrafter|8 years ago|reply
Disney is obviously thinking they have the winning strategy with their large license database. They'll obviously lure people in with Star Wars exclusive content, Pixar, etc. But if they'd go the extra mile of buying Netflix, and giving us 1 subscription 'to rule them all', they'll prove their care for their customers.
[+] [-] Roujo|8 years ago|reply
> With this strategic shift, Disney will end its distribution agreement with Netflix for subscription streaming of new releases, beginning with the 2019 calendar year theatrical slate.
I don't read this as "Disney will pull content currently on Netflix from the platform", and I can't see anything else in the article that would suggest this.
[+] [-] jpace121|8 years ago|reply
Everyone realizes that content is king, which is why Amazon and Netflix are busy making their own content. Disney already has the content. This is them building the distribution network. People complaining about how this will lead to each studio having their own service, are missing that this is where things are going anyway, just with Netflix and Amazon playing the role of studio.
This isn't really out of character for Disney anyway. They really like vertical integration (they own their own film distributor, for example).
[+] [-] guyzero|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jalaziz|8 years ago|reply
What they fail to understand is that online streaming is not easy. Netflix and Hulu have invested a lot of resources into their tech stacks. Also, have you tried building an app that works on all the different streaming devices out there? It's annoyingly difficult. You have to do all that, keep up with the latest technologies (e.g. 4K), and still provide unique features and value. Storing the content is the easiest part.
Point is, media companies should stick to what they do best and let the likes of Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon do what they do best.
[+] [-] px1999|8 years ago|reply
As the web becomes more controlled, regulated and tracked, this power shifts back to the hands of the content creators. If there's no (legal or illegal) alternative people will go back to paying $120/mo for tv+movies. Mass media is how people bond, relate to others and fit in; and that's worth a lot. The studios know how valuable the culture they generate is, but over the past few years have been unable to successfully control their consumers.
I think that we'll see more studios shifting over to their own platforms. We'll also probably start to see renewed anti-piracy enforcement.
[+] [-] ValleyOfTheMtns|8 years ago|reply
I understand production companies wanting to have control over the distribution of their content, but consumers are not going to want to signup and pay for multiple streaming services.
Are there any companies out there working on a solution where they can 'buy' subscriptions in bulk from all the various streaming services, package them all under a single streaming product, and sell that to the consumer?
[+] [-] mark-ruwt|8 years ago|reply
This is an earth shaker for sports properties, cable companies, and subscription VODs. NFLX was quickly down 5%, but is rebounding.
[+] [-] nkkollaw|8 years ago|reply
My girlfriend has a kid and she would probably pay $10/mo. rather than have the kid drive her crazy.
What I mean is that Disney might just have enough movies that you're practically forced to buy the thing if you have kids.
Let's not forget that they have Pixar, and even Star Wars.