311–320 of 788 posts
I predict the winners will be determined primarily by UX and library size, not by price or exclusive content. People seem more irked by the sheer number of potential services than anything else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's 12 blu-rays a year. Do your kids really watch THAT much Disney? You could buy every new Disney movie each year and have extra slots to fill out the backlog for that price, plus de-facto ownership of the data.
The size of Disney's catalogue may be underestimated by some. Having instant access to all their movies[1] and television shows[2] has quite a bit of value, and would consist of hundreds upon hundreds of blu-rays. I am not one who would sign up, but certainly if I had children I would much rather have streaming access to all of this than stacks of discs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Pictures_…
I'm happy to pay Spotify a monthly fee. 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.
Maybe you never used to spend more than $10/month on video, but most Americans have been spending an order of magnitude more than that.
As written the headline implies that Disney is going to remove Netflix-owned content from their (Disney's streaming facilities).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Long term, we'll probably wind up with a couple of major marketplaces that provide a UI that ties together content bundles that you've purchased from different distributors (who will actually serve up their catalogs). It's a bit depressing how similar that sounds to how cable networks work. Or platform specific app stores.
FireTV and AppleTV already do this some degree. On FireTV when you search for a movie/show it will give you options where to play it based on which apps you have installed (netflix, hulu, or via amazon/prime)
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 a…
>If every studio thinks I'm going to pay them $10+ a month to stream their content, they are going to be very mistaken One of the biggest misconceptions about the post-tv-cable world is that people actually thought they could cut their TV bill from $50-$100/mo to $10/mo.
I could see a family buying a plethora of bundles, but I strongly suspect it will continue to be cheaper than the equivalent cable package.
I can't speak at all for sports; i imagine that alone could be hundreds a month to watch a local game.
This is an extremely smart play by Disney. 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ya, this isn't really about Disney content. It is whether you want to be able to stream Star Wars, and get access to exclusive Star Wars content. Marvel too. But Star Wars.
star wars is 2 hours of content a year. maybe you can stretch that to 60 if you push out a bunch of 'star wars universe' content. and you can just pay $15 to see that in a theatre netflix added 600 hours of content in 2016 and will surely dwarf that in 2017 and beyond disney is in a for a rude awakening if they think they can go it alone in this marketplace