Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming

hollywoodreporter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 187 posts

Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming

#21

Post by echelon »

whyenot wrote: post #11

Amazon, Apple, Disney, HBO Max, Hulu, Peacock, ..., oh, and Netflix. How many monthly memberships are people going to want to pay for, especially when there is already a huge library of free content on YouTube? Interesting times...

This is strictly worse than cable.

Streaming in the 2010s was a breath of fresh air. You could find everything on one platform, watch it at your leisure, and pay way less than cable.

Now we're going to have to pay more AND switch between nine different apps with broken UIs.

This is god awful. All of this because of greed and a lack of regulation.

We need to campaign for limited copyright (20 years), and build services like Spotify that have everything and merely pay the rights holders.

Disney needs to be broken up. They own 90% of American pop culture. They're going to begin protection racketing theaters and dumbing down everything to appease the masses (and foreign governments).

God, I hate what the Internet is becoming.

Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming

#22

Post by Skunkleton »

aarpmcgee wrote: post #17
brogrammernot wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon doesn’t really count as it’s an added benefit of Prime. However, all of those you listed are cheaper than adding cable to my bill. I pay for Netflix, Hulu and YoutubeTV. It’s cheaper than adding cable to my bill & that’s just absurd to me.

Are you suggesting that it doesn’t count because you assume everyone has a Prime subscription?

This isn't the point OP was making, but I don't think Amazon counts. Not because "everyone has prime", but because you can pay them extra money to add content to their platform. For example, you can pay to add British content, CBS, or HBO. Amazon is doing streaming right.

Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming

#24

Post by gatherhunterer »

“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.

Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming

#25

Post by solipsism »

echelon wrote: post #21
whyenot wrote: post #11

Amazon, Apple, Disney, HBO Max, Hulu, Peacock, ..., oh, and Netflix. How many monthly memberships are people going to want to pay for, especially when there is already a huge library of free content on YouTube? Interesting times...

This is strictly worse than cable. Streaming in the 2010s was a breath of fresh air. You could find everything on one platform, watch it at your leisure, and pay way less than cable. Now we're going to have to pay more AND switch between nine different apps with broken UIs. This is god awful. All of this because of greed and a lack of regulation. We need to campaign for limited copyright (20 years), and build service…

You don't have to do anything. You just feel the need to watch everything that can be watched. If you don't want to pay for every service, you should just reset your expectations.

Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming

#26

Post by TeMPOraL »

brogrammernot wrote: post #15
whyenot wrote: post #11

Amazon, Apple, Disney, HBO Max, Hulu, Peacock, ..., oh, and Netflix. How many monthly memberships are people going to want to pay for, especially when there is already a huge library of free content on YouTube? Interesting times...

Amazon doesn’t really count as it’s an added benefit of Prime. However, all of those you listed are cheaper than adding cable to my bill. I pay for Netflix, Hulu and YoutubeTV. It’s cheaper than adding cable to my bill & that’s just absurd to me.

Any of them individually, or all of them together? If the latter, then wherever it is you live, you have some ridiculous places for cable TV there.

Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming

#27

Post by barkerja »

echelon wrote: post #21
whyenot wrote: post #11

Amazon, Apple, Disney, HBO Max, Hulu, Peacock, ..., oh, and Netflix. How many monthly memberships are people going to want to pay for, especially when there is already a huge library of free content on YouTube? Interesting times...

This is strictly worse than cable. Streaming in the 2010s was a breath of fresh air. You could find everything on one platform, watch it at your leisure, and pay way less than cable. Now we're going to have to pay more AND switch between nine different apps with broken UIs. This is god awful. All of this because of greed and a lack of regulation. We need to campaign for limited copyright (20 years), and build service…

I don't know if I'd go as far to say it's worse. Cable forced one's hand into paying for things they didn't necessarily want. At least with this model, we the consumer have the ability to pick and choose exactly what we want to pay for.

If a network has shows that look appealing to you, subscribe for a couple months. If there's only one show that looks appealing, buy it on iTunes.

We're never going to have an affordable, legal, pay-once-for-everything model.

Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming

#28

Post by wolco »

brogrammernot wrote: post #15
whyenot wrote: post #11

Amazon, Apple, Disney, HBO Max, Hulu, Peacock, ..., oh, and Netflix. How many monthly memberships are people going to want to pay for, especially when there is already a huge library of free content on YouTube? Interesting times...

Amazon doesn’t really count as it’s an added benefit of Prime. However, all of those you listed are cheaper than adding cable to my bill. I pay for Netflix, Hulu and YoutubeTV. It’s cheaper than adding cable to my bill & that’s just absurd to me.

You are paying for it with Amazon just bundled into the overall price. Probably 10% more.

That's why cable costs so much the bundling of various properties adds up. For now streaming inventors are eating the cost but they expect that to change by 2024.

Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming

#29

Post by scarface74 »

friedman23 wrote: post #12
scarface74 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix’s issue is not the quality of content - it’s their business model. They are borrowing billions to create content with the only way to recoup the cost is mostly by subscription revenue. Their initial rationale was that they were building a content library that would have value. But, they admitted during the last conference call that subscriber growth was slow expectations because they didn’t have any new big r…

>Netflix’s issue is not the quality of content - it’s their business model. They are borrowing billions to create content with the only way to recoup the cost is mostly by subscription revenue. Their initial rationale was that they were building a content library that would have value. But, they admitted during the last conference call that subscriber growth was slow expectations because they didn’t have any new big…

I think you are contradicting yourself here. If the quality was good they wouldn't have mentioned not having big releases as being the reason why their subscriber growth was slow.

No, I’m saying that Disney’s library content has value and doesn’t have to be hit driven to be successful. If Netflix’s only way of gaining customers is by keep getting in debt to fund new content, it has an unsustainably high customer acquisition cost. If customers don’t care enough to stick around to have access to its library content, the lifetime value of a customer is low.

Either Disney is severely undervalued or Netflix is severely overvalued (or both).

Why does Uber and Lyft have any value at all when they are losing billions and have no hope of having profits that justify their value? Dropbox should also be valued at zero. Market cap is not a substitute for sound business fundamentals like actually having a profitable business model.

Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming

#30

Post by throwaway1777 »

echelon wrote: post #21
whyenot wrote: post #11

Amazon, Apple, Disney, HBO Max, Hulu, Peacock, ..., oh, and Netflix. How many monthly memberships are people going to want to pay for, especially when there is already a huge library of free content on YouTube? Interesting times...

This is strictly worse than cable. Streaming in the 2010s was a breath of fresh air. You could find everything on one platform, watch it at your leisure, and pay way less than cable. Now we're going to have to pay more AND switch between nine different apps with broken UIs. This is god awful. All of this because of greed and a lack of regulation. We need to campaign for limited copyright (20 years), and build service…

So you want more regulation? You mean like the monopoly cable industry regulations?

You think breaking up Disney is the answer? Then you have 10 streaming services to subscribe to instead of 5

Post reply on HN