Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem is if you want one show from each service.
What do you think of this solution? (1) Sign up for a month, (2) binge, (3) cancel.
Good idea except I don’t like phoning up companies to cancel.
Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming
111–120 of 187 posts
Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
90%? Disney doesn't really own a lot. They have huge brands in some niches but overall not much % wise. They refuse to touch anything adult in nature and that is the vast majority of content.
Disney used to own Miramax so it could release R films without tarnishing the main brand.
Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming
#113While his position is [partly] accurate, it's not exactly revelatory. People, notably internet pirates, were saying this 20 years ago. People are going to get fed up if they've got to pay for dozens of streaming services to get all the shows that they want. On top of that, a lot of these platforms are still shoving ads in our faces. If streaming manages to become worse than cable, people might just spend less time wa…
> People are going to get fed up if they've got to pay for dozens of streaming services to get all the shows that they wa I agree. You start paying $70 for internet, $15 to Netflix, $15 to Disney, $10 to Hulu and really you're back to where you were with cable. I think having a couple offerings in the universe is great for competition reasons, but I will not spend the equivalent of a cable bill to get most of what I…
The difference is now you have a lot more content being developed which is now opening up spaces for voices that haven't been typically heard in mainstream hollywood.
Complaining about a few $ here and there seems a bit greedy.
Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
90%? Disney doesn't really own a lot. They have huge brands in some niches but overall not much % wise. They refuse to touch anything adult in nature and that is the vast majority of content.
Disney used to own Miramax so it could release R films without tarnishing the main brand.
Disney created Touchstone for this purpose in the 1980s. Disney bought Miramax in the 1990s and as far as I know, they never used Miramax to release a Disney Studios-originated property. I could be wrong.
Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you think of this solution? (1) Sign up for a month, (2) binge, (3) cancel.
Good idea except I don’t like phoning up companies to cancel.
I've canceled (and later resubscribed) to Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon without ever picking up the phone.
Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet another post on HN about a company that needs to be broken up because they are big in some made up market. Now are we going to define a monopoly as the “Pop Culture” market. Would you also like the government to “build a market” so that everyone can have all the software they want and have the government decide what a fair amount for software is?
> Would you also like the government to “build a market” so that everyone can have all the software they want Yes, of course I would like the democratically elected government to run the economy in a sane way. > and have the government decide what a fair amount for software is? No, that would be absurd. The fair amount for software is equal to its marginal cost which is zero.
Not trying to be rude: I’m not sure you really know what “marginal cost” means and it’s relation to a product’s economic impact. Twice, so far, you’ve used it here in the wrong context.
Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming
#117Amazon, 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...
CBS/Viacom/Paramount/Nickelodeon/Showtime. Sony. Disney/Hulu/ESPN count as one, though you can buy smaller packages. ViacomCBS, NBCUniversal, WarnerMedia, and Disney will still be the big 4 of all the ones you listed. Amazon, Apple, and Netflix have minuscule content libraries by comparison. After people binge through new shows, the big 4 will be the ones holding all the old content. Netflix cant afford to produce co…
The only streaming services that really matter are the ones that are global. Prime, Netflix, Disney.
Netflix has a huge headstart. I believe almost 60 % of their subscribers are outside usa. They make local originals in every region they are. Just look at the amount of Spanish language originals that came out this year. Spanish, Dutch, Turkish, Korean, Italian, ... originals. It’s their ‘secret’ weapon.
Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disney films are generic, cookie cutter formulas designed for mass appeal and ROI. They buy everything they can and then force theaters to show their films in the most desirable weekend spots. They're soaking up all the money and pushing the smaller players out. They're now trying to eat Netflix. Not to mention that they follow Beijing's content directives. We should take a serious look at balancing the scales. If we…
Every commercial product is designed for maximum ROI. They buy everything they can and then force theaters to show their films in the most desirable weekend spots. You really think movie theaters would rather show movies that don’t fill it? They're soaking up all the money and pushing the smaller players out. Ever heard of Blumhouse? Their entire business model is to make low budget movies that cost under $10 million…
> Every commercial product is designed for maximum ROI.
Not true with art.
> You really think movie theaters would rather show movies that don’t fill it?
Disney takes a larger cut per screen, so the theater actually makes less money on Disney films. If they don't show Disney films on their best screens, they'll lose the right to show any Disney films. It's extortion. [1] [2]
> Ever heard of Blumhouse? Their entire business model is to make low budget movies that cost under $10 million and they usually have a higher ROI than Disney movies.
These are horror films. That genre has always been cheap to film. Blumhouse is a great businessman. I don't think this model fits for every genre, eg. period pieces and art house cinema.
> Why not force other people to innovate instead of building on top of Star Wars?
I'm not saying that they shouldn't. Disney should start innovating instead of stretching its licenses over and over. Pixar has become garbage since Disney took over. They're not going to make risky films like Logan with their IP, either.
I'm doing everything I can to get into this market, and I'm terrified of having to compete with this juggernaut. If they're going to play hard ball with their IP, I'm going to lobby for looser IP protections. It's good for consumers and creatives anyway.
[1] https://mashable.com/2017/11/01/star-wars-last-jedi-theaters...
[2] https://qz.com/1479408/small-theater-chains-worry-a-mid-cent...
Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
CBS/Viacom/Paramount/Nickelodeon/Showtime. Sony. Disney/Hulu/ESPN count as one, though you can buy smaller packages. ViacomCBS, NBCUniversal, WarnerMedia, and Disney will still be the big 4 of all the ones you listed. Amazon, Apple, and Netflix have minuscule content libraries by comparison. After people binge through new shows, the big 4 will be the ones holding all the old content. Netflix cant afford to produce co…
The only streaming services that really matter are the ones that are global. Prime, Netflix, Disney. Netflix has a huge headstart. I believe almost 60 % of their subscribers are outside usa. They make local originals in every region they are. Just look at the amount of Spanish language originals that came out this year. Spanish, Dutch, Turkish, Korean, Italian, ... originals. It’s their ‘secret’ weapon.
I don’t disagree I just think it’s naive. The biggest grossing programs are still American, so the question is if the future is in blockbusters like Marvel / Game of Thrones or if the better play is smaller niche plays.
Re: Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming
#120Amazon, 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...
I will pay for several, lets just keep it under $40 a month.
right now we have netflix, hulu, amazon prime and will get disney+ in our home. This along with youtube keeps us satisfied with almost anything we want to watch.