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

131–140 of 187 posts

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

#131

Post by dillonmckay »

basch wrote: post #57
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...

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…

It also seems we are headed towards coupled offerings of content AND connection.

Certain content available via certain ISPs only.

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

#132

Post by redis_mlc »

dehrmann wrote: post #110
barkerja wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 afforda…

> We're never going to have an affordable, legal, pay-once-for-everything model. Why does it work for music, though?

The US music industry doesn't have the MPAA.

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

#133

Post by dillonmckay »

killerdhmo wrote: post #119
Vomzor wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t know, you said American, and even with the monthly premium, there are less than 400 million potential customers, right?

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

#134

Post by TheCondor »

ravenstine wrote: post #16

While 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…

Some of these platforms aren't shoving ads in your face... giant net win if you ask me.

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

#135

Post by redis_mlc »

wolco wrote: post #31
echelon wrote: post #21

Earlier 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 doesn't really own a lot.

The scene has changed in the past decade.

They're one of the largest US media conglomerates now.

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

#136

Post by dillonmckay »

chrisseaton wrote: post #85
grawprog wrote: post #2

>including all 30 seasons of The Simpsons; Never thought I'd see the day when a Disney service would air the Simpsons. The idea of the simpsons airing on the disney channel back in the day would have been ridiculous. Seems so strange to go from being considered one of the most notorious shows around to being carried by Disney. The very antithesis of what it was when it started. Not sure what that says more about thou…

The Simpsons was never really that controversial was it? It's fairly family-friendly. Didn't have any bad language, almost zero sexuality, zero nudity, any violence is very cartoon, its satire is pretty gentle, plot-lines are usually wholesome in the end.

Also, before it was a full TV show, the characters were used in small scenes on ‘The Tracy Ullman Show’.

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

#137

Post by adamweld »

mrfusion wrote: post #111
CharlesW wrote: post #107

Earlier 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.

You could use privacy.com to limit each service as you sign up and then forget about it.

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

#138

Post by raverbashing »

megaremote wrote: post #68
basch wrote: post #57

Earlier 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…

> After people binge through new shows, the big 4 will be the ones holding all the old content. Do most people really want that old content? Apart from a few shows, I say no.

Actually, I do think there is a market for that.

Like the "catalog" section of the old rental places, it surely would be interesting to watch an "old" movie sometimes (which by today's measure could be something like >3yrs)

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

#139

Post by dragonwriter »

redis_mlc wrote: post #132
dehrmann wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're never going to have an affordable, legal, pay-once-for-everything model. Why does it work for music, though?

The US music industry doesn't have the MPAA.

No, they have the RIAA, which is pretty much the exact same thing, but for the music industry.
Post reply on HN