51–60 of 87 posts
I don’t understand why so many people think this is a bad thing. Content distribution has become a commodity, thanks to AWS and the like. The codecs and whatnot are all standardized. And it turns out that consumers don’t really care about recommendation systems and similar accouterments. So the competition has shifted to the thing that people care about: content. When the market is competing over the thing people car…
Disney, Netflix, Amazon, HBO, Spotify etc. divide content between them and if you want to watch four shows, listen a music and read an ebook, you may have to subscribe 7 or more content delivery system.
People should be able to pay for the individual series or even episodes. The only reason why you need to create account to consume content is to make payment easier.
Maybe it's a different company now but I'll ask, with all their content: the disney stuff, star wars, marvel, fox, etc.. If they put it all on Disney+ at $7 a month, are they not leaving money on the table? I can't imagine there won't be up-selling or limited availability of certain media properties or something. The author is right, if it's all there at $7 and the app is great and they are bold and aggressive, then I would think Prime and Netflix, etc. will be in a bit of trouble. On the other hand, if Disney acts like they always have then I expect there to be like 10% good stuff, an advertising machine for whatever movie is next in the pipe and then just some bunk filler content.
This argues that it's Netflix vs Disney and it's a zero-sum game. If you lump all TV dollars together it's Disney vs Netflix vs CBS vs HBO vs Cable etc... It's not so clear what the consumer will do. The wild card is still live sports. It's the one area that cable still has a strangle hold. Once sports is fully streaming what can cable offer?
Live sports on ESPN are available on Sling TV and YouTube TV in the United States.
Where did Disney get all this delivery cred? They do seem to be taking their time and they've been gobbling things up and certainly have the content. Aren't they just an old media company though? I remember when Disney Channel was a pay channel with relatively bunk content; like it had some original stuff and then like ancient re-runs for the Mickey Mouse club and once fairly rarely they'd play a classic Disney movie…
> Disney puts a blockbuster like Avengers Endgame on its platform the same day it opens in theaters.
Limiting distribution, sure... Though again they would be losing a lot of money to DVD/Bluray sales, etc. so again I doubt it:
> After a few weeks it’s no longer in theaters. You can’t buy it. You can’t rent it. The only way to watch is to subscribe to Disney’s steaming service, Disney+.
If Disney is offering a service for a cheap 6.99 why do people stop using netflix?
Disney has content for kids and superhero fans. This is not a netflix replacement but replacing whatever was in place before.
Stock prices are popularity contests and Netflix may take a hit but Disney is undercutting the high prices on Disney/Marvel content it charges now and longterm it might be better if they merged with a studio offering more adult material.
"Netflix changed how we watch TV, but it didn’t really change what we watch…"
It changed what I watched. Netflix doesn't even offer most network shows in my country so I stopped watching a lot of those shows.
Yeah, so? Who said we need/want/will change what we watch?
>The problem is that no matter how much Netflix spends, it has no chance to catch up with its biggest rival…
Disney? Who the fuck cares for Disney? 8 year olds or parents buying a subscription for them?
>Disney owns Marvel, Pixar Animations, Star Wars, ESPN, National Geographic, Modern Family, and The Simpsons. Not to mention all the classic characters like Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck.
So, mostly irrelevant stuff. ESPN has been going down for a decade or so, Mickey wont be making any revivals, and most people don't get Netflix to watch Marvel, Pixar, Star Wars, or National Geographic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s annoying as a user to juggle subscriptions. If I want to watch something, I have to figure out where it’s available, sign up if I don’t currently have a subscription, worry about forgetting services and having a bunch of monthly payments I’m not using. End result: I watch a lot of YouTube and pretty much gave up on the rest. Contrast with music, where I have a single subscription and get access to everything I w…
I wish there was an easier way to just buy content, in a way that I knew was going to support the creators and not line the pockets of the distribution network. I used to wait for stuff to come out on DVD and pick it up then, but I don't know how much the original studio gets for that, or whether the original studio even exists by that point. I certainly don't like the subscription model, but that's a personal choice…
I agree (Bandcamp for movies?) but the economics of this are hard. While you can make a solid album with free software, cheap instruments you own already, and a few hundred dollars worth of equipment, even a well made indie movie is going to run into hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in costs. They have to recoup those somehow, and it's a terrifying leap to go from a traditional production / distribution network to relying directly on consumers to pay for your product. It's "no one ever got fired for buying IBM" except in the movie distribution industry.
I suppose if there's one industry leading the way it's in video games. If I'm not mistaken several AAA games have been included in Humble Bundles, which means you pay what you want and get a non-DRM copy of the game. (Even a torrent link!)
I don’t understand why so many people think this is a bad thing. Content distribution has become a commodity, thanks to AWS and the like. The codecs and whatnot are all standardized. And it turns out that consumers don’t really care about recommendation systems and similar accouterments. So the competition has shifted to the thing that people care about: content. When the market is competing over the thing people car…
Disney copying Netflix makes it just harder for the customers. The whole Netflix subscription business model should die. When content distribution is commodity as you say, the only service they provide is easy payment. Disney, Netflix, Amazon, HBO, Spotify etc. divide content between them and if you want to watch four shows, listen a music and read an ebook, you may have to subscribe 7 or more content delivery system…
Isn't this already a thing? iTunes and Amazon both allow you to purchase individual episodes or season passes.