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

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

#71

Post by anoncake » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 10:30 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #41

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…

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.

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

#72

Post by paganel » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 10:31 PM UTC

wolco wrote: post #55

I'm surprised by how little content will be offered for the price point that will increase shortly. The Simpsons and a new star wars show plus 500 movie titles. Max 50 titles by 2024. People may pick it up to try it but if there is nothing to keep them watching many will drop them. Surprised they are only spending a billion in new content per year and spending 150 million for 10 star wars episodes. Surprised they are…

Maybe people with kids will pick it up? Which, granted, it's a pretty big market, but even so I think you are correct on your assessment when it comes to the very few titles they'll have available.

And to be honest I don't know how much they'll be able to milk the Star Wars brand, it starts looking very, very stale. Even Pixar has started losing a big part of its attractiveness since it has been acquired by Disney, which I didn't think possible at the time of the acquisition.

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

#73

Post by AJ007 » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 10:32 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #14

smaili wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still remember growing up as a kid, my parents would constantly monitor the CRT to make sure I wasn't watching the Simpsons because it was "not for kids" :) I haven't been following much of the show but it could also be the writers toned down the content as the show progressed through the years to the point where Disney wouldn't mind airing it? It could also just be them recognizing the pull the Simpson has on view…

It may be that the sway of the “Moral Majority” has lost its clout. When Ellen first came out as gay on her show it was a big deal in the 90s and Murphy Brown having a child out of wedlock was a talking point by the Vice President. Now even cartoons aimed at kids show same sex couples (I can’t remember the name of the cartoon) and Disney and most corporations are ignoring them - including protest about an interracial…

You also have cartoons on Netflix and Hulu with full frontal nudity and graphic violence (decapitation, disembowelment, etc.)

I think what happened was the kids who weren’t allowed to watch The Simpsons, grew up, and realized the entire thing was silly, and they are the ones with kids now.

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

#74

Post by megaremote » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 10:34 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #8

friedman23 wrote: post #5

I think Disney+ will be more successful than anyone can imagine. I don't know how Netflix will survive when the competition of Disney+ and HBO Max will have 95% of the best tv shows and movies.

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…

> People still care about Disney’s animated movies from the 30s and even adults are nostalgic about the 90s X-men animated TV show and the original Star Wars from the 70s.

Come one. Saying people is a cop out? Everyone, no way. So how many people, because that is what matters.

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

#75

Post by anoncake » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 10:37 PM UTC

solipsism wrote: post #52

TeMPOraL wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how it works. For one, it's the age-old anticonsumer situation, but a fully distributed edition. People value movies and shows by title, not by distributor. Platforms aggregate orthogonally to that. The end result is, even if you ranked all the movies/shows by how much you wanted to that and restricted yourself to top 10, you'll likely end up having to subscribe to all the mainstream platforms to get them.…

Popular entertainment becomes popular culture, and if you want to participate in the society and build relationships with other people, you kind of have to be at least aware of some of the current offerings of that popular culture. Oh come on. Are you really claiming that if you can talk with your friends about Stranger Things, but not Game of Thrones because you don't have HBO, then you face some kind of serious imp…

1. If cultural works are important, it's important that people can access them.

2. If they aren't, let's get rid of them and reallocate resources to more important things.

3. If allocating resources is the job of the market, then the market has decided that these cultural works are important. GOTO 1.

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

#76

Post by prepend » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 10:41 PM UTC

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.

I stopped watching real time stuff (news, local, etc) and like watching old series an episode or two a day. TNG was great and it took a few months.

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

#77

Post by bitwize » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 10:41 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #14

smaili wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still remember growing up as a kid, my parents would constantly monitor the CRT to make sure I wasn't watching the Simpsons because it was "not for kids" :) I haven't been following much of the show but it could also be the writers toned down the content as the show progressed through the years to the point where Disney wouldn't mind airing it? It could also just be them recognizing the pull the Simpson has on view…

It may be that the sway of the “Moral Majority” has lost its clout. When Ellen first came out as gay on her show it was a big deal in the 90s and Murphy Brown having a child out of wedlock was a talking point by the Vice President. Now even cartoons aimed at kids show same sex couples (I can’t remember the name of the cartoon) and Disney and most corporations are ignoring them - including protest about an interracial…

They've been displaced by a new moral majority. For example, the producers have decided to erase the Michael Jackson episode of The Simpsons from history. Now that the Right People are burning books, book burning is A-OK with the Simpsons crew.

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

#78

Post by scarface74 » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 10:44 PM UTC

megaremote wrote: post #74

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…

> People still care about Disney’s animated movies from the 30s and even adults are nostalgic about the 90s X-men animated TV show and the original Star Wars from the 70s. Come one. Saying people is a cop out? Everyone, no way. So how many people, because that is what matters.

https://www.thewrap.com/disney-plus-subscriptions-more-than-...

Early hype for the Mouse House’s upcoming streaming service, Disney+, appears to be building, with 24% of Americans saying they’re “extremely likely” to subscribe once it’s available in November, according to a Tuesday survey from UBS. That would come out to about 30.2 million U.S households. Another 19% said they’re “somewhat likely” to subscribe, which, if grabbed by Disney, would add another 24.2 million U.S. households to its fold. Disney execs, on the other hand, have projected Disney+ will pull in up to 30 million subscribers by the end of 2024

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

#79

Post by didibus » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 10:45 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #35

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…

No, it’s much better than cable. Most people don’t watch that much TV and won’t need more than one or two services. Those people are saving a ton of money. And a few people that are glued to their TVs will pay more. As they should. I’m particularly happy that I no longer have to subsidize sports, which I never watched, to the tune of $20 a month or so.

Agreed, and people forget that you are not locked into contracts for any of them. That's the killer. Alternate them as you see fit, don't need to have them all at once. And since they all allow you to watch what you want when you want it, it's more like choosing a show to watch every month and paying only for that by subscribing for that service only for that month.

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

#80

Post by AJ007 » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 10:47 PM UTC

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…

How will there be a race to the bottom on price, when companies like Netflix are barely cashflow positive right now?

Will subscribers really decide to pay $5 a month for a subscription with a bunch of shows they don’t want to watch instead of $10 a month for a subscription with a few shows they really want to see?

How are these companies going to deliver more video ad value per viewer than someone like Google does with YouTube? They may have all of the big brand advertisers lined up, but will they ever even reach parity the revenue per user of Google and Facebook?