• Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
  • HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
  • Congratulations! If you're seeing this notice, it means you're connected to the new server. Go ahead and post as usual, enjoy!
  • I've just upgraded the forum software to Xenforo 2.0. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. I'm still working on installing styles... coming soon.

Disney is leaving Netflix and doing their own streaming

Flint

Flint

Prodigal Son
Superstar
I've seen a number of articles about Disney announcing they are leaving Netflix and launching their own streaming services (the articles are behind paywalls, so I am not providing links most of you cannot use).

They intend to make two streaming services, one for sports with their ESPN brand and another for entertainment (no mention of it will be branded ABC or Disney or something new). They will charge separately for their services.

What I was once afraid of was a preponderance of disparate streaming channels, like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, CBS, HBO, Cinemax, Crackle, SeeSo, and so on. With each demanding $5 to $25 a month to access them and each using their own app to access the content. This is already getting out of hand for me with the four services I current subscribe to. It also requires that whatever device or smart TV I use must be compatible with the streaming channel, which can be a problem in many cases.

If Disney is going to make me pay separately for sports than for entertainment, that's two bills and two apps. Don't like that.

However, Amazon has introduced "channels" to their Prime Video service which incorporates other streaming services into theirs, so I can access dozens of separate channels from the Amazon application or website. I like that, but the pricing model is still burdensome. I'd rather pay less for all my channels than I would otherwise have to pay for cable TV or satellite service. Hopefully Amazon can come up with a bundled pricing model which saves me money, or allows for utility billing where I only pay for what I choose to watch versus a flat monthly fee regardless of watching anything.

We'll see.
 
Flint said:
However, Amazon has introduced "channels" to their Prime Video service which incorporates other streaming services into theirs, so I can access dozens of separate channels from the Amazon application or website. I like that, but the pricing model is still burdensome. I'd rather pay less for all my channels than I would otherwise have to pay for cable TV or satellite service. Hopefully Amazon can come up with a bundled pricing model which saves me money, or allows for utility billing where I only pay for what I choose to watch versus a flat monthly fee regardless of watching anything.
Click to expand...

This sounds mostly like a version of what we currently have with cable/satellite, but with a different delivery model.

What I wonder is if, as more content providers go this way*, we will see a more stable selection of films and shows offered for streaming. With Netflix and Amazon Prime, we see things coming and going as rights deals begin and end. If Disney starts their own service there will be zero reason for them to have movies come and go over time- it ought to be pretty static with the exception of new shows and movies being added. I suppose they could do as they've always done and rotate content through, but there's no real reason to do that on their end unless they just want you to stick around and pay for the service because you can't just watch everything and drop it. That would make the service a worse value, however, if the stuff you see is at the mercy of whatever curator they're using.

Like you, I'm a little peeved that things are fracturing to this extent. You want these shows, you need this service. You want those movies, you need that one. And then there's the more traditional channels that require subscription through cable or satellite providers in lieu of a standalone price. We're going from one high price to a lot of low-to-moderate ones. It won't be hard to pay more and get less.

*If Disney/ESPN/ABC (the same company) does this, you can bet we'll see it with other content creators as well.
 
I am already pissed off about the rights issue. I subscribed to CBS All Access specifically because the new Start Trek was claimed to be only available via their app, and nowhere else. So, I signed up expecting to also get all their regular programming, which I tend to like (I like the long-format crime dramas they produce). But, to my dismay, I was halfway through a season of Elementary on CBS All Access and it disappeared because Hulu has an exclusive deal for that show which started when the new season started. I didn't know that and it didn't occur to me to look elsewhere for the remaining 11 episodes and I started watching the new season. Then I saw the previous season on Hulu and realized what happened. I was pissed - not because the show is that important to me, but because I missed out on the story development and leaped into the future with the next season. It made going back to the old shows uninteresting. Arg.
 
I'm having the same concerns... there are SO many standalone channels that we're going to get nickel and dimed into paying what I pay now for Dish. The ones that I really have a problem with are the youtube channels that have gone outside of YouTube and want $5/mo for their content. I totally understand their side of this, but there is no way they have 50% of the content of Netflix, Hulu or AmazonPrime.

However, I don't see a way out of this conundrum other than simply just paying for the startups that really don't have the catalog.
 
And people are actually surprised at the fragmentation with every content provider wanting to nickel-and-dime the consumer to death? Hint; buy this newfangled thing called an antenna, stick it on your roof, and watch for free.
 
First will come fragmentation, then consolidation. That is the nature of these things. It is still better than cable, because we can choose what we want to pay for.
 
rammisframmis said:
And people are actually surprised at the fragmentation with every content provider wanting to nickel-and-dime the consumer to death? Hint; buy this newfangled thing called an antenna, stick it on your roof, and watch for free.
Click to expand...

Not an option for alot of people. I would love to do this but I have tried various antenna solutions but reception where I live is horrible.
 
mzpro5 said:
Not an option for alot of people. I would love to do this but I have tried various antenna solutions but reception where I live is horrible.
Click to expand...

And antennas don't give you access to back catalogs. That's where the streaming services really shine- the ability to go back and catch up on things or watch movies that won't be airing OTA.
 
This is why I still collect movies and TV shows. I pay once and they are in my library.
 
I'm with Haywood I have so many movies on Vudu and tv series, I get Hulu plus from my brother in law, HBO Go from my mom, I pay for Netflix and also have the basic package from Directv which has all the shows I watch including local. My Directv is also hooked up to the net so I have their vast catalog of movies if I want to see something I don't already own. I have so much video content I just can't keep up. I'm surely not going to pay for CBS just to get Star Trek when all I ever watch on that network is NCIS which is on Netflix. I own over 100 Disney movies and I never watch any of them except the Marvel movies now and then. I figure I pay 30.00 a month for the basic Directv package and 8.00 for Netflix and about 100.00 a month on new movies for Vudu so me and my family are set. Nif I wasn't getting Directv each month so cheap I would've dropped them already but I like their DVR service and unlimited movies on demand for free.
 
When HBO announced that you subscribe to just their streaming service, that was the first domino, IMHO. At the time my comment was the big domino is ESPN. Once they have their own reasonably priced service/app the cable and satellite companies are doomed. The biggest reason some of us haven't cut the cord is sports and the majority of that, especially college football, is available through ESPN.

The short-term fragmentation does suck and the end result is a smaller net savings and more hassle. However, as Amazon and eventually other companies (anyone wanna bet that Walmart will be doing this soon?) offer to consolidate the services for you, those issues will slowly go away.

As this trend continues, many channels are either going to go away or try to stand on their own. The most interesting one to me is HGTV. A lot of people watch it, especially as wallpaper, but I don't know if they would actually pay for it directly.

As things go forward I can see the "bundling" companies helping people out more by offering a service that selects shows for the customers and shows them at specific times each day of the week so that consumers don't have to worry this. Then they can just plop down on the couch and start watching TV. (Circle complete.)

John
 
One of the best trends is allowing consumers to pay a bit more to forgo the ads. I'll happily pay that premium, as long as it is reasonable, and will generally shun channels that require ads. Watching linear TV just doesn't interest me.

Walmart is already in the game in the form of Vudu, which now offers ad-supported content as well as rentals and purchases. I personally don't have any interest in anything that involves watching ads, but I know others don't share my aversion and like free content.

I like the Amazon approach to bundling. If they supported UV, I would probably do a lot more business with them on the video side.
 
I can live with short ads when the content is free. What I can't live with is paying for channel's content AND having to sit through lots of ads. The TBS app is one glaring example. To access their streaming app your have to use the credentials from your TV provider. But while streaming you'll have to sit through two or three runs of 8-12 commercials.
 
I won't use any streaming service that subjects me to a lot of ads. I even pay for YouTube Red.
 
That bummed me out when I read it. I've not really been happy with internet TV as thought as I would. The biggest issue is with channel surfing. For some games, I hate having to go in and out of apps to catch games (Fox Sports to ESPN and back). Other is having to log in the app and verify your provider. To be honest, I've thought about going back to Dish at times.
 
And then they wonder why their stuff gets torrented!

When one minute you have the paid right to access something and the next you don't? Torrent what they took away. The self-guilt bar gets set pretty low in cases like that.
 
So far as I know, I own all of the Star Wars, Marvel and Pixar movies as well as most of the Disney classics and a fair number of their older live action movies (The Herbie movies, Snowball Express, Apple Dumpling Gang, etc.).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top