Disney's New Netflix Rival Will Be Called Disney+, Launch Late 2019 (cnbc.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Disney's New Netflix Rival Will Be Called Disney+, Launch Late 2019 (cnbc.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Friday November 9, 2018 @01:00AM from the streaming-fragmentation dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: Disney's new streaming service will be called Disney+ and launch in late 2019, CEO Bob Iger announced on the company's earnings call Thursday. The service will also feature new, original shows and movies, including original Marvel and Star Wars series. Marvel fan favorite character Loki, played by Tom Hiddleston, will get an original series on the Disney+ service. A prequel series to Star Wars movie "Rogue One" about the character Cassian Andor, portrayed by Diego Luna, will also call the service home.

Other original shows and movies include a rebooted version of The High School Musical franchise. It will also be a hub for animated content, including the next season of "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" and an new original animated series based on Pixar's "Monsters Inc." Exclusive movies include "Noel," a Christmas movie about Santa's daughter played by Anna Kendrick, and "Togo," a movie about the 1925 Nome Serum Run starring William DaFoe. Disney launched a placeholder website for Disney+ that shows off logos of brands like Pixar, National Geographic and Marvel. Last year, Disney announced that it would remove all its movies from Netflix in 2019 to entice consumers to use their own streaming offering. It also purchased Fox for $71.3 billion to bolster its library of content.

182 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

You're too late disney. Go back to licensing to others.
I for one won't be paying 5 different video sites just to get the films/shows I want. Seriously all of you, sort it the f*ck out and cross-license.
1. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Midnight+Thunder · 2018-11-09 01:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If I had the mod points I’d vote you up. Fed up of the new format where it is all about exclusive licensing. Almost makes want to to back to Blu-rays or less official sources.
  
  --
  Jumpstart the tartan drive.
2. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:14 · Score: 0
  
  I totally agree
  AND I think they will fail
3. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  First this site's audience screams for a la carte programming on cable - for years. Then the internet makes it possible, and studios provide it.
  This is what a la carte looks like. Its just being served by multiple caterers instead of one buffet.
  Now the audience complains that they dont want piecemeal programming after all?
4. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by michiganbob · 2018-11-09 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  As much as I hate it, you know families with kids are going to jump all over this. Park the kids in front of the TV, fire up Disney+, and grab yourself a bottle of wine!
5. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by mentil · 2018-11-09 01:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Don't worry, with all the M&A going on in the US, soon we'll just have ONE media conglomerate, and it'll be $129/mo. + tax + fees for the privilege of accessing their stuff. Required Internet connection sold separately, additional data rates WILL apply, offer void in Your State.
  
  --
  Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
6. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  And jerk off to Snow White!
7. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:28 · Score: 0
  
  If the price is good ill pay for it.
  Kodi makes using multiple streaming services painless
8. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah and there a lot of full grown adults that treat Disney like a religion. I remember enjoying Disney World as a kid but these people that have been 10+ times I just don't get it.
9. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by gerald.edward.butler · 2018-11-09 01:34 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Disney cartoons/shows (not the old stuff, but, the modern stuff since the 90's) is the most insidious, destructive shit you can have your children watch. This shit should be banned from your household. Give you kids something to do. Don't let them sit for hours watching the crap that is Disney. No it is not Family Friendly. It is insidious garbage designed to turn your children into mindless consumers.
10. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by AmiMoJo · 2018-11-09 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  They are probably hoping that kids pestering their parents will get them lots of subscriptions. Shameless.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
11. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:39 · Score: 0
  
  You have a choice you know not to buy their services.
12. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:46 · Score: 0
  
  It's a bit different though. Channels usually have certain type of programming. People like different channels. Now they are spreading all similar programming to different providers, each which cost $10+/month. You have netflix, HBO, disney+, dplay, Fox whatever and all local networks have their own. Moronic.
  It's fine to have few options, but now everything is spread too wide.
  Personally i won't pay for a single one. I'll keep watching reruns of Simpsons then. Fuck it.
13. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Agree! After years of wanting such a service, Netflix was the answer. Now comes everyone else trying to do the same thing and get in on the action. People are just not going to want to pay for multiple providers especially when they are used to having had everything in the one place, so expect piracy to go up again.
14. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:55 · Score: 0
  
  I do think there's at least room for ONE content creator to also be in the content licensing business, and since Disney has some very unique demographics (people with little kids for instance) a lot of parents might be willing to pay to have the whole Disney catalog available on demand. I'd say they have the best chance as anybody.
15. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Gilgaron · 2018-11-09 01:55 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Depends on the price point... Netflix is $8-$12 a month. If they are at the same price they may not do any better than you're predicting, but this is Disney... they sell toys and tickets to theme parks, big movies in theatres, their content is advertising for merchandise. If they sell the streaming just barely above cost I think they'll win big. If they could sell it at $3 or $4 a month without losing their pants then everyone with children will end up being subscribers. Prime Video has some cool kids programs, but you don't see T shirts at Target with Tumbeleaf characters on them.
16. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  www.thepiratebay.org
17. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Austerity+Empowers · 2018-11-09 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  I will buy it just as soon as I get around to CBS all access.
18. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  Much of the Disney Junior stuff is pretty good actually. Their tween/teen stuff is dreck. The stuff for preschool through about third grade is fine.
19. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by squiggleslash · 2018-11-09 01:59 · Score: 2
  
  It's fine. No, really it is. You see, nobody's going to pay 5 different video sites $10-15 a month to get the films and shows they want on top of cable. Like you said. Kinda. You just didn't add the "why" which I did for you by adding the price.
  So... things will change. Long term you'll probably ditch cable. You'll subscribe to Amazon Prime, because free shipping, free music, free movies, free free free, and then the question will be what other services will you subscribe to?
  And that's where the different companies have to compete for your dollars. Disney isn't just competing against Netflix, it's also against Hulu, that CBS channel that shows the Star Trek, and DC Universe, to name but a few off the top of my head. Hulu's pretty compelling, a Netflix like library plus a way to watch the major shows on 80% of OTA channels no later than the day after they're aired. The CBS thing... not so much. DCU I can't comment on, but notice it's ALREADY cheap, it's like $6 a month if you subscribe a year in advance. And like Amazon it isn't just TV and movies. Which is good because the selection is poor right now.
  What'll happen is they'll realize they're too expensive, or do not have enough content, or both, and those that are the worst value will have to cut prices, change, or disappear, with their content inevitably being swallowed by those remaining.
  So it's not a problem. Relax. And be honest, virtually everything you'd want to watch that's made by Disney, as an adult, you'd rather buy anyway.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
20. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  Frankly, Disney should be dismantled. Broken up in to smaller parts like Microsoft was. They're nothing more than an abusive behemoth.
21. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 02:01 · Score: 0
  
  I'm guessing they would have been more successful with this service if it was launched _before_ they made nobody care about Star Wars anymore. That might have been their biggest leverage point, otherwise.
22. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 02:01 · Score: 0
  
  What are you rambling about? I agree with the tweener series they run on Disney channel but the big get would be the movies and parents still buy those like they are going out of style. And the movies are no worse for your kids than most anything else.
  Meanwhile you still log in with a google+ account. Does swillden give you a reach around each time you sign in?
23. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by gerald.edward.butler · 2018-11-09 02:03 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  > The stuff for preschool through about third grade is fine.
  No, it just seems like it is. Actually watch it closely. It is incredibly bad in the way it is designed to brainwash children into becoming consumer addicts.
  Seriously, do not subject your children to that garbage. Get them out in the fresh air. Do things together. In fact, just throw the television in the garbage can. If I could do it again, I would.
24. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by mcvos · 2018-11-09 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  I'd definitely prefer to have Disney movies on Netflix, but with Disney owning Star Wars, Marvel, the muppets, Pixar, and tons of other stuff, I might actually be willing to drop Netflix for them.
  Although I also need to switch to Amazon for Good Omens. Yes, licensing would have been a lot better.
  But as long as we have to wait until late 2019, can we please get Disney back of Netflix in the mean time?
25. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Zocalo · 2018-11-09 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  Totally agree with the sentiment also, but I doubt very much they will fail. Despite Disney's media content being essentially one giant advert for Disney's merchandising departments, far too many parents are going to cave in and buy it because it'll keep their kids quiet, out of trouble, and let them avoid doing some actual parenting.
  
  Closer to home and the demographics more commonly represented here on Slashdot, CBS All Access was panned when when it was announced too, with lots of comments along the lines of "I won't pay another sub just for 'Star Trek: Discovery' (and maybe CSI:whatever)" here and elsewhere, yet it still has about 2mil. US subscribers mostly gained on the back of Discovery. By comparison Disney owns the Marvel, Pixar, *and* Star Wars franchises (amongst others), all of which have a large overlap in popularity with those who watch Trek. Should Disney decide to stream all series from those franchises on Disney+ one day before general release to cable, etc., then I can easily see them being the service that many will pay for then mop up the few other shows they watch from less legal sources.
  
  --
  UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
26. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by mcvos · 2018-11-09 02:07 · Score: 2
  
  This is not really a la carte. This is a couple of big buffets, with each combining a few real treats with a lot of stuff I don't care about.
  I'd prefer a single service that carries Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, Stranger Things, Good Omens, The Expanse, and Game of Thrones. That would be a la carte.
27. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 02:08 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  I'm sorry that your retarded uncle molested you while you were watching Children's Television Workshop and Mister Rogers. That must've been traumatic. But, please, don't take it out on other children. Get help now.
  goose, gander, sauce
28. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 02:10 · Score: 0
  
  Since when did Netflix have anything remotely close to everything in one place?
29. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by mlw4428 · 2018-11-09 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  They did that. You still bitched. It was called a "cable package." Content providers are in it for money. There's not money to be made allowing people to choose 1-5 channels. It makes negotiating distribution fees and whatnot very challenging and costly and when people aren't wanting to pay more than like $50/month (and want to pay a lot less) they aren't going to easily make ends meet.
30. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by yeshuawatso · 2018-11-09 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Not a good idea for everyone to just cross license as you'll likely see a duplicate of cable today with everyone having average price minimums. There aren't that many content producers and they're going to want to maximize profit by mandatory tying of unpopular/unprofitable content with that of the stuff people actually want. Maybe in the EU these practices may be stopped but here in the States, highly unlikely. Having all these competitors trying to offer their own services will force prices down as the race for the bottom starts to occur after more consumers like your self say "f**k it!" What I could see happening though is the rise of centralized pointers, or organizations that exists solely to manage not only indexing the libraries from these providers but billing, logins, and ease of access. We're already seeing Apple and Amazon attempting this on their respective set top boxes. I just hope this part of the innovation doesn't come from the incumbent tech giants. And yes, I am aware of the old is new again effect occurring with these centralized pointers, but let's just let the kids think they're doing something different.
31. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 02:12 · Score: 0
  
  The parent beat me to it. Disney is amazingly late to the game. They need to figure out how to get their ESPN franchise brought into the fold, and made accessible. The one good thing that Disney is doing is divorcing ESPN from politics. Their head said something like "people come to sports to get AWAY from politics."
  Would love to listen into their meetings internal, and see how clued they are about missing the boat, and their alternatives are. I cannot imagine now having a Disney app and subscribing... But maybe there's a market segment for exclusively (parents of ) kids. Which Netflix and Amazon have left the door open for? I can see the dual income mom, whose hubby has cut the cord, too bothered to be with her kids after a long day, handing the kids the TV or iPad, locked in to the Disney Channel?
32. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  If I had the mod points I’d vote you up. Fed up of the new format where it is all about exclusive licensing. Almost makes want to to back to Blu-rays or less official sources.
  I have no qualms whatsoever. It's Netflix or piracy.
  Disney just makes it easier to decide for Netflix AND piracy.
33. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  Disney cartoons/shows (not the old stuff, but, the modern stuff since the 90's) is the most insidious, destructive shit you can have your children watch. This shit should be banned from your household. Give you kids something to do. Don't let them sit for hours watching the crap that is Disney. No it is not Family Friendly. It is insidious garbage designed to turn your children into mindless consumers.
  We can all berate Disney but c'mon man at least Ducktales was fucking good. And its modern remake is not to shabby by Disney standards. If Disney as a corporation died it would be a day to celebrate nonetheless.
34. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  maybe. parents like disney for their kids but they aren't going to do crazy things just to see the latest whatever movie
35. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 02:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  There are plenty of a la carte services: Amazon's Prime Videos, Apple's iTunes Store, and Google's Play Store. Going only a la carte could save you money depending on the shows you are interested in. I'm guessing how it'll end up with most people will be they'll subscribe to one or two services and get other content a la carte. Or people will rotate their subscriptions to get the all content they want in rotating basis.
36. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Zocalo · 2018-11-09 02:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There's a la carte and a la carte. What most consumers wanted was the ability to pick specific channels - or even shows - from a single menu that was more nuanced than bundles of channels under banners like "Drama", "Movies", "Sports", and so on; why pay for all the drama channels if you only want to watch CSI, for instance? All this new model does is change those bundles from types of shows to vendors of shows - "CBS", "Disney", "HBO", and so on - consumers are still being asked to pay for bundles that contain multiple shows they have no interest in.
  
  When cord cutting meant Netflix and/or Amazon Prime and most content people cared about could be obtained there using something approaching to the a la carte (PAYG) model they wanted all was good; the use of BitTorrent, Kodi hacks, and other alternative means of acquiring content even went into decline. Then every man and his dog with studio decided that they wanted to cut out the middleman rather than just license content to multiple providers like Amazon and Netflix because it meant a little more projected profit, and we're back to square one - screw the consumer. Needless to say, the use of BitTorrent etc. is climbing again, and I hope it continues to do so - maybe if it wipes out enough studio's projected profits they'll see the light and we might get a true one stop shop a la carte system. Of course, since this is Hollywood we're talking about, that's probably about as likely as the average Disney plot.
  
  --
  UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
37. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 02:33 · Score: 0
  
  The only few things I bother watching that Disney owns is typically in theater anyways, so I couldn't care less.
  Iff I have kids at some point, I'll give them a diet of non-Disney and let it die a bit with my generation. It's all greed, it has nothing to do with culture.
38. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Drethon · 2018-11-09 02:38 · Score: 2
  
  If I had the mod points I’d vote you up. Fed up of the new format where it is all about exclusive licensing. Almost makes want to to back to Blu-rays or less official sources.
  I've already started watching more movies via Netflix dvd service it seems like. Guess I'll just stop streaming at some point as content providers drop Netflix and stick with the one format, so far, that any rental company can work with.
39. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  When the alternative is nothing. You get the point the point of the comment, don't take it to something else just so you can bitch about it.
40. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 02:55 · Score: 0
  
  While I'm with you, I think parents with young children will choose this as their only streaming service over netflix; Disney has enough content, and if it's not on Netflix (which seems to be happening) they will, I suspect, get enough subscribers to make it worth their while. Once momentum builds from that, who knows...
41. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by AmiMoJo · 2018-11-09 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  Of course you don't have to subscribe to them all at once. Do a month or two of Netflix, then switch to something else for a bit.
  If you do it that way the cost isn't bad really, you can get several complete series for under $10.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
42. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by mjwx · 2018-11-09 02:56 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You're too late disney. Go back to licensing to others.
  Foresaw this I did, listen you did not. Buying up all the licensed media they did, control they gained. Now channel they launch. Back to the old days we go, packaged subscriptions we get. For Fox or Star Wars, extra you must pay.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
43. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  Unless Disney will let you view individual movies instead of purchasing their 'bulk', it's not a la carte. Valiant attempt at trolling though.
44. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  It'll be fun watching this train wreck no?
45. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by mjwx · 2018-11-09 03:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Don't worry, with all the M&A going on in the US, soon we'll just have ONE media conglomerate, and it'll be $129/mo. + tax + fees for the privilege of accessing their stuff. Required Internet connection sold separately, additional data rates WILL apply, offer void in Your State.
  For those of us not on FinanceDot... M&A means "Mergers and Acquisitions". Post was spot on though.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
46. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by lgw · 2018-11-09 03:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  By comparison Disney owns the Marvel, Pixar, *and* Star Wars franchises (amongst others), all of which have a large overlap in popularity with those who watch Trek. Should Disney decide to stream all series from those franchises on Disney+ one day before general release to cable, etc., then I can easily see them being the service that many will pay for then mop up the few other shows they watch from less legal sources.
  Those were once nerdy franchises, to be sure. However, I'm done with Star Wars until there's a major shift in creative control, Marvel is getting stale, and Pixar has been in a drought for a long time.
  Not to say they won't make money, but I think the "News for Nerds" audience is moving on.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
47. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2018-11-09 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  What most consumers wanted was the ability to pick specific channels - or even shows - from a single menu that was more nuanced
  I don't know why nerdy people want that. It doesn't matter whether you're sold 1 perfect channel or 10,000. Your total consumed content stays the same, and therefore the economic value to you is the same. If they ship all 10,000 channels to everyone, or 1 perfect channel to all people (assuming some people want whatever is on those 10,000 channels), the same amount of content is produced. Information wants to be free/the cost of sending all the other channels is negligible. So, total cost is the same. Total revenue is going to be the same, cause the value to the person is the same. The only difference is that instead of amortizing the costs over all the sports fans, we don't have them subsidizing our shows.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
48. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  We used to call that "Blockbuster"
49. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 03:31 · Score: 0
  
  For those of us not on FinanceDot... M&A means "Mergers and Acquisitions".
  Honestly, if you've been in the tech industry for more than 2 years and don't know what M&A means, you've been living under a rock.
  The entire industry has been doing M&A for 20+ years.
50. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  The sale of Fox to Disney was approved earlier this year and is scheduled to be completed in mid 2019. All of the Fox movies, all of the Fox television programs (e.g., Simpsons) will be added to Disney's assets. All of the superhero franchises, all of the Star Wars franchise, Pixar, Indiana Jones franchise, Avatar franchise--all of the top grossing films of all time will be owned by Disney.
  Time will tell how if Disney will make it all available on Disney+. If they do, Netflix will be in a tough position.
51. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Bert64 · 2018-11-09 03:47 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Exactly, fragmentation and inconvenience will simply drive users to piracy...
  Subscribing to one service for all your shows and movies is ok for most people, having to subscribe to a bunch of different services is a hassle people don't want, and that's assuming all of the services are available in your location and on the devices you have.
  Thepiratebay on the other hand provides all content and is usable on all devices,
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
52. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Ol+Olsoc · 2018-11-09 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  The only few things I bother watching that Disney owns is typically in theater anyways, so I couldn't care less.
  Iff I have kids at some point, I'll give them a diet of non-Disney and let it die a bit with my generation. It's all greed, it has nothing to do with culture.
  Over time, Disney offerings have become rather political. And those who don't believe that just happen to agree with Disney's politics.
  Even so, a rebooted High School Musical? Damn, just be careful to not get hurt in the stampede to sign up, y'all!
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
53. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Ol+Olsoc · 2018-11-09 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  T Closer to home and the demographics more commonly represented here on Slashdot, CBS All Access was panned when when it was announced too, with lots of comments along the lines of "I won't pay another sub just for 'Star Trek: Discovery'
  STD HAR!, they should have thought of a different name with an alphabetization like that - anyhow STD has been widely panned for being terribly un-Star Trek like, and cinematically bad. Parts I've seen of it look like overacted, with so much overly dramatic lighting that it doesn't communicate basic cinematic cues.
  The cinematics indeed look like something from people who flunked out of film school. I'd be pissed if i signed up for CBS all access just to get that POS.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
54. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Ol+Olsoc · 2018-11-09 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  Those were once nerdy franchises, to be sure. However, I'm done with Star Wars until there's a major shift in creative control, Marvel is getting stale, and Pixar has been in a drought for a long time.
  Not to say they won't make money, but I think the "News for Nerds" audience is moving on.
  I'm totally stoked to watch Star Wars, Social Justice Succeeds.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
55. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Ol+Olsoc · 2018-11-09 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah and there a lot of full grown adults that treat Disney like a religion. I remember enjoying Disney World as a kid but these people that have been 10+ times I just don't get it.
  Brother in law and his wife actually moved to Florida to be near Disney World. Weird, once was enough for me. Then again, he thinks it's weird that the wife and I like to visit Kennedy Space Center.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
56. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Disney owns a bunch of media companies as well, which could give you things like your 24/7 news and weather, meaning its more appealing from people switching from Cable tv.
57. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Spy+Handler · 2018-11-09 04:16 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Um.... fuck Netflix. AND fuck Disney. Just use piratebay. Let these greedy corporate scum die already.
58. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by MachineShedFred · 2018-11-09 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  Until Disney buys some shit you do care about and makes it exclusive to this service.
  Not like they're hurting for money.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
59. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  I wouldn't say nothing would happen. Here is my prediction:
  1) Disney removes all their movies from Netflix in a pouty mood.
  2) People stop watching Disney movies. (WTF is Disney+?)
  3) Disney fades into obscurity because of one bad move. (Taking things off of Netflix.)
  4) ???
  5) Profit!
  This is similar to some Youtubers trying to go to over platforms like Vimeo. You'll just end up cutting off your entire audience, then fade into obscurity.
60. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by MachineShedFred · 2018-11-09 04:37 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Nope. Sorry. You can call this mess "a la carte" if you would like, but you would be wrong.
  The concept of a la carte television was to pay vastly reduced rates for only the channels we want - no bundling in 30 channels of crap nobody every watches in order to subsidize the 4 channels people care about, and the option to not pay for expensive channels that you don't want.
  What this is, is being forced to subscribe to multiple bundles of bullshit you don't want just to see the few shows that you do. It's no different, except for being a useability nightmare - oh, I want to watch $SHOW, is it on Netflix, Hulu, YouTube TV, Disney+, HBO Now, CBS whatever, etc. etc. At least with cable, it was all one shitty cable box that had a single guide, rather than having to search, launch something else, search, launch something else, search, ad nauseum.
  The market won't put up with this bullshit, and piracy will rise. Netflix and Hulu were successful because they had content from across the industry available, and it worked. This shit will barely move the needle from what they get from additional cable bundle subscriptions.
  The lesson of Napster / Limewire was not learned by the movie studios, so they are doomed to repeat it. The more fragmented and locked down they make it, the users will reject it and go another way, legal or not.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
61. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by DontBeAMoran · 2018-11-09 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Either I woke up in an alternate universe today, or you're thinking of another company than Microsoft.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
62. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by skam240 · 2018-11-09 04:53 · Score: 2
  
  "So it's not a problem. Relax. And be honest, virtually everything you'd want to watch that's made by Disney, as an adult, you'd rather buy anyway."
  I was nodding along until this last point. I'm entertained enough to watch their comic movies once but not so much that I'd ever want to watch them again. Likewise with Star Wars (except for Rogue One).
  In fact, aside from Rogue One I can't think of any Disney movies from the last decade that I'd want to watch more than once, thus justifying a blu ray purchase.
  Fortunately there are alternate methods to obtaining movies outside outright purchase and streaming. I strongly suspect movie piracy rates will increase due to this Disney move.
  
  --
  I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
63. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Ranbot · 2018-11-09 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  You're too late disney. Go back to licensing to others.
  I for one won't be paying 5 different video sites just to get the films/shows I want. Seriously all of you, sort it the f*ck out and cross-license.
  Hmmm... If only there were companies with the internet hardware infrastructure connected to customer's homes and a vast network of business relationships with all of the competing content networks to bring them to customers in a convenient package. Who could that be????
  Mind you, that's not an argument for cable, it's dying. The old cable oligarchs will squeeze every penny from it, but I think it's very naive to believe they won't take back the reins from streamers, even plucky tech start-ups and cute little mice.
64. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  Did you really not expect this to happen?
65. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by sexconker · 2018-11-09 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  Frozen 3, exclusively on Disney+!
  50 million subscriptions, instantly.
66. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by nasch · 2018-11-09 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  Netflix is not at all the a la carte model. You pay for Netflix and you get everything, whether you have any interest in it or not. People are totally fine with that because it costs $10 a month or whatever it is. Amazon Prime is partially a la carte. Some stuff is included in the base price, and other stuff you pay more or you don't get it.
  It's only when they're paying upwards of $80 a month that people start complaining that they're paying for stuff they don't want. It's really not a la carte vs bundling that's the issue, it's money.
67. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by CohibaVancouver · 2018-11-09 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  This is not really a la carte. This is a couple of big buffets, with each combining a few real treats with a lot of stuff I don't care about.
  Of course it is. People used to complain back in the day that if they wanted the History Channel they also had to pay for A&E, AMC, TLC and HGTV.
  
  Now it's A La Carte - You can choose between Netflix, Prime, Hulu, CBS, Disney. If you subscribe to Netflix it no longer means that you have to take Prime as well.
68. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  About 5 years ago, when you could use vpn to region hop. And before they turned into a studio.
69. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by lgw · 2018-11-09 06:47 · Score: 2
  
  That seems to have been more of a Rian Johnson problem than a larger problem with the franchise. However, the franchise has been IMO creatively bankrupt since Disney took over, unwilling to add anything really new to the established film universe (with the notable exception of Rebels, for all that it was aimed at a younger audience). TFA was effectively a reboot, Rogue One and Solo were prequels, and TLJ ignored consistency with character or canon, yet still didn't go anywhere new, being very similar in outline to ESB.
  Tell an original story guys, not something we already know. Or pick one of the good multi-book story lines from the EU, that's fine too. That will at least be new ground for film audiences.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
70. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  The concept of a la carte television was to pay vastly reduced rates
  Which could only be possible if someone else were paying vastly INCREASED rates because the cost to deliver content doesn't go down when the number of potential viewers goes down, it goes up. The whole thing was an idiotic pipe dream that failed to take into account economic reality, not the least of which is the concept that products and services are priced based on what the market will bear and not the cost to produce or the value delivered. Any low-cost alternatives will inevitably expand to fill the available revenue space.
71. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by ZiakII · 2018-11-09 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Can I get an exception on the new Ducktales? That show is amazing.
72. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by tlhIngan · 2018-11-09 07:06 · Score: 2
  
  Don't worry, with all the M&A going on in the US, soon we'll just have ONE media conglomerate, and it'll be $129/mo. + tax + fees for the privilege of accessing their stuff. Required Internet connection sold separately, additional data rates WILL apply, offer void in Your State.
  In other words, we'll end up just like we are today with cable.
  Funny how we want A La Carte, Then we get A La Carte, and now we complain it's not bundled into packages.
73. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  That's right, freetard, it's well known that television series and films spontaneously come into existence, fully formed.
74. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by CrashNBrn · 2018-11-09 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  We'll see, Disney will own a 60% share of Hulu after it's acquisition of Fox is finalized. And while Hulu is half-decent, most of it's content is just some of what airs on NBC, ABC and Fox, plus some classic shows - many incomplete, c.f. only season one of Newhart.
75. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  wait.. What color are the spoons at steak and shake? Did they used to be red or where they always white?
76. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  That ala carte was not priced like we thought either. Of course, not all things are equal. But the sum of the parts costed more than the whole, like pretty much anything. The ala carte was imposed, but the pricing wasn't. Soooo... FAIL.
  But I agree, it'll just be like cable, except more on demand from many sources.
77. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by DaFallus · 2018-11-09 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  > The stuff for preschool through about third grade is fine.
  No, it just seems like it is. Actually watch it closely. It is incredibly bad in the way it is designed to brainwash children into becoming consumer addicts.
  Seriously, do not subject your children to that garbage. Get them out in the fresh air. Do things together. In fact, just throw the television in the garbage can. If I could do it again, I would.
  Can you please provide an example of how Puppy Dog Pals is designed to brainwash children into becoming consumer addicts?
  
  --
  No one cares what your captcha was
  
  Houston TX, USA
78. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Darinbob · 2018-11-09 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  It'll be a long time until that is sorted out. All of those programs are owned by big players who seem anxious to make their own streaming service while acquiring other content so that they can become the next Netflix. Ie, most movies that people bitch about not being on Netflix are owned by Starz; the Marvel superhero movies are all Disney now; etc. Nobody wants a generic service except for Netflix and Amazon and Hulu, but those are the same companies that the content owners want to take down.
  An easy way to solve this is to just get used to the fact that you don't get everything. After a year or two it just seems normal that you don't get to see the same-day release of Walking Dead and have to wait a year, or that Doctor Who will never appear on a streaming service again, and so forth. In other words, live with the concept that there is no such thing as "must see TV". Right now if you can't get your fill of enough viewing options with Netflix + Amazon Video then you're being too picky.
79. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by thegarbz · 2018-11-09 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  If they could sell it at $3 or $4 a month
  They wouldn't, and will continue to milk their consumer base just like they do with their existing Vault concept.
80. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Darinbob · 2018-11-09 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  Back when people wanted ala-carte from cable, they really wanted "channels" and not individual shows or movies. So your "TBS" channel would include a wide variety of programming, movies from every major studio, and so forth. Ala-carte meant that you wanted TBS + BBC America + IFC, but no sports, no MSNBC, no home shopping, etc.
  The content owners however don't want that model for streaming - they now want to be in the streaming business themselves and get a piece of the pie. They don't want to share their content with others because they think they can make more money that way. So the "streaming" idea of channels means getting something like TBS where all the movies you want to see have been yanked off and all you get are Turner original content plus Scoobie Doo; and if there were a SyFy channel is would only include the crappy SyFy made movies like Mansquito, but not Alien or Star Wars.
  This is what is causing Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu to start creating their own content because they no longer have rights to as large a catalog as they used to. Five years ago with Netflix was awesome because you had access to so much stuff, but that was when the content owners didn't think there was much of a market in streaming.
  Maybe in the future things will settle out, but with declining cable usage the content owners will have to come to the understanding that they will no longer be able to keep the same size piece of pie from the monthly cable bill. They may also learn that their own streaming service sucks and nobody likes it (look at the miserable piece of junk that CBS All-Access is).
81. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 10:31 · Score: 0
  
  How much do you want to bet that Disney+ is IMMENSELY popular and ends up burying Netflix?
  I'll bet you $100 USD that happens. It's Disney. Most people love them, they own a lot of companies people love (Lucasfilm, Marvel, Fox, ABC, ESPN, The History Channel, etc.), they don't usually fuck things up and they already own Hulu.
82. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 10:47 · Score: 0
  
  If I could have all media ever produced anywhere by anyone for $129 a month? All music, all movies, all TV shows, all pay per view, etc.
  I'd pay it.
  captcha: besieged
83. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Darinbob · 2018-11-09 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  No, the amount of content being consumed is actually going down when people cut the cord. A lot of times cable subscribers watch stuff that they otherwise might not care about just because it's available as a part of the subscription and they're bored. Once the consumer decides that there's too much junk out there, that they only really need a few set of shows, and that they can save a TON of money by canceling cable, they quickly learn to watch less TV or learn to watch different shows.
  The content owners still believe that the total amount of content will remain the same and that viewers will be willing to pay the same amount money per month as they did under the cable model. And that's where things are going to fall apart. Because some customers will realize that $10/mo for a crappy streaming service is a waste of money, and 10 crappy streaming services gets them back into the same awful mess that they had with cable. So if the kids are older and no longer screaming that they have to see Frozen people will dump it.
84. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by gerald.edward.butler · 2018-11-09 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  Buy the toys that are advertised with it.
85. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2018-11-09 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  No, the amount of content being consumed is actually going down when people cut the cord. A lot of times cable subscribers watch stuff that they otherwise might not care about just because it's available as a part of the subscription and they're bored.
  
  You're right!! Binging on content was something solved by Netflix.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
86. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 13:00 · Score: 0
  
  Asylum films is doing great and it isn't because people are watching their films. It's because they're getting paid to build 50000 movie catalogs of shit with gold nuggets on top.
87. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 13:29 · Score: 0
  
  I told you, stop sucking the dicks of 12 year old boys. It's RAPE you fucking child molester. Come out of the shadows you cowardly fucking shill!
  goose, gander, sauce
88. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 13:35 · Score: 0
  
  There's plenty of money to be made once everyone adjusts their pricing. Obviously content creators are going to have to lower their prices for licensing and it hardly matters anyway when they're all rearranging vertically around collections of IP. I predict that eventually two of them will make a power move to distinguish themselves and come to some agreement to offer some of each other's content clustered around special interests. From there we'll eventually get the packages we want as the competition is eventually gobbled up and i can stop subsidizing content nobody watches and sports which I don't watch.
89. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 19:39 · Score: 0
  
  In what way? I used to watch DuckTales, DarkWing Duck and Gargoyles. Nothing wrong with them.
  Also Star Wars Rebels is fucking awesome.
90. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Sarah+Higgins · 2018-11-10 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  You're too late disney. Go back to licensing to others.
  I for one won't be paying 5 different video sites just to get the films/shows I want. Seriously all of you, sort it the f*ck out and cross-license.
  You're absolutely right
91. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by ConceptJunkie · 2018-11-11 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  I only ever watched the first episode, and during the most dramatic scene with the main character, um, Steve? Ralph? No, Michael... arguing with Captain Michelle Yeoh I was literally laughing out loud at the ridiculous, amateur-looking, lighting effects, the lens flares were so exaggerated they made JJ Abrams' work look subtle in comparison. And let's not even mention the story, or the fact that the cold opening broke canon before there was even opening credits. There was more incompetence in that episode than in any dozen of the bad episodes Star Trek put out over the last few decades. I'd rather watch the episode where Captain Janeway gets turned into a salamander, because at least that episode had a promising premise.
  
  --
  You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
92. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Ol+Olsoc · 2018-11-11 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  I I'd rather watch the episode where Captain Janeway gets turned into a salamander, because at least that episode had a promising premise.
  Oh boy. Kinky salamander sex with Tom Paris. I didn't mind that episode, although I laughed like hell at it.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
93. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-11 16:51 · Score: 0
  
  No, the amount of content being consumed is actually going down when people cut the cord. A lot of times cable subscribers watch stuff that they otherwise might not care about just because it's available as a part of the subscription and they're bored.
  You're right!! Binging on content was something solved by Netflix.
  People kill a weekend killing a season on a single show they actually like when the season gets released, then go back to not watching anything at all for days-weeks on end.
94. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Blue23 · 2018-11-13 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Funny how we want A La Carte, Then we get A La Carte, and now we complain it's not bundled into packages.
  I'm fine with A La Carte - at A La Carte prices. But Netflix losing a bunch won't reduce their price - and we've already seen various newcomers coming in with the business model that they'll pull in $8.99/mo or whatever near-Netflix cost.
  Giving me A La Carte and charging me full entree price for each is what I dislike. You give me a bunch in the $0.99 to $1.99 that have a reasonable but narrow selection and I'll pick out several.
  It's like CBS All Access - they have a lot of the CBS back catalog - which I didn't bother to DVR when it was on for free the first time. Plus popular shows like Bing Bang Theory are missing 80%+ of their episodes because they are tied up in international licensing.
  Amazon already tried carving of it's own bit - they put out Anime Strike on top of Prime Video. Failed fast - which is good, it didn't hemorrhage money that way.
  
  --
  LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? C. MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
will they force ESPN to be part of this? by Joe_Dragon · 2018-11-09 01:05 · Score: 1

will they force ESPN to be part of this?
1. Re:will they force ESPN to be part of this? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  no, because why would they combine services when they can bilk you for two subs instead of just one?
People will go back to piracy. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

People are going to go running back to piracy rather than pay for and have to use 10 different apps and services just to get access to all content, vs just one torrent site.
1. Re: People will go back to piracy. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:19 · Score: 0
  
  Oh it gets better. Thanks to that commie Net Nuetrality getting thrown out, youâ(TM)ll only be given âoeunlimited streamingâ from a select number of sources. Streaming from a âoenon-partner providerâ will incur fees, bigly fees
Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:08 · Score: 1

I cannot wait to not pay disney to not own "my" movies...
"Quick, pay us to watch $movie before we HAVE to lock it away in the Disney(tm)-Vault".... That shit wont fly again. ever.
moms of the nile conference adds world venues by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:08 · Score: 0

originating in cairo, which is not big enough to handle the crowds, the moms are branching the conference so all can attend.. be among the first in your area to help/sponsor a moms of the nile conference location near you.. thanks again
Umm by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:09 · Score: 0

"Why the fuck do I need a Disney+ account to comment on a video?"
Disney- by mentil · 2018-11-09 01:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

Darn fragmentation, I don't want to have to figure out if the shows I want are on Kodi, Popcorn Time, or Pirate Bay. /s

--
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
1. Re:Disney- by tnok85 · 2018-11-09 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  My bill has started creeping back up to just a cable subscription again... I'm not proud of it, but I've set up a Plex server and it's *fantastic*. Better interface than any of the big players, works on every device I own, and I can be running 3 streams in the house simultaneously @ 1080p without having any internet slowdowns. I still pay for shows I enjoy and want to support (provided they're available to purchase as a season on some place like Amazon) but I keep copies on my Plex server for easier consumption.
Defenders Reboot by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:16 · Score: 0

Hopefully rebooting the entire Defenders franchise will be their first order of business. Netflix should never had been alllowed to get near it
No Lock In = Bouncing by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is great! This is basically a-la-carte.
I can change subscriptions on a monthly or shorter basis. Drop one, add another.
No equipment to rent, no installs to book, etc.
I can now alternate between:
Netflix
Amazon
Crunchyroll
DIsney
I have a custom built dvr, so I have my offline content ready.
Execs think people will keep subscriptions active..haha, let me laugh at you even harder.
No lock in == monthly bouncing, maybe even shorter.
Cable TV guaranteed revenue, due to lock-in.
Equipment rentals, equipment installs, etc.
This is very very bad for revenue for the shareholders.
1. Re:No Lock In = Bouncing by Dragonslicer · 2018-11-09 03:34 · Score: 2
  
  This is great! This is basically a-la-carte.
  I can change subscriptions on a monthly or shorter basis. Drop one, add another.
  For now. If the service providers see enough people doing this, they'll start only selling year-long subscriptions.
2. Re:No Lock In = Bouncing by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  Ha Ha Ha! Let me laugh even harder.
  I'll just sign up for a monthly "free trail"..it's not like it's hard to get disposable credit card numbers and register them to fake addresses.
  It will be like the AOL era all over again. I don't ever remember paying for internet access for family members thanks to AOL.
  On that note, I STILL have some old AOL floppies lying around somewhere, when "boot disks" were a thing.
Not happening ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:19 · Score: 0

Last year, Disney announced that it would remove all its movies from Netflix in 2019 to entice consumers to use their own streaming offering
I have Netflix, and there is no way in hell I'd be willing to enter into a subscription service with Di$ney.
The movies I really want, I'll buy on BluRay, and the transaction will end there. There will be no on-going relationship, no analytics, no ads, and definitely not them having my name or any other information.
For everything else, if it doesn't show up on Netflix ... I simply don't care.
Parents will be stuck buying this for their kids, but they won't see a dime from me.
I'll be curious to see how many people just roll over and buy this, but my prediction is it will not be as popular as they hope.
1. Re:Not happening ... by Mordaximus · 2018-11-09 02:35 · Score: 2
  
  For everything else, if it doesn't show up on Netflix ... I simply don't care.
  You would be surprised how much Disney owns. It won't just be Star Wars and The Little Mermaid disappearing from Netflix. All of the decent Marvel Original Series will be gone for instance. It could make Netflix a far weaker choice.
  Then again, anything recent that Netflix has done with Paramount has been great (Maniac, Haunting of Hill House.) so there is hope.
2. Re:Not happening ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  The Marvel stuff on netflix is not good because of Marvel. It's good because of Netflix.
3. Re:Not happening ... by samdu · 2018-11-10 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget the Fox stuff they just acquired.
The race to kill streaming by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

These companies - CBS with CBS All Access, Disney with Disney+, and others think they are cashing in on the content that they own. Instead they are ushering in the demise of streaming. When a potential viewer of content could access a majority of these things via one or maybe two services - as just an example let's say via Netflix and Amazon Prime streaming - they were willing to pay. We've seen the proof of that in the numbers that have come out about legal streaming vs. piracy. But, lock your content up behind multiple different proprietary content vendor streaming systems (want to watch Star Trek - you need CBS, want to watch Star Wars, you need Disney) then people are going to just go back to pirating the content. Who is going to sign up for 5, 6, or more services? Who is going to ever sign up for CBS All Access? Who is going to sign up for Disney+? Sure, a couple of people will. Not enough to sustain their business plan though. They will simply be limiting the potential legal viewership for their content. Disney+ starts in 2019. It shutters its doors in 2024. You saw it here first.
1. Re:The race to kill streaming by ConceptJunkie · 2018-11-11 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  I think you are so wrong. I think Disney+ will be a huge success. They have way too many properties that people want. Star Wars may be moribund, but Marvel isn't, and Fox is huge. And let's not even mention the millions and millions of kids who watch their endless array of cookie-cutter TV shows. (They had a lot of great stuff in the old days, but having seen some of their current kids' fare, I weep for this generation.) Frankly, if it means more seasons of shows like Daredevil. I'll probably subscribe. If anyone shutters its doors in 2024, I'm betting it won't be Disney. There will be a reckoning and the ever-growing wave of subscription services for TV shows and movies will be winnowed down from the excessive amount its becoming, but if I had to bet on one service thriving, it would be Disney, especially if they dip into their "vault" and make their catalog of old movies and TV shows generally available.
  
  --
  You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Bad decision by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:21 · Score: 0

Removing content from other streamers to force users to buy your service is dumb. Disney does seem rather poorly managed these days, they seem to be making really bad movies, and awful distribution choices.
Am I the Only One by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:25 · Score: 1

That doesn't mind this fragmentation? Sure, I get less, but I'm still spending less. I'm not paying for all the crap I never used to watch, and I'm only paying for individual content providers when they release new seasons of the shows I want to watch. I'm getting exactly what I want, without having to pay for the stuff I don't.
That said, there needs to be a centralized portal to view all your subscribed shows in. Having to switch to each different application or website is inconvenient.
1. Re: Am I the Only One by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:52 · Score: 0
  
  You're the only one who doesn't understand.
2. Re:Am I the Only One by danbert8 · 2018-11-09 02:14 · Score: 2
  
  I don't mind the fragmentation, but I'm not spending less. Netflix used to be cheap and had everyone on their service. Now the content owners are pulling their content to put on their own site and charging as much as Netflix did for a much larger library and now Netflix is raising their prices too for a smaller library. Netflix was great while it lasted, but I'm tired of paying for a service that keeps getting smaller and includes pulling content I'm in the middle of watching. I guess I can just jump from service to service as I watch individual shows, but it is a pain in the ass to keep track of.
  
  --
  Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
3. Re:Am I the Only One by ConceptJunkie · 2018-11-11 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Right now I pay for Amazon Prime Video (through Amazon Prime), Hulu and Netflix. I could add a couple more services and still not be near the average cable or satellite monthly price. The fragmentation is starting to be a pain. If Star Trek: Discovery weren't a giant turd of a show, I may have been tempted to get CBS All Access, and resented the fact that I was paying for a single show (unless CBS has a huge backlog of old shows available... I can't remember the last time I watched a current show from CBS).
  People are complaining, but as of right now, even with Disney+ coming down the pike, it's still better than it used to be, paying for 200 channels to get the 8 or so you actually want, _and_ having to watch things when they are on rather than watching what you want when you want it... and let's not even mention commercials. Even Hulu's commercials aren't a third as bad as what you get on cable.
  It's still good. The market is evolving. It may get worse before it gets better, but really I have few complaints.
  
  --
  You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Integrate with Google+ by tbuddy · 2018-11-09 01:35 · Score: 1

If it does, count me in.
1. Re:Integrate with Google+ by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  LOL buy one streaming service to teach princess Ps and Qs and buy a competitive streaming service to watch something else.
  Personally, I don't see why you would want to conflict with your distributors. People are much more likely to watch a movie without reading the reviews if it is available without a separate service fee. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe people's preferences will change.
So that's why the Marvel shows sucked this season! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:36 · Score: 0

It makes perfect sense! Tank all the shows you sell to Netflix, then open up a competitor! So many of the Marvel super hero series on Netflix last season were unwatchable. Luke Cage started with so much SJW bs, I stopped watching two episodes in. Jessica Jones and her buddy got so deep into stupid drug addition stuff I couldn't manage to get through the season. Iron Fist actually got a little better, but then they canceled it.
Walking backwards into the future by Mascot · 2018-11-09 01:37 · Score: 2

The way to increase adoption of online streaming services is to make content more, not less, widely available.
It's interesting how the industry seems to have learned nothing from how this went down with music. 27 different subscription services, each giving access to a limited selection of content (different per region, to top it off), just isn't the way to go about things.
I expected Netflix (or similar) to have a base subscription with a wide selection of "included content", _and_ a pay per view option for "now in cinemas" and other premium type content, a long time ago now. You can still monetize stuff, just put it all in one bloody place.
1. Re:Walking backwards into the future by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:54 · Score: 0
  
  They will never learn. Greed trumps all.
2. Re:Walking backwards into the future by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  "Yesterdays solutions, tomorrow"
  (that was another of my favourite titles) :)
3. Re:Walking backwards into the future by Gilgaron · 2018-11-09 02:18 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  What you're describing is pretty much Amazon Video... free with Prime stuff, plus paid videos for rent or purchase. In practice it 'feels' like somebody trying to nickel and dime you, Netflix's user experience is better without it.
4. Re:Walking backwards into the future by Oligonicella · 2018-11-09 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  That's just perception. Doesn't feel that way to me. The only video service I have left now is Prime. Netflix's experience nowadays is stark.
5. Re:Walking backwards into the future by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  Amazon Video - absolute garbage dredged out the back of some old betamax video rental store, anything worth watching an extra price tag on top of the existing cost of entry. It doesn't 'feel' like somebody trying to nickel and dime you, it blatantly is just that.
6. Re:Walking backwards into the future by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 04:07 · Score: 0
  
  Netflix DVD is still about the best thing ever for selection, just low-bandwidth. Between that and my local library, I'm set.
7. Re:Walking backwards into the future by Mascot · 2018-11-09 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  Last I checked (this summer sometime), there was virtually no content on Amazon Video. At least not where I live. It was like a barren version of Netflix.
  My main point was one of availability. I don't see any reason why you'd _have_ to bundle together a pay per view and a subscription service. E.g. I don't have to subscribe to Google's music service in order to be able to buy music from it, but I _can_ buy just about anything I'd ever want to listen to from there.
  My expectation of Netflix predates their push into creating original content. That obviously changed things up a bit, in that they are now effectively competitors. Back then, however, I figured the movie industry would take note and want in on that action. And Netflix was the big name, like Steam is when it comes to games. So if they were going to start offering their wares, striking a deal with Netflix seemed like the natural choice to me. The audience was already there. Instead, they seem intent on repeating the music industry's mistakes.
  If they'd rather get together and launch their own service, fine by me. As long as they all are in on it and all offer up their entire catalogue. Instead we have this fragmented mess where you largely need to choose your content providers rather than the content itself.
  Bottom line: as has always been the case, you can't expect to combat piracy as long as it offers a vastly superior product.
8. Re:Walking backwards into the future by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  You can still monetize stuff, just put it all in one bloody place.
  The problem is all of the companies want all of the money from streaming their content.
  They just see dollar signs, and think that they'll achieve unlimited growth as everyone signs up for their services.
  The problem with that is consumers have limited funds, and simply aren't going to subscribe to everything -- well, unless they're idiots.
  Me, I've got Netflix, I'm happy with it, and have no intention of buying any other streaming services.
  Will there be content I don't see? Absolutely. Do I give a damn? Absolutely not.
9. Re:Walking backwards into the future by Gilgaron · 2018-11-09 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting, here in the US Amazon Video has everything you'd find on iTunes for rent or purchase. The free Prime offerings are pretty tepid... some good original content, plus bottom shelf third party content. But yes, I think now everyone will try to roll their own and then there'll be a regression to the mean. I'm interested to see how HBO does long term, their streaming is one of the more expensive ones and I wonder how they'll do once GoT wraps.
No more woke Disney shit by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:43 · Score: 0

Another one bites the dust!
Good by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:45 · Score: 0

This will make it much easier for me to boycott them.
The answer's in the name by Nidi62 · 2018-11-09 01:48 · Score: 1

will they force ESPN to be part of this?
ESPN already has a paid service with additional, exclusive content called ESPN+ so it's a good bet that it will be tied in with Disney+ in some way. Probably paying for access to Disney+ gets you access to ESPN+ to help draw in the parents even more.

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
1. Re: The answer's in the name by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:59 · Score: 0
  
  And if we can all be honest with ourselves it is not a bad plan. Dads with young kids might love this
The big question by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:53 · Score: 0

Will they carry Condorman? That might make the service worthwhile.
1. Re:The big question by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  Will they carry Condorman? That might make the service worthwhile.
  Condorman ? Wow now that's a name from the past. I remember watching a Condorman film in 16 mm a saturday afternoon at school many many years ago.
  If people subscribe to Disney+ for Condorman than Humanity has no future. We might as well turn off the light and go die in peace.
Do you want *more* pirating? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:56 · Score: 0

Seriously. Do you want pirating because THIS is how you get pirating.
Make content easily available at a reasonable price and the general public won't need to resort to other means to watch a movie/series. Come up with a dozen different sources with exclusive content and people will run toward the shadows to view content.
All yours from ONLY $150/month by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 01:57 · Score: 0

Amazon Prime 8.99/month
Hulu 7.99/month
Netflix 7.99/month
Disney+ 5.00/month
HBO Now 15/month
Youtube TV 40/month
Sling TV 20/month
fuboTV 44.99/month
1. Re:All yours from ONLY $150/month by danbert8 · 2018-11-09 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, you gotta make Hulu $12 a month if you want it ad free. And I'll eat a horse if Disney+ is only $5 a month... I'm guessing it'll at least be $8.99 or something stupid.
  
  --
  Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
2. Re:All yours from ONLY $150/month by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 02:17 · Score: 0
  
  LOL, Anyone who has been to DisneyWorld (or even given it enough consideration to lookup prices) could tell you there's no way that Disney+ is going to be the cheapest streaming option available. I'd bank on it being at least $15/month
3. Re:All yours from ONLY $150/month by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  disney's will be at least as much per month as the highest-cost one that exists at that time.. prime, hulu+, netflix, cbsaa, etc.... i'm going to guess at least two bucks a month more than cbs. marvel is much bigger than star trek ever was, star wars is more popular. it will be easier for disney to extort more money out of fans of those when they lock new (and exclusive) canon behind a streaming paywall than it is for cbs and star trek.
  some of that 'new' content would be better off and be a better fit on one of their existing cable tv networks.... expect one or more of those to die off from lack of its own original content or get sold for the channel slot.
4. Re:All yours from ONLY $150/month by sexconker · 2018-11-09 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Need CBS and DC as well.
5. Re:All yours from ONLY $150/month by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-11 18:20 · Score: 0
  
  Well, try $49.98. I've heard that Disney+ ($19.99) will require a sub to ESPN+ ($29.99). The Disney/ESPN bundle is one of the reasons the cable/satellite tiers with Disney content are about $50 over the basic packages.
  captcha: deliver, as in "Stand and deliver!", ye old famous highwayman phrase from the middle ages.
Disney Will Win by crow · 2018-11-09 02:14 · Score: 2

This will be a win for Disney. I would love to see fewer services instead of more, but Disney has the right content to make this work. With decades of shows from The Disney Channel, a huge movie library, and a range of new shows, they have enough content to support their network (unlike CBS).
Most of their subscribers will be families with kids. Lots of parents will love the idea of being able to let their kids stream shows without ads (until Disney starts injecting ads).
WILLIAM DaFoe? by tsqr · 2018-11-09 02:26 · Score: 4, Informative

OK, the error is in TFA, not from Slashdot editor BeauHD. But how about a correction, or at least a [sic], in TFS?
For the record (and those who are in the same boat as BeauHD and the CNBC hack who authored TFA), it's WILLEM. Willem DaFoe.
1. Re:WILLIAM DaFoe? by Oligonicella · 2018-11-09 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  What boat is that, blase to the point of willful ignorance?
2. Re:WILLIAM DaFoe? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 03:11 · Score: 0
  
  it's WILLEM. Willem DaFoe.
  Just because he can't spell his fucking name doesn't mean we have to play along.
3. Re:WILLIAM DaFoe? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  By stating editor-bot BeauHD's name in a posting, you risk your posting to be down-voted to -1
  YOU MUST NOT MENTION ANY OF THE SLASHDOT EDITOR-BOTS IN ANY POST!!!!!
4. Re:WILLIAM DaFoe? by tsqr · 2018-11-09 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  What boat is that, blase to the point of willful ignorance?
  This one. I can understand how you might never have heard of the expression though, since it's only been in common use for 150 years or so.
will someone just by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 02:42 · Score: 0

bring back Firefly?
I don't care which streaming provider does it, they will get my money.
Tough Competition by Anurag1997 · 2018-11-09 02:43 · Score: 1

It won't be that easy to beat Netflix or compete with it. It is producing great quality content.
1. Re:Tough Competition by Oligonicella · 2018-11-09 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot the qualifier "a little".
Ho hum by jd · 2018-11-09 02:56 · Score: 1

Disney has produced two decent cartoons since 2000. DVD releases have been low-res transfers, heavily edited, of a fraction of the episodes. Online copies are ok, but still edited and their app is horrible.
The BBC learned - to an extent - how to get it right in the 1990s, due to the sheer flood of complaints. They weren't expecting a backlash. But, to give them credit, they really tried to learn. Disney have not.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Netflix Merger by Only+Time+Will+Tell · 2018-11-09 02:58 · Score: 2

I'll wager that Netflix will be a part of a merger in the next 5 years. They'll either be bought by a conglomerate like Comcast/NBC-Universal or AT&T/Warner or they will buy up a smaller studio like Paramount or Dreamworks to absorb its IP into their catalog. I don't see Netflix's own IP being strong enough to withstand other streaming services that might wall off their major content from them. The consumer is going to lose in all this since we going back to having to pay for multiple services if you want content from different companies. Instead of cutting the single cable cord, we're moving to multiple cords necessary to have it all.
1. Re:Netflix Merger by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  Please God let the DVD service survive.
2. Re:Netflix Merger by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  Netflix market cap is almost as big as disney.
The name by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 03:16 · Score: 0

And all they could come up with is Disney + (plus).
Oh for the love of fucking God.
The Little Mermaid is the worst by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 03:29 · Score: 0

Give up your natural talent to physically modify your body to please a man you don't know.
Great lesson for kids there Disney.
Problem... by fish_in_the_c · 2018-11-09 03:34 · Score: 1

what is it worth to the average consumer.
People generally like / liked Netflix because of flexibility. The on demand nature, so they were willing to put up with , lag, internet usage etc, even dump cable for it because it had sufficient variety.
Without the variety it is a very much like the difference in value of paying for 1 cable channel vs paying for cable. So if netflix is charging $20 a month this service should need to charge something like $2 to be of equal value from a consumer standpoint. Most consumers inherently understand that, it seems so odd that Disney doesn't. I doubt they will be long term profitable , although I could see that at some point in time there may be a 'service agitator' that has deals with different sights to host their content using it's own interface. They may even allow customers pick and choose which 'channels' or sets of content they want to buy, perhaps even give discounts for choosing certain pre defined sets or 'bundles'. The more things are new the more they stay the same . The scarcity of resources will eventually correct the situation and some solutions are repeated on a different scale because they work.

--
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
If I can't access it, it doesn't exist. by DaveM753 · 2018-11-09 03:41 · Score: 2

Ever since I started running into issues with websites that don't render due to javascript requirements and/or anti-ad-blocker issues, I have changed my way of thinking to an attitude of "If I can't access it, it doesn't exist." That way, I can quickly come to accept the situation and not feel like I'm missing out.
That attitude works quite well with "exclusive" programming on these streaming services. I'm a Star Trek fan, but I never had any intention of subscribing to CBS All Access just to watch their new Star Trek series, so I don't miss it. For me, Star Trek ended with DS9. It's over: so long, and thanks for all the Klingons. If CBS put that new Star Trek series on Netflix, they would get a licensing fee from Netflix and I would be able to access it. They don't, so it simply doesn't exist to me. If I see a headline for an article discussing that Star Trek series, I just pass over it, since it doesn't pertain to me. I do the same with "exclusive" programming from Hulu, Vudu, Prime, etc. If I can't access their programs, the programs don't exist.
When these studios stop producing DVDs, the same will hold true. Advertise your fantastic new movie all you want. Is it a movie I'd love to see, but is only available on a streaming service that I don't subscribe to? ...and you'll never release it on DVD? Then, it doesn't exist.
1. Re:If I can't access it, it doesn't exist. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 12:55 · Score: 0
  
  Once you cut the cord it becomes much harder to stay on top of what's out there. But with 3tb of legal public domain content on a hard drive, my OTA PVR content and amazon prime
  Even if something comes out that is somehow so special that I just have to see it, and if I ever even hear about it. I'll just buy it and still come out way ahead than if I subscribed to any of these streaming services.
And the part that should be scary, but... by Mnemennth · 2018-11-09 04:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

... nobody is even talking about:
"Last year, Disney announced that it would remove all its movies from Netflix in 2019 to entice consumers to use their own streaming offering. It also purchased Fox for $71.3 billion to bolster its library of content. "
mnem
And then there were none.
Doing a Prime Video channel would be so much nicer by enjar · 2018-11-09 04:38 · Score: 1

Our many devices already understand how to play stuff from Amazon. If we want to shell out for this stuff I'd be willing to do it -- we like the MCU movies, and our kids like a lot of Disney stuff. I'd rather that it just work through an app our many devices already have and work fine with. It's kind of a model-view-controller approach to streaming video access -- just plug your content into one of the leaders in the space already, let them worry about the distribution and infrastructure, and get piles of money from licensing.
Password Sharing by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 04:44 · Score: 0

Hmm..what will happen is the "mommy and me" group will purchase 2-3 subscriptions, and share the passwords. So thats 10 people or so, sharing 2-3 subscriptions.
If netflix allows 2 screens per acct, I would "assume" that Di$ney would allow similar.
If not, there is always the sneakernet for DVDs.
with ESPN3 they can force systems to pay for that by Joe_Dragon · 2018-11-09 04:50 · Score: 2

with ESPN3 they can force systems to pay for that or they can block Disney+ or even say if you have cable tv then ESPN / Disney channel must be in the basic level or all internet subs will be blocked from Disney.
dish network should make an move and drop ESPN &am by Joe_Dragon · 2018-11-09 04:51 · Score: 1

dish network should make an move and drop ESPN & Disney unless they get the right to make it an paid add on.
Free Trials == Never Pay, Anything! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 04:51 · Score: 0

Cable Box Rental: 12.95/Mo
Basic Cable Service: 35.95/Mo
So, by ditching cable, I have: $48.90 to spend on other subscriptions, lets break it down:
Netflix: 10.99
Crunchyroll: 6.99
CBS All Access: 5.99 - limited commercial plan
Netflix DVD -- for "offline" entertainment 10.99
34.96 -- total
that leaves another 13.94 - before taxes, so lets say another 10 for a competing service.
I don't include internet access in these costs, since it's used for other activities, like work/skype/email, etc.
So I have 3 commercial free services, + 1 limited commercial service, and room for one more.
Want to tie me down? good luck...between free trails , and an unlimited number of free trails and email addresses, I could enjoy entertainment and never have to pay a dime.
After all this by bobstreo · 2018-11-09 05:05 · Score: 1

It really hits cable companies the hardest.
If you paid for Netflix, Hulu, Disney, Amazon every month, you'd still be paying far less than a cable tv bill.
Not that about 90% of "new" Disney content isn't fit for consumption (Direct to video classics like Aladdin 4, Parrots Ass is the norm.) They have been milking the dead cow so long, all they're doing now is liposuction of rotted meat,
Recreational media is ancillary. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 05:12 · Score: 0

If I don't have access to the latest pop culture video offerings, so what? Life goes on. I have more money for other things. I have yet to have a day where I said "gee, if only I could watch Jersey Shore would life be perfect"...
My streaming service by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 05:14 · Score: 0

I have a streaming service.
Upsides:
It costs nothing a month
It doesn't spy on you
Only has content we might one day bother to watch
Nothing ever disappears from it
Doesn't require the Internet
No buffering and poor quality CBR atrocities
Downsides:
Requires obtaining content on disc
Requires large capacity hard disk(s)
Requires a small amount of clue / work / time
Personally given amount of TV/movie content there is any interest in watching and cost of streaming over time it's the most cost effective option that coincidentally also offers the best user experience.
What's a disney? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 05:17 · Score: 0

I heard they used to make good movies, but now they're just an IP landlord.
This is How it will/should work by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 05:28 · Score: 0

This is how it will work:
Sign Up, and you get all the movies released that year.
For every month you continue to subscribe, you get previous releases, on the month they were originally released.
If you cancel, you "lose" all that content, but don't worry! for a small fee, you can purchase access to the "disney vault" and for another small fee, unlock releases.
You can watch on one screen, with the proprietary disney viewer, and the proprietary disney remote, using the proprietary disney cable.
All the ADS will be for Disney Land/World/Cruises, and upcoming Disney features.
Don't worry, for a small fee, you can disable ads.
Movies will be limited to a select number of viewers world wide, but don't worry, for a small fee, you can purchase a pass for a movie, and for another small fee, purchase another pass for all movies.
Movies will be Available in SD 480, SD720, HD1080p, FHD 2k, UHD 4k, and for a small fee, you can unlock each of them!
Disney the puppetmaster by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 05:30 · Score: 0

They will simply starve Netflix and Amazon Prime so they don't have the money to develop shows like The Expanse, Man in the High Castle, Stranger Things, etc.
Netflix will be so devalued they will be a cheap purchase for Disney/Comca$t/AT&T.
Disney is wisely cutting out the middleman. We will end up paying them directly for ESPN and other networks streaming straight to our devices, and paying more than we were for cable/satellite. We'll end up paying $10 a month to 6 different entities just to get the same programming we had last month. Disney won't have to sell their shows to anybody unless Comcast/AT&T trade their IP and bandwidth just to survive. I give it under 2 years until monopoly lawsuits and demands for more government regulation... all going nowhere.
A dark moon is rising. Soon everybody will have their own streaming service. License fees will be outrageous so the NFL, MLB, EPL, NHL, MLS, NBA will do it themselves and we will gladly pay to watch our favorite teams. Disney will have a stake in everything. We will all turn to Disney for our entertainment. Disney will shape how our society perceives news, sports, morality. Welcome big brother.
If you think I'm paying for this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-09 05:53 · Score: 0

You're out of your god damn mind.
Time to separate content from delivery... by syn3rg · 2018-11-09 07:21 · Score: 1

Like we did in 1948 . This is why you can go to any theater and see any movie from any production company or studio...

--
The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13
1. Re:Time to separate content from delivery... by syn3rg · 2018-11-09 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Formatting ate the link: United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.
  
  --
  The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13
Don't they own... by tmshort · 2018-11-09 07:26 · Score: 1

After the Fox acquisition, won't Disney own a majority of Hulu? Why are they creating a new service, just have everything on Hulu...
Nail the coffin of Star Wars once and for all. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-12 11:50 · Score: 0

What we really need is a Creative Commons licensed universe LIKE but not the same as Star Wars/Star Trek, with the sort of community of creatives that the 'literary canon' of each universe had. If the licensing can be engineered to allow curation of original characters, a 'canon committee' to help keep universe altering plotlines acceptable to both the creative and readship base (something both Trek and Wars have failed at, various Dark Horse material that stretched the bounds of believability based on documented Star Wars tech level and some of the 'late future' star wars novels, as well as Lucas' own additions in the prequels.) One of the great things about the literary works in both worlds was the general attempt of authors to not step on each other's feet. Far more so than Star Trek's television/movie canon, most of the novel authors(and even videogame authors!) did a far better job of working their stories into either gaps left in a story/timeline, or collaborating with other authors on how their events wove in with plotlines, characters, or motivations throughout the universe.
When we can provide that as a community we can finally drive a stake through the hearts of these publishers and return creativity to the community and eventually copyright as a platform for the construction of successful generations of creative works without perpetual rent seeking by entities who may not have funded or are in fact themselves violating copyrights on a daily, weekly, or yearly basis, because only their own intellectual property is 'precious'.
'respects' what a fitting captcha for this comment.
This! All you likeminded individuals, add your own by Anonymous Coward · 2018-11-12 11:59 · Score: 0

This comment sums up how I have been living for the past 10+ years, on both videogames and media.
If I can't possess a tangible copy, it doesn't exist. As most and more media makes the transition to digital only, with no tangible proof of ownership, I simply stopped paying attention to it and moved to intangible products, or to supporting creatives that I can physically meet and support with swag purchases. It ensures the money I spend is going to the right people and gives a better opportunity of getting something I enjoy in the end.
Another example is Dwarf Fortress. You can either get your name added to the list of donators, a drawing, or an ascii 'story' based on an event in a procedurally generated world. This incomplete game has been in the works since 2004 or earlier and evolving with every year into a slightly more autonomous life generator. Once it is feature complete, it will provide whole worlds worth of stories. Add a 3D engine on the front and you could watch entire stories or lives unfold as the first ones raise and fell nations, legendary beasts and religious or political intrigue.