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

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.

Comments

And like that, nobody cared.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[Midnight Thunder]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[mentil]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re: And like that, nobody cared.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: And like that, nobody cared.

[Zocalo]

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.

Re: And like that, nobody cared.

[lgw]

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.

People will go back to piracy.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

No Lock In = Bouncing

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The race to kill streaming

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

And the part that should be scary, but...

[Mnemennth]

... 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.