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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[michiganbob]

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!

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]

And jerk off to Snow White!

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[gerald.edward.butler]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[AmiMoJo]

They are probably hoping that kids pestering their parents will get them lots of subscriptions. Shameless.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[Gilgaron]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[Austerity Empowers]

I will buy it just as soon as I get around to CBS all access.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[squiggleslash]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[gerald.edward.butler]

> 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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[mcvos]

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?

Re: And like that, nobody cared.

[Zocalo]

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.

Re: And like that, nobody cared.

[mcvos]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[mlw4428]

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.

Re: And like that, nobody cared.

[yeshuawatso]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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.

[Drethon]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[mjwx]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[mjwx]

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.

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.

Re: And like that, nobody cared.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[Bert64]

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,

Re: And like that, nobody cared.

[Ol Olsoc]

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!

Re: And like that, nobody cared.

[Ol Olsoc]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[Ol Olsoc]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[Spy Handler]

Um.... fuck Netflix. AND fuck Disney. Just use piratebay. Let these greedy corporate scum die already.

Re: And like that, nobody cared.

[MachineShedFred]

Until Disney buys some shit you do care about and makes it exclusive to this service.

Not like they're hurting for money.

Re: And like that, nobody cared.

[MachineShedFred]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[DontBeAMoran]

Either I woke up in an alternate universe today, or you're thinking of another company than Microsoft.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[skam240]

"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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[Ranbot]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[sexconker]

Frozen 3, exclusively on Disney+!

50 million subscriptions, instantly.

Re: And like that, nobody cared.

[nasch]

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.

Re: And like that, nobody cared.

[CohibaVancouver]

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.

Re: And like that, nobody cared.

[lgw]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[ZiakII]

Can I get an exception on the new Ducktales? That show is amazing.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[tlhIngan]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[CrashNBrn]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[DaFallus]

> 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?

Re: And like that, nobody cared.

[Darinbob]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[thegarbz]

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.

Re: And like that, nobody cared.

[Darinbob]

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).

Re: And like that, nobody cared.

[Darinbob]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[gerald.edward.butler]

Buy the toys that are advertised with it.

Re: And like that, nobody cared.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[Sarah Higgins]

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

Re: And like that, nobody cared.

[ConceptJunkie]

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.

Re: And like that, nobody cared.

[Ol Olsoc]

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.

Re:And like that, nobody cared.

[Blue23]

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.

will they force ESPN to be part of this?

[Joe_Dragon]

will they force ESPN to be part of this?

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.

Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Disney-

[mentil]

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

Re:Disney-

[tnok85]

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.

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.

Re:No Lock In = Bouncing

[Dragonslicer]

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.

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.

Re:The race to kill streaming

[ConceptJunkie]

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.

Am I the Only One

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Am I the Only One

[danbert8]

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.

Re:Am I the Only One

[ConceptJunkie]

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.

Integrate with Google+

[tbuddy]

If it does, count me in.

Walking backwards into the future

[Mascot]

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.

Re:Walking backwards into the future

[Gilgaron]

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.

Re:Walking backwards into the future

[Oligonicella]

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.

Re:Walking backwards into the future

[Mascot]

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.

Re:Walking backwards into the future

[Gilgaron]

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.

The answer's in the name

[Nidi62]

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.

Disney Will Win

[crow]

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).

Re:All yours from ONLY $150/month

[danbert8]

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.

WILLIAM DaFoe?

[tsqr]

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.

Re:WILLIAM DaFoe?

[Oligonicella]

What boat is that, blase to the point of willful ignorance?

Re:WILLIAM DaFoe?

[Anonymous Coward]

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!!!!!

Re:WILLIAM DaFoe?

[tsqr]

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.

Re:The big question

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Not happening ...

[Mordaximus]

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.

Tough Competition

[Anurag1997]

It won't be that easy to beat Netflix or compete with it. It is producing great quality content.

Re:Tough Competition

[Oligonicella]

You forgot the qualifier "a little".

Ho hum

[jd]

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.

Netflix Merger

[Only Time Will Tell]

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.

Problem...

[fish_in_the_c]

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.

If I can't access it, it doesn't exist.

[DaveM753]

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.

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.

Doing a Prime Video channel would be so much nicer

[enjar]

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.

with ESPN3 they can force systems to pay for that

[Joe_Dragon]

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

[Joe_Dragon]

dish network should make an move and drop ESPN & Disney unless they get the right to make it an paid add on.

After all this

[bobstreo]

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,

Re:All yours from ONLY $150/month

[sexconker]

Need CBS and DC as well.

Time to separate content from delivery...

[syn3rg]

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

Re:Time to separate content from delivery...

[syn3rg]

Formatting ate the link: United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.

Don't they own...

[tmshort]

After the Fox acquisition, won't Disney own a majority of Hulu? Why are they creating a new service, just have everything on Hulu...

Re:Not happening ...

[samdu]

Don't forget the Fox stuff they just acquired.