Slashdot Mirror

← 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 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.

33 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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 mentil · · 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.
    3. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by gerald.edward.butler · · 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.

    4. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Gilgaron · · 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.

    5. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by squiggleslash · · 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.
    6. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by mcvos · · 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.

    7. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    8. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by Zocalo · · 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!
    9. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Drethon · · 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.

    10. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by mjwx · · 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.
    11. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by mjwx · · 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.
    12. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by lgw · · 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.
    13. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by Bert64 · · 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!
    14. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by MachineShedFred · · 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.
    15. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by skam240 · · 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.
    16. Re: And like that, nobody cared. by lgw · · 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.
    17. Re:And like that, nobody cared. by tlhIngan · · 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.

  2. People will go back to piracy. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  3. Disney- by mentil · · 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.
  4. No Lock In = Bouncing by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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.

  5. The race to kill streaming by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  6. Walking backwards into the future by Mascot · · 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 Gilgaron · · 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.

  7. Disney Will Win by crow · · 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).

  8. Re:Am I the Only One by danbert8 · · 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?
  9. WILLIAM DaFoe? by tsqr · · 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.

  10. Re:Not happening ... by Mordaximus · · 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.

  11. Netflix Merger by Only+Time+Will+Tell · · 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.

  12. If I can't access it, it doesn't exist. by DaveM753 · · 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.

  13. And the part that should be scary, but... by Mnemennth · · 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.

  14. with ESPN3 they can force systems to pay for that by Joe_Dragon · · 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.