Disney+ Streaming Service To Launch In November, Priced At $6.99 Monthly (variety.com)

Disney has announced that its highly anticipated new streaming service, Disney+, will launch in the U.S. on November 12 with a price of $6.99 per month. Variety has more details: The subscription VOD service represents Disney's next major foray into the video-streaming wars. By pricing it well below Netflix, the Mouse House is betting it can rapidly drive up Disney+ customer base with a melange of content that appeals to multiple demographics, including movies and TV shows from its Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar and Disney brands.

At launch, Disney+ will include 7,500 episodes, including from 25 original series; 400 library movie titles; and 100 recent theatrical films releases, according to Agnes Chu, senior VP of content, Disney+. That includes exclusive rights to all 30 seasons of "The Simpsons," which Disney obtained through the acquisition of 21st Century Fox. In year five of Disney+, the company expects to have an annual production slate of some 50 originals, Chu said. Disney+ will be an ad-free service, supported solely by subscription fees. It's going to have a wide platform footprint, spanning game consoles, smart TVs and connected streaming devices, including Roku and PlayStation 4, said Michael Paull, president of Disney Streaming Services (formerly BAMTech). "After Disney+'s initial North American launch in the fourth quarter of 2019, the service will roll out to Europe, Latin America and Asia as Disney's international rights return to the company from licensees," the report adds. Kevin Mayer, chairman of Disney's Direct-to-Customer and International business segment, also said that the company will "likely" offer a discounted bundle combining Disney+, ESPN+, and Hulu.

All of Disney+'s content will be available to download for offline viewing and will be available in 4K. Some of the content subscribers will have access to includes all of the Star Wars films, 250 hours of NatGeo content, and hundreds of episodes from Disney Channel shows as well as a brand-new "Phineas and Ferb" movie.

Comments

But will Song of the South be on it?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all anyone cares about.

Re:But will Song of the South be on it?

[AmiMoJo]

I wonder if Peter Pan will be on it. Hard to edit out the Indians.

Even the later stories are iffy when you think about them. Ariel, at age 16, marries literally the first man she has ever met and ends up murdering Ursula with his help. Jasmine, age 14, ends up marrying Aladdin after just a few days, an adult who takes advantage of her childish naivety by pretending to be a prince.

Best not to think too hard about it.

Re:But will Song of the South be on it?

[TeknoHog]

How about The Simpsons S03E01 Stark Raving Dad?

Re:But will Song of the South be on it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Beast kidnaps and brainwashes a girl into being his organ donor.

Aurora is sexually assaulted while sleeping. Snow White is the concubine of a bunch of dwarf miners. Cinderella is forced into domestic servitude and spreads her legs to get out of it.

There is no beauty in being a Disney princess.

The only one who even takes an active role in her life is Eilonwy from the Black Cauldron.

Re:But will Song of the South be on it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aurora is sexually assaulted while sleeping.

Disney version in tame. The original version of Sleeping Beauty she was actually "raped" by the "hero" of the story. A prince stumbles upon her sleeping in an old abandoned castle decides to have his way with her. She gets pregnant, gives birth, and it's only the babies (twins) suckling on her that wakes her from her sleep... meanwhile the Prince keeps coming back and raping her in her sleep.

The climax of the story is when the "hero" kills his wife so he can be with Sleeping Beauty. That's right, our necrophiliac hero prince was already married! In some medieval fashion, he is the good guy in the story despite all that.

Re:But will Song of the South be on it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Disney can EAT SHIT AND DIE, THEN EAT MORE SHIT AND DIE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!! Disney is one of the main reasons that we have life+75 years copyright instead of 5 years non-extendable copyright!

"hundreds of episodes from Disney Channel shows.."

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean the stuff that's actually free (to stream) now will cost another $7.00 monthly? adios, disney. the kids can read more books. if you think you're getting another dime past our cable sub, you're fucking crazy.

Simpsons?

[Anonymous Coward]

So all episodes will no longer be on FX or FXX?

Re:Simpsons?

[Stolovaya]

That's what I came to gripe about. It's bullshit.

$6.99 now and

[Anonymous Coward]

by Christmas $14.99 muhahahaah. Seriously, that seems like a well though out almost reasonable price. This is Disney, so it can't be permanent.

Re:$6.99 now and

[Anonymous Coward]

Disney's about going to discover that bingeing is a thing. Expect the price to sky-rocket, and/or expect them to require you to pay for 6 months in advance, or agree to a 24 month contract.

I'm planning to binge-watch the entire Disney catalog in one month for $7 once every 10-15 years.

Re:$6.99 now and

[Truekaiser]

This is an underrated comment.
Now that people can binge on series, they can only pay for say a month, watch the series by several episodes a day, and put their subscription on hold till something else comes about.

Re:$6.99 now and

[Wulf2k]

I'm going to make an uninformed guess that the majority of their consistent subs will be parents with younger children.

Kids will ask to watch the same thing over and over and over again. And over. ...and over.

So just because they watched a certain amount last month, doesn't mean they have less to watch this month.

Re:$6.99 now and

[supremebob]

Oh, I don't think that they'll start raising the price until they have a few more "Disney+ exclusive" shows that are only available on their new streaming platform.

Then they'll start advertising the hell out of those shows on the Disney cable TV Channels, making sure that your kids will scream their heads off until they get an account.

Worse yet, they might even offer a "free" trial over Christmas break to get your kids hooked on the new shows before the 2020 price increase.

Will probably subscribe

[SuperKendall]

I wasn't going to do it, but if the Disney+ thing holds all the Star Wars content damn them if they didn't price it JUST low enough I will probably go for it after all.

If they have an AppleTV app.

Re:Will probably subscribe

[rtb61]

Nope, not even close. Disney, although is doesn't know it yet, has introduced the great streaming churn. People will swap streaming services upon a regular basis, as none of them will end up with sufficient content, ignoring all the filler crap no one watches, people will not pay for multiple services, they will simply swap on a quarterly or half yearly basis, depending upon how many they want to go with.

Churning streaming services will become the norm and they will all go hungry trying to eat each others lunch. They will end up trying all sorts of manipulative corporate shit to lock people in to block churning.

Re:Will probably subscribe

[sg_oneill]

In Australia, "STAN" (Local Netflix clone with a lot of reality TV junk, but a pretty great movie selection), got the rights to the disney catalogue, and honestly, it kept me entertained for all of about 2 weeks aand then nothing. I've seen all the marvel and star wars films, multiple times. The only Marvel TV shows worth watching belong to Netflix and got murdered by corporate suits. And theres a few decent non-genre films. But beyond that, there just isn't enough content to make a streaming service out of.

Re:Will probably subscribe

[religionofpeas]

I already have copies at home of all three Star Wars movies, so I have no need for this subscription.

Re:Will probably subscribe

[war4peace]

I recognize a bait when I see one, but I'll bite. I assume you refer to Episodes IV through VI?

Re:Will probably subscribe

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he means the good ones: the ones with Jar Jar Binks.

Re:Will probably subscribe

[AmiMoJo]

Disney knows it can rely on kids to keep parents subscribed for at least 10 years.

Re:Will probably subscribe

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the fear is overrated. Alot of people dont watch several hours each day and drain content fast, people have lives. For alot of "normal" people just watching one or two movies a month will still validate the price of a subscription.

Disney will automatically get a large cadre of customers in the category "Parents", this is also a category that keeps refreshing itself with new consumers ad neuseum. They want the ability to park their kid infront of a screen at will, and will shell out the subscription. Because, lets face it, you cant "just resubscribe" when your kid starts screaming in the backseat during a random drive.

Re:Will probably subscribe

[Hodr]

People will swap streaming services upon a regular basis, as none of them will end up with sufficient content, ignoring all the filler crap no one watches, people will not pay for multiple services, they will simply swap on a quarterly or half yearly basis, depending upon how many they want to go with.

You clearly underestimate both my laziness and my capacity to forget what I pay for things collectively.

Re:Will probably subscribe

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the prequel movie. Rogue One was decent.

Re:Will probably subscribe

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't going to do it, but if the Disney+ thing holds all the Star Wars content damn them if they didn't price it JUST low enough I will probably go for it after all.

If they have an AppleTV app.

Cheaper and you get to see it sooner if you just watch them when they come out at the cinema than paying for streaming every month.

Or just buy the DVDs if you're the kind to rewatch films if SW is the only reason you'd be signing up.

Re:Will probably subscribe

[Anonymous Coward]

Episodes I-III are the only ones worth watching. The CGI is much better than it is in IV-VI.

Plus, seeing young Anakin is a real boost, especially with his pet dog, Jah Jah Banks.

Re:Will probably subscribe

[Anonymous Coward]

I recognize a bait when I see one, but I'll bite. I assume you refer to Episodes IV through VI?

I would have picked:

Wrath of Khan- I think that was Star Wars II.
Nemesis (VIII)
and the new one that Simon Pegg wrote.

As Henry Wrinkler would often say when playing Kirk- "Make it go, number 2"!

Re:Will probably subscribe

[Whorhay]

I know some people that are so strapped for cash that they would probably jump from service to service. But most people I know would rather just let the subscription run than have to go through the hassle of stopping and starting services regularly. Personally I hate messing with that stuff, and every time I have to arrange billing online I'm thinking about what could go wrong and result in my CC information spread far and wide. So I buy stuff from Amazon even when it's not the cheapest. I think the last time I cancelled Netflix it was because we hadn't used it in almost six months. I'm pretty sure I'm still subscribed to a VPN service on an annual basis that I haven't used in a couple years. If Disney manages to keep the price down as well as Netflix has I expect my family will be subscribed for the next decade at the least.

Re:Will probably subscribe

[Whatsmynickname]

Just wait. They will pull a Frontier and put some vague terms and conditions into the streaming "contract" agreement to put an early termination clause in there. A person wants to cancel six months later? Fine, they'll get a $1000 early termination fee. Go ahead, take them to court, spend all your lawyer money and your time fighting Disney on that.

Re:Will probably subscribe

[geekymachoman]

> Churning streaming services will become the norm

I'm sick of it, and the fucking games these people do, I'm bored of it.

So, I found a "pirate iptv provider", downloaded his app, and payed the bloke $10 dollars to get access to 1000 movies, 500 tv shows, and the rest.

The point is ... you try to play nice, you try to pay, and they screw you up with either limited access to content (if you're outside of the US), or they play these stupid games were you have to subscribe to 4 content providers.

I'm not marketing anything, or naming anything ... I'm just venting.

Re:Will probably subscribe

[Anonymous Coward]

FUCK apple.!

Re:Will probably subscribe

[westlake]

Disney knows it can rely on kids to keep parents subscribed for at least 10 years.

There is that. of course.

But Disney has close on to 100 years of independent production to draw on, not counting Fox. Marvel, Pixar and so on ---- and mountains of cash to license productions from other sources. Disney may focus on family-oriented entertainment. But we are long way out from the studio as it was in the 50's and 60's.

Re: "hundreds of episodes from Disney Channel show

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody needs a bedtime story. How about the sleeping beauty?

I think it may be for real

[SuperKendall]

by Christmas $14.99 muhahahaah. Seriously, that seems like a well though out almost reasonable price.

I had exactly the same thought, how much would it go up later...

But Disney is being super smart here, because they know even though they have a lot of good stuff, they will always be a secondary subscription to something like Netflix. So they priced it just low enough that it's practical to have both.

Now the real question is, if you want 4K content is that an extra fee on that base... I say yes.

Re:I think it may be for real

[rmdingler]

By the time we have to subscribe to Disney, BBC, Netflix, HBO, Prime, and the sports package of your choice to get most of what we want to see... well, cutting the cord doesn't save much dinero over a Comcast monopoly area.

Re:I think it may be for real

[Anonymous Coward]

By the time we have to subscribe to Disney, BBC, Netflix, HBO, Prime, and the sports package of your choice to get most of what we want to see... well, cutting the cord doesn't save much dinero over a Comcast monopoly area.

But it's much easier to start and stop the various streaming services, unlike, say, getting locked into a 2 year contract with Comcast.

If cost per month is a concern, and it is, remember that there's no need to subscribe to all of the services all year round.

Re: I think it may be for real

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy to skip on the BBC crap. Most people will just choose one or two services. You don't need to have them all.

Re: I think it may be for real

[fluffernutter]

must be nice to have the time to swap out streaming services every month

Re:I think it may be for real

[Hodr]

Im just going to wait for Disney to buy all of the other studios. Then it will just be DisneyUNIVERSE, BBC, and maybe Netflix.

Re:I think it may be for real

[Anonymous Coward]

Another point is that the money spent is going to various sources that you choose, rather than all of it going through the cable provider.

Re:I think it may be for real

[Anonymous Coward]

By the time we have to subscribe to Disney, BBC, Netflix, HBO, Prime, and the sports package of your choice to get most of what we want to see... well, cutting the cord doesn't save much dinero over a Comcast monopoly area.

We've got prime, but only for the shipping. Yeah, there's occasionally a show we watch on Prime, but it's easily something we could live without and wouldn't have the Prime channel if it were only for the TV shows. HBO I don't have. I might try one of those three month trials to watch GOT and then cancel it.

Disney- meh, don't have young kids anymore, and didn't really approve of most of their non-cartoons anyway; why does Disney make so many shows about young girls dressed as sluts and covered in makeup pining over boys? It's not really age appropriate. Let kids worry about relationships and dating when they get older. I certainly don't want my daughters watching Disney-slut shows now they're getting older.

My kids are tween and teen years now. Couldn't give a crap about their Marvel titles, and I've already seen Star Wars.

BBC would be nice- but I'm not going to pay extra for it, especially since a lot of their best shows end up on Prime, Netflix, or Hulu anyway.

All in all; there are dozens of streaming channels out there now, but you really don't need all of them. I certainly can resist signing up for more than I currently have.

Re: I think it may be for real

[Anonymous Coward]

must be nice to have the time to swap out streaming services every month

Once or twice a year taking 5 minutes to click "cancel" on a web page is too much time? Just make one or two less comments on Slashdot on the day you're cancelling streaming services and you've made the time up for that month.

Re:I think it may be for real

[Anonymous Coward]

By the time we have to subscribe to Disney, BBC, Netflix, HBO, Prime, and the sports package of your choice to get most of what we want to see... well, cutting the cord doesn't save much dinero over a Comcast monopoly area.

Yes, but you get to choose the content you want, not the cable company

Re: I think it may be for real

[Anonymous Coward]

If you stop consuming an entire streaming service worth of content you might have time.
You'll kick yourself in the ass when they start catching on and have start and cancelation fees, contracts, etc.

Re:I think it may be for real

[Anonymous Coward]

By the time we have to subscribe to Disney, BBC, Netflix, HBO, Prime, and the sports package of your choice to get most of what we want to see... well, cutting the cord doesn't save much dinero over a Comcast monopoly area.

The obvious difference being: what if you don't want all those things? Now you can opt out of stuff that you don't watch, thereby paying less money. That used to not be an option. But you're right: if you're convinced that you need everything, then you pay as much.

Re:I think it may be for real

[CaptainDork]

"Subscription fatigue." Include subscriptions to NYT, WaPo, and others, and it's not a sustainable model.

Re: I think it may be for real

[fluffernutter]

Just sounds like a pita to me.

Re:I think it may be for real

[rmdingler]

By the time we have to subscribe to Disney, BBC, Netflix, HBO, Prime, and the sports package of your choice to get most of what we want to see... well, cutting the cord doesn't save much dinero over a Comcast monopoly area.

Yes, but you get to choose the content you want, not the cable company

I just hope that works out better than our Choice for the candidate representative of the donkey or the elephant.

Star Wars?

[alaskana98]

"Some of the content subscribers will have access to includes all of the Star Wars films" - well this will definitely entice some folks.

Re:Star Wars?

[R3d M3rcury]

Let's see...

• All the Star Wars Films
• The Mandalorians New TV Series
• All the old Star Wars Animated Shows
• All the Marvel Movies
• New Marvel content featuring Loki, Scarlett Witch & Vision, Falcon & The Winter Soldier, and Hawkeye.
• Phineas & Ferb, including a new movie.

For $6.99 a month (or $69.99 a year)? Yeah, I'd do that...

Re:Star Wars?

[AmiMoJo]

Shame they couldn't pick up the Netflix/Marvel shows though. Daredevil and Jessica Jones were great, Punisher and Luke Cage were good and even Iron Fist improved a lot in the second season.

Re:Star Wars?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Clone Wars season 7.

Re:Star Wars?

[Anonymous Coward]

No if you subscribe for the year its only $69.69.

Not All of Star Wars Yet

[cervesaebraciator]

It won't have the original trilogy yet. Turner holds the streaming rights until 2024.

Re:Not All of Star Wars Yet

[Anubis IV]

Then Disney must have licensed/bought the rights back, because they've confirmed that the original trilogy will be available on day one when Disney+ launches.

Re:Not All of Star Wars Yet

[alaskana98]

Ah - I was wondering about that.

Re:Not All of Star Wars Yet

[AmiMoJo]

Yeah, but will it be the original original trilogy, or the Laserdisc, or the re-master, or the Bluray re-master, or fan recreation of the 1977 original theatrical release, or some new re-hash?

They could make it like Bandersnatch on Netflix where you get to pick if you want Han to shoot first.

Re:Not All of Star Wars Yet

[hawk]

The ascii version, of course!

For those who haven't seen it,

telnet towel.blinkenlights.nl

The very *definition* of "too much time on his hands" . . . :)

hawk

DoA

[slashmydots]

Sorry, I have enough subscription services right now and the whole point of cancelling cable was to stop paying tons of money per month so I'll pass, as will everyone else who's not rich or unbelievably irresponsible with their money. Dead on arrival.

Re:DoA

[Frag-A-Muffin]

This is Disney we're talking about. They have an almost cult like following as strong as Apple's. No, not just kids. Grown ass men too, and not just because of star wars. So no, I disagree with your DoA assessment.

At $6.99, I think it's priced great. I wasn't going to subscribe when they first announced this, but at that price, and all their back catalogue (Hello, ALL of The Simpsons!?), it'll be a great add if not just for my kids!

More live action than just Mandalorians

[SuperKendall]

There are at least two live action Star Wars shows in the hopper...

I agree, that is a lot of Star Wars (and Marvel) content for a not very large price.

Re:More live action than just Mandalorians

[AmiMoJo]

Also Rian Johnson is signed up for another trilogy of movies after Episode IX.

make Disney premium again and drop my bill $6/mo

[Joe_Dragon]

make Disney premium again and drop my bill $6/mo and make it an choice.

All Star Wars eventually?

[Ded Bob]

Even everyone's favorite, the Star Wars Holiday Special?

Re:All Star Wars eventually?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least it was better than Star Wars: The Last Jedi.

Re:All Star Wars eventually?

[elrous0]

I never thought I would live to see a movie that would humiliate Mark Hamill more than The Night The Lights Went Out In Georgia. But then I saw The Last Jedi.

linear Disney channel is ad free and we all pay fo

[Joe_Dragon]

linear Disney channel is ad free and we all pay for it.

I'm just going to leave this little thing

[rsilvergun]

right here...

Simpsons.

[drinkypoo]

Forget Star Wars. The Simpsons alone will draw people in numbers.

YAMSS

[AxisOfPleasure]

Yet another media streaming service, fragmenting the media market and forcing people on limited budgets to choose, or more often a lot of people simply picking one and then obtaining their other media through sometimes less than legal channels.

Why PS4?

[Anonymous Coward]

Disney+ is slated for a November 2019 release, PlayStation 5 is confirmed for a 2020 release, why waste time supporting the PS4?

Re:Why PS4?

[Linegod]

It's nice to see that the average Anonymous Coward is a non-functional human.

Re:Why PS4?

[spire3661]

Because there are 100 million of them in the market....

Escaping the Orbit

[SuperKendall]

People will swap streaming services upon a regular basis, as none of them will end up with sufficient content

I agree with this statement, for a lot of services. HBO is exactly that way for me, it has some shows I like, but not enough to keep me around for more than a few months at a time...

Netflix I would argue, now has enough content existing and being developed that they can accelerate out of that orbit of churn, to full time streaming for most people.

Disney though, might have enough here to e a full-time subscribe. As mentioned elsewhere, they will have a LOT of Star Wars content including new content (the auxiliary stuff like the TV series have been much better than the movies in recent years). Then you have all the Marvel stuff. And all the Pixar stuff. And all the Disney cartoons and movies... that's a lot of mostly pretty good stuff (well OK Disney TV probably has a lot of filler but still). If you have kids (which notoriously like to watch things repeatedly) it's an instant must-have service. Even without kids if you are into one of the vectors they offer deep enough (Marvel/Star Wars) it's worthwhile and there's probably enough new stuff ongoing you'll keep it for a year...

As an aside, Amazon lucks into yearly video service users because so many people have prime. If they ever broke that charge for video out I think they'd see a huge decline in year long subscribers.

Flexibility is key

[SuperKendall]

Exactly, for HBO for example I am in during Game of Thrones, but out the rest of the year. Even the Disney service, as cheap as it is if I find I'm not watching it, I'll drop for a few months or longer while they build up content... don't have the kind of flexibility with cable.

Some seem to do just fine without Netflix as well...

Even subscribing to Netflix and Disney I'll still be way better off from a cost standpoint than getting a cable package with any significant channels.

Possible illegal behavior

[war4peace]

From TFA:

After the initial North American launch in the fourth quarter of 2019, the service will roll out to Western Europe and in Asia-Pacific regions starting in Q4 and into early 2020 and in Eastern Europe and Latin America starting at the end of 2020.

The European Commission will most likely slam them with a heavy fine if they do this. The European Union is a single entity economically speaking, and treating Western Europe and Eastern Europe separately is a huge no-no.

Valve is under pressure right now for allowing game price geotagging in the EU, together with other major game publishers. https://win.gg/news/977
As a person living in Eastern Europe (and a Star Wars fan), I am directly interested in how is this going to unfold.

Re:Possible illegal behavior

[Anonymous Coward]

Valve is under pressure for their regional price practice, and we dont know how that story will end yet.

I am very sceptical that the EU would take action against Disney based on where and when they operate their business. It would be a frightening precedent as there are millions of companies in the EU that dont operate in the entire EU.

Re:Possible illegal behavior

[mlw4428]

Is the EU really trying to be that anti-business? Do mom and pops have to open stores throughout the EU if they open one up in, say, Germany? Are they required to be online retailers? The EU is kind of being a little stupid.

Re:Possible illegal behavior

[tepples]

Do mom and pops have to open stores throughout the EU if they open one up in, say, Germany? Are they required to be online retailers?

As I understand the single market regulation, the intent was that if a business chooses to operate online in the EU, then it must participate in the digital single market. Disney could instead choose to operate a Western European counterpart to Disney+ as a DVD by mail service instead of streaming.

I still don't understand how the digital single market expects copyright owners to comply with obligations under decades-long exclusive territorial distribution contracts that predate the digital single market.

Re:Possible illegal behavior

[Anonymous Coward]

If you run an online shop in the EU and exclude all Bulgarians just so you can run differential pricing then that is discrimination and you deserve being slapped down with the power of the law.

If that makes the EU anti-business then horray for being anti-business.

Re:Possible illegal behavior

[jareth-0205]

Is the EU really trying to be that anti-business? Do mom and pops have to open stores throughout the EU if they open one up in, say, Germany? Are they required to be online retailers? The EU is kind of being a little stupid.

I mean that's clearly not what they require, it's kindof mental to even ask. It's a price discrimination rule.

"can't be charged a higher price when buying products or services in the EU just because of your nationality or country of residence."

There is no requirement to operate over multiple countries, but if you do you have to offer the same prices to everybody, excluding delivery costs. Since delivery doesn't apply to streaming, then it's must just be the same price.

Re:Possible illegal behavior

[psavo]

Don't be daft. All they have to do to dodge this is a) have a separate IP holding company (done) b) separate streaming license holder (done) and just not buy IP rights for the region until they're ready to open the shop.

$6.99 FOR NOW

[Rick Schumann]

First taste is cheap, people. Just like everyone else, they'll let you get all settled in, then start jacking up the price. 'Cord cutters', indeed.

Re:$6.99 FOR NOW

[AmiMoJo]

I'd love to know what Disney and Netflix think about The Pirate Bay. How do they factor it into their pricing? Do they keep the monthly cost low enough to compete with it, or is it not a factor at all?

Re:$6.99 FOR NOW

[garcia]

I've been on Slashdot since 1996 or 1997 and I have gone through my phase of using any number of p2p software pieces for obtaining whatever media I preferred to watch; however, these ended when I became an adult who could easily afford any of these services.

What do I do now that Disney isn't on my preferred streaming services? I either choose to pay for it or I don't and my kids don't watch it. But, even though I did it in the past, I *never* once consider torrents as an option for consuming this and, if I think this way, the vast majority of people in the world do as well.

So, to answer your question, no, they don't consider it as as a factor.

Re:$6.99 FOR NOW

[doubledown00]

I've been on Slashdot since 1996 or 1997 and I have gone through my phase of using any number of p2p software pieces for obtaining whatever media I preferred to watch; however, these ended when I became an adult who could easily afford any of these services.

What do I do now that Disney isn't on my preferred streaming services? I either choose to pay for it or I don't and my kids don't watch it. But, even though I did it in the past, I *never* once consider torrents as an option for consuming this and, if I think this way, the vast majority of people in the world do as well.

So, to answer your question, no, they don't consider it as as a factor.

They should. I also used file sharing sites and stopped for the same reasons. Additionally for me it wasn't just economics, it was that they finally worked out how to deliver consistent quality timely content at a reasonable price that is easy to access.

The problem now is with all these walled gardens, they are changing the deal. The hassle factor is going back up and content is becoming unavailable based on which subscriptions you do or don't have. I have already chosen not to have 10+ different subscriptions just to use the services a handful of times for a movie or two. I believe the result of this will be to push more people back to p2p.

Although it won't happen in the current environment, the most consumer friendly streaming solution would be to create a compulsory license for movies and TV much like what radio has. All content is available to everyone for a set royalty rate per use.

Re:$6.99 FOR NOW

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been on Slashdot since 1996 or 1997 and I have gone through my phase of using any number of p2p software pieces for obtaining whatever media I preferred to watch; however, these ended when I became an adult who could easily afford any of these services.

ive been here since ~1998, AC always; am too now an adult, and can now afford whatever media i want.

that said, pirated PC video games are still the best to this day. no drm, no internet required, not tied to a service, sometimes better performance, you can make backups via disk/flash drive, etc.

pirated music is still the best too (aside from ripping it yourself).

still the pirate's life for me, ahoy.

Re:GAYEST LYING FAGGOT IN THE WORLD SEZ:

[mmdurrant]

Am I understanding the correctly? The original article had comments disabled (because 6+ months ago, seems reasonable) so this person posted here with a link to what they were responding to? Is it a person, even?

Whadduuup

[Anonymous Coward]

Disney+ and chill?

Re:Whadduuup

[doubledown00]

Disney+ and chill?

"Why don't you have a seat over there."

Re:make Disney premium again and drop my bill $6/m

[AmiMoJo]

It won't be available in my region anyway, and even if it was I doubt my smart TV or Kodi box will support it, so until they fix that it'll be the Pirate Bay for me.

6.99 loss leader. $9.99 once it's going

[Maxo-Texas]

The $6.99 price probably won't even stand 12 months.

Not even sure $9.99 will hold long. Their behavior in the past already shows they'd rather sell to 20% of the market at a much higher price.

Re:6.99 loss leader. $9.99 once it's going

[Hodr]

Where is your example of this? Disney used to be a paid premium channel on cable. Now there are several Disney channels in the basic cable package. That shows a willingness to accept less from each sub in order to get a greater total profit. Literally the opposite of squeezing every drop out of a smaller segment of the market.

Re:6.99 loss leader. $9.99 once it's going

[geek]

$19.99

Fixed that for you

Re:6.99 loss leader. $9.99 once it's going

[ripvlan]

Me neither. But for $6.99 I will probably sign up. I already have Amazon and Netflix - plus cable TV (because I have too to get Internet). So I need another streaming fee like I need a hole my head.

For $7 - I will probably splurge for the kids. If it goes up much I'll have to seriously consider which one to keep and which to drop. Does "Disney Only" have enough content to win that contest? I don't know.

Re:6.99 loss leader. $9.99 once it's going

[Maxo-Texas]

Look at their theme parks... for $60 you get a ticket.. for $200 you get to cut in line ahead of the people paying $60... and the way they treat their old movies. Repeatedly taking them out of circulation to artificially raise their value by creating artificial scarcity and then rereleasing them at higher prices.

They'll probably have 2 tiers with 'really special content' being offered earlier to folks paying more.

so. who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Netflix subscriber. It works great. I don't care for this Disney ripp-off copy.

Unless

[DarkRookie2]

Unless this service contain all of Disney's movies/shows/properties this won't be worth it.

Re:Unless

[neo-mkrey]

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.

Hulu Bundle

[Only Time Will Tell]

The idea that Disney+ could be discounted bundled with Hulu is of interest. I couldn't care less about ESPN+, but do use Hulu regularly, particularly since I get HBO through it. I'm interested in some of the Star Wars stuff and hope some more mature TV shows might be spawned showing some grittiness of the galaxy (perhaps a show just about bounty hunters, or the Hutt crime cartels). Marvel TV shows have been more miss lately than hit for me (I liked Agents of Shield when it first came out, but the last two seasons have gotten weird and off-topic in my mind). I also hope all the old Disney afternoon cartoons are on the platform (like the old Ducktails, Rescue Rangers, etc).

RIP, The Simpsons

[Anonymous Coward]

It had a good run..

Re:"hundreds of episodes from Disney Channel shows

[JMJimmy]

500 movies and 25 shows.. is this a joke? That doesn't even cover their theatrical releases, let alone direct to video, FOX assets, etc.

Machete order

[tepples]

I'm more a fan of watching the Star Wars movies in Machete order (IV, V, II, III, VI). They show two of the episodes with "better CGI" as a flashback between episodes driven by practical effects, while not letting any movies spoil twists of other movies. Then The Phantom Menace (or The Phantom Edit if the "pet dog" annoys you) can serve as a prequel to the whole thing, a side story in the vein of The Clone Wars.

Re:Machete order

[PrimaryConsult]

Thanks for that, it looks like I'm one of today's lucky 10,000 who never heard of The Phantom Edit until today.

Re:Machete order

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you fit in the backstroke of the west cut of episode 3?

Another dagger in the economics of cord cutting

[doubledown00]

Soon there will be even more content spaced out over an additional service offering. With the other major studios to follow with their own subscriptions (if they haven't done so already). To say nothing about the inevitable price increases, which we all *know* are coming. Youtube TV announced a $10 per month bump yesterday. Netflix is going up again. At a $6.99 price point The Mouse is already under the market average. How long are they expected to leave money on the table?

I cut the cord last year and tried out three different tv alternative services along with subscriptions to Hulu, Netflix, etc. The thing that became clear very quickly is mere "browsing" for something to watch is time consuming. With the way content was fractured I found it next to impossible. I realize there are websites that allow users to search the streaming sites for specific content, but this is becoming a pain in the ass. Heaven forbid if you don't know exactly what you want to watch at that moment.

We're back on cable now. For me most of the time the tv is background noise. I'll watch the local news at night. Maybe some American Football and some basketball. Content is fungible. The price differential is increasingly negligible ($72 vs $100 in this case).

In the future this will all be studied endlessly.

[slappynipsy]

If, instead of every studio baking it's own platform with it's own fees and structure they all banded together, removed their content from Netflix as a block and had a unified platform for steaming all content (Warner, Disney, Universal, Paramount, Sony) they would put Netflix out of business within a few years. After that break it back up and do whatever, what they are doing now seems to shortsighted.

Cheaper than Cable Add-ons

[Anonymous Coward]

I pay double that to get kids channels.

So it's gonna save me $70 a year to sign up and drop the cable addon

Christmas Special?

[Kinthelt]

If they don't have the Christmas Special, I'm out.

What about Gravity Falls?

[urusan]

Disney has been keeping Gravity Falls unreleased for years. Will it appear on this service?

Re: "hundreds of episodes from Disney Channel show

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a jole, greedy fucks see someone making money and go "How dare they make money in a way Im not making! I know, I can release a shittier version and charge more! I'm sure the plebs will pay it, it's just a cost of two cups of coffee a month!"

Re:linear Disney channel is ad free and we all pay

[hawk]

You mean the 24/7 infomercial for the Disney empire, which get's interrupted by 15-20 minute chunks of programming?

hawk

Re:In the future this will all be studied endlessl

[Anonymous Coward]

BRILLIANT! They could call this CABLE TV! Then, they could upset folks to get them to cut the cord, then start their own services... oh wait... I thinking too far ahead.

Miramax

[damonlab]

Too bad Disney sold the rights to Miramax. It would have been nice to have Miramax films included in this.

Re:"hundreds of episodes from Disney Channel shows

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you didn't read the summary correctly as it's 7500 episodes which includes 25 ORIGINAL series. There are going to be way more series than just 25 otherwise each series would have about 300 episodes which is ridiculous.

It may not cover everything they've released in the past few centuries that they have existed but it's still fairly substantial. Presuming 25min / episode and 2h per movie it's 3125 hours of serialized content and another 1000 hours of movies. Watching 24/7 it would take nearly half a year to consume all of the content available.

Re:In the future this will all be studied endlessl

[Anonymous Coward]

Cable TV pulled it's content from Netflix? doesn't that make up like 90% of what Netflix has?

Re:In the future this will all be studied endlessl

[Anonymous Coward]

That platform exists already, it's called movies anywhere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movies_Anywhere

Download?

[philmarcracken]

All of Disney+'s content will be available to download for offline viewing and will be available in 4K.

Err what? Can I just sub for a month, download everything they have and unsub? What container and codec is the download in?

Neverforget Bot

[Anonymous Coward]

SuperKendall is a piece of shit human. He lies constantly and whores the karma so someone made a bot script that posts that message to all his posts so people like yourself don't fall for his BS. That particular post wasn't really trying to say much of anything, but the bots don't care. And if you bitch about this much more on your logged in account, you'll get a dose yourself. He isn't the only one here who gets a shout out for past hypocrisy and garabge behavior. You'll see spam posts attached to Kohath, APK, any of the creimer accounts, cayenne whatever the fuck his name is, and so so many more. You can simply read any of thier posts and in about 10 minutes agree they deserve it all. They have no sympathy, empathy, or care of anything that doesn't 100% benefit themselves in some way. A couple, like Kendall here, actually enjoy doing things that cause others to suffer.

TLDR: This is a Never Forget Bot that reminds you to verify and analyze what these notorious asshats say before you make any kind of decisions based on it. Never forget, they're shitheads.

Re: In the future this will all be studied endless

[slappynipsy]

Movies anywhere isn't monthly service streaming platform, It's a way to view films you've purchased?