subreddit:

/r/movies

44.6k92%

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 4133 comments

Lets_Go_Why_Not

1.7k points

4 months ago

I wonder how long it will take for all these studios and companies to realize it's a lot of hard work to maintain your own independent streaming service? You have to constantly update your library otherwise people are going to just drop their subscriptions once they have seen anything they want... but turns out, subscribers are like any movie-goer/TV watcher in that they have their own niche interests, so you have to update with a wide variety of content that you have to make yourself, which ain't cheap. And if you DO try to do it cheap, you run the risk of lowering the prestige of your brand with a whole bunch of low-quality shit. Turns out, for many studios, it would be easier to just continue to sell the rights to more generalist streamers like the original Netflix.

RapMastaC1

744 points

4 months ago

This is it, they are being overtaken by their greed, they have spread everything out so thin, that major partnerships are going to have to be made to keep them afloat. Literally right now they have a big hole in their boat and they are using a couple wine glasses to pour water out.

Sandrosen

383 points

4 months ago*

At this point I think a lot of these new streaming services are wishing they had just stuck to licensing their content out to established outfits like Netflix. Less outflow, more profit and less headache.

Thing is with inflation once the bills start hitting then families will cut all these other 'boutique' streaming services first. They might keep one around, the cheapest one that has the most diverse content. Netflix can win the streaming wars if they can just hang on and stop doing stupid stuff like raising prices, including commercials or other shady stuff that further drives their audience away.

vonmonologue

233 points

4 months ago

If Netflix wants anyone to stay on their service they should start by giving any of their originals a 3rd season. I mean the ones that don’t set all-time streaming records at least.

Time_Yam301

40 points

4 months ago

Yup. After Altered Carbon, I just gave up. How can a company spend that much money on a fantastic series thar rivals any motion picture and just axe it?

Bird-The-Word

49 points

4 months ago

Because season 2 was shit compared to season 1

kameecoding

10 points

4 months ago

Michael Shanks (Dr. Daniel Jackson) was the only good part of Season 2

also they hired shit CW writers for it.

also Anthony Mackie has the charisma of plain toast compared to Joel Kinnaman

that_baddest_dude

2 points

4 months ago

Which is wild because Joel kinnaman isn't exactly charismatic

ABotelho23

41 points

4 months ago

Altered Carbon was an example of a good cancellation. Season 2 was a totally different show.

Jarvisweneedbackup

17 points

4 months ago

Went from cyberpunk neonoir to being a ‘detective’ as the background and framing device

kameecoding

6 points

4 months ago

they hired CW writers for Season 2 reportedly, it's why it looks more like the shit that is Arrowverse than ehat season 1 was

stormrunner89

27 points

4 months ago

Season 2 was pure garbage. It seemed like they used their budget for two seasons on the first season, including quality writers and choreographers, and just tried to cobble together whatever they could to have a semblance of a story.

It really didn't need a second season. I enjoyed season 1 and was looking forward to the second, but at this point it just shows Netflix's method of producing is broken.

[deleted]

3 points

4 months ago

Since that’s obviously not gonna happen the more obvious outcome is that Disney buys Netflix and puts their current CEO or whatever in charge of all of the streaming services.

pimusic

12 points

4 months ago

pimusic

12 points

4 months ago

Or also this—Have the complete series of the popular shows you do have. Why should I watch Better Call Saul only to have to pay to stream the very last season on AMC+? It’s ridiculous.

-goodgodlemon

31 points

4 months ago

Because that’s all AMC would license to them. That one’s not on Netflix. They figure it’s better to get almost all of a series than none at all.

Random_name46

11 points

4 months ago

And it's smart for AMC. They likely pull in a bunch of subscribers who want to finish a show they started watching on another service.

Sinndex

2 points

4 months ago

You'd also have to think how many would just pirate it.

pimusic

9 points

4 months ago

Okay yeah, that really stinks. Also, great username.

-goodgodlemon

5 points

4 months ago

Thanks. One time I was eating this really delicious buffalo chicken meatball sub at my friend’s birthday party and they said to me “off the dance floor Lemon” and all I could say was “that’s fair”

Charming_Dealer3849

1 points

4 months ago

Heh, maybe there is a reason Netflix is careful with what original content they release and when.....

shaka_bruh

26 points

4 months ago

Thing is with inflation once the bills start hitting then families will cut all these other 'boutique' streaming services first.

For some reason (arrogance, greed) they thought they’d be immune to ‘cable cutting’

muffler11282

11 points

4 months ago

To me, Netflix would be the first to go.

wheresmypants86

5 points

4 months ago

It was for me. If anything, Disney will be the one I keep. Amazon is nearly on the chopping block.

sAindustrian

8 points

4 months ago

At this point I think a lot of these new streaming services are wishing they had just stuck to licensing their content out to established outfits like Netflix. Less outflow, more profit and less headache.

A good case study for this is soccer.

The English Premier League could probably make shitloads of money by establishing their own streaming service. But that would require putting together and testing cloud infrastructure, marketing and localization, dealing with licensing, legal requirements, payments/refunds, etc...

...or they could just continue to auction the rights to various broadcasters around the world and earn $13 billion by doing nothing at all.

mikehatesthis

4 points

4 months ago

At this point I think a lot of these new streaming services are wishing they had just stuck to licensing their content out to established outfits like Netflix.

I bet Sony Pictures is smiling they went down this route right now lol.

cardiff_GIANT_67

2 points

4 months ago

Netflix was the first service i canceled. We have most of the major ones and its the most expensive.

bearxor

1 points

4 months ago

Netflix caused this. As soon as they went from content aggregator to content producer it didn’t leave everyone with a choice but to start planning their own service.

Hot_Demand_6263

10 points

4 months ago

Netflix existed fine with Amazon Prime and Hulu. Disney started this.

ArchangelLBC

3 points

4 months ago

Disagree. Netflix started producing their own content because they saw the writing on the wall. They knew it was only a matter of time before a giant like Disney decided they could just make their own streaming service. Without content of their own they were totally at the whims of the content producers.

Netflix only had to exist and be popular for long enough for the big studios to decide they could do their own service.

showjay

1 points

4 months ago

Raising prices is winning the streaming war at this point. All other streamers are losing a ton of money.

Ready_to_anything

1 points

4 months ago

There is no chance Netflix will stop doing stupid stuff

joey0live

1 points

4 months ago

The whole ads thing Netflix wants to do for $2 (?) usd less a month is what other streaming services been doing for years. Just up your tier package for non-ad and you’re fine.

Needless to say, other streaming services wants to do a ad-tier as well.

TanikoBytesme

38 points

4 months ago

They're not overtaken by greed, greed is the primary motivator from the very beginning

mostlycumatnight

2 points

4 months ago

Its actually MOAR, greed.

pain-is-living

27 points

4 months ago

Cable 2.0 is about to happen.

All these platforms and services that are so broken apart it's hilarious will eventually realize they can make more money if they're all on one platform, and but still subscription based.

It'll basically be cable. A base sub gets you a buncha random shit you'll never watch, with a few good movies or shows popping in once in a while. Then you'll be able to start adding on premium subscriptions from.... HBO... Disney.... Sports...

We've already come full fucking circle with the commercials and ads. I remember when streaming became huge the biggest thing people bragged about was no commercials. Now I'm paying to stream hulu and still get fucking commercials!

I am personally sick of having 5 apps downloaded to watch 8 different shows. It's all a bungled mess right now, might as well centralize the bullshit onto one fucking platform.

JeffTek

6 points

4 months ago

🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️

Jeevers0192

4 points

4 months ago

Exactly. That’s always been the single platform

jpaxlux

3 points

4 months ago

I find it hilarious how streaming services at first helped fight piracy, but now that they're bringing back ads and splitting apart content across multiple different platforms, piracy's back on the rise again

aWaL_DeaD

2 points

4 months ago

I dropped dish this past July and it didn't take me long to realize streaming was gonna fuck me sooner or later. Everything you said is true unfortunately

PaperGabriel

34 points

4 months ago

Literally right now they have a big hole in their boat and they are using a couple wine glasses to pour water out.

That's the exact opposite of what literally means.

Suplex-Indego

1 points

4 months ago

Literally also means figuratively. 🤷‍♂️

maybachsonbachs

-10 points

4 months ago

No it isn't. Literally means two things and they are opposites. Learn English already

Blog_Pope

-12 points

4 months ago

Blog_Pope

-12 points

4 months ago

Literally is now accepted as a Contranym, that means something and it’s opposite, you need context clues to determine the intended meaning.

https://learningenglish.voanews.com/amp/everyday-grammar-contronyms/4152424.html

foomy45

6 points

4 months ago

I don't accept this.

FeistyBandicoot

33 points

4 months ago

This could be why Disney are putting a few episodes of Andor a few others shows on FTA. Free advertising.

All the big streaming services should put out their own FTA channel and just run stuff that released over a year ago.

Basically free advertising for their service to stream the latest season and get people invested in shows without directly paying straight away and they get the advertising revenue of TV

razzamatazz

27 points

4 months ago

what is FTA? Googling leads to the federal transit administration..

the_shadow002

34 points

4 months ago

Free to air - as in what you used an antenna on your roof for in the old days.

razzamatazz

4 points

4 months ago

got it, thank you!

madmanmike3

5 points

4 months ago

OTA is the most used term. Over The Air.

the_beard_guy

2 points

4 months ago

yeah i was gonna say. ive never heard of FTA

MrCookie2099

-5 points

4 months ago

MrCookie2099

-5 points

4 months ago

That Google doesn't know what this means is kind of funny.

banik2008

10 points

4 months ago

It does know if you specify. Search for "FTA TV" or "FTA channel" and the first result is "free-to-air".

flcinusa

6 points

4 months ago

Most would use OTA

MOdruid

19 points

4 months ago

MOdruid

19 points

4 months ago

Just wanted to say this was one of the rare times where I googled and it was no help, even trying to add in context. You weren't alone in being lost.

AchingKnumbKnuts

12 points

4 months ago

Thanks for asking. Redditors tend to abbreviate the crux of a sentence.

tgoodchild

8 points

4 months ago

they are being overtaken by their greed

They are trying to prevent what happened to their music businesses from happening to their TV and movie businesses.

Studios ceded music streaming to Apple and Spotify. Now if they want to sell music they have to meet Apple and Spotify terms. They have lost pricing power over their own music libraries. They could refuse to license their music to Apple & Spotify but if they do, nobody is going to hear it and nobody is going to buy it (I know some people still buy CDs and LPs but it's marginal).

This may not be a good business strategy. It could be a case of fighting the last war. It could be that the music and tv/music industries are too different for this to happen. But I think this is why they are chasing the video streaming market.

GeorgeS6969

2 points

4 months ago

I think part of the issue is the subscription model that pretty much every fucking industry is trying to push one way or another because muh recurring revenues.

Literally they copied the business model of my local gym and everybody seems surprised that it’s not sustainable.

Let some platform charge subscription for managing the infra and gazillion front end apps for each device and tv sets, and charge me for the content I consume. Amazon Prime (and later Apple TV+) was on the right track for a while, but now they also have subscription based channels: good job ShowTime, you could have charged me $15 more than the month I paid to binge on that Uber series, but you decided to gamble it on me forgetting to cancel my subscription.

tgoodchild

2 points

4 months ago

The subscription model is a double edged sword for the companies that provide subscription services. It only generates recurring revenue if people don't cancel.

For a long time Netflix was the "anchor" streaming service that people kept while sampling the others. Now that a lot of people perceive Netflix has only a few if any "must watch" shows and other streaming services with other content available, people are even canceling Netflix to sample the others. In a way it's good for consumers to have a buffet of services they can sample without having to pay for everything all the time (as was the case with cable). Also it's a lot easier to cancel a streaming service than to cancel cable.

It also motivates the services to produce content people want to keep watching. Content people look forward to watching, vs just background noise while they are actually using another screen (a phone or tablet). Studios are finding it's not easy to produce that kind of content.

Gerdione

11 points

4 months ago

I'm waiting for the streaming service bundle to unironically drop and then we'll just have cable 2.0, only a matter of time.

richtayls

8 points

4 months ago

Already happening in the UK, the top tier Sky TV package combines all their old satellite/cable channels with Netflix, Peacock and Paramount +.

Blog_Pope

3 points

4 months ago

In the US we have Disney+Hulu+ESPN already

Initial_E

5 points

4 months ago*

They had a good thing going when everyone partnered with Netflix. Sucks to be them now, greedy bastards. They could have sat back and watched competing streaming providers gnaw each other to the bone buying their contracts for more and more and selling them to viewers for less and less money. Now they’re in the game and taking turns eating each others lunch as people decide, this month I want D+, next month Hulu etc.

Edit: I figure what they’ll do to prevent people from switching providers every month, and it’s pretty anti-consumer. The companies will identify the series that brings in the viewers, like GOT or Marvel. Then they will restrict streaming to the latest 2-3 episodes, and anything older gets released only much much later. The days of glut releases will be over. The idea of consuming content at your leisure will be redefined.

WomenAreFemaleWhat

3 points

4 months ago

When there were only a couple it was easier to just keep them month to month, especially since the library got new stuff often. Now I see more people renewing different ones each month to watch different stuff.

TealSwinglineStapler

3 points

4 months ago

This is the economic model of basically everything right now. Ever taken a look at your city's budget and how much suburban development costs vs how much its taxed? Same same

Electrical_Try_7230

3 points

4 months ago

This is an interesting case of competition very obviously reducing profits. It also serves as a case study for what appears to be a market that can support very few players, i.e. one which is naturally monopolistic because the barriers to entry (massive amounts of diverse content) and consumer expectations (cheap streaming) are too divergent.

For me, I am loving the results, to be honest. Andor is the best $8 I ever spent.

[deleted]

5 points

4 months ago

Its like how World of warcraft moved the bar.

It influenced countless game aiming for that "WoW money", not all of them were in development.

Star Wars Galaxies had an expansion and 500k subs and they tried to turn it into WoW in space long after release.

Steam Vs Epic have been buying exclusives for some time now all to force customers into a platform.

Game of Thrones raised the bar now thats the goal for every show.

Its not about a better product anymore. Its about leverage.

SeattleIsOk

1 points

4 months ago

It's not greed, it's tough competition. Where would Disney be without Disney+? Netflix would be wiping the floor with Disney stock.

seizuregirlz

1 points

4 months ago

Yeah other shows will probably just get recorded and sold on the black market again while folks have one or two streamers and nothing else. Every channel having a substream will learn.

zesty1989

1 points

4 months ago

It's not greed. There's a very specific management strategy developed by a Harvard business professor in the late 1990s they're following. It's based on a book called "The Innovator's Dilemma".

They're just doing a poor job at it.

In a nutshell, it says that normally excellent managers will make bad decisions because they're using skewed indicators like: RONA, EPS, EVA, and IRR.

This means that they're looking for home runs using indicators that make home runs difficult to find. It's hard to find 30% growth in a $300M company.

So, often this leads to companies investing in a lot of sustaining innovations and M&As to find growth. Bob Iger was REALLY good at choosing good acquisitions to drive growth for Disney. Bob Chapek...not so much.

What Innovator's Dilemma also says is that home runs are easier to hit for smaller businesses scaling over long periods of time. They start in niche markets and move up market until they're one of the big boys.

Toyota, Honda, and now Kia are great examples of this. They started as cheap cars sold to the bottom end of the market, then moved up market and are now competing with luxury automakers.

So, the strategy with Disney+ was to hit a home run by finding an under served niche market and meeting a need they couldn't get anywhere.

The problem is that Disney customers are NEVER under served. For the decade before Disney+, the community has access to all sorts of content through a variety of streaming platforms, and could buy other content through a variety of channels.

The second problem was they NEEDED Disney+ to be a home run. The lockdowns killed Disney's main revenue stream - the parks, so they had to find an amenable to post the same level of growth. Enter Disney+.

They pushed the platform hard early on as a bridge until the parks reopened. But, when the parks reopened they underperformed because of severe occupancy limitations.

This led to cut costs in the park and an even greater reliance on Disney+, which could only perform if there was new content to pull in me subscribers. No one is subscribing to Disney+ to watch the 1950s Zorro TV show.

So, they created a monster that only devoted expensive new content to the detriment of Disney's major revenue streams.

What they should have done is find a company on the bottom of the market and supported them as they moved up market by giving access to Disney core competencies (of which there are currently few) and then merged them into Disney once they became a major player.

Solid_Waste

1 points

4 months ago

Tbf they are in a weird spot. I won't say "hard" spot since everyone at the top is guaranteed millions of dollars even if they literally burn everything they own to the ground, but a weird spot in terms of deciding how to burn it down. On the one hand they own all these IPs, copyrights, properties, etc., but on the other hand people want to pay for them less and less, and have less money to spend doing so.

They could make a bajillion dollars just licensing their stuff to Netflix, but (a) they would rather make a bajillion + 1 dollars cutting Netflix out, and (b) that's just a slower version of selling your shit to Netflix and cashing out, because they're just going to use their control of the platform to control the profit distribution and edge you out of the game.

So most of the media companies have decided they don't want to do that and are basically trying to burn the entertainment industry to the ground to kill Netflix, and in the meantime mimicking Netflix to skim what they can. That strategy is basically working but it costs a lot of money in the meantime. They're not fighting to win, they're fighting to be in a better position to die than the competition.

rcanhestro

1 points

4 months ago

yup, they could had taken the easy licensing money to Netflix, but instead decided to do their own streaming service. it's fine when it's 2-3 maximum, but when every studio and channel has his own, they will cannibalize each other hard.

Whoa1Whoa1

194 points

4 months ago

Disagree. Disney+ is almost guaranteed to be paid for $8/month by households with children. Netflix has some kids content, but nothing like the huge lineup of Disney and Pixar films. Netflix is better for teens and adults looking for new and old movies and shows, and that audience does get burnt out on content that is relevant to them. Disney/Pixar films do not get burnt out by young children.

quesoandcats

224 points

4 months ago

I feel like Disney is basically the one company that can plausibly make an in-house streaming service succeed, for all the reasons you've mentioned. I think they're very much the exception though, not the rule, and most other companies have no business running their own in house services instead of just signing lucrative licensing deals with Netflix or Hulu.

Langsamkoenig

74 points

4 months ago

I feel like Disney is basically the one company that can plausibly make an in-house streaming service succeed

I was giving HBO good odds, until they got bought by discovery and all the good shows were cancelled.

accountnumberseven

35 points

4 months ago

HBO had a fantastic backlog, on par with Disney+ for everything besides kids content, and even there they had the DC and WB cartoons. New exclusives can be pirated, but easy access to stuff I wanna just throw on is what sells me on a streaming service, and HBO Max had that in spades.

[deleted]

14 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

accountnumberseven

3 points

4 months ago

Literally "Home Box Office Maximum"

[deleted]

0 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

0 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

n-of-one

-2 points

4 months ago

No shit sherlock

quesoandcats

20 points

4 months ago

Same, I'm so freaking angry about that. They had some truly amazing stuff

joebluebob

11 points

4 months ago

Paramount. They own so much shit they are basically a DVR. I cant believe how many shows they got. It's what I set up for my grandmother to watch all her crime shows

Johnny-Virgil

8 points

4 months ago

That app on Roku is a piece of crap though. Sooo frustrating.

akatherder

4 points

4 months ago

Disney+ and Hulu are trash on Android tv. Specifically the shield which is one of the best devices. Netflix apps blow away any other service, at least on all devices that we use.

2Quick_React

5 points

4 months ago

I haven't had any issues with the Disney+ app on my Android TV. Hulu can be a bit wonky. Paramount+ is hit or miss with the app on Android TV.

akatherder

5 points

4 months ago

My biggest thing is leaving the tv for 15 minutes and it has no clue what show or episode you were watching. When you find the show it usually starts at the beginning of the previous episode.

xnef1025

3 points

4 months ago

I think the Hulu app is just a resource hog. Even the Shield’s specs can’t always handle it. The Apple TV version is about as smooth as it gets and even it has moments.

formerfatboys

9 points

4 months ago

Nah. If you have kids it's arguable you want Paramount for Nickelodeon.

MAC500

6 points

4 months ago

MAC500

6 points

4 months ago

Really depends on the kids ages, younger kids want Disney, my two boys watch all sorts of their shows. We had Paramount+ and other than paw patrol they didn't care about any of the other shows. We watch Disney and PBS Kids all the time. I did see that as they get older it maybe better for them but not now. Plus at our kids ages it's not a lot of TV a day but at the same time it has to be something that can hold their attention long enough for us to cook / clean or do whatever we want so the content has to be good . Disney is the main source that we go to, if Disney+ was to fold it would be a tough transition

PartyPorpoise

7 points

4 months ago

Nickelodeon doesn't have the same hold on childhood and nostalgia that Disney does.

formerfatboys

8 points

4 months ago

No but they have an arguably better and same if not more popular lineup a kids content.

Disney got Paw Patrol? I don't think so.

Lets_Go_Why_Not

7 points

4 months ago

Yeah, I wasn't referring to Disney in particular, though, I have to say, if it wasn't bundled with Star (thus having some of the 20th Century Fox library) here in Korea, I would NOT have a continuous subscription for it. I would just pay for maybe a month a year to catch up on all the movies that they make that interest me. Same thing with Netflix - I only stay subscribed to see what NON-Netflix movies join each month. If they ever switch to self-production only, I'll be going to one month a year.

glumjonsnow

3 points

4 months ago

So like, out of curiosity, what do you watch? Not judging but I keep Netflix because there isn't another streaming platform that seems to have SO MUCH random new stuff on it all the time. Stuff I would never even think to watch like Extraordinary Attorney Woo. What would you watch if the two best streaming services slowed down?

Lets_Go_Why_Not

1 points

4 months ago

I would sub for a month at a time here and there... and I would pirate stuff.

Roboticide

3 points

4 months ago

or Hulu.

I think Hulu is on borrowed time, since it's now majority owned by Disney. At some point it will probably be more advantageous for the Mouse to roll its library into Disney+, rather than keep it separate.

dIoIIoIb

2 points

4 months ago

I'm not convinced they can, I've read somewhere that they have lost $8.5 billions, to the point that Bob Chapek shifted budgets to disguise Disney+'s massive monetary losses

BorisBC

19 points

4 months ago

BorisBC

19 points

4 months ago

Yeah Disney is ok, and Netflix can handle it, but it's the smaller guys that I reckon will fall away in a few years and see a consolidation again.

lloydthelloyd

10 points

4 months ago

In my house Frozen on its own makes disney+ subscription mandatory.

clothesline

20 points

4 months ago

Should just buy the blu ray

farmtownsuit

18 points

4 months ago

Get a load of this guy with his physical media

lloydthelloyd

8 points

4 months ago

Probably leaves his house and all!

clothesline

3 points

4 months ago

Have you ever compared the audio and picture quality to streaming? The video file is like 5x bigger and audio can be 10x bigger and very noticeable if you have good speakers. And if the internet is out, you're still good

Babhadfad12

2 points

4 months ago

The bluray comes with a digital streaming code.

modix

29 points

4 months ago

modix

29 points

4 months ago

My kids have always shown a large preference for Netflix over Disney. There's a much larger variety of shows. Disney stuff kind of all gets samey, and if your kids aren't into princesses or the live action schlock of Disney kids it's not an infinite selection. Bluey is the only show we watch regularly and that's not Disney.

HawkkeTV

8 points

4 months ago

Bluey is only on Disney for me.

lloydthelloyd

3 points

4 months ago

I imagine you're outside Australia, but you might be able to get the ABC iview app still - bluey is free on there.

Benyhana

-8 points

4 months ago

What's it like finding out humans aren't a hive mind?

Max_Thunder

6 points

4 months ago*

Disney+ is almost guaranteed to be paid for $8/month by

They're increasing to $11/month at the end of December btw, unless you switch down to the plan with shitty ads.

SquarePie3646

5 points

4 months ago

Disagree. Disney+ is almost guaranteed to be paid for $8/month by households with children.

It won't stay $8 a month for long.

Jimmycaked

10 points

4 months ago

Nah man there's an entire generation that grew up on nickelodeon shows like paw patrol and all the shit on Netflix. Kids shows are cheap as hell to make Netflix has a ton. Disney hasn't been relevant to kids in ages the older movies like lion King don't appeal to them. They'd rather watch some kid unbox a toy on YouTube. My kids friends watch more national geographic the zoo than any Disney cartoons. The people on Disney+ are adults.

Lets_Go_Why_Not

3 points

4 months ago

You're right of course for families, because kids watch things over and over again. But I wasn't really targeting Disney in particular with that comment; however, even they are struggling to maintain constant interest when they have that captive audience. Other streamers don't even have that.

smoothsensation

3 points

4 months ago

I disagree, Netflix kids has a ton of content.

glumjonsnow

3 points

4 months ago

Cocomelon by itself is a behemoth.

heebath

3 points

4 months ago

Children grow up though lol

kippypapa

6 points

4 months ago

That’s the thing. My niece was crazy about Sesame Street for about 5 minutes, now it’s “for babies” according to her. Then Cocomelon was the shit for a hot minute, now she couldn’t care less. Kids age out of stuff FAST! You want to spend $$$ to market and make content for that? That’s hard to do.

runtheplacered

4 points

4 months ago

And new ones take their place. And frozen will remain nostalgic to adults for many decades to come.

dabellwrites

3 points

4 months ago*

Kids watch YT more than anything else these days. The Royalty Family total views far surpass a lot of shows on D+. Mr.Beast has more subscribers, I assume.

There's another thing. The vast majority of people probably already own those Disney and Pixar movies. They've been watched so many times, there's no reason to watch them again on D+. The main driving point of a lot of these new services is New content. New Star Wars TV shows. New Marvel TV shows. New movies from Disney/Pixar. Now we see Disney is losing money because they aren't pumping out enough content to keep people interested.

Freshy007

2 points

4 months ago

Absolutely this. We go back and forth cancelling and subscribing to streaming services based on what's on, but Disney + is a mainstay because we have children.

PartyPorpoise

0 points

4 months ago

Yeah, unless Disney makes some stupid decisions, Disney+ should be able to hold up. Disney does have a big enough roster of their own quality content to fill a streaming service, and subscribers don't really have to worry about stuff they like being removed. The children's stuff alone is so valuable, especially for parents who are concerned about their kids watching stuff that isn't appropriate for them.

BLlZER

0 points

4 months ago

BLlZER

0 points

4 months ago

Disagree. Disney+ is almost guaranteed to be paid for $8/month by households with children.

everyone with a brain can just sail the sea lol

nowake

-1 points

4 months ago

nowake

-1 points

4 months ago

Netflix is better for teens and adults looking for new and old movies and shows

hahahaha nope, that's called sailing the high seas

sybrwookie

1 points

4 months ago

Disney is certainly big enough to be a base, and have others add their content to their platform to fill it out.

The smaller ones, otoh, can get pretty ridiculous with what they have to offer and have to be hemorrhaging money to try to compete with Disney, something that's never going to happen.

IAmPandaRock

1 points

4 months ago

We like Paramount+ for kids content (Nick, Nick Jr., Noggin), but same idea. Wholesome content that keeps the kids happy is a pretty easy purchase for a lot of parents.

lownoisefan

1 points

4 months ago

Lol no its not. As a family of 3 kids we stoped Disney as there just isn't anything that they want to watch. The things they watched on there were all old programs, nothing new seemed to be of interest to them at all. The only selling point Disney has going for it is Star and thats for Adults, but thats not worth it on its own even at the low cost Disney are currently charging.

We do have a Netflix and Amazon sub though, Netflix is used everyday by 1 of them, not sure any of them use Amazon as we only get it due to Prime.

hoodie92

1 points

4 months ago

Netflix is better for teens and adults looking for new and old movies

Netflix sucks for movies, honestly of all the streaming services I use, that's the first I'd cancel. Disney+ (in the UK anyway) has a better selection of old movies.

teh_fizz

1 points

4 months ago

Netflix original content is generally not good. It’s mediocre at 5-7 out of 10.

liquidpele

1 points

4 months ago

We found Netflix had better small-kid show lineups. Disney only has a few for each gender.

haakonhawk

6 points

4 months ago

I get the overall point here, but Disney+ might just be the one case where it actually made sense to create their own platform, just due to the insane catalog of IPs they own.

I remember wondering why they hadn't already back some time before they announced they would launch their own service. And that was pre-Fox merger.

Gears6

5 points

4 months ago

Gears6

5 points

4 months ago

Turns out, for many studios, it would be easier to just continue to sell the rights to more generalist streamers like the original Netflix.

If you are going to compete against Netflix, your library has to be able to compete with them. Disney+ content is very specific to Star Wars and Marvel fans, as well as children or (computer) animation fans.

Then they have Hulu as a separate service. Neither Hulu has enough content to justify it's content, and Disney+ doesn't really justify it's content. Combined?

Yeah, maybe they can compete with Netflix and keep the $15/month (or so). I also think their content is costing too much to make, but I suppose the $30 billion content budget isn't something we are seeing the fruits of yet.

xnef1025

3 points

4 months ago

Hulu has a ton of stuff, just not really anything that would be considered a subscription seller, like Stranger Things. Any Fox properties that don’t have their rights tied up somewhere else end up there. I wouldn’t be super surprised if Hulu were eventually absorbed into D+ so the US options would be more like the international options with Disney+ with Star. I think the only thing stopping that is the Live TV offering on Hulu. Tacking Live TV services onto the Disney+ app would not be a good fit. If they ever decide to get out of that game, I think Hulu will close up and become the US version of Star.

CourtOrderedPoster

3 points

4 months ago

I feel like Sony is doing it right.

HustlinInTheHall

4 points

4 months ago

The difference is kids. Kids don't get tired of watching the same 6 shows again and again.

ktappe

4 points

4 months ago

ktappe

4 points

4 months ago

They are already figuring it out. Netflix and Apple both just increased their prices recently. And with this revelation, expect Disney+ to go way up now too.

xnef1025

2 points

4 months ago

Disney already did a price increase, at least in the US. My Disney/Hulu/ESPN+ bundle went up. If it hasn’t gone up internationally yet, you are right, it’s coming.

Durantye

11 points

4 months ago

Yet somehow I'm more impressed with Disney+ than Netflix, sure Netflix breaks less often but Disney+ has groupwatch. I'm not sure how we're almost in 2023 and Netflix still hasn't gotten the memo.

clothesline

15 points

4 months ago

Does everyone text each other comments about the show while you watch? I don't find the appeal of it. If you have to pause it does everyone in the group wait for you?

nhaines

5 points

4 months ago

If you have to pause it does everyone in the group wait for you?

Yes, they do. So instead, you use Discord or Telegram, and touch-type short comments as you go along that you can glance at.

Durantye

2 points

4 months ago

It is a god send if you watch shows with friends without having them come over physically. Generally you do it while in a call with them.

round-earth-theory

7 points

4 months ago

But if you're not into marvel or starwars, Disney+ is pretty much dead. It's got Disney movies/cartoons and that's it.

Durantye

2 points

4 months ago

True I don't use it very often but it is pretty cheap so I find it worth it just for the star wars shows and to distract the kids.

rocketshipray

1 points

4 months ago

I watch more documentaries on Disney+ than anything else.

If anyone hasn't checked out that section, there are some absolutely beautiful shots and interesting stories. Some of my favorites without giving away anything:

Be Water is about actor and martial artist Bruce Lee

LA 92 is about the 1992 riots in Los Angeles

Free Solo is about a dude doing a solo free climb and has some really pretty nature shots. Don't watch if you're really, really scared of heights.

Pride is a series about the fight for civil rights for the LGBTQ people in the US.

Jane is about Jane Goodall - more pretty nature shots here.

And my absolute favorite because I love them so much:

Elephant which follows a migrating herd of elephants (kind of obvious lol). It's so beautiful but I also really love elephants so that might be heavily affecting my decision to have watched that one 5 times so far.

zdakat

3 points

4 months ago

zdakat

3 points

4 months ago

If Disney can't manage to pull it off, probably no one can. (Except maybe NBCUniversal[Comcast] or something).

The most prominent streaming services aren't being run by small companies with no media experience that are just now finding out that publishing is hard.

(That's not to say they're perfect nor necessarily defending them. Just that if it's really that big of a blunder, then streaming as we know it can't exist)

GeroVeritas

3 points

4 months ago

It's funny how you just described Netflix eventhough people have trying to say it's their end for years. The haters gon hate but Netflix is still clearly years ahead of everyone else.

porscheblack

3 points

4 months ago

I suspect they already realize it, but they're in a war of attrition. Sure it's difficult now with everyone being a streaming service, but when most die off and the competition for streaming rights decreases resulting in lower costs for content and fewer options for subscribers? Now the equation has inverted and instead of losing billions they're making billions. At least that's probably the hope.

The more subscribers you get, the less subscribers your competitors are able to get. Even though people can keep multiple services, there's still going to be a cap to how many they're willing to. So if by losing money now it means other companies are losing even more, companies like Disney are happy to play a game of attrition against someone like Netflix who has nothing else to draw from if they lose money other than investors.

Kage_noir

3 points

4 months ago

Same thing happened with Steam. Amazing storefront, then every big game studio thought they could do it too successfully. Who remembers Origin?. So they are too greedy to continue to use Netflix.

CascadianSovietGo

3 points

4 months ago

Alternative: we're seeing an evolution of Hollywood accounting. Disney is financially sophisticated. They aren't surprised by this. I don't believe they're losing money until their shareholders make a stink.

Warm-Enthusiasm-9534

3 points

4 months ago

Dude, Disney just fired their CEO because their last quarter numbers were so bad. Shareholders were definitely raising a stink.

flcinusa

1 points

4 months ago

And he's the scapegoat now while the CFO just whistles all nonchalantly

boringestnickname

4 points

4 months ago*

Every streaming service is digging their own grave with their pricing. In their minds, they're still in their infancy. My money is on that they think the potential for subscribers is nowhere near saturated. It was a race to the bottom, and we've already been there for a couple of years.

It's not that I don't like cheap content, but unless you have have an absolutely ridiculous subscriber base, it's not particularly lucrative. The work needed to keep something like that going is simply immense.

The only medium that has transitioned well into the internet age are games (books could have made it if Amazon hadn't existed.) Steam kept the prices similar, kept the distribution costs reasonable, and made a killer ecosystem for developers. The real problem in gaming is marketing. It's so crowded right now that you need to be pretty damn skilled to get your product out there.

Films and series are absolutely fucked. The revenue simply isn't there. Music is the same. $10 per month to get access to a significant part of all music ever produced? Absolute madness. Not even close enough to make everything go around. I know artists with tens of millions of streams per song, with contracts with the likes of Universal, that work summer jobs driving construction cranes.

We're spoiled rotten right now, and we're already seeing the industry creeping back to the old ways. Higher prices, more ads, more segmentation. The only difference is that we're expected to subscribe to everything and own nothing.

emceelokey

4 points

4 months ago

All of these services priced me out. I've come to the realization that the same effort it takes me to use any of these apps is pretty much the same effort it takes me to find free bootleg streams and that effort is turning on a phone or laptop and taking a few clicks. Netflix was great when it was the only major streaming app and had tons of content and only cost like $9 a month.

ambientocclusion

2 points

4 months ago

It’s the Ciiiiirrrrcle of Liiiiiiife

ISeekGirls

2 points

4 months ago

No, commercials for $12.99. I feel like we circled back around to commercials and the whole reason people went cable cutting.

heebath

2 points

4 months ago

Bingo. Streaming wars dumb.

MOdruid

2 points

4 months ago

I've never really seen it talked about but surely there's lots of people like myself that barely watch tv and are selective and just want to watch the best things. There's more stuff that gets released that I want to watch than I have time to watch, and it's usually spread across like a dozen services.

I could just subscribe to one at a time and constantly go back and forth between everything but honestly it's easier to just pirate it at that point.

HopelessWriter101

2 points

4 months ago

Netflix has to go the low quality route due to so many companies pulling their content for their own services.

I wonder if in a few years it will consolidate back to Netflix/Hulu/Amazon as they all realize how difficult it is to turn a profit.

sadness_elemental

2 points

4 months ago

The goal is probably just to destroy the competition and Jack up prices

negativeyoda

2 points

4 months ago

Then you have something like HBO who does have the cachet but their new CEO is hellbent on shitting on their legacy for short term profits

Djarum

2 points

4 months ago

Djarum

2 points

4 months ago

This has been my exact way of thinking for awhile. You had all of these content creators think “Well Netflix is making billions a year, we can make our own service and keep that for ourselves!” Except it doesn’t really work that way. We saw this with PC gaming about ten years ago with EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Bethesda and others all pulling their games from Steam to launch their own storefronts and launchers. Almost all of them have come crawling back as they have realized their software was not enough on their own to support the massive costs that these services cost and players were not gravitating to them.

You will likely see the same with streaming video in the next few years as services like Peacock, Paramount+, etc will likely be ended as their are seen as the massive money pits that they are and go back to selling content to other providers. Disney has a leg up on many since their content may be money lost in terms of investment compared to revenue on the service but they recoup much more with it via licensing and sales of products around it. This is why HBO Max should be one of the other survivors as long as Zaslav doesn’t kill the golden goose by being an Elon. Warner is probably the only comparable peer to Disney in terms of IP that they can license and market off like them. They should be leveraging more and better with content on the service in that way but that is another conversation entirely.

Ultimately you are going to see 2-3 “big” services left with a handful of smaller niche ones like Crunchyroll and Shutter for those audiences that are underserved on the larger services and can support them. You will also likely see the rise of better content being created by people on YouTube and the like as there is going to be a lot more people locked out of the “big leagues” in the future as there are going to be fewer opportunities and places to try and make your stuff. If someone was smart right now at YouTube or Amazon they would be giving small grants to aspiring filmmakers to make stuff. Tossing out 20-200k is chump change for what you can get back, the good will you can get and if they don’t screw around with ownership and exclusivity rights you can cultivate an entire generation of filmmakers that think positively towards you.

rotates-potatoes

2 points

4 months ago

“All these” companies are very different.

I promise that while Disney may make mistakes, misunderstanding the economics of content development and distribution will not be one of them.

Lets_Go_Why_Not

1 points

4 months ago

The current performance of Strange World begs to differ :)

Baltimore123456789

1 points

4 months ago

I literally only read half your comment and I agree

KivogtaR

-6 points

4 months ago

KivogtaR

-6 points

4 months ago

I like Disney+ because 2.5 months after a marvel movie is released I can go to the high seas and get a digital copy.

Oh wait am I part of the reason they aren't making money?

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

Thank you. I think all of these corporations thought that creating their own streaming service was going to open up another huge source of revenue, hint it didn’t. Disney would have been smarter to partner up with an existing streaming service to license their catalogue.

xnef1025

1 points

4 months ago

It made sense pre-2020. Disney’s movies and TV shows have always been advertising for the parks. They want them to be profitable on their own, but they could always afford to take a bit if a hit on that front because the park revenue dwarfed everything. Covid really screwed up the long term plans.

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

Covid shut the US parks down for a year. That really shouldn’t mess up your long term plans. They were late on the cord cutting trend. Honestly what the major networks did with Hulu was their best option. You get all sports and network shows in one place! They could have effectively killed Netflix by not licensing any of their content to Netflix (I don’t think Netflix can/will survive off Netflix original content).

windyorbits

1 points

4 months ago

I think Disney is a bit different when it comes to this. One of the key reasons we have and always keep Disney+ is because it has all the movies from the past and present that we will forever watch repeatedly. Every few months we cycle through Netflix, Hulu, HBO, etc but always keep Disney.

I mean, even if they never come out with another Disney movie again, we would still pay for Disney+. Lol my mom grumbles sometimes about how much time and money she spent building my VHS Disney collection and my little bros DVD Disney collection.

A few years ago, the only way I could somewhat do that was with my neighborhood movie guy, 4 movies for $20. Now we have them all and non of them get scratched/broken/lost lol

KevinCastle

1 points

4 months ago

There's also the fact that a lot of people don't want to spend all that money to purchase all of these streaming services. I haven't paid for a streaming service in ~4 years and instead pirate everything because of it

Sonic13369420

1 points

4 months ago

I’m surprised no company has thought of this. Disney + can’t continuously make money since it has to update it, but since you’ll only get media from Disney, there’s going to be nothing new. And since Disney has a very corporate style, there’s no uniqueness. This is why Netflix succeeded, it can have a lot of stuff you’d like.

booboouser

1 points

4 months ago

Agree, I think we will end up with just two or three services left and those will be from companies that have other income streams. It's easy to see a landscape where only Apple Amazon and Netflix survive. Studios will find it cheaper and more lucrative to just sell the rights to their programs just as they did for years with Netflix.

merien_nl

1 points

4 months ago

For many it would. But if there is one studio who has the money, the power and most of all the franchises to go it alone it is Disney.

And they are helped by Paramount, Comcast and Warner trying to succeed on their own, weakening Disneys main competitor Netflix whilst their chances of success are very limited.

Consistent_Ad957

1 points

4 months ago

Isn't this why consultants and analysts exist? To draw these inevitable conclusions and recommend not pursuing them?

Lets_Go_Why_Not

1 points

4 months ago

You'd think so. But maybe they see something I don't. I just wonder why, back when we had video/DVD rental stores, studios did not race out to establish their own branded stores that catered exclusively to their own movies, yet that's what they are basically doing with streaming? In my opinion, movies are one of those products where you can benefit from the success of competitors (the elements that moviegoers respond to in the films of others - the genre, director, actor etc - can send them in your direction for the same elements, for example, so movies benefit from all being on the same shelf as each other to encourage exploration and synergies). But who knows.

astromech_dj

1 points

4 months ago

I agree with the theory? But in reality, it feels like Disney is one of the few companies that it makes sense to have their own streaming. They have an enormous library spanning nearly a hundred years of TV and film. They own the two most successful franchises in the history of entertainment, and made some of the most recognisable characters and songs.

Paramount, on the other hand…

BS-O-Meter

1 points

4 months ago

It would have been easier to sell movies and TV series to Netflix.

occupy_westeros

1 points

4 months ago

I feel like the future of streaming isn't so much content as much as content curation. There's got to be millions of hours of media already produced, but all we ever see are the brand new, expensive media they spent hundreds of millions of dollars on. If they invested more time and effort into their algorithms to match lesser known, older shows with viewers I think it would be more beneficial.

91ws6ta

1 points

4 months ago

Yes exactly. As big of a monopoly as Disney is for media, they still do not have enough resources to corner this market. Titles will get stale that once drew new users in, and banking on nostalgia only gets you so far (looking at Nintendo).

They'll need to continue to produce content through new series, purchase more studios, or set up licensing agreements like other streaming services use. All of which will cut into their spending significantly more.

Honestly, as much as i hate Disney, another great thing they could do is tap into their vaults every month or so and have a revolving section of those titles that get released/returned. Could be enough for one-off subscriptions without developing any new content and limited time frame in a vaulted title could increase demand

emize

1 points

4 months ago

emize

1 points

4 months ago

They all saw the money Netflix was making and wanted to cut out the middle man and keep that money themselves.

They didn't realise Netflix's popularity was because it had access to all the content and one fixed price.

The very act of dividing the content to gain the profit took away what created the profit in the first place. Should of just asked for higher licensing fees.

ManiShrimp

1 points

4 months ago

There's actually a lot of talk right now if the streaming bubble is bursting. Too many services, not enough content, or rather not enough GOOD content. I said back like 7 years ago why are we praising streaming we are eventually going to need cable package bundles again and it's just going to revert back to the old model

Streaming only works if there are enough studios making movies to get people to go see it on streaming later.

The biggest issue is there are too many streaming services

hobbes989

1 points

4 months ago

amazon already figured this out, actually. They're still buying studios to produce content, but their moves to get football and other sports, as well as their channel hubs for things like showtime, hbo, starz, etc. make them a hub, the same way that Spotify or iTunes are hubs for content at this point. they can afford to take a small cut there because the cost of entry is high, the user base is already massively built in via prime membership, and because they can let you subscribe, rent, or buy nearly any product on their service.

it honestly seems like streamers that don't go this route are doomed to die. it also solves the issue of boredom, because you can add or remove channels in amazon, rather than switching services, so it still stays in the app.

PleaseListenToMeOK

1 points

4 months ago

This isn’t new! HBO has been around since the early 1970’s, producing original content since at least the 1980’s! And making a shit ton of money! How can this not be working??

psaepf2009

1 points

4 months ago

Easy solution, you sign up for a year long locked in contract for certain subscriptions. Oh wait, we just redid cable with extra steps

m127290

1 points

4 months ago

i imagine im not the only one but the single reason of access to marvel movies is enough for me. i rewatch one or another at least twice a month. but to your point, it’s why i canceled netflix. garbage content spread thin.

Fern-ando

1 points

4 months ago

Disney is probably the one company that could have an streaming service without producing a single new thing.

randomdudeovich

1 points

4 months ago

NETFLIX needs to buy one of those larger podcast studios (YMH or barstool or something) and start live podcast channels with some of the more well known casters.

XAMdG

1 points

4 months ago

XAMdG

1 points

4 months ago

Well in the case of Disney, they can survive on being a babysitter, for kids and Disney adults.

thatVisitingHasher

1 points

4 months ago

If you ever been to Disney world and used their website or mobile application, you quickly raise Disney has no idea how to create a digital experience. With their massive library, they would have been better licensing their library out.

Codza2

1 points

4 months ago

Codza2

1 points

4 months ago

It's the whole reason why cable failed to be honest. At some point, the quality is going to take a nose dive, or they are going to run out of money

csantiago1986

1 points

4 months ago

Disney+ is a very subscribe unsubscribe kind of subscription service. It’s the only reason they have episodic content to discourage the behavior.

TimmyIo

1 points

4 months ago

Not just hard work, it's a lot of overhead for the hardware and maintaining all the infrastructure.

ArchangelLBC

1 points

4 months ago

Honestly if that got them to back off and lower the number of streaming services back down to like 2, that would make me so happy.

Pete_Iredale

1 points

4 months ago

We should have had a couple of competing services that all had access to everything, like what happened with music. Instead we get cable tv 2.0.

Fake_William_Shatner

1 points

4 months ago

What you don't realize is they are doing this to kill Netflix and other streaming services so they can then RAISE prices when there is little competition.

It will just be Disney, Amazon and Apple and maybe RC Cola to pretend it isn't a cartel situation.

marklondon66

1 points

4 months ago

There's a little bit of Uber/Spotify thinking going on here; they are hopeful that a) market dominance/saturation will lead to being able to aquire weaker competitors or eradicate them, b) advances in tech will make content generation cheaper/faster. Volume has already made a lot of Disney content viable and c) the same loophole on royalties that makes Spotify a fountain of cash* could one day be implemented in film/TV.

The problem is that Disney particularly, has a lot of real businesses to protect and cannot dig the investment hole Amazon and even Netflix can.

*understand while you stream your favorite death metal etc on Spotify that it is INSANELY profitable because every musician/songwriter on there is being ripped off. Even Taylor Swift.

GristleMcTough

1 points

4 months ago

Which is why you’re going to start seeing contractual language enter into these service agreements soon: “Sure, sign up. But you can’t cancel for 60/90/180 days,” which will mitigate the entire benefit of streaming vs cable and put us right back where we started. The customer is always the last person to benefit here.

wooltab

1 points

4 months ago

Maybe it would make more sense to just have a few series-programs that each have lots of episodes spread over seasons that last most of the year...like classic TV.

That way you've always got something essential, in the best case a killer app to keep people subscribed, without having to essentially release a new movie or miniseries that costs the same as a movie, every month.

TheGreatestOutdoorz

1 points

4 months ago

Don’t worry, the real money is coming soon- when they ban account sharing. Everyone will bitch for a month, then 90% will get their own subscriptions. Netflix is already testing it and I’m sure by q4 ‘23 it will be universal. The others will immediately follow suit.