
Disney acquires own streaming facilities, will pull Netflix content - anigbrowl
https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/walt-disney-company-acquire-majority-ownership-bamtech/
======
geff82
Maybe when I am 60, 70 or 80 the film industry will get their shi* together
and finally agree on a solution that has long been found in the music
business.

For a truly complete platform, I would FOR SURE pay more than the 10$ a month
for Netflix. 20, maybe 30! But then I want it ALL. All films they have in
storage.

I mean, it is 2017 and there are a lot of films I can't find on Netflix,
Amazon Prime or, when I am in spending mood, on Apple TV. Why? I mean how
silly would you want to be as studios? There is no big DVD business anymore,
BlueRay never totally took off. People have a net connection and multiple
streaming devices at home, thats it. Thats the big asset they could build on!
Instead they let their libraries die the death of the unseen film.

Still, many keep shuffeling around harddrives with terabytes of pirated films.
And why shouldn't they, as long as there is no substantial offer?

So I decided for me (and the cloud guy I am), that with my 3 services I have,
I am ok. If a film is not there, I don't care. I surely won't order a DVD of
some old film somewhere and I surely will not subscribe to another service. If
Disneys pulls their films from Netflix: thanks Netflix for their growing self
produced content that often has a quality not seen before.

~~~
onion2k
_...a solution that has long been found in the music business._

Perhaps you're fortunate that everything you want to listen to is on your
preferred music streaming service, but what they offer is _far_ from
everything in the music industry's catalogue. Ask any classical music fan what
they think of streaming services and you'll hear a tirade against the woeful
offerings that streaming services make available.

~~~
Morgawr
This is why I love Google Play Music, you can basically upload any kind of
personally-acquired (legally or not) music to the service and it will
seamlessly and transparently integrate with the platform itself and let you
stream them wherever and whenever like any other.

They are stricter than Spotify with regional licenses unfortunately. I listen
to a lot of Japanese artists that are on Spotify but not on GPM in Europe (but
are there in Japan), I simply imported their albums and ripped them and
uploaded them on the service and now they behave exactly the same. Not ideal,
but still. For like 90% of the rest of the library (anecdotal experience at
least) it's the same as Spotify, which is pretty great.

DISCLAIMER: I work at Google, but I've been using GPM long before that. These
are my opinions and not those of my employer, yadda yadda.

~~~
kuzimoto
I used to use Google Play Music, and it was very nice. But for anyone who has
a reaaaaalllly big library I might suggest something like Ampache
([http://ampache.org/](http://ampache.org/)).

It's totally open source, has a relatively decent web player, allows you to
stream your music anywhere, allows you to create accounts for others to have
access to your music, can connect with Plex/subsonic to work with other
devices/clients. I use DSub on my phone, and can sync music offline (like
GPlay Music). Only downsides really is that it requires a web server and the
initial import can take some time if your library is very large.

~~~
seanp2k2
There are many great options for those with large personal digital libraries.

Describe yourself:

"I'll never let go of my Squeezebox and/or enjoy living in the past and/or
need it to run on Windows"
[https://github.com/Logitech/slimserver](https://github.com/Logitech/slimserver)

"I'm a sysadmin with a Roku SoundBridge"
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly_Media_Server](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly_Media_Server)
is another, specifically for Roku Soundbridge and iTunes streaming protocols.

"I'm running FreeNAS and just want to use a plugin" Subsonic is another
[http://www.subsonic.org/pages/index.jsp](http://www.subsonic.org/pages/index.jsp)
. Can also do Shoutcast streaming.

"I know what RMAF stands for and/or like messing with SBCs and/or spending
$10k on audio equipment" [http://www.runeaudio.com](http://www.runeaudio.com)

"I run Arch with a tiling wm" Lastly are the mpd family of servers and
clients. These are for the hardcore nerds who love recompiling ffmpeg from
source. Servers: [https://www.musicpd.org](https://www.musicpd.org) //
[https://www.mopidy.com](https://www.mopidy.com)

Clients: [https://www.musicpd.org/clients/](https://www.musicpd.org/clients/)
//
[https://docs.mopidy.com/en/latest/clients/mpd/](https://docs.mopidy.com/en/latest/clients/mpd/)
// [http://www.runeaudio.com/clients/](http://www.runeaudio.com/clients/)

------
Anatidae
If every studio thinks I'm going to pay them $10+ a month to stream their
content, they are going to be very mistaken.

I can't imagine that a lot of people want to spend the collective hundreds of
dollars to sign up for all the streaming services. It's almost asking to drive
people to torrents.

Now, if Disney does something like $30/year or something really affordable -
sure. I might do that on a whim. I guess it's all about volume vs. price.

Netflix, however, I'll keep paying for gladly because of the library size. For
the streaming price, it is well worth the value.

~~~
nxsynonym
Agreed. I only pay for netflix and HBO (and amazon, but that's a bonus for
paying for prime). HBO doesn't feel like "extra" because it's always been an
optional add-on that costs more.

First all the "major" studios will split and start charing $10/month. Then
adds will start creeping back in. Before you know it everyone will be paying
for an ad-hoc cable subscription.

I think a better option would be to do what Amazon is doing for HBO - offer a
small portion of the studio (in this case Disney) included with the platform
(Netflix) with the option to pay additional fees for the entire catalog.

The biggest deterrent, for me at least, is not the price but the need to
switch platforms. I'm already annoyed when I have to go from Netflix to Amazon
to find a movie/show I want to see but can't remember where it is. No chance
I'll add a third, forth, or fifth platform to the mix.

~~~
px1999
Long term, we'll probably wind up with a couple of major marketplaces that
provide a UI that ties together content bundles that you've purchased from
different distributors (who will actually serve up their catalogs).

It's a bit depressing how similar that sounds to how cable networks work. Or
platform specific app stores.

~~~
fweespeech
The big Media companies want it to work like cable because they think their
"premium content" will get people to pay more.

In reality, they are likely to trigger a backlash that increases piracy
instead.

~~~
komali2
I don't know why all these people behind these decisions don't just look at
Gabe Newell and his simple statement - "Piracy is a _service_ problem."

Steam is a rampant success. You'd think people would catch on. Have the
content, make it easy to access, make it easy to pay, and people will give you
money hand over fist.

~~~
duckingtest
That's only partly true. There are countries where average wage is $300/month.
They are NOT going to buy legal software and media for $40/thing no matter how
easy it is.

~~~
ricardobeat
Brazil checking in. People still pay for steam games despite the cost. It is
often cheaper than the currency-converted USD price, and otherwise you don't
have multiplayer. Piracy is down by orders of magnitude from 10 years ago.

------
TheGRS
Some kind of surprising comments in this thread. I think many people
(obviously not everyone here judging by what I'm reading) would happily pay
for a Disney-only service, maybe upwards of $20-$30 per month. Why? Its the
mecca for family entertainment. They have Pixar, Disney Animation, Star Wars
and Marvel, plus all of their Disney television content from years past. Its a
quality brand people trust. Much different than Warner Bros, Paramount,
Universal or any of the other major studios. Netflix and Amazon are still
establishing their video content brands and I know they don't come close to
Disney's reputation for family content.

Its a very logical move from my viewpoint (I don't even have a family). If
other studios follow suit they will likely perish from lack of brand loyalty
and/or poor execution.

I hear everyone on the desire for convergence. But we don't want convergence
without competition. The problem with a Spotify model for video content is
that if Netflix becomes the de facto video provider and Amazon or some other
provider can't capture a sizable portion of the market, then we don't have
room for other competitors.

The current model for movie theaters is one born out of anti-trust lawsuits.
Its not a perfect model, but it allows for some competition on things beyond
just the movie you are watching. Theaters compete on ticket prices, food
options, seating and convenience (by offering multiple films). This would be a
suitable model for convergence, but unfortunately it also means legislation to
get providers there. And does it apply to the numerous self-starts on youtube
or elsewhere? I'm digressing, but my point is that I'd rather not have just
one service to rule them all.

~~~
dkrich
Right, and people on here also seem to forget that they own ESPN. There are
seemingly endless ways that Disney could package their content in ways that it
would appeal to customers in every segment.

Sell ESPN with SEC Network, ESPN 2, and all of its networks as a standalone
service to sports fans who don't care about the rest of Disney's offerings.

Sell Disney's older catalog plus kids shows on demand for people who don't
care about sports but have kids.

Sell a package with everything for people who fall into both camps for a
discount.

This still leaves their existing movie business completely in tact.

I honestly think this is a great move on Disney's part. Netflix needs Disney
more than Disney needs Netflix. Disney owns the most valuable content
portfolio in existence. Netflix has a large customer base and a growing
library of its own content, but at the end of the day people shop for
cable/streaming packages based on whether ESPN/ABC/Disney is included.

~~~
peter303
ESPN viewership is dropping. As the largest asset of Disney it drags their
stock down. Most other Disney assets are printing money, but not enough to
compensate ESPN.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disn...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney)

~~~
dkrich
I think this ESPN story is overblown. ESPN is itself printing money, it's just
been in decline because of cord-cutting.

But that's just recent history. Everyone can see that the cable tv industry is
going to be replaced by streaming. When that happens, content owners like
Disney will be able to sell directly to the consumer without the middleman. I
actually think ESPN viewership will increase as more people are liberated to
sign up for just ESPN and not NBCSN, Fox Sports Regional, and every other
sports channel you're forced to pay for with cable.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
People forget that Disney owns a lot of must-see content:

For example, here is the list of top grossing movies of 2016
[http://www.imdb.com/list/ls074920894/](http://www.imdb.com/list/ls074920894/)

Disney had the following films

1\. Captain America: Civil War

2\. Rogue One

3\. Finding Dory

4\. Zootopia

5\. The Jungle Book

11\. Doctor Strange

12\. Moana

19\. Alice Through the Looking Glass

For 2017 so far ([http://www.the-numbers.com/box-office-
records/domestic/all-m...](http://www.the-numbers.com/box-office-
records/domestic/all-movies/cumulative/released-in-2017))

Disney has

1\. Beauty and the Beast

3\. Guardians of the Galaxy V2

11\. Pirates of the Caribbean

13\. Cars 3

They own the Marvel franchise, the Star Wars, as well as some of the most
loved children's movies in history. They also have a ton of children's TV
programs.

If Disney really had a subscription service with all their movies and TV
shows, I would choose them over Netflix.

~~~
joezydeco
Those are all movies. Streaming services get traction from episodic series and
live shows.

If Disney streams only feature film content, it will go nowhere. No parent
will pay $10-$20 month to access the same 50 to 100 films over and over.

~~~
stevenwoo
I have nothing to add to this except that the kids I know love to watch the
same movies over and over again to the point of speaking the lines with the
movies. I don't get it but I'm not the target audience.

~~~
komali2
Then it would probably make sense to pay 20 bucks one time for the movie they
love, for the ability to watch it forever, right? Especially if you have data
restrictions.

~~~
stevenwoo
Yes, it's what I would do and agree, but I might do a lot of things to
maximize the value of my dollars where other people may value convenience over
the dollars. In this situation the question is will the average family person
going to carry a bunch of media for multiple children in multiple vehicles? My
anecdotal experience this last week traveling is families of all income will
use streaming over both carrying a portable DVD player or ripped DVDs on a
portable device.

------
atourgates
Someone more clever than me could graph out the intersection of cost,
convenience and the average consumer's willingness to pirate content for
digital media.

I expect moving all Disney's non-live-sports content off the world's most
popular streaming platform and on to an exclusive platform with its own
monthly fee is going to push a lot of consumers over that line.

~~~
ianai
We're looking at a future where you have to purchase access to content and
delivery of that content piecewise. Prices will definitely increase largely
for the same content and convenience. And at some point society's probably
going to crack down on piracy as though it were a logical extension of
hacking.

~~~
komali2
Society has been trying and failing to crack down on piracy since data could
be transmitted.

I don't think it will _ever_ be possible. Phones cameras are only getting
better, how can you ever stop someone from recording something in the theater
and passing it around in meatspace?

Good quality torrents might become harder to get, but piracy is going nowhere.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>And at some point society's probably going to crack down on piracy <

Do you really think it's society [at large] that's pushing this?

~~~
ianai
In as much as society didn't exactly elect Trump. There are many ways people
get exploited by special interests.

------
reitanqild
I'm happy to pay Spotify a monthly fee.

It is more than I ever spent on music before though (not a pirate, just didn't
buy much music.)

Same with netflix.

I'll not be happy with paying monthly for n different channels to watch a
film.

I want to pay. But either one service with all I need like Spotify or paying
for the stiff I actually watch.

~~~
PretzelPirate
I'm happy to pay extra for content from Disney or HBO, but I just want a
consistent user experience. I was a single app that will let me access all of
this content.

~~~
rwc
That's the concept behind the "TV" app on Apple TV/iOS.

~~~
ianai
Also Roku.

~~~
kbutler
Except every channel on Roku is a different app with a different experience -
Netflix, Amazon, Google Play, YouTube, ... all provide similar functionality,
bit with differences in UI.

Just give me a best-of-breed UI that lets me watch all the things.

~~~
ianai
True, it's not totally homogeneous. But it does support searching through them
from one interface.

------
wongarsu
A large part why Spotify, Netflix and Steam are so successful is because they
are more convenient than piracy, and they have most of the content you would
want.

When you again have the choice to either check half a dozen services to see
who has the show you want, or to go one-stop shopping at the pirate bay, guess
what a lot of people will do.

~~~
FRex
Speaking of that, it's curious that there isn't a piracy version of Steam that
integrates with tor, torrents and such.

How bizarre and awesome (in the way stuxnet was awesome tech but not exactly
well meant one) of a concept would that be? And the outcry of the triple A
industry, wow.

There is LaunchBox for emulators and DOSBox but that's it.. and it just
downloads the metadata, not the emulators and ROMs themselves.

~~~
AlfeG
But there is piracy version for streaming content. In CIS region there is an
app for android(incl. TV) that allow You to watch literally any
tv/show/movie/animation. Quality is shitty sometimes, but free is free

------
matt_s
What about the engineering of Netflix? I see lots of comments here about
pricing and how content distribution in Hollywood is messed, etc. If Disney
has acquired a streaming facility, how will they compare to how Netflix is
engineered?

Will they have apps, sub-accounts, lists of favorites, and be able to move
from device to device and pick up where you left off?

I have to guess that Disney's depth of content is pretty shallow. You have kid
movies, older Disney content, and then franchises they bought like Star Wars
and Marvel. But those account for a handful of movies a piece. Maybe it won't
be hard to technically serve that content up since it is much smaller than
Netflix' library.

What about content delivery? The technical part of this is probably a very
hard problem to solve, globally, where people's streams aren't interrupted or
dropping frames, etc.

Just small things like when I fast forward, Netflix shows thumbnails of the
content, will Disney have those small quality-of-life types of features?

~~~
thomseddon
I think it's safe to say you're underestimating Disney, they don't just knock
out a kids film every year or so - they invest heavily in R&D and are
pioneering many tech fields, animation, haptic feedback etc.

They know how to do tech, ever heard of the magic band?
[https://www.wired.com/2015/03/disney-
magicband/](https://www.wired.com/2015/03/disney-magicband/)

~~~
matt_s
I understand they know how to do tech. Magic bands and their backend systems
only really have to handle the number of visitors at their parks and hotels. I
think that is much smaller scale than engineering something to provide
streaming on-demand movies to the globe (which should be their goal). For
their original content, they won't have licensing restrictions like Netflix
does so the only thing holding them back would likely be tech.

Also from the article, they aren't doing the tech. They bought stake in a
company that does MLB and ESPN streaming.

------
PaulHoule
This has been coming a long time.

Netflix's original business model was to ship DVDs in the mail which was great
because they did not need any special deal with Hollywood to do it. In the
meantime they built a strong brand.

After the first pivot, they streamed online, which required writing deals with
the studios. Back then they were happy enough that somebody was paying them
more money that they gave Netflix easy terms, in particular letting Netflix
keep usage analytics so as to keep the studios in as much of the dark as
possible as to what value Netflix got from it.

Pivot 2 was producing their own content. Any contract they are likely to get
for studios is going to be on a per subscription basis, but if they produce
their own content, the cost is constant but the value goes up as you add subs.

Owning their own IP scales better as they get bigger, and also as they've
gotten bigger, studios are striking harder bargains. Thus the Netflix catalog
has been shrinking. The real "Netflix optimization problem" is about buying a
catalog of economical content then presenting it to users in a way that they
feel they get enough value to pay for the subscription.

Disney is completely right to go direct to consumer because of the strength of
the Disney and ESPN brands. The cable business will be eroded, but many sports
fans are fanatics and will spend a lot for content if they want it. (Think of
the market for AAA video games.)

Similarly, cable is not that enteraining to children, so many parents get
Netflix for their kids, a package of Disney content without the crap you find
on cable could be a hit.

~~~
aidenn0
The day that it was clear that streaming was netflix's future, I said they
were going to go out of business because there was nothing stopping the
content owners from buying white-label streaming services (or just building
their own in-house).

2 or 3 years later they started developing original content, which can save
them, but will be a race against time (will they have a sufficiently
compelling original portfolio to justify a high enough subscription to
continue to develop new content before all the major studios pull their
content).

------
mrhigat4
I don't want to stream, which puts me in the minority. I want services similar
to GOG.com or Steam. I want to buy something digitally, have it stored
remotely, but allow me to pull it down locally and have it so I can take it
elsewhere if I want. That way old, unpopular or niche media can exist on the
platform forever and I get my content on my devices when I want it. No fancy
monthly subscription with a subset of content, I'll buy each piece of content
and pay full price for it.

I realize this is not the 'vision' Hollywood has for their media and most
people just want to stream content and not own it anyway, but all of this is
very anti-consumer.

------
spiderfarmer
With this, Disney is adding incovenience and introducing extra costs at the
same time. Not very attractive for most people.

It will also be hard for them to create the ecosystem Netflix has (integrated
in lots of TV's and other hardware, dedicated remote buttons and support in a
lot of countries). The people outside the US don't care for FOX or ESPN. Maybe
if FOX acquired the football (soccer) rights in all countries where Netflix is
active and added that to the package or something, that would make it a bit
more attractive.

But even then. I don't see this ending well.

------
softwareqrafter
Wouldn't it be better if Disney bought Netflix. Sure it's a much more
expensive move, but consider their large (and pretty loyal) customer base,
content library, data insights on what people want to watch, award winning
movie and series strategy, etc. Disney could populate Netflix with more
content of their own, own all the revenue, while still providing users with a
vast variety of content. Netflix brought all the content together in an
awesome and simple experience. Large co's are smelling dollars so they start
to build their own Netflix clone with their own content. Customers don't want
to pay for 20 different subscriptions. Give us 1 simple app, with all the
content, and we'd probably pay a lot more for it.

Disney is obviously thinking they have the winning strategy with their large
license database. They'll obviously lure people in with Star Wars exclusive
content, Pixar, etc. But if they'd go the extra mile of buying Netflix, and
giving us 1 subscription 'to rule them all', they'll prove their care for
their customers.

~~~
ralphington
The market cap of Netflix is 78 billion USD at the time of this writing. On
top of that, they'd have to pay a premium. I suspect that you were thinking
Netflix was an order of magnitude or two smaller than that.

------
Roujo
I feel like the title might be jumping to conclusions. From the article,
emphasis mine:

> With this strategic shift, Disney will end its distribution agreement with
> Netflix _for subscription streaming of new releases_ , beginning with the
> 2019 calendar year theatrical slate.

I don't read this as "Disney will pull content currently on Netflix from the
platform", and I can't see anything else in the article that would suggest
this.

~~~
ceejayoz
[https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/08/disney-will-pull-its-
movies-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/08/disney-will-pull-its-movies-from-
netflix-and-start-its-own-streaming-services.html)

> CEO Bob Iger told CNBC's Julia Boorstin Disney had a "good relationship"
> with Netflix, but decided to exercise an option to move its content off the
> platform. Movies to be removed include Disney as well as Pixar's titles,
> according to Iger. Netflix said Disney movies will be available through the
> end of 2018 on its platform. Marvel TV shows will remain.

~~~
Roujo
Ah, good to know. At least the title isn't wrong, even if it's not reflected
in the content of the article. Thanks!

------
jpace121
This is an extremely smart play by Disney.

Everyone realizes that content is king, which is why Amazon and Netflix are
busy making their own content. Disney already has the content. This is them
building the distribution network. People complaining about how this will lead
to each studio having their own service, are missing that this is where things
are going anyway, just with Netflix and Amazon playing the role of studio.

This isn't really out of character for Disney anyway. They really like
vertical integration (they own their own film distributor, for example).

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Aren't Amazon and Netflix building content because they can make way more
profit out of it, like the cost to buy the content is vastly inflated? They're
not making it as charity.

~~~
gcb0
not cheaper. if that was the case they would be showing indie/festival movies
left and right.

their own content is about survival.

------
guyzero
It seems crazy that BAMTech grew out of MLBAM - no one would ever have
predicted that Major League Baseball would end up being the starting point for
one of the biggest companies in online video streaming.

~~~
aidenn0
As someone who likes sports but not cable, MLB streaming has consistently been
by far the best online sports streaming experience, so this isn't too
surprising for me.

~~~
zerocrates
Typical of the issues with streaming, MLB.tv's biggest issue has always been
contractual: the service isn't terribly useful for its largest potential
market, fans who want to watch their local team.

It took them years and years to even come up with the system they finally have
now to allow you to pay _extra_ to stream local games if you _also_ already
subscribe to the local team's cable/sat channel.

When you're actually allowed to access the content, it works like a dream.

~~~
aidenn0
If you've ever tried the NFL's streaming service ... it usually works, but
rarely without regularly dropping down to miniscule, unwatchable bitrates.

Games regularly fail to load with the message "This game is not-yet available,
check bat at time X" where X is several hours in the past. Complaining on
twitter usually gets someone to fix those issues though (whatever you do don't
try going through the "support" link, you'll get a response something like 2
days later).

------
jalaziz
I think this is a terrible idea, but time will tell. As a former Hulu
employee, I can say that the media rights business is a mess. It took us (and
Netflix) a very long time to convince media companies that the future is
streaming. Now that they understand that, it's natural that they want to
control all the revenue streams for their content.

What they fail to understand is that online streaming is not easy. Netflix and
Hulu have invested a lot of resources into their tech stacks. Also, have you
tried building an app that works on all the different streaming devices out
there? It's annoyingly difficult. You have to do all that, keep up with the
latest technologies (e.g. 4K), and still provide unique features and value.
Storing the content is the easiest part.

Point is, media companies should stick to what they do best and let the likes
of Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon do what they do best.

~~~
datasage
They are pushing forward with this by purchasing a controlling stake in
BAMTech, which is the streaming tech company behind HBO Now, MLB and others.

~~~
jalaziz
I saw that and I can't speak for HBO Now, but my experience with WatchESPN
(which apparently also streams through BAMTech) has been abysmal. This may be
incredibly naive of me, but I'd much rather have an independent tech
powerhouse like Netflix focused on content delivery.

In my experience, traditional media companies stifle innovation instead of
encourage it. It was never easy to work with them and they held us back. The
whole industry is a mess. I can't imagine Disney buying a controlling stake in
BAMTech will make things better.

That being said, Disney is better with technology than most other media
companies. Of course, I could be completely off-base here. It's just my
opinion.

------
px1999
Piracy shifted power towards consumers. If content creators were going to see
any money, they needed to offer consumer-friendly services that were better
than piracy. The orgs that did this (Steam, Spotify, Netflix) dominated their
markets.

As the web becomes more controlled, regulated and tracked, this power shifts
back to the hands of the content creators. If there's no (legal or illegal)
alternative people will go back to paying $120/mo for tv+movies. Mass media is
how people bond, relate to others and fit in; and that's worth a lot. The
studios know how valuable the culture they generate is, but over the past few
years have been unable to successfully control their consumers.

I think that we'll see more studios shifting over to their own platforms.
We'll also probably start to see renewed anti-piracy enforcement.

------
ValleyOfTheMtns
Because that's what the streaming ecosystem needs; more fragmentation.

I understand production companies wanting to have control over the
distribution of their content, but consumers are not going to want to signup
and pay for multiple streaming services.

Are there any companies out there working on a solution where they can 'buy'
subscriptions in bulk from all the various streaming services, package them
all under a single streaming product, and sell that to the consumer?

------
mark-ruwt
tl;dr Subscribing to a standalone ESPN service will be possible starting in
2018.

This is an earth shaker for sports properties, cable companies, and
subscription VODs. NFLX was quickly down 5%, but is rebounding.

~~~
busterarm
ESPN content but not the main ESPN channels. You can stream those, but only if
you pay for a cable subscription.

It's more like they opened up access to ESPN3 and added a streamable back
catalog of programming. It stems the tide of their massive losses due to cord-
cutting while also allowing them to charge sports fans even more money.

Nobody wins.

------
nkkollaw
Disney might actually get some people to buy this.

My girlfriend has a kid and she would probably pay $10/mo. rather than have
the kid drive her crazy.

What I mean is that Disney might just have enough movies that you're
practically forced to buy the thing if you have kids.

Let's not forget that they have Pixar, and even Star Wars.

------
15charlimit
"They" are going to eventually realize that one of the primary draws and
reasons for the early success of Netflix was the single-source-access to (at
the time) pretty much everything.

Nobody wants to maintain a dozen different accounts with a dozen different
services who have a dozen different content catalogs with a dozen different
payments and have to bounce between them all to find what they want to watch.

It's much easier to just pirate or pick a different form of entertainment at
that point.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
If Disney can profit by making it inconvenient they will.

------
dguo
I wish there was a sort of white label service for streaming content. One
middleman that negotiates with the content owners and then exposes an API to
deliver the content on a pay-per-stream basis or something like that. I know
it's unrealistic, but I want my choice between Netflix and Hulu or between
Spotify and Google Play Music to be about the features and UX, not who has
what content. Though this problem doesn't seem to be as significant when it
comes to music for some reason.

Exclusive content makes sense from a business perspective. Hence Netflix
pouring money into creating its own shows to become HBO faster than HBO can
become Netflix[1], but as a consumer, I think I'd prefer a world in which they
could still do that, license it through the middleman, and make profit
regardless of where it is actually streamed.

Having an API for content could also be awesome for prospective startups,
since it would allow any developer to just pay for access rather than having
to figure out how to negotiate a licensing deal.

[1] [http://gizmodo.com/5980103/netflix-the-goal-is-to-become-
hbo...](http://gizmodo.com/5980103/netflix-the-goal-is-to-become-hbo-faster-
than-hbo-can-become-us)

------
jdpedrie
I guess this was inevitable, but I wonder how long until we're stuck paying
for internet streaming service bundles?

~~~
jerhinesmith
I feel like piracy is going to continue to be an issue until we get a
spotify/tidal/apple music-type service for video content. Netflix seemed a lot
closer to that several years ago, but it feels like we're moving backwards.

~~~
dbmikus
Netflix is so cheap compared to cable, though. I wouldn't mind paying for a
few streaming bundles as long as the coverage is wide enough.

I don't know if the industry will move towards consolidation like we've seen
in music streaming services, but if prices stay similar to cable but I can
watch whatever I want whenever I want, I'd consider that a win.

EDIT: my point doesn't refute that piracy will continue, just that more
streaming services isn't too large a regression

~~~
faragon
Amazon Prime Video is even cheaper. If Amazon manages to increase content
while leveraging costs because of their scale and vertical integration, it
could be huge.

~~~
alexc05
I have prime video. It really is such a pain in the butt to watch it though.
They lock themselves out of chrome cast, Kodi, basically everything I
currently use to stream to my TV.

I'm really frustrated with it and don't feel like I'm getting value.

~~~
zerocrates
I've never quite gotten why Chromecast is this Rubicon for them. Kindle
content is available on pretty much anything that you'd expect, and even
Amazon Video itself has officially been on Android for quite some time.

I can't imagine it's some play to increase the all-important value of the Fire
Stick, so what's the deal?

------
caiob
This will probably mean that Canadians, once again, will be left out in the
cold.

------
tapsboy
Considering that distribution in future is all going to be digital, this makes
sense at many levels for Disney.

If you see the changing landscape, other big studios already have distribution
(NBC has Comcast, Time Warner is trying to merge with AT&T). Viacom, CBS and
Fox will all make some moves soon. I expect traditional TV to fully transition
to digital ecosystems by 2020 as publishing & music did before.

The competition for a user's time and attention watching video now cuts across
verticals from the likes of NYT/WSJ/WaPo to Vox/AOL/Yahoo to
Facebook/Snapchat/Instagram to Youtube/Netflix/Hulu to streaming services from
TV Networks & Cable Companies. There will be a lot of consolidation in the
process.

Disclaimer: I work for a Disney subsidiary

------
pier25
One can dream, but as a consumer I just want all streaming content in a single
place.

I really wouldn't mind paying extra to see HBO, Disney, Amazon, etc, in
Netflix. Paying different providers with varying user experiences and figuring
out where each content is or if I can install a certain app in my device is a
pita.

For example I live in Mexico and for some reason there is no HBO Go for
Android TV. The app exists for regular Android in LATM, but not for Android
TV. Plus they can't handle the volume when a new Game of Thrones episode is
out.

In Google Play Movies dubbed films and original audio ones are actually
different movies in their DB. What's worse, many movies are only available
dubbed.

I don't know about the US, but in my experience Netflix is the only company
doing it right.

------
jonnyscholes
I think some of the comments here are ignoring that with their own
distribution platform comes their own distinct user experience. As part of
Netflix, Disney could never experiment with content - they are restrained to
the UX designed to suit the lowest common denominator between movies/tv etc.
Disney invests highly in R&D all over the place - imagine if they did that
here with a streaming platform AND the children of the world's favourite
content.

Weather they do decide to innovate on the classical stream-a-movie-file-to-
users type system remains to be seen... But they certainly have a unique
opportunity here.

------
renish
Veterans Day is an authority United States open occasion, watched every year
on November 11, that distinctions military veterans; that is, people who
served in the United States Armed Forces. It agrees with different occasions,
including Armistice Day and Remembrance Day, celebrated in different nations
that check the commemoration of the finish of World War I; significant dangers
of World War I were formally finished at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day
of the eleventh month of 1918, when the Armistice with Germany became
effective. The United States beforehand watched Armistice Day. The U.S.
occasion was renamed Veterans Day in 1954.

[http://www.fathersday-2014.net/2017/07/happy-veteran-day-
quo...](http://www.fathersday-2014.net/2017/07/happy-veteran-day-quotes.html)

Veterans Day is not to be mistaken for Memorial Day, a U.S. open occasion in
May; Veterans Day praises the administration of all U.S. military veterans,
while Memorial Day respects the individuals who passed on while in military
service.It is additionally not to be mistaken for Armed Forces Day, a minor
U.S. recognition that additionally happens in May, which particularly respects
those as of now serving in the U.S. military.

------
samfisher83
I think title could be more clear. Disney bought a majority stake in bamtech
aka MLB advanced media aka MLB baseball streaming arm. They also happen to
stream HBO, WWE, and NHL. I wonder what will happen to those relationships.

------
TheAceOfHearts
Bleh, every media company implementing their own shitty ecosystem is such a
waste. As is usually the case, they'll probably end up doing a poor job for
the first few years. A media company's core competency is their content! To
give an example: despite there being tons of amazing and highly customizable
video players players available on every platform, they'll push you towards
using their poorly designed one-size-fits-all player. Same thing applies to
content exploration, ratings, reviews, suggestions, etc.

I'd love to see an open platform for ratings, reviews, and suggestions.
There's no sense in repeatedly creating isolated islands of data.

Content exploration usually sucks too. Sometimes you wanna slice data in ten
different ways! Instead of implementing a mediocre searching and filtering
system, just make the full catalogue's data and metadata available as a
downloadable snapshot. Most content catalogues are typically pretty small, and
if the data is openly available, I can just write my own one-off query. Heck,
if you have all the info and metadata available, you can write some really
interesting queries without having to worry about performance.

Over the last few years I've gradually lost interest in most TV and movies.
I'll go to the cinema on the rare occasion something catches my eye, but it's
becoming increasingly rare. The decision is also slightly politically
motivated, since I find most of the crap the MPAA tries to pull absolutely
reprehensible. It's very sad that piracy is still the best way acquire and
consume most media.

Now I spend most of my time either reading or listening to audiobooks. There's
tons of amazing content available, and it's typically cheaper than other forms
of entertainment. The field is also pretty open and approachable, so anyone
can try their hand at writing a book. You don't need a huge budget or anything
fancy.

I'm also a big fan of the book community. My experience has been that many
book authors are happy to engage in discussions, answer questions, etc. If you
shoot em an email, most authors will get back to you (although though most of
the bigger names will usually take longer). Providing constructive criticism
(especially when they're starting off) can actually lead to improvements in
future books!

------
fovc
I think this is what every bear case since 2010 has been saying about Netflix:
it was a phenomenal business while they got to exploit the quirky licensing of
physical DVDs, but with streaming, content is king.

As many predicted back then (when Tilson wrote his famous letter), the cost of
quality content has gone up so much that Netflix has had no choice but to let
much of it go and instead produce their own to defend their margin. At some
point their core business will simply be content production rather than
distribution

------
neogodless
“This acquisition and the launch of our direct-to-consumer services mark an
entirely new growth strategy for the Company, one that takes advantage of the
incredible opportunity that changing technology provides us to leverage the
strength of our great brands.”

Any guess who the audience is? Ah yes - shareholders. "We can make money hand
over fist by taking our content away from Netflix users, and giving them the
choice to pay us on our service, or do without content."

Who wins? Only shareholders. Certainly not consumers.

------
mack1001
This is a lost opportunity for Apple as AppleTV could have been a cross
platform integrator with the ability to manage all the diverse content
portfolio. Jobs would have aimed for that.

------
pluma
So what about the Marvel shows? I was pretty sure they're Netflix exclusives
but Marvel is owned by Disney and the wording in this statement is ambiguous
about whether it would be affected or not.

Considering a new service will likely start out as US-only (as they always do)
pulling future Marvel shows off Netflix would effectively mean killing them
off internationally.

I'd imagine a Disney service would face fewer hurdles for international
distribution (though I'm sure Disney was myopic enough to sign exclusive deals
prohibiting them from serving some of their own content in some countries) but
considering I'm still waiting for YouTube Red[0] to become available, HBO
Go[1] isn't really available outside the US (which didn't stop them from
handing out swag at European tech conferences) and Hulu[2] is still
practically US-only, I'm not so keen on waiting for yet another player to
figure out which countries they'll bother supporting.

[0]:
[https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6307365](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6307365)

[1]: [http://hbowatch.com/which-countries-is-hbo-available-
in/](http://hbowatch.com/which-countries-is-hbo-available-in/)

[2]: [http://www.bestofhulu.com/a-great-map-of-countries-where-
hul...](http://www.bestofhulu.com/a-great-map-of-countries-where-hulu-is-
available/)

------
w0rd-driven
So far no one has mentioned something that has my tinfoil hat tingling like a
mofo. With Net Neutrality being the uncertainty that it is, why would Disney
choose to be potentially burdened like this? I see a few possible scenarios:
1) They know something we don't. 2) This move has become a necessity, which I
highly doubt given their enormous catalog now. 3) They see the value in
pursuing this endeavor no matter the cost.

It's hard to look this up for me, so forgive me, but my assumption is Disney
is not one of the big companies that can control the internet. I don't believe
BAMtech has peering such as Netflix has caching servers like Youtube so I
think this would be very interesting to watch closely.

My personal feeling is that if net neutrality is completely abandoned, Disney
has more than enough money to print its way to making this work. I don't know
if it'll be good or bad for them to be beholden to the same restrictions as
other streaming services or if they'll magically become exempt. With all the
properties in Disney's possession now I'm very much reminded of the phrase
"too big to fail" but I'm very interested to see how this plays out. I'm
hoping for a net positive for everyone involved but lessons of the past have
me expecting the worst.

------
mwexler
This seems like a race to failure, this nickel and diming. Each content
producer will have a min amount per month that they will accept. A consumer
only has a certain amount of disposable income. The horizon hurts both sides:
consumers will get less content, and no provider will get enough subs to make
it work.

The demand for content was met legally through the rise of Netflix and other
streamers with large catalogs; consumers could pay one provider one price to
get access to entire catalogs across creators.

Once this becomes so costly as each creator has their own minimum cost (HBO +
Disney + Netflix + CBS + AMC et nauseum), users will pick only a small number
of services, and users will start to go back to piracy in droves. The services
will collapse due to lack of subscribers, but instead of going back to
releasing the content back to the original services, they will instead sit on
it... they won't get the original pricing from, say, Netflix or Hulu because
they showed that the alternative, going alone, didn't work: no negotiating
power, so they will simply sit on it, like the retail store locations left
vacant for years until someone ponies up the expected rent.

This helps no one: the consumer won't pay, the services won't last, and the
content gets shelved.

What might work: allowing rapid switching with credits that let one binge on
different services for different time periods; allow aggregators to buy mass
credits/subs and resell "group subs" that allow discounts to multiple
services.

Otherwise, I think this will be a mess. When I start paying more than I did
for cable to get the same access, that will be a problem.

------
timfrietas
This may be an even more strategic move than the press release suggests, as
MLBAM powers other streaming services like HBO
Now:[https://www.theverge.com/2015/8/4/9090897/mlb-bam-live-
strea...](https://www.theverge.com/2015/8/4/9090897/mlb-bam-live-streaming-
internet-tv-nhl-hbo-now-espn)

It allows Disney leverage not just over Netflix but others like Time Warner.

~~~
lsaferite
I find it interesting that the entire article mentions Netflix exactly twice
and just as a side reference with other businesses.

------
kodablah
> The ESPN-branded multi-sport service [...] including Major League Baseball,
> National Hockey League [...]

Missing NBA and NFL and subject to regional restrictions and Fox Sports
ownership. Any non-cable package that doesn't offer regional broadcasts of ANY
of the major 4 is a weak one.

Until the leagues stop with regional restrictions, these sports packages will
be hamstrung and never sell on their own. But why would the leagues do this
when they can double dip: charge some customers for all-but-local (i.e.
blacked out) online (e.g. mlb.tv) and charge others via their cable package
for their local teams (i.e. there is no Fox Sports Go w/out cable
subscription).

These companies (ESPN and Fox) really need to use their weight to make these
leagues and teams stop w/ arbitrary restrictions based on location. But it
goes the other direction these days, see the exorbitant prices cable networks
pay leagues/teams for exclusive regional broadcast rights (on cable + their
online package) and still don't get the right to serve it to someone out-of-
region.

Until they use this weight, they will continue to falter because consumers are
using their weight.

~~~
mrisoli
I am very curious how much money the broadcasters are making with this
strategy, and how much money the leagues or ESPN are letting on the table by
just allowing this to happen.

Football(soccer for Americans) is definitely the worst offender here, I know
it is much more difficult to package and sell these streams because leagues
are so fragmented, but if FIFA could use their weight to pull it off it would
be gigantic(hell, even if it's just UEFA).

As an expat, I find it absurd it is impossible to get a legal stream to watch
my home league, even UEFA champions league streaming is hard enough to get.

~~~
kodablah
If you have a decent cable package in the states, you can stream EPL (NBC
sports app), Bundesliga, UEFA, (Fox Sports 2 Go for last 2), English
Championship, La Liga, Serie A, and Ligue 1 (last 4 Bein Sports). Granted I
haven't confirmed whether they carry all games.

But those are perfect examples of regional restrictions because that's US
only.

~~~
mrisoli
Far from that. I am a Brazilian in Europe, cable packages here are terrible,
can't get any of the bigger European leagues(and of course, nothing from South
America), I have relegated myself to just catch up with the news and watch
bigger matches in a bar every now and then.

------
Tehnix
It's like they _want_ me to pirate...

As a non US citizen it's literally impossible for me to watch the majority of
the content I'd like to watch in any legal fashion whatsoever, it's quite
disheartening. I already pay for Apple Music and Netflix, but there's simply
too many shows that are region locked.

Ugh, maybe I should just give up on trying to pay for these services when they
make it this difficult...

------
mschuster91
Time to dig out that torrent downloader on my NAS, it seems.

Why can't the movie industry learn from the success of Spotify? No one is
pirating music any more because Spotify has _everything and their dog_ without
geo restriction (at least as far as I am aware), and those who want to buy
music can buy unprotected stuff from Apple Music... only the movie industry is
bent on total control and profit extraction.

~~~
Mindwipe
...Learn from the success of a business that has literally never made a profit
in it's entire history?

~~~
mschuster91
The "success" is not Spotify. I don't care if Spotify makes a loss or not. The
"success" is that most people do not pirate music any longer but pay for it,
be it via Apple Music and friends or via Spotify (even if the real bill is
footed by investors).

~~~
Mindwipe
Companies don't actually care very much about if people steal content or not.
That's not the metric by which they are judged by their shareholders.

They care about if they generate profit or not. Minimising piracy is one part
of that, but it's not worth destroying the rest of your business over chasing
marginal returns on the anti-piracy front.

------
renish
A few scientists express that "there is no convincing story of the beginnings
of the Canadian Thanksgiving day."

[http://www.fathersday-2014.net/2017/07/thanksgiving-
quotes20...](http://www.fathersday-2014.net/2017/07/thanksgiving-
quotes2017.html)

Supplications of thanks and exceptional thanksgiving services are basic among
all religions after harvests and at other times.The Thanksgiving occasion's
history in North America is established in English conventions dating from the
Protestant Reformation. It likewise has parts of a gather celebration, despite
the fact that the reap in New England happens a long time before the late-
November date on which the cutting edge Thanksgiving occasion is commended.

------
traviswingo
I'm starting to get sick of everyone coming out with their own streaming
service. I cancelled my $200/month cable because I could pay $10/month for
Netflix. I now pay for Netflix, HBO, Amazon Prime, and Hulu...it's starting to
add up again. At this rate we're going to be right back where we started.

Just consolidate already and get over it. Sheesh.

~~~
darkstar999
...consolidate to a $200/mo service? You got exactly what you wished for when
you cut the cord.

------
snoldak924
10 years ago everyone wanted a la carte cable. I guess this is it? Makes sense
that it would be just as bad as bundled channels.

------
chrisseaton
I don't understand - isn't there already DisneyLife? That's a Disney branded
streaming service.

------
aamederen
I believe we are going to see services that will subscribe to all streaming
facilities for you (preferably with a discount) and serve content from various
studios from a unified interface. Then, we can have the same problem for these
"streaming service subscription services". Sad.

~~~
sschueller
Ah, like what cable providers do with TV stations... :(

------
DigitalSea
I am fast running out of room in my life for yet another streaming service. I
already pay for Netflix, Spotify and a couple of other services. It is all
becoming too much, if Disney thinks I am going to pay $10 per month for their
service they are sadly mistaken. Just because you own Star Wars does not mean
people will pay for your platform to exclusively watch it.

I believe this is a huge mistake on Disney's part. Understandably, they want a
piece of the pie that Netflix is enjoying but they'll need to offer something
pretty special to entice myself and others to signup. If anything, this is
just going to make people torrent whenever they encounter some Disney content
they want to watch they could previously get on Netflix.

------
hkmurakami
Regarding ESPN, its first party content (not live sports broadcasts) was high
quality, delivering both journalism and personality based entertainment to its
audience. That quality has dramatically decreased in the last 10-15 years.

TV broadcasts necessitate a one size fits all content strategy where you
strike a balance between the degree of content fit with individual users, with
the size of the audience you can appeal to. Streaming services have turned
things on its head, where stronger niche appeal with inherently smaller
audience sizes is winning the day. ESPN needs to address this audience
targeting problem if it's going to be successful in the non-live-event segment
of sports entertainment.

------
sergiotapia
Yo-ho, yo-ho... Plex life for me!

------
malloryerik
If net neutrality goes away, wouldn't it make sense for content providers like
Netflix, Disney, and Amazon, to buy Comcast and other cable providers, or vice
versa? Wouldn't we see consolidation?

And then, (more) rent-seeking.

------
redditmigrant
If there is one studio that can pull off its own streaming service, its
Disney. They are being smart in acquiring BAM Tech also, so that they have a
good technology in order to launch a solid streaming service.

Disney's great library content, ESPN solid sports + live content combined with
BAM Tech's expertise in building a stable video streaming tech stack means
Disney has gathered all the right pieces. The question now is how well will
Disney be able to combine all its assets into a product that doesnt reflect
the org structure!

These are exciting if turbulent times for video entertainment!

------
jansho
Hmm. My little sister watches all her Disney tv series on YouTube and she
doesn't care how awful the quality is. Sometimes I'm appalled how she can
watch Princess Anna (??) in a small screen, at 240px and x2 speed.

As for Disney movies, we tend watch them in cinemas, and if they're _really_
lovable, get them on DVD too.

I get that Disney wants their own ecosystem but I think this one may be
redundant. We already fork out monthly subs on Netflix and Amazon Prime (lets
not forget Hulu and others are beefing up too) and at least, these services
cater for both adults and children.

------
shmerl
Collusion of content ownership and distribution causes such mess. It should
really be prevented by anti-trust, and if it doesn't prevent it, something is
seriously broken and not working as it should.

~~~
jethro_tell
actually, it's distribution decoupled from actual value creation that has
given us things like 4 hour football games with 10 minutes of live play.

I would prefer that content is sold without need for a middle man. Seems easy
when spotify does it and there are no commercials but they aren't doing 4k
streams. I think top quality spotify is 240 or 320kBPS.

Netflix needs 4x that for their lowest, "wouldn't watch it on my phone"
quality stream. It's just going to cost more for these products in a non-
broadcast world.

~~~
shmerl
_> I would prefer that content is sold without need for a middle man._

Not everyone can afford a CDN and a lot of other things in between the source
and the user, especially creators. Sure, in theory they can just sell video
from their sites, but in practice infrastructure costs a lot of money.

Unless video will move to decentralized distribution (pirated one did already,
so why can't legal one too), distributors will have their piece of the pie.

~~~
jethro_tell
I don't doubt it. Pirated distribution has nothing in the way of hosting cost
so I don't see how that would work with decentralized distribution.

What is the set up you are advocating for? People automatically upload content
from their streaming apps? How are you going to police
amazon/netflix/hulu/whatever service I have to do the uploading in a fair way?

My fire TV has 8GB hdd. I don't know what my chrome cast has but it's less.
You need real hardware to store the catalog. Torrenting works because it has a
bar to entry.

~~~
shmerl
The scale adds up. Cost of entry can be the price paid instead of large
monthly subscriptions or higher prices per individual title.

~~~
jethro_tell
Sure, we've had access to distributed internet for the whole life of the
network and people have chosen over and over to use centralized, convenient
systems. That's not going to change for TV.

~~~
shmerl
Well, it already happened as I said, except for pirated content.

~~~
jethro_tell
Right, so if people want the convenience, they are going to have to get off
their wallets. Broadcast was so cheap because we had central distributions
with set times and they just shot it out there and you could watch if you
want.

I'd rather providers compete on content and service so I can drop people who
shove commercials in my face.

People have spent years complaining about all the channels and nothing to
watch and this trend starts to reverse that because the providers are going to
have to compete in content.

------
protomyth
I figured we'd get a to point where Netflix[1] is the home of small studio and
indie content while the mega-studios would have their own service. Disney has
a current and back catalog that would make $20 a month golden.

As an exercise, let's say BBC America started a service with the entire BBC /
BBC American catalog. I get the feeling a lot of people would be fine with
subscribing. WB would probably do ok, but I'm iffy on CBS / Paramount.

1) I don't think Hulu quite has the chance but it still might

------
miheermunjal
Separate from the "cable2.0" comments... I would say that nurturing/developing
the content is harder than the tech side. Not putting down the amazing
achievements netflix has made, but if you are trying to show a family a kids
movie, it won't matter how the quality is vs. "wow that was a terrible movie".
Pixar/LucasFilm/etc. properties that Disney owns are critical, and a
streaming/digital footprint is the logical next step.

------
hosh
I remember reading a long article about a tech company built from the sporting
world that has major technical chops when it comes to streaming digital media.
Was that BAMtech?

~~~
pvg
More likely its progenitor, MLB Advanced Media (MLBAM). They often get that
weird 'giant company you've never heard of' coverage, well past the point
after many people have heard of them.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MLB_Advanced_Media](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MLB_Advanced_Media)

------
usrusr
Does Disney have more off-brand subsidies like ESPN and Pixar?

Without more of that, Disney's amazing brand recognition could turn into a
problem for them: because everybody thinks that they know exactly what to
expect when they hear "Disney", a Disney-only subscription might feel much
more like a monoculuture than one Amazon-only or Netflix-only (assuming those
two even go that far towards exclusivity, which might be inevitable if more
licensed content leaves)

~~~
rwc
Disney only owns ESPN through their ownership of ABC, FYI. That said:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney)

------
TaylorAlexander
I was thinking recently of that net neutrality pretend graphic showing
different websites available for different fees the way premium cable channels
have traditionally been offered. [1]

I realized that with or without net neutrality, content providers will find a
way to charge us individually for access to their content. This story seems to
add support to that notion.

[1] [https://m.imgur.com/5RrWm](https://m.imgur.com/5RrWm)

------
snakkerdk
The more streaming providers they split the content in to, the less likely I
am of ever wanting to subscribe to any of them.

Personally I have just given up on streaming, I will buy whatever "good"
series/movies they release on sale, on bluray instead, and no I wont pirate
their stuff either, I will just skip it completely, I don't want to
participate in this any more / help them market/hype their series.

------
Impossible
Now the Millarworld acquisition
([http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/netflix-acquires-
mark-m...](http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/netflix-acquires-mark-millar-
millarworld-kingsman-kick-ass-1202517270/)) makes sense. Netflix needed a
comic book license to fill the gap now that they don't have the Marvel license
anymore.

------
potench
I believe the big win here is that ESPN currently pays a lot of money for
broadcast rights of various major league and college sports; those same
leagues are paying BAMTech for end-to-end digital "over-the-top" streaming
services. Pretty sure this is a sweet reversal on Disney/ESPN's part to own
their digital asset management and content delivery systems and even sell them
back to sports leagues.

------
ed_blackburn
At the very least I wished they'd agree on a mechanism whereby the content is
indexed so external clients allow you to search/browse for content (and maybe
even find you the best / cheapest way to consume without leaving the client).

I would have thought this would be better for the studios too. I don't mind
paying for your stuff but the barrier to finding and consuming it needs to be
lower.

------
SCAQTony
Disney is going to lose this bout. Netflix's is more diversified than Disney
and one has to ask would the actual consumer want to have two or three
streaming services?

Netflix is doing anime, soon comic book movies (they bought Millar world) and
they don't have the bricks and mortal politics that the studios have with
theaters throughout the planet. i.e. Asia and religious countries.

------
B1narySunset
Does this mean no more Star Wars content on Netflix?

~~~
thephyber
Anything that is currently on Netflix is contracted. When the contracts are
up, the answer to your question depends on how negotiations go.

~~~
TheGRS
i.e. Disney stuff probably isn't coming back.

------
JulianMorrison
Netflix and Prime effectively anticipated this by commissioning and owning in-
house content.

If the whole industry turns into balkanized streaming sites that each only
offer their own stuff, then the result will be that insufficiently popular
studios will go bankrupt rather than being low level viable as B-list content
on someone else's site.

------
inopinatus
What we'll see is a period of fragmentation as more content houses exhibit
this same rent-seeking behaviour, followed by another period of aggregation.

I predict the winners will be determined primarily by UX and library size, not
by price or exclusive content. People seem more irked by the sheer number of
potential services than anything else.

------
thebigspacefuck
Its legal to rent a DVD, what if you could play the physical DVD and broadcast
it to whoever has rented it? Like redbox but the DVD player is in the cloud
somewhere and you are mirroring the stream at your house? I've been wondering
if that's legal and if Netflix could do something like that with their DVD
collection

------
jeffdavis
The only thing I really see working for customers is a la carte for individual
shows - say 0.50 for a kids cartoon up to $5 for a new release blockbuster.

Subscription is an annoying mess. Netflix movie selection is so bad now that I
don't really expect them to have what I want. Kids shows that used to be on
Netflix are no longer there.

------
benwilber0
For some reason everyone in this thread suddenly hates competition and thinks
Netflix should be the only game in town.

------
smilbandit
I wonder how much money Netflix could do managing white label streaming
systems for everyone who now needs their own?

------
heisenbit
Barksdale (Netscape, [https://hbr.org/2014/06/how-to-succeed-in-business-by-
bundli...](https://hbr.org/2014/06/how-to-succeed-in-business-by-bundling-and-
unbundling)):

“Gentlemen, there’s only two ways I know of to make money: bundling and
unbundling.”

------
AJRF
Is there any good way to just host a bunch of movies and music thats always
available? Plex seems like a valid answer, but should I buy a dedicated server
to host it and handle connections? I feel like sticking plex on a macbook and
just disabling the screensaved is not a good long term solution.

~~~
rkuykendall-com
I recommend Synology NAS. I hear QNAP is better, but less polished and easy. I
have a 1515+ which has no problem with transcoding. I suggest HGST NAS drives,
4TB and 6TB, because they have the best Mean-Time-To-Fail, but many people buy
WD Reds because hey, it's redundant storage anyways, and Reds are a great
value and not bad drives. If you only start with 2-3 drives, the whole thing
will cost around $1,300.

------
tdurden
Disney buying Netflix would make way more sense - an expensive acquisition for
sure, but worth it for Disney.

------
staticelf
I used to pay for HBO Nordic but now I don't even do that anymore since the
quality is so bad and they rely on flash so I can't play any content on my
Xbox.

Pirated films are still 10x the quality and I don't have to swap between 4-5
apps to find the content I want. I pay for a VPN connection.

------
pbhjpbhj
Perhaps exhaustion of rights (after first sale) will allow 3rd parties to buy
a stream from Disney through a Disney user?

Maybe I can sell my streaming account on to someone whilst I'm not using it,
by it/one back when i need it?

That might actually force open syndication and put paid to monopolistic
practices.

------
randomString1
Cancelled cable years ago. Just cancelled Netflix today, won't be paying any
service anymore and I will reassess the situation in 3 years. If you want me
to tolerate your DRM (and many other problems like region blocks) the whole
industry needs to rethink their approach. U+1F44F

------
alkonaut
Would Netflix/HBO really have anything to lose by providing their services in
some open way that could be aggregated? The immediate downside is cost of
implementing, but on the plus side they'd have people able to access it on
platforms that currently can't.

------
headmelted
Doesn't this already exist?

[https://disneylife.com/](https://disneylife.com/)

(Sure they'd need to add the rest of their studios' libraries, but what am I
missing other than the pull from Netflix? Is this just about scalability?)

------
beepboopbeep
I'd gladly pay for movies. I'd much rather it actually. But until these
companies get their shit together and stop hoarding content, I'm pirating it
all. I'm not paying monthly subscriptions to 15 different media companies.
Screw you guys.

------
BooneJS
I realize I'm late to the discussion, but even Netflix and Amazon know that
Content is King. Networks had to battle it out over the TV medium, and now
they're doing it online.

Everyone wanted a la carte Cable TV instead of forced bundles. We're now
getting it.

------
dbg31415
This is dumb and I hate Disney for doing it.

Just means I'll pirate more stuff, I'm not paying for another service on top
of Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Spotify... it's getting ludicrous how many
streaming services I have. I only wanted one.

------
didibus
While it was obviously better for Netflix to have it all with one low price,
as long as each streaming service allows me to sign up for just one month
only, and stream shows ad free, on demand, the full seasons, I'm okay with
this.

------
towb
Too bad these streaming survices are run by companies with unlimited money,
otherwise I would hope for some big crash where only the few good ones
survived. Not that I want a monopoly situation either, so... Never mind, I
guess.

------
StreamBright
Well, if it is not on Netflix, Amazon, HBO it does not exist (only exception
is rare international content) for me. I certainly do not care about Walt
Disney as they turn everything into a shitshow that they touch like StarWars.

------
irrational
I wonder if this has to do with the Vid Angel/Disney lawsuit and the recent
workaround that allows Vid Angel to filter Disney movies on Netflix. By moving
their movies off of Netflix, they effectively block Vid Angel again.

------
philfreo
"There are 2 ways to succeed in business: bundling and unbundling"

------
bisRepetita
I really miss the rental video store nowadays. Better choice than most
streaming platforms at a competitive rate.

It was working financially because the studios, by law, could not forbid them
to rent the DVDs they bought.

------
dboreham
Shouldn't it be "...will pull its content FROM Netflix"?

As written the headline implies that Disney is going to remove Netflix-owned
content from their (Disney's streaming facilities).

------
nkkollaw
I wonder if it would have been safer and less expensive to just make Netflix
charge 15/mo. more if you wanted Disney and get a $10 cut.

Most parents would [have to?] pay that.

------
dharma1
Disney has a lot of content people with kids would watch. Also almost none
available in 4k yet. Their own subscription service could work, I'd pay for it

------
darkmynd
Let me guess, they will want $15/mo, then we can get services that offer
multiple streaming sites and includes ads and we will be back full circle.

------
erikb
It's so funny how badly Netflix starts losing just a short time after reaching
global status. Still not clear if they will stay for the long game.

------
pazrul
I'm a little surprised they didn't move this content to Hulu. Disney already
owns a 30% stake in Hulu, this could only make it more valuable.

~~~
thephyber
It's almost like "Not Invented Here" syndrome.

~~~
jethro_tell
No I think hulu doesn't do great with streaming live stuff. The money is to
move the NFL and ESPN stuff they have there.

They also see benifit from cutting the cost of a middle man on streaming.

------
CryoLogic
Why not just become a netflix addon? e.g. an additional price (a few $/mo) to
go through netflix instead of hosting their own streaming hardware?

------
zouhair
$10 Netflix, $10 Hulu, $10(?) HBO, $10 Spotify, $10 Youtube Red and so on and
so forth. So this will end up being worst and more costly than Cable.

------
spiderfarmer
Okay Disney, I'll brush of my bittorrent client.

------
mmanfrin
Didn't they just recently (past year) sign this deal? I imagine Disney has to
pay a fair amount back to end the distribution deal.

~~~
objclxt
> Didn't they just recently (past year) sign this deal?

Netflix's deal with Disney dates all the way back to 2012, although it only
ramped up last year with current theatrical releases. Given they're still
providing films to Netflix until 2019 I think they probably had a standard
break clause.

More interesting to me is how this impacts the Marvel deals Netflix has.
They're covered by separate deals, but will Disney be looking to slowly
consolidate all their Marvel TV content under their own streaming platform?

------
BatFastard
This feels like the balkanization of the content industry. The same thing we
have seen so many times before in other industries.

------
alkonaut
Shit. Their announcement explicitly talks about the _Frozen_ sequel. So that's
that, my 4yo will make me pay up.

------
btgeekboy
Let's not forget that this affects other services than Netflix - BAMTech is
what handles HBO Now, MLB.tv, and others.

------
georgespencer
Also interesting given the cosiness of Apple's relationship with Disney, and
their forthcoming streaming service.

------
jorblumesea
First person to write a streaming service for all these myriad of streaming
services is going to clean up.

------
gigatexal
Damn there goes all the super hero movies. I’m not going to pay another ten
bucks a month for this either.

------
revelation
Wow it's 2017 and they still haven't understood this. Nobody will pay for a
Disney service, a HBO service, a Netflix Originals service, an Amazon
Originals service, ..

Not because people can't afford it, Americans happily paid $120 for cable, but
simply because the balkanization throws convenience out of the window and
nobody wants to deal with _that_.

~~~
pwinnski
People absolutely are paying for separate services. There's a limit to how
many, but many, many people are paying for Netflix + HBO, or Amazon + HBO,
because they believe HBO delivers value for the money. In contrast, I suspect
very few people are likely to sign up for the CBS service, Star Trek or not,
because I don't think many people believe CBS delivers value for the money.

Disney is banking on people believing they deliver value for the money. For
parents of young children, maybe they do. Certainly more than "nobody" will
agree.

~~~
jff
I'm glad to see someone bring up Star Trek and CBS's streaming service. They
seem to think the new Trek series will save CBS All Access; I would contend
that CBS All Access will kill their Trek series. I've heard from people who
tried it, they said the stream quality is terrible from both an audio and
video perspective. If you're going to bet on your own streaming platform, you
really shouldn't cheap out on the tech.

------
geetfun
Robert Downey Jr and friends are gonna have to suit up a lot more often in
light of this.

------
mailslot
I wish them luck keeping things running smoothly when a new Star Wars movie is
released.

------
SirLJ
The big news here is actually the live sports broadcasting - this will be a
game changer

------
smegel
This all makes me think the humble video rental store has a future after
all...

------
daveheq
Because when I think of sports, I think of a little green fairy.

------
Raynak
Illegal streaming service of choice already has all the content.

------
Navarr
Us: "We want a la carte!"

Also us: "Not like this..."

------
scentedmeat
This is basically new bundling for ESPN

------
King-Aaron
Welp, better dust off bitTorrent again.

------
finnjohnsen2
May piracy burn them into their senses

------
DeepYogurt
And this is why people make backups.

------
free_everybody
I really hope this fails miserably

------
tw04
This is how we end up with piracy.

------
foota
Aw shit, Disney owns marvel too.

------
hourislate
TV? Who has time for TV? Read books and practice Kung Fu.

------
unixhero
How come they've waited this long???

------
snambi
Disney movies are pure junk.

------
kutkloon7
I will probably get downvoted, but I find it annoying that articles which are
relevant only in the US omit this simple fact in the title. The US is an
important country, but only about 5% of the world population lives there.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
16% of the worlds' gdp

------
bitJericho
I will only pay for netflix, and hulu, and amazon cuz I already pay for
prime... oh and hbo, cbs, a&e, and that's it. I'll never buy disney. Oh and
Lifetime

------
kodfodrasz
So Disney is now creating something in the streaming industry like what the
Disney Sound Source was in the PC soundcard industry.

------
omot
There's a sequal to toy story and frozen?! Wow! Who knew

------
didip
Oh man, will they pull Marvel content off Netflix as well? If so, then
fuuuuuu, Netflix becomes less and less useful to me.

