
Disney Bans Netflix Ads as Streaming’s Marketing Wars Intensify - AznHisoka
https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney-bans-netflix-ads-as-streamings-marketing-wars-intensify-11570199291?mod=rsswn
======
tombert
What I find especially annoying nowadays is that a lot of shows simply aren't
releasing on DVD or Blu-Ray anymore, or if they do, it's in laughably small
quantities.

For example; I wanted to buy "Final Space" on Blu-Ray, and it doesn't appear
to exist. I then look for DVD, and the only place to purchase that is on TBS's
website, and it's been sold out for quite awhile.

I really don't want to have to sign up for another streaming service, I just
want to buy the damn show, rip it myself, and watch it on my server; sadly it
looks like I'm somewhat in the minority on this, and I suppose I get it, but
it does upset me that soon the _only_ way to guarantee that I get to have
something forever is via piracy.

EDIT:

I just checked, apparently the DVD for Final Space is back in stock. I think
my point still stands, and I think that it's weird that a show that was
broadcast in 1080p isn't available on blu-ray.

~~~
cortesoft
They don't like that you can rip it and then play it back on whatever machines
you want, forever. They want to be able to sell you the same content over and
over again... either via streaming subscription, or via a new format when it
comes out.

~~~
shakna
There's that, but there's also the cost of manufacturing and distributing the
physical media. It needs cover designs, labeling, menu design, people expect
features like commentaries, etc.

Or, you can invest nothing extra, and the majority of your audience will still
engage with the product.

The cost/benefit analysis doesn't point to physical media as worth it.

~~~
avian
I never understood why they had video media ship their own UI. It’s usually
annoying to figure out and sometimes absolutely idiotic (like The Fifth
Element that forces you to “catch” menu entries by timing your keypresses).
It’s like if music CD would have you argue with the band before you could hear
the music, instead of just pressing “play”.

~~~
johnchristopher
Oh, I can shed some light on that !

In another life I did a stint in the subtitle industry (right around the
glorious DVD boom and before the arrival of Blue-Ray).

Execs from distributors would sit down in a room once a movie had been subbed
and played around the UI to see if "every language can be selected". How to
spice up that job and make it look like indispensable ? Become an UI expert in
the shades of faux shadow TIFF pictures overlay and timing in sound loop in
menus. The fact that magazines were grading DVD's menus and UI also helped.
"It's part of the experience". From then on you could not not provide fancy
menus.

The funny part ? We had to purposefully disable built-in functionalities
(soundtrack switching, subtitles switching, scene skipping, etc.) to enforce
some "entertaining" loading times (and the usual anti-piracy scheme). So that
the exec can sit in the room discussing for three hours how a menu DVD should
look and sound to "give a mood". Rinse and repeat, you got a job.

Fun fact: the whole operation relied heavily on DVD shrink which we used to
remove those limitations. Some took the habit to introduce hidden code to
disable stuff or still allow skipping.

I am a bit bitter about it but I acknowledge that for most people it's part of
the experience and it's expected. But forcing it on people who don't like it ?
Bummer.

edit: I don't remember the name of the major software used to produce DVD
menus (it was a tool chain anyway) (sonic something ?) but it was horrible
compared to flash and flash mx from the mid 2000's. Think: timeline, b-frame
based loop, on a slow media, still frame for background, simple transparent
overlay TIFF files to render highlighted menu items, the editor was basically
a vid and audio track editor with loops and skip points. No code. Mac and
Windows versions not compatible.

Adobe had a good hobbyist software but there were small showstoppers problems
I can't remember.

Anyway, it went all downhill really fast as the money needed to get a studio
on track to do the authoring went from hundred of thousand of euros for
hardware to a PC with early NAS and cheap HDD. A guy could set up his own
subtitling and authoring studio on a dime. But you needed connections with
distributors to make some money.

------
gardnr
I predict that as content producers attempt to exert more control over how
people consume media they will be met with a new "cord cutting" movement that
will circumvent the systems put in place to exert such power. We will
eventually settle on slow burn for everything with a value added fee on a per-
show basis. A mix of the Spotify and the iTunes model, if you will.

Unless, everyone gets so used to pirating things that they ignore the
evolutions in pricing models and find it easier to just pirate content.

~~~
wayneftw
Here's my reaction: I just stopped watching for the most part and started
doing other things instead.

If I'm not doing something active now and I just want to sit - I read the
funny pages (reddit), I read hacker news, I find questions in my mind to
research, I play video games, read a book, start a side-project and/or listen
to some music.

My wife still watches all sorts of garbage TV and if not for her I'd have
cancelled cable a long time ago.

~~~
RodgerTheGreat
I made a tool which wraps around youtube-dl to manage fine-grained
subscription and automatic downloading of various youtube channels. When I
want passive entertainment, I have a directory full of interesting, high-
quality videos that cater to specific niches I like. The end result is much
better than TV ever was- no ads, access whenever I want- even offline- and
content made by passionate hobbyists rather than mass marketers.

I feel much happier paying a handful of content creators via Patreon than
spending money on a cable or streaming service subscription.

~~~
justsubmit
That sounds really interesting. How do you manage the library, especially in
regard to storage limits, expiring old content, etc?

~~~
RodgerTheGreat
So far I just handle it manually. I've dialed in pretty good preferences for
incoming content, (for example, using regex-based whitelists and blacklists to
weed out material I'm not interested in from channels that aren't already
organized into appropriate playlists) and when I browse the videos directory
to find something to watch I delete things that have been sitting there a
while which I don't expect to get around to.

There would be a lot more work to do if I wanted to "product-ize" the tool,
and periodically youtube breaks it by adding a new feature or moving something
around. For personal use, though, it's very needs-suiting. The whole approach
is also less of a tempting distraction than browsing youtube itself, so it's
easier to manage how much time I spend watching videos. If I ever run out of
content, I just go for a walk, or read a book!

~~~
mitchty
I'd be curious to see it as well, sounds good/useful even in its nascent
state. I have something similar-ish in that I have a makefile/script setup
where all I do is dump a file of url's/playlists/people and let a cron job
download updates to things on a 12 hour basis.

Then I just have a setup in plex for youtube videos and I have plethora of
content to watch when I have time.

Its jarring to use "normal" youtube now and all the ads after using this
setup.

Also really nice for archiving channels and/or preparing for when youtube
randomly decides to throw strikes on videos and not being able to see them
anymore or people setting things to private etc...

------
thismyrealone
It just feels like the various streaming services are morphing into everything
that we hated about cable television.

~~~
1123581321
There are differences: no commercials, shows on demand, more shows, and higher
quality (arguably) shows. Additionally, it’s possible to just subscribe to the
one service you really like because they all have a lot of content.

~~~
jasonjayr
Hulu shows commercials even if you pay.

I'm sure Netflix will start once revenue starts slipping.

~~~
excalibur
Hulu does offer an ad-free tier, it's like double the cost of the basic plan.
I haven't sprung for it yet, but I'm sorely tempted.

I can see Netflix looking to a similar model in the future. What are they at
now, $12.99? I can see the current base subscription going to $14.99, while
simultaneously launching an ad-supported version priced around $7.99.

Edit: Netflix actually DOES offer a cheaper $8.99 plan currently. This one is
restricted to one screen at a time, and does not offer content in HD. So if
they stuck ads on it, maybe they could bring the price down to like $5.99.

~~~
t0mas88
YouTube 30 second preroll ads cost currently around $ 7 per 1000 views and
it's decreasing. So to take Netflix from $ 14.99 to $ 7.99 per month they
would have to show you around 500 minutes of ads every month. That's 33 of
those 30 seconds ads every day, without skipping a day. While you still pay $
7.99 per month as well. I don't expect consumers will accept that.

So the only way they can make an ad-supported Netflix work is to create some
form of much more effective ad (which usually means taking more of your data)
or attract a very specific high value audience (makes them too much of a niche
player for their size)

~~~
sib
Premium video ads sell at much higher CPM than YouTube. Hulu makes more money
from users on their "with-ads" tier than on the higher-priced "ad-free" tier.

~~~
cwkoss
I think a lot of people refuse to pay for an "ad-free" tier that still insists
on occasionally showing ads, feels scummy.

------
myrandomcomment
If this is over public airways (like ABC) then Disney should loose their
rights to that public space. Netflix should be in court yesterday over this.
And the public should be up in arms over this as they are using our PUBLIC
airways. For steaming fine but not on PUBLIC spectrum.

~~~
crazygringo
Wait... is it normal for TV channels to show ads for competitors? (Not owned
by the same conglomerate?)

Like... I've never seen an ad for Fox on CBS, or for ABC on NBC. Same as I
don't think I've ever seen ads for the NYT inside of the WSJ.

I don't have a strong opinion on the matter... but is a policy against Netflix
ads on Disney properties really something new and newsworthy, or just par for
the course for companies in the US which compete generally?

~~~
myrandomcomment
So lets say you have a public airway to provide TV on and let's say you also
own a cable company. Should you be allowed to show ads for that cable company
and block ads for commercials at the same rate you charge some soda company
for the same time slot for an ad from the satellite company that happens to
compete with the cable company you own? Your method of broadcast is over a
public owned spectrum. That is the issue. Even for cable, the rights for you
to deliver that service is over public land.

~~~
crazygringo
Honestly, I don't see what public transmission has to do with it.

Either "advertising" should be considered a "free speech" issue from the point
of view of the broadcaster -- that they have the "free speech" to
allow/disallow whatever ads they want -- whether because of vulgarity,
quality, competition, political alignment, whatever they want, including
charging different ads different rates if they so choose.

 _Or_ we consider advertising space a "free speech" issue from the point of
view of advertisers, that any and all advertising on TV, cable, newspapers,
magazines, etc. should be equally available to the highest bidder. Thus a
newspaper should not be able to discriminate against an advertiser because of
vulgarity, competition, quality, brand alignment, etc.

It's actually a really thorny issue because there are really good arguments on
both sides.

~~~
myrandomcomment
In general I agree. However let us say I own a website that I put ads on. It
is my site, I pay for it. Should I have to allow ads for things I disagree
with? I am not saying I know the answer here. It would be simpler to say "if
you take paid for ads you are not allowed to turn down any ad that does not
violate public guidelines". Does this apply to penis pills during kids
cartoons? It is not an simpler answer.

~~~
markdown
> It would be simpler to say "if you take paid for ads you are not allowed to
> turn down any ad that does not violate public guidelines". Does this apply
> to penis pills during kids cartoons? It is not an simpler answer.

Seems to me it IS a simple answer:

"If you take paid for ads you are not allowed to turn down any ad that does
not violate public guidelines"

~~~
scarface74
What if someone wanted to run an ad against vaccinations? Or the post very ad
that you quoted - should Disney be forced to advertise penis enlargement ads
during a children’s show?

~~~
markdown
"that does not violate public guidelines"

Set guidelines.

~~~
scarface74
So can one of those guidelines be “we don’t advertise streaming services”? Who
gets to set those guidelines? Do you want the government deciding everything
that can and cannot be advertised?

~~~
markdown
> Do you want the government deciding everything that can and cannot be
> advertised?

Yes, that's the ideal way to do it in a democracy, isn't it? The will of the
people should prevail.

~~~
scarface74
Now we are going to have a government board that decides what can be
advertised? Since the majority of Americans are Christians does that mean in a
democracy people can decide banning advertising for mosques? What if the
majority decided to ban commercials featuring gay couples? Interracial couples
(a large percentage of Christians in the south still think interracial
marriage is a sin)? With the electoral college and each state having two
senators regardless of population giving a disproportionate amount of votes to
smaller states, what are the chances that they would ban advertising for
companies that employ the “liberal elite” in California?

The “will of the people” led to laws in the south like Jim Crow, laws against
interracial marriage, and criminalizing homosexual sex.

------
tempsy
I would short Netflix at this market cap...

Even if you don't think Disney is a serious threat, they are losing at their
own game to Amazon, which is producing objectively better quality content
given their dominance at the Emmys over Netflix (which was nearly shut out).

They have resorted to overpaying billions for old reruns like Seinfeld. At
some point people will wake up and wonder why they're paying $15/month to
watch reruns and return to actually buying content again for things like that.

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
I think Netflix is in a lot of trouble. For years, their catalog has been
shrinking, replaced with Netflix Original Series/Movies. For a while, the
Original Series were actually good quality.

Then this past week, watched "The I-Land" which was heavily advertised on
Netflix. Watched 1 episode, and then started episode 2, and then quit. It was
basically a pile of garbage.

Apparently, I am not along in my assessment.

[https://www.tvinsider.com/815148/the-i-land-netflix-
reviews/](https://www.tvinsider.com/815148/the-i-land-netflix-reviews/)

[https://qz.com/quartzy/1712203/the-i-land-on-netflix-is-
the-...](https://qz.com/quartzy/1712203/the-i-land-on-netflix-is-the-worst-tv-
show-ever/)

Basically, I use Netflix mainly for entertainment for my children. Since they
are huge Disney fans, I can't wait for Disney to release their streaming
service, so I can cancel my Netflix subscription.

~~~
asdff
The fact that their autoplaying trailers are still blasting in every one of
their apps despite vocal outcry in tech press and all over the internet should
be enough to let you know that they are circling the drain.

When you ruin your product in effort to game your users, you've already lost.

~~~
henryfjordan
Don't you think maybe Netflix knows something you don't that led them to make
that decision despite the "outcry"? They HAVE to have validated the autoplay
approach with some data that proves it achieves some goal of theirs.

The fact that they have enough conviction in their data to stick with autoplay
despite the bad press should be a very good sign about a company's culture
(and therefore their future).

~~~
dreamcompiler
Autoplay smells very much like a Netflix vice president's pet project.
Everybody hates it but it's politically impossible within Netflix to kill it
until that vice president leaves. See Google+.

~~~
washadjeffmad
I'm inclined to agree. A big part of my satisfaction with Prime is simply
being able to read the descriptions and explore the metadata, leading me to
something I might really enjoy without a preview hijacking my sensorium.

What Netflix does is stressful and makes me avoid engaging with their catalog.
It's insane they won't let us control that one aspect.

My second frustration was when they crippled their catalog API, forcing
abetterqueue offline. I'd plan my entire season around that, and now I feel
like I only have what their algorithm recommends to my TV's app, which is
usually garbage because my SO and I share an account.

Prime is far from perfect, but it does less wrong, and what that tells me is
that maybe Netflix isn't for me.

------
cjrp
Cancel your $100/m cable service, and replace it with 10 different $10/m
streaming services. Progress.

~~~
Reedx
Indeed, it is progress:

\- No ads

\- You can watch on demand

\- Orders of magnitude more choice in what to watch

\- Writers have a lot more flexibility. They don't have to be advertiser
friendly.

\- Writers don't have to write cliffhangers every N minutes so you come back
after the ad break.

\- Writers don't have to worry about sequence like they did with TV/Cable,
because they know you'll be able to watch the show in order. Meaning that
their worlds and characters can change and have real consequence.

Just pick your favorite 2 or 3 services. You don't have watch _everything_.

~~~
cactus2093
No ads is not always true, but otherwise I agree with you.

Another benefit is less shitty pricing models, none of this first year pricing
after which it goes up 50% that Comcast loves to do, and no year-long
contracts.

~~~
ehsankia
Hulu is the only one with ads, and that's if you get the 5$ version. If you
get the 10$ version as implied in the post above, it has no ads.

~~~
decebalus1
There are a few shows which have ads regardless of plan (Grey's Anatomy is one
of them)

------
nstart
The one thing I enjoyed with Netflix's original shows was that they weren't
held back by these archaic regional deals. A show released by them releases
globally. Netflix going global was the moment I jumped on. It still irritates
me that the major film studios lag in releasing stuff on Netflix worldwide.
There's no regional advertising deals to cut. What's the hold up??

Amazon has a similar problem of having a worthless catalogue where I live.
Every movie I clicked on during my prime trial said "not available in your
region".

HBO was possibly the biggest disappointment where despite not having to cut
deals for ads in their shows, their steaming service is still not available
globally.

With Disney talking ads in their offering, I have zero hope that they will
launch worldwide at the scale of Netflix, and certainly not in Sri Lanka.
Maybe India. But not Sri Lanka.

Funnily enough, google play has been the best option for me. I have various
networks' TV series purchased on it. And movie night usually means renting the
major movie studio produced stuff from Google play. I hope they stick around
for a long time to come because they somehow seem to be the one globally
available neutral ground left. Weird how that works.

~~~
toper-centage
Amazon prime in Germany has many movies where the only available option is
dubbed. The original audio is literally impossible to watch. And this together
with Germans' total aversion to subtitles, makes amazon prime almost worthless
for non German speaking residents.

------
6gvONxR4sf7o
Google shows gmail at the top. Lawsuits!

Disney won't show competitors ads at all. Meh.

These cases aren't identical, but the difference still feels weird.

~~~
tschellenbach
Yes, it's almost as though the traditional media likes to paint a bad picture
of tech companies specifically.

------
MAGZine
I think the copyright lobby is too strong, but it would be a very positive
move to change tv/film licensing to mirror radio's royalty model. Let the best
service provider win, with a (more or less) complete catalog.

~~~
scarface74
The “radio royalty model” doesn’t pay singers but does pay writers. Also, it’s
only for non on demand music. There is a similar model for programmatic
internet streaming like Pandora that doesn’t apply where you get to choose
your music like Spotify.

Even with that model, the government decides how much is paid and every song
costs the same amount. Should studios be forced to license a movie that cost
$120 million as one that costs $3 million.

Also, in that case should software developers be forced to sell their software
at one government regulated price? Why stop there? Why shouldn’t we just let
the government set all prices?

~~~
MAGZine
that's a slippery slope fallacy but movies are generally all priced the same
and make up the difference in volume.

Nobody pays different ticket prices at the box office for blockbusters.

~~~
scarface74
They charge the distributors more at both the theaters and for streaming.

Also, you didn’t answer the question. Are you okay with the government
mandating how other products are distributed?

~~~
MAGZine
like alcohol, pharmaceuticals, weapons, etc? or like copyrighted works,
perhaps?

Generally I support a free market approach except for where it's been proven
that a free market approach alone won't suffice.

~~~
scarface74
So who gets decide whether the free market works? If you’re okay with Disney
not being allowed to sale their own content on their own website, how is that
different from a band, author, or software developer selling their own
content.

Between alcohol, pharmaceuticals, weapons, and copyright, one of those four
categories is not like the other. Three of those can actively harm people. If
you can’t see the latest Disney movie how you want it won’t do too much
lasting harm.

Would you also be okay if the government mandated that open source software
authors must allow their software on iOS even though some people claim that
iOS distribution violates the GPL?

~~~
MAGZine
If you're going to tell me that the matter of intellectual property laws have
never hurt or hindered anyone on any matter, I'm going to have to
categorically disagree with you.

~~~
scarface74
So not being able to watch TV the way that _you_ want is akin to the damage
that guns, drugs, and alcohol can do? You want the government to step in
because you can’t watch everything you want on Netflix?

------
nickthemagicman
This is a perfect sweet spot at the moment where I will happily pay for
Netflix at 15 bucks a month and Spotify for 10 and not pirate anything.

The issue with the large congolmerates like Disney taking over is that I worry
they're going to return to the 'Cable pricing model' except delivered via
internet, and consumers will be back to being exploited for as much as
possible with as many Ad's crammed into the content as possible.

Then we'll start pirating again and have to listen to the big conglomerates
complain about how much piracy is hurting their business...

~~~
asdff
It's already happening. Office being pulled from netflix is the most recent
victim of corporations realizing it's not hard to just clone netflix in house
and keep all the profit.

~~~
nirvdrum
I'm not really sure what's going on with Netflix and DreamWorks, but Netflix
has a new kids show that looks oddly like the "How to Train Your Dragon" shows
that recently weren't renewed.

------
tibbydudeza
I dunno why they just can't follow the music streaming model and put all of
their content on the different streaming platforms like Spotify, Apple,
Amazon, Tidal and let the market decide on the differing features.

I guess Hollywood and the movie/tv studios need to have their own Napster
moment.

------
whoisjuan
This has been said many times but it's worth repeating it. Piracy is coming
back and is coming back hard.

The last piracy boom didn't have highly scalable clouds, gigabit download
connections, mobile, commercial VPN services, mainstream machine learning,
etc. This fragmentation is going to lead to a situation with a high demand for
pirated shows and movies and there are plenty of folks in this world willing
to capitalize on that.

~~~
berbec
I know a friend who pirates movies they physically own because it's easier to
download a torrent than to wait 2 hours for Handbrake to do a rip that won't
be as good quality.

------
stefan_
Can they spell "anti-trust violation"?

~~~
logfromblammo
They don't need to; they already know how to buy congressfolk.

~~~
journalctl
You don’t even need to buy them anymore. The current Senate would block anti-
puppy murdering legislation if it suited their agenda. I mean, truly, I have
no faith that any sensible regulation for this would make it through Congress.
It’s inconceivable, and that’s sad.

~~~
jimbob45
On the other hand, we don't allow radical legislation to go through and that's
a huge positive in some cases. We would never let a Brexit/secession go
through because we'd never be able to agree on it.

------
awinder
It’s pretty impressive that Disney would make a pretty penny off their Netflix
deal, while Netflix did (IMO) an admirable job with the Marvel IP, and even
then at the end the relationship gets described as “adversarial” — by Disney,
not netflix. Don’t get me wrong I’m gonna watch the shows, but this is some
cutthroat stuff.

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/xvHsX](http://archive.is/xvHsX)

------
gigatexal
I wish that Netflix was the sole dominant market player in this space such
that for all intents and purposes it was the place to get streaming content so
that I didn’t have a hodgepodge of services to subscribe to with different
interfaces and user experiences and content. As the silos of content increase
piracy will as well.

I’m tired of my favorite shows being kicked off of Netflix for seemingly
arbitrary reasons so I keep local copies around or buy shows on iTunes but as
costs rise to own instead of stream I think piracy will increase instead of
decrease as it has in the heyday of Netflix.

------
Deadsunrise
Makes sense. Broadcasters don't allow ads from their competitors on their
networks (you would never see an ad for a CBS show on Freeform),so idk why
they would allow ads from streamers. Probably thought it was incremental
dollars when it just basically meant Netflix was stealing subscribes away from
them.

At the end of the day, Disney is still gonna sell that inventory (maybe at a
slightly lower premium). So I would see it's worth it to lose $5-10MM a year
if it means slightly cutting off the reach of one of your biggest competitors.

------
thinkingkong
Ultimately we’ll end up at “choose your own channels” but at the cost of 15$
per channel. If you subscribed to all of them you’d be right back at cable
prices again, minus sports content.

~~~
jfengel
Why minus sports content?

~~~
nordsieck
> Why minus sports content?

For some reason, people really care about live sports.

It doesn't really fit the streaming model.

~~~
lotsofpulp
It does, it just exposes how expensive it is and the sellers don’t like that
because it will reduce the number of viewers, and then that starts lowering
the value of the ads that are paid for, hence lowering the value of the sports
teams themselves.

Bundling sports with other media allowed for price obfuscation.

~~~
kkarakk
yup, a lot of sports streaming companies have gone on a anti-piracy bend
recently. a couple of sport streaming subreddits got the ban hammer for eg.
RIP r/nbastreams

[https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/nba-streams-reddit-
banne...](https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/nba-streams-reddit-banned)

------
echelon
Oh boy, I can't wait for regulation here.

This is strictly worse than cable (with on demand) now. We went so far we slid
backwards!

I don't care what company made what thing. I just want to be able to consume
the content in an easy way, not have go juggle five different apps.

We need multiple providers that have all the content and that you pay a simple
flat rate. They should be indistinguishable commodities like Spotify, Google
Play, etc.

~~~
jfengel
It amuses me to hear you say that, since for years people complained about
bundling from the cable companies. They wanted to pay a la carte for exactly
the channels they'd consume, in the belief that the price would be lower by
removing the channels that they didn't want.

The situations aren't exactly parallel, but in a lot of ways we got what many
people always wanted, but that doesn't make everybody happy. I draw no
conclusion from that observation, other than to note it.

~~~
soneca
I think that is the problem with using _" the people want X"_.

I always complained about bundling, and I am very happy with the current
situation (yes, even considering that in the next years I will have about 10
services that I _could_ subscribe to).

I would assume that GP might not have complaining at all about bundling and is
now unhappy with the current situation where they would have to subscribe to a
lot more channels to have the same value for him.

~~~
jfengel
I apologize. I hadn't intended an accusation of hypocrisy. I'd tried to phrase
around that implication, but I see that I didn't do a very good job of it. I'm
going to edit to (hopefully) make that clearer.

------
linuxhansl
I didn't have cable TV for the past 15 years or so. Just didn't need that all
that garbage for the occasional thing I really wanted to see.

Netflix was the simple aggregator through which I could watch what I liked.
Hasn't been for a while, though. There are better things to do with my life
anyway than consuming movies and shows.

------
quirkafleeg3
Lots of people saying about moving away from regular TV to streaming, but it
depends how I want to watch. Sometimes I want to select an episode and sit
down to watch it properly, which streaming is good for. But sometimes normal
TV fulfils my needs to drunkenly half-watch a random Top Gear.

~~~
rchaud
Agreed. There's something to be said for coming home from work and just doing
random channel surfing where you stumble upon a show 15 minutes into a Season
4 episode.

With the streaming services, there's no such equivalent, so if you want to
watch something new, you have to start at Season 1, Episode 1. It feels like
too heavy of a commitment. In my experience, many shows don't get good until
after 6-7 episodes, and I will often start at Season 2 just so I can skip the
"character development" arcs and go right into the plotline.

------
NotSammyHagar
This has completely obvious anti-trust implications. How many major networks
are there - 4. And all of them except fox either have streaming services or
will have them soon (nbc's peacock, disney/abc whatever its called, cbs has
streaming, and fox will have one I'm sure).

------
deanmoriarty
Or, you know, just don't waste your time/money subscribing to any service at
all. I don't have a TV and have never subscribed to a streaming service. My
life is perfectly happy and full of entertainment outside work, and my wallet
says thanks.

------
panpanna
This could backfire spectacularly if Netflix retains enough content to remain
a viable option for most parents with small children.

But what do I know, I prefer Shaun the Sheep to Mickey Mouse so don't listen
to me.

~~~
pacomerh
that's the problem, I'm not sure I'm finding Netflix interesting these days.
I've been finding more variety @ Hulu

------
pontifier
It seems strange that all these streaming services are spending so much on
advertising.

------
jaimex2
Fantastic way to bring back piracy, they really don't learn do they.

------
cwkoss
Why would Netflix even need to advertise? Everyone knows about them.

I'll be pirating any Disney movies that I need to watch, Disney is behind the
vast over-expansion of copyright law in the US, and I believe it's unethical
to fund their lobbyists.

~~~
thrower123
I'm pretty down on Disney, seeing what they have done to Star Wars, and how
they are so imaginatively bankrupt that all they can do is mine their
successful animated legacy by reworking live-action/cgi remakes. They have
also driven ESPN straight into the ground, relegating the flagship sports
station a hotbed of woke nonsense and grievance politics.

~~~
cwkoss
Much of Disney's most valuable IP was taken from the public domain and
privatized. They've never been good at creating original stories.

