Will Disney+ Destroy Netflix? (forbes.com) 348
"Netflix has 175 days left to pull off a miracle... or it's all over," argues a headline at Forbes for an article by the chief analyst at disruption research firm RiskHedge:
Netflix is not the future of TV. Netflix changed how we watch TV, but it didn't really change what we watch... Netflix has achieved its incredible growth by taking distribution away from cable companies. Instead of watching The Office on cable, people now watch The Office on Netflix. This edge isn't sustainable.
In a world where you can watch practically anything whenever you want, dominance in distribution is very fragile. Because the internet has opened up a whole world of choice, featuring great exclusive content is now far more important than anything else... Netflix management knows content is king. The company spent $12 billion developing original shows last year... To fund its new shows, Netflix is borrowing huge sums of debt. It currently owes creditors $10.4 billion, which is 59% more than it owed this time last year. The problem is that no matter how much Netflix spends, it has no chance to catch up with its biggest rival...
in about 175 days, Disney is set to launch its own streaming service called Disney+. It's going to charge $6.99/month -- around $6 cheaper than Netflix. And it's pulling all its content off of Netflix. This is a big deal. Disney owns Marvel, Pixar Animations, Star Wars, ESPN, National Geographic, Modern Family, and The Simpsons. Not to mention all the classic characters like Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. In six of the past seven years, Disney has produced the world's top-selling movie... Disney has shown it can produce movies and shows people want to watch. No competitor comes within 1,000 miles of Disney's world of content. Disney's ownership of iconic franchises like Star Wars gives it something no money can buy.
Meanwhile, Netflix will lose a lot of its best content -- and potentially millions of subscribers who switch to Disney+. While Netflix is running into debt "trying out" new shows, Disney already has the best of the best in its arsenal.
In a world where you can watch practically anything whenever you want, dominance in distribution is very fragile. Because the internet has opened up a whole world of choice, featuring great exclusive content is now far more important than anything else... Netflix management knows content is king. The company spent $12 billion developing original shows last year... To fund its new shows, Netflix is borrowing huge sums of debt. It currently owes creditors $10.4 billion, which is 59% more than it owed this time last year. The problem is that no matter how much Netflix spends, it has no chance to catch up with its biggest rival...
in about 175 days, Disney is set to launch its own streaming service called Disney+. It's going to charge $6.99/month -- around $6 cheaper than Netflix. And it's pulling all its content off of Netflix. This is a big deal. Disney owns Marvel, Pixar Animations, Star Wars, ESPN, National Geographic, Modern Family, and The Simpsons. Not to mention all the classic characters like Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. In six of the past seven years, Disney has produced the world's top-selling movie... Disney has shown it can produce movies and shows people want to watch. No competitor comes within 1,000 miles of Disney's world of content. Disney's ownership of iconic franchises like Star Wars gives it something no money can buy.
Meanwhile, Netflix will lose a lot of its best content -- and potentially millions of subscribers who switch to Disney+. While Netflix is running into debt "trying out" new shows, Disney already has the best of the best in its arsenal.
Destroy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I am hoping for a price war between the main streaming services.
Given that they all have such a dearth of content variety now, I can't imagine paying more than 5 bucks a month for any one of them.
Incidentally, content variety is precisely why I don't have any streaming subscription, and only have one subscription to netflix DVD by mail. The content variety there is enormous, even now after they purged a lot of the rarely-requested old stuff when they lost most of their users a few years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit you pay that little for that much. 100MB internet plus the most basic TV option is already $65 with FIOS.
Because american internet is shit and overpriced.
Re: Destroy? (Score:3)
Also Disney produces theater worthy content... So I want to see it in theater. I don't need to re-watch Iron Man, I want to see infinity war... In 3D... And IMAX.
I don't find myself watching any Disney content on Netflix, I watch things that were never on TV or not worth watching in theater.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh... You're that one guy paying extra to see movies in 3D.
Kindly stop so 3D can die already.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is a maximum number of viewing hours available for all Internet users. While "zero-sum" implies that all losses must be to someone else's gain, that cap on the market limits the exponential growth curves so popular to Internet startups and large company business plans.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope the entire article is utterly fabricated bullshit because Netflix is seen as a threat to mass consumption and must be destroyed, so claimed by the shite lord banksters. Basically Netflix is not showing ads (which is why people prefer it over cable) and that is a threat to mass consumption. Without those constant screaming psychological pressures to buy shit you do not need, you will buy less, hence the problem as claimed by the economist planet eating shite weasels.
They will be attacking all advertise
Re:Destroy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Disney owns Marvel, Pixar Animations, Star Wars, ESPN, National Geographic, Modern Family, and The Simpsons. Not to mention all the classic characters like Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck
Star Wars is for the cinema. The rest? Zero reason to ever sign up for Disney+, except perhaps the Simpsons. Even in it's rather cut-down form in my country, Netflix is still the better deal. Having stuff that I actually want to watch is kind of a requirement.
Re: (Score:2)
There are Star Wars TV shows coming too. Well, there have been SW shows for years, and I heard that the animated ones are quite good, but they are doing live action as well now.
Disney is going to throw money at making TV content from existing franchises.
Re: (Score:3)
Well we'll see if they do better than with their movies. The Star Wars movies have been doing poorly enough that they massively trimmed back their movie plans https://www.digitalspy.com/mov... [digitalspy.com] .
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Destroy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Theres really no evidence for this. Its a popular meme on the net that TLJ whilst doing well box office did poorly with audience. The problem is , thats not what the data suggests at all.
The myth that it was unpopular largely stems from a couple of online self reporting surveys, notably the Rotten Tomatoes audience score. The problem is, these where subject to a huge vote spamming campaign for weird fandom reasons.
Thats why the industry itself never relies on these. Rather the gold standard in audience research is Cinemascore which plants people outside of a few thousand cinemas and gives audience members questionaires at the end of the film.
Around 80% of people who saw Last Jedi rated it "A" with very small error bars.. Another reliable statistical service comScores Posttrak found 89% of of people exitiing the film gave it a "very good" or "excellent" rating. These services literally poll tens to hundreds of thousands of randomly selected people. Its statistically valid.
Now I'm not sure how Solo did with audience reactions, so I won't comment there.
Slashdot is a place that tries to peddle in data and evidence not quackery and superstition. Lets at least agree that Star Trek Last Jedi was a popular and well liked film, because the alternatives are *wrong*. This isn't saying its a *good* film, only that the audience liked it, and that appears to be beyond doubt, whatever the botnetters and botnet believers think.
Re:Destroy? (Score:5, Insightful)
The myth that it was unpopular largely stems from a couple of online self reporting surveys, notably the Rotten Tomatoes audience score. The problem is, these where subject to a huge vote spamming campaign for weird fandom reasons.
Or maybe people just hated it. As the articles on RottenTomatoes recent revamp note, [thenextweb.com] other movies claiming "review bombing" victimization include Black Panther, Ghostbusters 2016, and Captain Marvel, all of which had a heaping dose of modern identity politics ladled into them; directly into the film and with the surrounding marketing approach in varying measure. In other words, there's a strong political incentive for certain people whom view movies as a crucial battleground in the culture wars to lay the flops of their value-pushing movies at the feet of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Of course, that also means there's an incentive for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to target said movies out of spite.
However, if considered in a political vaccum, (if one deigns to theorize a form of politics that sucks even more than extant reality) the aformentioned films (excepting Black Panther) should've been expected to flop. Ghostbusters 2016 is a stellar example; based purely on boring, route marketing data - much ink has been spilled on this, but this article [careymartell.com] is the most down-to-earth that I've seen; leaving the complaints of "misandry" aside and simply examining it from a cold-blooded "who's the audience demographic?" question. In sum, Ghostbusters 2016 was a sci-fi movie that was aimed as far away from the sci-fi demographic and the franchise's eager fan demographic, and to the shock of nobody, it opened to empty theaters.
And yet, its inevitable flop was the first one I could remember that was defended as "review bombing" on RottenTomatoes. Really... really makes you think, doesn't it?
Around 80% of people who saw Last Jedi rated it "A" with very small error bars.. Another reliable statistical service comScores Posttrak found 89% of of people exitiing the film gave it a "very good" or "excellent" rating. These services literally poll tens to hundreds of thousands of randomly selected people. Its statistically valid.
In essence, exit polling, and subject to the same pitfalls as election exit polling. However, those pitfalls are known and commercial self-interest would encourage rigour in perfecting analysis. I confess, if your analysis is correct, then I despair for my children, because it means that any horrid pile of shit can be shoveled down our throats and make shit-tons of money based on excess CGI and brand recognition. In many ways, that's exactly what Disney's banking on by yanking their content from NetFlix - they're betting that they can beat NetFlix (who's investing heavily in producing new content, as TFA notes,) not by dint of their established studios, writers and resources, but by hurling shitloads of cash from much deeper pockets at said studios to regurgitate "safe" franchises with the latest, greatest CGI spectacle.
I never went to the cinema expecting Fine Art, but The Last Jedi was hands-down the worst movie I have ever seen with anything even close to its budget - on a purely technical basis, even. The writing was a hot mess, exhibiting all the hallmarks of someone who couldn't plot their way out of a wet paper bag (characters jumping from location to location as needed with barely a handwave, long-winded and pointless side-plots, the plot bending over backwards to serve narrative demands with the barest breath of dialouge provided to patch over the resulting plot hole, and above all, hiding information from the audience till the last minute to prevent the massive plot-holes from being spotted ahead of time.) Maybe TLJ's opening take b
Re: (Score:3)
"The Last Jedi was hands-down the worst movie I have ever seen with anything even close to its budget"
Have you seen any of the Jurassic World or Transformers movies?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Destroy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardly. It is not a zero-sum game, in spite of what the click bait articles say.
It is when you come to the part about all Disney content disappearing from Netflix. Now Netflix goes from being the closes thing to an all-purpose content provider to yet another fragmentary service that people will only sign up for to get original content. I see the most likely result being more customers for Kodi.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly. It is not a zero-sum game, in spite of what the click bait articles say.
It is when you come to the part about all Disney content disappearing from Netflix. Now Netflix goes from being the closes thing to an all-purpose content provider to yet another fragmentary service that people will only sign up for to get original content. I see the most likely result being more customers for Kodi.
Despite the direction things appear to be going right now, not every studio is going to want to launch their own dedicated platform. Some that do may throw in the towel when they realize it's hard. I think Disney+ has a really strong shot at becoming "Family Netflix." You know, the Disney version of whatever market they move into.
Not sure I understand the business logic here (Score:5, Interesting)
Now Disney wants to break into the market. How much are they willing to lose? or are they just going to spend until Netflix is gone and then shut down?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
How much are they willing to lose?
. . . as much as you, the investor, are willing to pump into into it . . . lines form at the right!
Re: Not sure I understand the business logic here (Score:2)
For Disney, this is just marketing money. They can run their showsâ"which were already profitable at the box office, by and largeâ"and just build enthusiasm for their theme parks and merchandise.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not sure I understand the business logic here (Score:4, Informative)
>"If you do the math, they spent 12-billion producing content and added 6-billion debt. So that means without needing to produce content they would have had a 6-billion dollar profit this year."
And that is true. But if they stopped and had a 6 billion profit this year, NEXT year, when there is nothing new, most their customers will pull the plug and they then have little profit at all the following year. Subscriptions are all they have- no theme parks, no box office, no BluRay sales, no licensing, no advertising.... just subscriptions.
Most of what Netflix puts out I don't like. Some I very much like. For example, House of Cards, Lucifer (season 4), Stranger Things, some of the Marvel stuff, and Black Mirror. I have exhausted that and just last week shut off my subscription. Why continue to pay monthly when I find I am not watching? In a couple of months, if they resume stuff I like, I will re-subscribe to see that stuff, and also test out other things they put out.
We will know the end is near when Netflix starts to be hostile to the customers with things like these-
1) Activation/reactivation penalties
2) Throwing away your history/ratings/etc if you leave
3) Discounts for long-term contracts
4) Flat out contracts required
5) Rising prices
6) Commercials
7) Rationing of service (time limits, streaming limits, etc)
Those will be a sure sign they are in major trouble. Or they might move to a "pay-to-play" model, where you pay per show or per hour you watch. And, actually, that model might not be a horrible thing, especially if they can continue to negotiate in content from other sources.
But if their model moves to a distribution-only model, that won't fly when all the content producers start creating their own distribution systems and pull their content off Netflix.
Meanwhile, I have retained my many-years-long Netflix "DVD" (Bluray) disc subscription where I continue to get all the blockbuster and other movies in a decent format, for a reasonable price. Something you can't do with Netflix streaming. But Netflix is on the verge of screwing that up too, if they are not careful. Longer delays, sudden lack of replacement discs, and DVD instead of BluRay discs on some titles is starting to make customers like me nervous...
Re: (Score:2)
Porn is mostly free online these days. It's hard to make money out of porn as a producer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Now Disney wants to break into the market. How much are they willing to lose? or are they just going to spend until Netflix is gone and then shut down?
Disney is profitable already with their own content. If they make a net penny on every episode they stream, then they come out ahead of where they are now.
Netflix, on the other hand, is spending quite a bit on creating new content. It turned out they've managed to create some good stuff, but they spent a lot of money that Disney won't have to spend.
I can't imagine I will ever subscribe to Disney streaming unless I have kids, though.
Re:Not sure I understand the business logic here (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The big difference is that the content on Disney+ will be content Disney already owns and has made back the production budget on via other mediums (box office, cable/OTA TV etc) so the cost to Disney for putting that content on Disney+ is very low (meaning it will be a lot easier for Disney+ to make a profit).
Netflix on the other hand has to use revenue from streaming sales to cover the production costs of their in-house content or to pay high fees to other production companies for the rights to content.
The
Re: Not sure I understand the business logic here (Score:2)
Yeah, and how profitable do you think those other channels will remain if their Disney streaming service takes off?
Re: (Score:2)
Because the latest content wont be on Disney+ until its been on these other options for a while.
So the latest blockbuster will be on cinema screens first then maybe on cable pay-per-view and only on Disney+ later on.
TV content will be on ESPN or Disney Channel or ABC first and Disney+ later on.
Re: Not sure I understand the business logic here (Score:2)
Youâ(TM)re forgetting how wide Disneyâ(TM)s content empire is. Itâ(TM)s not just princesses and superheroes, itâ(TM)s everything under ABC, ESPN, National Geographic, and 20th Century Fox/Fox Television. Plus with their control of Hulu, they also get streaming rights to all of NBCUniversal.
Re: Not sure I understand the business logic here (Score:2)
I don't think they're forgetting. I certainly was not forgetting any of those and I still find the idea that anyone but parents would find the offering to be anything but a joke.
Fox, NBC, and NatGeo? Seriously? If those channels were worth paying for, they'd be premium channels. Those are filler channels to ensure something might be on when you operate on scheduled programming.
Who will 'destroy' what, though? (Score:5, Insightful)
Disney+ will be cheaper than Netflix -- to start with. If you believe that'll last, you're naive, Disney will jack up the price once it gets rolling, everyone does.
Really, when it comes right down to it, is Netflix less evil than Disney? Disney has become pretty evil over the years.
Re:Who will 'destroy' what, though? (Score:5, Interesting)
Biggest question on my mind: Will Disney ruin the Marvel series' that Netflix started?
LOL.
Disney doesn't have to do that. Netflix already did that for them. Every single Marvel series that Netflix did started with a good first season (except Iron Fist) and then proceeded with a worse second season (including Iron Fist) that wound up destroying the series to the point no one wanted to watch them any more. Disney can't do any worse: they're already dead.
Disney won't need to destroy Netflix themselves anyway, Netflix is doing a pretty good job of destroying themselves. Netflix shows routinely fall prey to the "Netflix Effect" where Netflix releases them, doesn't promote them in any way, and then cancels them as they're growing an audience who's discovering them via word of mouth.
Their discovery system is awful. Apparently Netflix has decided to do A/B testing on thumbnails, so as you scroll through the list, you'll eventually notice you're seeing the same show multiple times but with a different thumbnail. I wasn't interested in Fuller House any of the twelve previous times, I'm still not interested in it.
Want to continue watching something you did like? Being shown a show you've been watching but had to put down is done as a "suggested genre" meaning it might be the first thing you see or it might be the fifth thing you see. Be prepared to fight the UI and the suggestion algorithm to be allowed to resume a show you like.
Did a show you watched a year ago get another season? Hope you're following it on Twitter or Facebook, because Netflix sure isn't going to tell you. Well, unless the suggestion algorithm decides you might like it, which it will do ignoring minor inputs like "I 'thumbs upped it'" or "I added it to 'My List.'" (Oh, and "My List" is again treated like just another recommended genre. It may show up on your Netflix homepage. It may not. If it doesn't, I have no clue how to get to it.)
This, incidentally, is why Netflix is currently built on TV re-runs. Those got advertised elsewhere, and you know the title to search for them by name and therefore bypass the discovery interface. If you just want to look for shows you might like, Netflix is worthless.
All Disney has to do in order to "destroy Netflix" is offer better content that's possible to locate with a discovery system that doesn't constantly show you the same twenty shows, just sorted into different "genres" with different thumbnails to see which thumbnail/genre combination "works best." Netflix is already king of creating original content that they then don't let anyone know about, make impossible to browse to, and weirdly gets no views because of it. No need for Disney to help them with that.
Re: (Score:3)
Netflix already cancelled all of the Marvel series. Jessica Jones will air one final season and that's it.
Back to normal TV if Disney wins (Score:2)
Will Disney show series like "Suits", "Casa del Papel", "Lucifer" and "Grace and Frankie"?
If they don't, and they are able to outmanoeuvre Netflix, then the only things they will offer will be mediocre things, and TV will be back were it is now.
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix does seem to push boundaries that mainstream American producers don't like to. Lucifer, The OA, even parts of Riverdale. Showcase and HBO do violence and sex, but Netflix doesn't seem afraid to poke religion.
I bet Disney isn't going to add their porn properties to their streaming service.
Same crap, different way of paying for it (Score:3, Interesting)
In ye olden days, you picked cable package bundles and ended up paying for networks you had no intention of ever watching. Now, you subscribe to streaming services just got the few exclusives you want to watch from each of them.
I'd guess having individual subscriptions to Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, Amazon Prime, CBS All Access, and HBO Go, probably adds up to costing the same or more as a typical cable TV package. The savings aspect of "cutting the cord" has long since evaporated, because that was just too good to last.
Personally, I just use an OTA antenna (connected to a Tivo with a lifetime sub) and a LAN media server with Fire Sticks running Kodi. The only streaming service I subscribe to is Amazon Prime, and that's only because it's force bundled with the shipping (I'd gladly pay for a cheaper tier without the streaming). Screw paying for content providers to recreate the worst aspect of cable TV on the Internet (a monthly subscription just because you want to watch 1 or 2 shows).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For original content worth seeing they've got the Grand Tour (3 seasons worth), The Tick (2 seasons worth), Jean Claude Van Johnson and Jack Ryan.
For licensed content they have a bunch worth seeing or rewatching, including Babylon 5, Psych, Chuck, Stargate (Atlantis, SG-U, SG-1), Farscape, Parks & Rec.
They've got movies from Dune to Road House, with The Blue's Brothers in between.
In my opinion, it's not worth getting for just the streaming service, but as a bonus to the free shipping from Amazon it's we
Re: Same crap, different way of paying for it (Score:2)
I'm so confused. I never see ads on Amazon Prime or Netflix, beyond a two second interrupt when you start the Prime app.
That's making an assumption (Score:2)
"The savings aspect of "cutting the cord" has long since evaporated, because that was just too good to last."
That's assuming that one actually has the time to watch all of that content. I can't even keep up with all of the content I want to watch on Netflix and Amazon. Meanwhile, I am most certainly saving money relative to my prior cable subscription.
No, it's easier to cancel streaming services. (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with cable is they'd raise rates and force the customer to call in to either complain or cancel services (which they deliberately hamstrung).
But streaming services are far easier to cancel. So what more than likely will happen is that customers decide to binge on some Disney movies for a month, then cancel. This basically is what's happened with HBO and Game of Thrones.
Beyond that, you've got the pirates who don't care at all. The fracturing of streaming services will just cause an uptick in
Don't dis distribution (Score:2)
I think TFA minimizes the value of a good distribution network. That's what made cable valuable and it's what made big retailers big.
As a consumer, I value the content but I fear the fragmentation of distribution. I really don't want subscriptions to Netflix, Hulu, Disney, CBS, and all the rest. There's a lot of value for me to have all my video in once place.
Of course, I'm not likely to get what I want. I'm sure we'll settle down to two to four major streaming services. Studios will still produce content,
Re:Don't dis distribution (Score:5, Insightful)
People will sign up for one or two services, and the rest will be pirated. This is the same thing that happened with the music industry until they learned and licensed all their content for pretty much all of the streaming services. Unless the video industry learns this lesson, they are bound to go through the same experience. I am not quite sure why Disney thinks that encouraging piracy is the way to go, but that's what they are doing.
And as long as piracy is more convenient than getting legal content, that's what consumers will do. To some degree it is about money. But most studies have shown that to a very large degree it is about convenience and easy access to a large library. Netflix mostly did that. Piracy is a close second in quality of "customer service".
We'll see pirating increase (Score:2)
With the massive fragmentation of streaming channels the only thing that is assured is that movie and show pirating will increase.
To quote a now Disney franchise "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Not a chance (Score:3)
Yeah, just like everyone watched the Disney channel 24-7, and had to have it in their cable package...
Disney's habit of making most male leads Fred-Flintstone retarded is enough to make me eschew it.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not as if they treated female characters any better. In fact, they probably treat them worse.
Disney likes their characters predictable, stereotypical and stupid. I am sure they have done market research and there is lots of money in that. It's just not what I want from my entertainment.
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't watch anything from the Star Wars franchise, or made by Fox, or Marvel, or The History Channel, or Pixar, or Indiana Jones, Avatar, Die Hard, Alien... there are many more titles and brands that Disney have bought.
Re: (Score:2)
I have watched many of the above, but the best of them are one-shot-rentable-movies, not series or new content. History channel sounds appropriate, how many of those shows you listed were made by Disney in the last 20 years. The best Marvel TV shows were made by Netflix, and were not good because of the licensed matter (check out The Order, or Umbrella Academy, or Stranger Things, Netflix does not need the Marvel brand to produce good stuff).
Re: Not a chance (Score:2)
Don't get fooled by the name. The History Channel is just reruns of Ancient Aliens and reality TV.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is Disney is going to pull of all its content from Netflix.
They literally own thousands of shows and movies, more than any other entity. It doesn't matter that they made they, it matter that they now own them.
They're also going to continue to buy up production companies and franchises. They've just finished acquiring Fox.
Fox has a lot of content in the 80 or so years it's been around. Disney may not own DC Comics, but they have the original Batman movie Fox made in the 60's.
I wouldn't be surpris
No, what a stupid thing to say (Score:2)
Look, maybe Netflix' biggest growth is behind it, but it's the streaming service you have first. I'm not going to get Disney instead of Netflix (or at all, honestly)â"why would I want to watch ONLY Disney properties? Some parents will want that, and that's fair, but I think Disney's pricing sets up 2 things:
- you get it as your secondary service of choice
- they break even, more or less, and use their channel as a marketing vector, so you buy more merchandise and go to their parks
It's not really meant t
Re:No, what a stupid thing to say (Score:4, Interesting)
Because Disney are buying up all the other production companies.
https://www.cartoonbrew.com/di... [cartoonbrew.com]
I'm concerned, but not because of Disney (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And there's no way to get rid of things I'm never going to watch.
Creating a 'hide' option seems like an easy win for improving a recommendation system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I'm concerned, but not because of Disney (Score:3)
I don't think that's it. I think it has more to do with algorithmic ghettos. It's hard to continue to suggest recommendations 5 years into using a product. The noise level becomes too great, customer preferences that were kneejerk reactions have started to overwhelm the algorithms, etc.
Add to that the fact that a show may strike your mood today and not tomorrow, it makes sense for Netflix to try to put the same content in your way multiple times.
It also makes sense to not allow someone to "don't care about
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm noticing that Netflix has a ton of new content... but most of it sucks. For every "House Of Cards" level hit, they seem to have three or four lame sitcoms, a couple of mediocre comedy specials, and about a dozen lame kid shows.
At first, I thought that focusing on kids content was a good idea, as the "Netflix and Chill" generation from five or six years ago now has a bunch of little kids that need entertaining. That said, I noticed that my own kids really aren't all that interested some lame Boss B
Bring back shows (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with Netflix was that it was unsure of it's own initial success and didn't want to risk negotiating long term or permanent contracts with content producers. Content producers at some point wanted to be on Netflix because it was popular and new. Sure it would've been more expensive on Netflix but if they took the risk when they were still 'the only game in town'. They simply were 'too nice' and not aggressive enough when they had the lead, nowadays there's a dozen Netflix-like services from WalMa
Likely, but for other reasons than commonly stated (Score:2, Insightful)
Disney+ will definitely be one of the forces that will break Netflix.
But that is not because people will switch to Disney+ instead of Netflix, it is because Netflix will lose again one the reason why it was great.
What made it great was that at some point you could see almost any content on Netlfix for one subscription, lowered pirating a lot as there was finally a way to get the content for a reasonable price without having to pirate it.
But with the increasing fragmentation of the market will drive more peo
Uhhh (Score:2)
Exclusive content (Score:4, Insightful)
Exclusive content will just cause fragmentation and destroy the subscription model, people won't want to subscribe to many different services just for a tiny handful of exclusives on each.
Re: (Score:2)
That's where thepiratebay comes in.
wait what? (Score:2)
"gives it something money can't buy"
Disney bought all the mentioned show franchises in the summary, it didn't create any of them.
oh well. (Score:2)
Maybe i'll read a book instead.
Time to buy piratebay.org call options. (Score:5, Insightful)
! XOR (Score:2)
If Disney+ is coming in that cheap, and you really had to have Mickey and JarJar on tap, why wouldn't you just subscribe and keep NetFlix too?
Disney+ sounds like it is making a huge mistake by underselling itself for 2 reasons:
1. If priced the same then spending sensitive Netflix subscribers might then chose between them. For the price of a big mac meal it doesn't force an XOR choice.
2. How you price something conveys its value. If you underprice something consumers assume it's shit. If you price it at a pr
Bring back the 14 year copyright (Score:2)
Star Wars original trilogy (who cares about the follow-ons) should be public domain by now. Along with Mickey Mouse since the 1930s. Death to Disney.
Donâ(TM)t forget Hulu. (Score:4, Insightful)
Disney also controls Hulu and has an agreement with Comcast to carry all NBCUniversal content on it. Combine with all the live sports that Disney has access to, and it looks pretty grim for Netflix which may well be relegated to a niche player status.
Re: Donâ(TM)t forget Hulu. (Score:2)
Ha! You think live sports is going to be included? Lol.
Disney+ does not have the Netflix appeal (Score:2)
Most of Disney's content is long-form movies that I'll watch once and never again. Why would I want to see any of the shit Marvel has been making the last few years over and over again? Why would I want to see any of the three Star Wars episodes I don't already own on a remastered DVD/BR/iTunes/Amazon/....
I can see for parents, having all the Disney/Pixar cartoons on demand may be a thing, but they're not on Netflix to begin with and even there, picking up a the movie from a Walmart clearance bin or your av
Re: Disney+ does not have the Netflix appeal (Score:2)
I have no kids, but if I did, I'd feel more comfortable giving them HBO Kids than Disney+. Raising a child on Disney just sounds like bad parenting.
Overcoming Brand Name *and* Legacy Compatibility (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a steep hill to climb. With the brand name thing alone, I'd compare it to the continued dominance of Skype, which for many years at least was (I thought) clearly inferior to its competition, but its brand name inertia was just unstoppable. "Netflix and chill" is a phrase and concept that's already firmly entrenched in the younger generations' lexicon. And it's not going to be replaced by "Disney+ and chill" anytime soon.
Also, Netflix being in debt seems like a smaller issue than TFS implies. Amazon was in debt for a very long time as well, but investors recognized that it wasn't going anywhere. Netflix's revenue streams seem more stable than Amazon's were, even in the presence of competitors (it's not just American subscriptions that comprise its revenue stream but also syndication across a number of other markets, product placement and bluray/"digital" ownership sales)
Lol (Score:2)
Yeah, right. There's no way in Hell I'd drop Netflix for Disney. There's no way in Hell I'd even subscribe to Disney. Even if they gave it away for free, I'm still not sure I'd really ever use it. I buy Marvel movies a la carte on Vudu, and Disney doesn't make anything else worth my time.
Re: (Score:2)
What is Buzzword Bingo?
I'll take Silly Stuff for $2000, Alex.
Re:New Disney and Netflix originals are terrible (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with licensing content is you're only so good as the license lasts. No matter what Netflix did sooner or later the licensors were going to build their own platforms. So what choice did it have other than to develop its own content.
Maybe it was doomed all along. It played the most significant role in disrupting the broadcast and cable monopolies, and it probably played a part in its own decline with its someone undiplomatic stances, but it was up against very large and well entrenched competitors. Now those companies are leveraging their libraries to regain control. Once Netflix is marginalized or dead, they'll crank up the prices, use their significant financial and regulatory clout to jack prices up and make the unplugged era as expensive as previous eras. But at least the age of regular programming is dead.
Re: New Disney and Netflix originals are terrible (Score:2)
The right move for everyone is to reject the Disney streaming service. Once Disney sees fragmentation will not win the market, they'll backpedal quick.
Re: (Score:3)
Good luck teaching game theory to the population at large and convincing them to collude on this one.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not as many advantages as advertized (Score:5, Insightful)
Lessee.. first off, women enjoy action and superhero movies as much as boys do, they just seek additional qualities in those stories than dude punches things, the end. Ms Marvel did quite well at the theaters.
The fact is they don't like dealing with people like YOU, who've decided you are the gatekeeper and the one true fan. So they keep to themselves and watch at home where they don't have to face some sweaty nerd incel gauntlet just because they like a thing.
As for Spider-Man, that got rebooted for actor changes or because of bad scripts, Batman & Superman keep getting rebooted every time there's a new director or someone in the studio wants to change direction. None of which has jack all to do with women being included in the stories.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you seen the BatWoman trailer?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not as many advantages as advertized (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah I got no problem with female superheroes. But there's been a helluva lot of lazy writing with Supergirl, Batwoman, the Ghostbusters reboot etc. where you take a male character and replace it with a female knock-off. Like get your own damn lore, I don't need to see Spiderwoman, Iron Woman, Aquawoman, Ant Woman, The Hulkette and so on. There's plenty room for strong, original female characters...
Re:Not as many advantages as advertized (Score:4)
Supergirl appeared first in DC comics in 1959. She's not a gender swapped male character.
The others, yes, lazy.
Re: Not as many advantages as advertized (Score:5, Informative)
You don't cite any numbers, which is to be expected since you are just making (in your own words) "horseshit" up.
Captain Marvel did 28% more business domestically than Aquaman. We are to believe that the majority of the movie going population (women) massively favored ("kicked the snot out of") Aquaman over Ms Marvel, and yet it did 28% more business? I guess the men must be eating that "SJW horseshit" up with two spoons then.
In reality only a small part of the U.S. population have gender-oriented hatred like you cowardly anonymous self.
Re: (Score:3)
If I had to wager, I'd guess women are still getting the short end of the stick in society. Instead of lame anecdotes, how about proper wage discrepancy statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] .
Sure, there is bullshit on both sides of this issue, that's for certain. The thing is, if you look at the data, overall us men are still better off..
Re: Not as many advantages as advertized (Score:4, Informative)
If I had to wager, I'd guess women are still getting the short end of the stick in society. Instead of lame anecdotes, how about proper wage discrepancy statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] .
Sure, there is bullshit on both sides of this issue, that's for certain. The thing is, if you look at the data, overall us men are still better off..
Hmmm, I've heard that argument before but it's crap and honestly on this website you should know better. Look at your wiki link, then look up the citations. The citations state first off that it isn't normalized for the same profession (ie not comparing apples to apples). I want you to think about that for a second - you're upset that people in entirely different professions don't get paid the same. Indeed it's been shown that in technology women earn more than men for the same job as well as get promotions easier (thanks diversity). You can't call it a quota but it sure can be an MBO goal. Here's a more recent counter example: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0... [nytimes.com] If you factor in the child support scam women have it far easier. I may get to see child support fixed in my twilight years only because as more women get degrees than men eventually some of them will have to pay men support. As that's considered a crime against nature to feminists it may get overhauled. Someday.
us men are still better off..
Only because we work hard, not because of special programs or perks.
Re: Not as many advantages as advertized (Score:2)
Citation needed
Re: Not as many advantages as advertized (Score:2)
It wasn't a complete failure, but Ghostbusters was definitely not a success.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.... [hollywoodreporter.com]
Re: There is a lot of gray area. (Score:2)
You know there are historical reasons black people are associated with eating watermelon. For various (racist) reasons, Reconstruction era blacks consumed lots of watermelon.
So, what if in your buffet scene, the actors are simply told to eat what they want. Is it racist if the black guy chooses to eat watermelon and the white guys don't?
Is it racist to show blacks eating watermelon during Reconstruction to signify an historic reality?
Re:I canceled Netflix streaming (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I think so highly of Disney, that I might just subscribe to Netflix if that would injure them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What grown-up would want to admit they signed up for Disney TV?
We elected a president who ran on a platform (Score:2)
If you want it to change you need to convince friends and family to vote for candidates who believe government can work. Liz Warren or Bernie Sanders would both be good choices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
as a monopoly.
They own a pretty significant chunk of the entertainment industry. And apparently will be taking over Hulu in a few years.
Netflix saved two shows that I cared about so far, Longmire and Lucifer.
If Netflix goes away I'm guessing there will be a huge surge in "other" ways to watch media, like torrents, and other methods.
That is unless the media giants continue to merge with the distribution giants such as Universal/Comcast. If that happens forget about torrents, especially with net neutrality gone as each studio will have its own ISP and streaming service. Such mergers could allow the media conglomerates to either block or throttle all external media that is in direct competition. Disney isn't a Monopoly in a traditional sense. They compete with other media groups so the anti-trust act will almost have no teeth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Fuck auto play previews (Score:2)
I've never seen previews on Netflix. Maybe try a different device. I use the Android app and I have no idea what you're talking about.