Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television

After Losing Billions, Disney+ Tries Integrating Hulu Into Its App (yahoo.com) 78

Posted by EditorDavid from the magical-kingdoms dept.
"Subscribers of both Disney+ and Hulu can now access Hulu content through the Disney+ app," reports the Los Angeles Times, "as the Burbank media and entertainment giant launched its one-app integration of the two streaming services Wednesday..." The move is part of Disney's plan to increase viewer engagement and reduce churn on Disney+, which has 111.3 million subscribers globally. Disney has lost billions on its direct-to-consumer business as it tries to compete with Netflix, but the company has told investors that its streaming segment will begin to turn a profit by the end of fiscal 2024. Streaming losses have been a key component of a nasty activist shareholder campaign ahead of next week's annual meeting.

Disney+ has typically served up family-friendly content and major brands such as Pixar, Star Wars and Marvel, whereas Hulu's offering has been the streaming home of more adult-oriented programming. Disney executives described the combined app experience as the most extensive technical advancement to the Disney+ streaming platform since it launched in November 2019... The price of the bundle plan starts at $9.99 with ads... Upgrading to the bundle of Hulu on Disney+ will start at $2 more per month, Disney said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

After Losing Billions, Disney+ Tries Integrating Hulu Into Its App More

After Losing Billions, Disney+ Tries Integrating Hulu Into Its App

Comments Filter:

  • Aye Matey - There be movies in those waters... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MikeDataLink ( 536925 ) on Sunday March 31, 2024 @04:02PM (#64359384) Homepage Journal

    We don't want 20 different streaming services! We want just one. Netflix was (almost) perfect before corporate greed ruined things. Now we're all back to sailing our pirate ships on the open seas...

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Tom Veil ( 115114 )
      You want one monolithic monopolistic streaming service, and if they're not committed in producing and airing a show you don't want it at all? I'll take my ad hoc sign-up-and-cancel-on-a-whim channels over that any day.

      • Re:Aye Matey - There be movies in those waters... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MikeDataLink ( 536925 ) on Sunday March 31, 2024 @04:13PM (#64359430) Homepage Journal

        You want one monolithic monopolistic streaming service, and if they're not committed in producing and airing a show you don't want it at all?

        I don't care if there are 10 services, as long as they all have the same access to the same content.

        Let me make a simple analogy that you might understand. Imagine if radio or music streaming services were like today's movie services. Imagine if listening to Def Leppard required one service, but Bon Jovi required another, and Van Halen required yet another.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Exactly this. And I'd prefer that they NOT make any of their own content (or even be allowed , like Netflix in the before times.

          There can be 50 of them, all the same and all with the same content. And then they can compete on price.

          But now? Fuck this shit, I'm pirating.

          Radarr, Sonarr, Prowlarr, Plex, and Jellyfin. It's fucking automated now!

          • If the streamers don't make shows, and the networks are being replaced by streamers, who exactly is supposed to make the shows?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

              Producers. Just like the movies.

              In fact, *just* like the movies. The movie industry got anti-trusted for exactly this kind of nonsense. The big movie studios would only allow their movies to be shown in their theatres.

          • Its interesting the parallels to how films and cinemas used to operate. Way back in the day, studios in Hollywood also owned and operated theaters, so you could only see Paramount, MGM, etc. movies at theaters owned by or affiliated with them. After the late 40s, this practice was outlawed as part of the Paramount Decrees due to its anti-competitive nature. It'll be interesting to see if something similar happens with the streaming industry at some point, although I wouldn't hold my breath since the DOJ rec

        • This is totally different than what you said in the first post and something I agree with. It is not a bad thing there are multiple streaming services, the bad thing are exclusive streaming and network lock. Have multiple streaming services, let them compete in price and features, but allow them to stream the entire catalogue.

          • This is totally different than what you said in the first post

            Not really. I want one streaming service. That means I only want to subscribe to one. I don't care if multiple exist.

        • Imagine if listening to Def Leppard required one service, but Bon Jovi required another, and Van Halen required yet another.

          Ummm, they explicitly did. They just couldn't monetize to the extent they do now. Publishers had to sell on the "open market", but with the rise of Digital Restrictions Management, the publisher can ensure you only see a transient copy; therefore, utterly negating the concept of First Sale and the concept of an "open market". There is nothing but rent seeking in the Entertainment Industry. When is the last time you heard/saw a genuinely good story from Hollywood?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        I absolutely agree we want MANY streaming services. What I want to eliminate is exclusives on particular shows.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by meiao ( 846890 )
        Not really. Wasn't cable pretty much that. A few different providers, all providing pretty much the same channels?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by flink ( 18449 )

        We want compulsory licensing for TV and movies, like we have for music.

    • It's still better than cable. And, illusion of permanence aside, there are advantages over DVD box sets too.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ls671 ( 1122017 )

      But:

      Disney executives described the combined app experience as the most extensive technical advancement to the Disney+ streaming platform since it launched in November 2019!

    • Lots of streaming services is fine, Lots of streaming services each with exclusive or timed content sucks balls. I too have gone back to the high seas since Disney came along, prior to that I had all but stopped pirating, but then the splintering of content happened so fuck them.

    • I feel the same way about app stores, browsers, access to my phone's NFC chip and other things. Leave Apple alone.

    • Now we're all back to sailing our pirate ships on the open seas...

      Or, hear me out, some of us are not participating at all. This culture is corrupt and and sickly. It is full of ideas and concepts that are anathema to a society full of people who wish to think for themselves.

      If you want good, honest stories, read some of the literature from the "before times". Every movie/TV Show/ Commercial pulls from that body of literature to "entertain you in their special way". Why not skip all the bullshit and get your REAL stories unmodified?

      (Before 1980)

  • I just signed up for Disney+ & Hulu this month. My family made a list of the shows that have ended their seasons and that we want to watch. When we get through the list we'll cancel the service. One day when the list grows again we'll subscribe again. I don't see a reason to keep subscribing perpetually; it's not an essential item/service.

    • Yeah,at this point there isn't really a service where it makes sense to keep an ongoing subscription. None of them have the catalog depth to support it - even Netflix.

  • Streaming is expensive as heck (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 31, 2024 @04:11PM (#64359420)

    It isn't just the stupid high content costs. Netflix got a lot of first mover advantage in figuring out edge caching and transfers. All of the later players if they are sophisticated enough to even design their networks right (many aren't and are paying for cloud transfers, etc.) now have to pay way more to work with ISPs. I interviewed as an early employee for Discovery's now failed network. They had no clue where the costs would be and were hiring some aws bozos for architects... Cable was an amazing deal for networks and they treated it and the customers like shit.

    • Mod Up. Here the blind untested assumption at cloud or AWS would be cheaper. Not so. Then Louis Rossmann complaining he paid for HD streaming and did not get it - fine print says specific hardware only. With Disney, they do have MBA's telling them how to make profit on return. But Disney goes off script anyway, either DVI or British accents. If the casting is off, they will make mistakes. In the old, Kirk also gamboled or bluffed, correctly - always. JASS stands for just another streaming service. No same M

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      AWS Bozo? Yeah, why would they want someone experienced with the largest cloud service in the world which also has one of the longest standing video streaming services (Prime Video) as part of their portfolio.

      • AWS has many, many extras. Guaranteed latency is extra, caching, extra. Netfiix as a first mover probably got the best rate, before true costing arrived. Like ISP services, you need to do a speed test first. There is evidence that Disney has lesser service levels than Netflix, plus variation on the last mile wherever you are. Plus AWS is music for start-up wannabe services with low capital. BUT nothing will save you if your product is a dud, followed by consecutive duds. Excelling at loosing money and writi

  • fuck you disney (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bloodhawk ( 813939 ) on Sunday March 31, 2024 @04:16PM (#64359436)
    As one of the prime instigators of the splitting of all the streaming services I hope your losses accelerate.

    • As one of the prime instigators of the splitting of all the streaming services I hope your losses accelerate.

      That really began the moment Netflix decided to become their own studio rather than just a licensee of content. The rest of the traditional studios responded with "Hey, if you're going to swerve into our lane, we're going to swerve into yours!"

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Netflix were forced into that, Disney and others had already indicated they were not going to renew licenses for content so Netflix were stuck.

        • Netflix were forced into that, Disney and others had already indicated they were not going to renew licenses for content so Netflix were stuck.

          Perhaps there were earlier Netflix originals that I wasn't paying attention to, but Stranger Things premiered in 2016. Disney+ didn't launch until 2019.

  • Watch/Binge/Cancel vs. Reasonable Annual Rates (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TrumpetX ( 445716 ) on Sunday March 31, 2024 @04:30PM (#64359456)

    I was happy to pay for an annual subscription at a reduced rate for Disney+ (or really, any service) as it reduces the need to play the "subscribe,binge,cancel" game. But they keep trying to jack up prices more and more and more making it so that I either forced to subscribe, binge, cancel or simply not watch. They came out with the triple bundle for $20 and I was stoked! I don't really watch ESPN for much, but enjoyed some of the college football games. I subscribed and they nearly instantly jacked up the price by $5. CANCEL

    I had Netflix nonstop for nearly a decade, but they decided to jack up prices so now I "subscribe,binge,cancel". Give me a full year at 40-60% off and I'll stay subscribed. Jack up monthly subs to unreasonable levels? I'll break out the old pirate flags or just not watch at all.

    The MO now is to jack up prices and offer a "deal" for ads. F that. I'm NEVER going back to ads. I'll either pay a reasonable rate or "subscribe,binge,cancel".

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by freddienumber13 ( 1793526 )

      I'll either pay a reasonable rate or "subscribe,binge,cancel".

      This is the way.

      It's easy to subscribe, no hardware required, no technician needs to visit, nothing. When it comes time to unsubscribe, nothing needs to be posted back, no cables need to be disconnected, nothing. For many it is becoming more of "subscribe,binge,cancel" and the economics are compelling. Watch a show all in 1 week rather than n months. I'm waiting for streaming services to put limits on the "binging" to try and break that cycle. That'll be fun to watch if it happens.

    • just not watch at all.

      This is the way.

  • Woke (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zakeria ( 1031430 ) on Sunday March 31, 2024 @05:08PM (#64359516) Homepage
    billions down the toilet because they are pushing a narrative that 90% of people don't agree with nor want.
    • I've gotten pretty sick of Hollywood's obsession with the female action hero. It was mildly interesting at first, but the essential unrealism of pretending women are equally or more capable of combat and feats of strength strains believability well past the point of suspendability. Yet Disney (et all) powers through, wasting enough money to feed every hungry child in America on movies about female action heroes that nobody wants to see. Well, I don't at least.
  • I got rid of both because they were taking up screen space and I couldn't find anything to watch on Hulu or Disney

  • I was perfectly happy with their original annual plan price. Then they raised it repeatedly and I dropped them entirely. Short term thinking is going to work better by more short term thinking.

  • Disney has basically cashed in every good franchise to boost its bottom line. Hoping Loki and Bartleby visit the boardroom and end that nightmare of a corporation.
  • As a brand, it was all sunshine and lollipops. Idealism, joy, bliss. Everything that real life wasn't. It was an escape from reality.
    .
    Then came the "make it lame and gay."

    No wonder they're losing money. I'm gay, and even I don't want to watch that shit. I still want sunshine and lollipops and an idealistic escape. Fuck you Disney. You get what you deserve.

    • As a brand, it was all sunshine and lollipops.

      Lollypops made in Mexico that cost $5. Which brings us to Disney's actual goal as a brand - separating you from your hard-earned cash. It begins even before you've entered the parks. How'd you like to pay extra for a slightly closer parking space? Don't worry though, the monorail or ferry boat ride into the park is still free, for now. Once you're in the parks, would you like to visit some attractions? Well, you can either wait in the standby line that never moves or go our app and spend some money to

      • Then came the "make it lame and gay."

        Disney has always had their lame eras. A big one was right before the 1994 Lion King movie came out. They've also always had a lot of gay people working for them too, but I'm guessing you might be one of those people who still hasn't watched that Deep Space Nine episode "Far Beyond the Stars". Today's "You can't make the captain gay!" is just yesterday's "You can't make the captain black!"

        It just so happens that this is all transpiring during one of Disney's lame eras, so people are more apt to notice the gay. I'd rightfully like to point out that some earlier gay-themed movies (not released by Disney's studios) were highly acclaimed before the right-wing started making a big stink about it.

        It is a reference to the South Park special "Joining The Panderverse" https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2... [imdb.com]
        Here is a clip from it with the phrase https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • Every studio is delusional (Score:3)

    by sinkskinkshrieks ( 6952954 ) on Sunday March 31, 2024 @10:11PM (#64360106)
    They want to bestow the plebs limited access to their catalogs and charge huge amounts of money for temporary access to it. Good luck with that.

  • I have an idea (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by CEC-P ( 10248912 )
    What they should "try" is firing woke activist directors and producers and replace them with people whose #1 goal is making the product good.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by quall ( 1441799 )

      It's crazy how suggesting an idea of hiring good writer and artists over political ideologists would get you modded as flamebait. This isn't even a secret and is truly a part of their business ethics, so it's not like you're statement is even based on factually wrong information.

      This is the state of Slashdot and why traffic is dying. I rarely come after now after decades.

  • As they start running out of money they'll have to keep merging until we end up with something like cable tv all over again.

    • As they start running out of money they'll have to keep merging until we end up with something like cable tv all over again.

      But at least it won't be linear; that was the worst aspect of cable TV. Anything good on? Nope. Okay, put on The Weather Channel for background noise.

      • Yup, cable tv 2.0 with it all in one spot with one subscription but on demand is something I might actually pay for. I won't step into the current fractured ecosystem. I'll just pay my single vpn bill until these companies unite. Shouldn't be too long.

  • How though? (Score:3)

    by OfMiceAndMenus ( 4553885 ) on Monday April 01, 2024 @07:50AM (#64360858)
    If the ONE streaming service that has the most beloved and popular content available with a reasonable subscription price can't succeed, fucking NONE of them will ever succeed.

    Imagine owning every aspect of an IP, from the story, the characters, to the production methods to the studios to the animators to the theme park promoting it, and STILL somehow not being able to get people to pay $10/mo to watch your vast library of content.

    • If the ONE streaming service that has the most beloved and popular content available with a reasonable subscription price can't succeed, fucking NONE of them will ever succeed. Imagine owning every aspect of an IP, from the story, the characters, to the production methods to the studios to the animators to the theme park promoting it, and STILL somehow not being able to get people to pay $10/mo to watch your vast library of content.

      Disney came into the streaming game as they tripped over their own concepts and properties, pissing off both long-term fans of Disney and long-term fans of the properties they were sucking up at a ridiculous rate of speed (Marvel, Star Wars, Fox Properties, etc.) All they had to do was be half-decent to the properties they bought and they would have kept some of the most rabid fan-bases in existence on the line. Instead, they pissed off those long-term fans in the hopes of sucking in new, because long-term

      • old fans are pissed that major characters and entire stories are twisted to fit a weird agenda

        Oh no, are you a woketard? Are you so fragile you think allowing people with different backgrounds, ideas, and preferences to be represented in media indicates some kind of agenda or brainwashing?

        Because those people don't matter, don't provide any value to the world, and the only thing they deserve from any streaming service is to be told to fuck off and die alone and embarrassed, pining for the "good old days" that never existed.

  • Politics ruined the TV star. ...or streaming star, whatever.

  • Poor them and their lazy content catalog hoarding and monetization.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Tell the truth and run." -- Yugoslav proverb

Close