Disney+

[Triggermv]

It is funny when you look at it that way. Cord cutting is currently saving me quite a chunk of change, but I'm also cheating a bit as a family member has a login I can use to access most of the cable options. I was paying anywhere from $73 to $130 for DirecTV depending on what month it was. I'm currently only paying for Netflix and Hulu, and when sports fire up I'll probably latch onto a bundle service such as Sling or PS Vue. That will put me at around $55, which is still $20 less than my cheapest DirecTV bill. It isn't as easy, though.

Even as streaming gets more cumbersome with 1,001 individual options, my favorite two things are:
- I have control over what I do and don't get and can turn them on/off monthly
- I don't have to do the semi-annual song and dance with DirecTV to keep my bill at a reasonable level.

It drove me insane that in four years, I never once changed my DirecTV package, but my bill would change price three times a year, every year. If they had simply charged me $80/month, every month, I wouldn't have dumped them.

I think a lot of the people making fun of cord cutters kind of miss a lot of the point of what the term a la carte entails, which is that it gives you, the customer, the ability to control your purchase of exactly what you want and spend exactly what you want to spend, without being forced to buy either a big bundle (paying for a bunch of things you don't want) or nothing. Also, if you do "want it all", well keep your cable. Last time I checked, that isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It will still be an option. Also, for those mocking the cost, keep in mind that it takes a crap ton of $10/month subscriptions to equal a $120/month cable bill (12 to be exact, which I can't even think of 12 subscriptions services out there right now), which you also don't have the ability to turn on and off at will.

 

[Cyclone.TV]

I agree, I could see this streaming thing getting very annoying very quickly. Everyone will soon have their own service that you need to pay $10 a month for. Universal Pictures will have their own, Sony Pictures will have their own, etc, etc. Then Netflix would go belly up because they wouldn't be allowed to show anyone's movies or TV shows anymore once they all have their own service.

Maybe this will all be good for the country eventually when nobody has TV anymore and we'll all be forced to go outside again and actually have a real life.

I haven't read any of this thread so maybe someone disagreed here, but Netflix started this all and then stayed ahead of the curve by making their own movies and tv shows. I have my doubts that they will go belly up. They are putting out content. Granted it isn't HBO level, but they are certainly fitting the demo of the network tv sitcoms which makes money.

 

[rholtgraves]

I read that this ESPN service won't have the content they have on the other services like Sling. Which basically means, they will have crap on there or it's just a repository for the games once they are over. Did anyone else see that?

 

[Mr Janny]

I haven't read any of this thread so maybe someone disagreed here, but Netflix started this all and then stayed ahead of the curve by making their own movies and tv shows. I have my doubts that they will go belly up. They are putting out content. Granted it isn't HBO level, but they are certainly fitting the demo of the network tv sitcoms which makes money.

Yeah, Netflix definitely won't crumble because of this. It will likely hurt their bottom line a bit, but not enough for them to go under.

But, other companies will watch to see how Disney fares and start launching their own services. Viacom, for one, has a bunch of desirable properties, enough to launch their own service. They've got Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, CBS, MTV, CMT, VH1, as well as Paramount Pictures.
Comcast has a ton of properties too, although they're in the cable biz, so that may change things for them

 

[Cyclone.TV]

Yeah, Netflix definitely won't crumble because of this. It will likely hurt their bottom line a bit, but not enough for them to go under.

But, other companies will watch to see how Disney fares and start launching their own services. Viacom, for one, has a bunch of desirable properties, enough to launch their own service. They've got Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, CBS, MTV, CMT, VH1, as well as Paramount Pictures.
Comcast has a ton of properties too, although they're in the cable biz, so that may change things for them

One thing we will see:

All of these streaming services (if they become that) will be forced to put out the very best content. It will force them to make the best and most talked about movies/shows if they go this route. As consumers, we can move from one to the next and keep costs low that way. TV will be better than ever before because they will be truly competing for our money rather than getting it because of 2 yr contracts we were all in with cable services (and auto money that they got through that).

 

[HFCS]

Just makes it easier for me to avoid Disney and E$PN at all costs. Am I the only one that thinks Disney kids shows are utter garbage? I've got to say that all of the kids content on Public TV is far superior, and available in HD for free. Good enough that I would/should donate.

A pro PBS statement from Argent is the last thing I expected Today.

 

[Triggermv]

Yeah, Netflix definitely won't crumble because of this. It will likely hurt their bottom line a bit, but not enough for them to go under.

But, other companies will watch to see how Disney fares and start launching their own services. Viacom, for one, has a bunch of desirable properties, enough to launch their own service. They've got Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, CBS, MTV, CMT, VH1, as well as Paramount Pictures.
Comcast has a ton of properties too, although they're in the cable biz, so that may change things for them

I'm also in the boat where I don't see Netflix going belly up, but for all of those people out there that seem to think that Netflix is invulnerable, you are wrong, as these things have already been affecting their bottom line on their financials. In response, Netflix has been pouring tons and tons of money from debt into this boat of producing original content where only time will tell if it pays off or not, and a lot of that depends on how good the content ends up being to some extent. Regardless, adding tons and tons of debt adds additional risk to the company. To add to this, Netflix seems to be getting new competitors added by the week. So, do I still think they won't go under, yes, I don't think they will. However, I fear Netflix's golden age easily could be behind them, so they sure as heck better be willing to adapt big time.

 

[Cyclone.TV]

I read that this ESPN service won't have the content they have on the other services like Sling. Which basically means, they will have crap on there or it's just a repository for the games once they are over. Did anyone else see that?

I don't know this, but it would seem stupid for espn to create a stand alone. They are and have always planned on getting money from people who don't watch sports. This would take a lot away from that plan I would think. Most of the sling, ps vue types are paying them and maybe some of them switch, but not all. I dunno, weird situation there.

 

[Triggermv]

One thing we will see:

All of these streaming services (if they become that) will be forced to put out the very best content. It will force them to make the best and most talked about movies/shows if they go this route. As consumers, we can move from one to the next and keep costs low that way. TV will be better than ever before because they will be truly competing for our money rather than getting it because of 2 yr contracts we were all in with cable services (and auto money that they got through that).

You bring up a great point that isn't talked about much at all and that is the one very seldom talked about positive product of the streaming a la carte boom, which is drastically increased quality of TV programming. Simply, with increased competition comes increased quality of content. We now live in the age of on-demand television where people want exactly what they want, when they want it, and if you won't give me exactly what I want with a high level of quality, somebody else will. The days of channel flipping boredom are essentially over. On top of that, many of the strings/rules of Network television have been blown to bits, which has taken all the reigns off of creators out there In fact, many people call this the golden age of television as there is so many avenues fighting out there over your eyeballs to produce good content. This truly is an age where the customer has turned out the winner as of lately, not only in their pocketbook, but also in the quality of what they are receiving.

 

[Acylum]

So, without reading through the whole thread, eventually I'll be getting the ala carte I've always wanted, but just won't be able to afford it?

 

[3TrueFans]

So, without reading through the whole thread, eventually I'll be getting the ala carte I've always wanted, but just won't be able to afford it?

Where it used to cost $120/month for 80+ channels with cable now you'll get to choose 6-8 channels for the same price!

 

[NickTheGreat]

It is funny when you look at it that way. Cord cutting is currently saving me quite a chunk of change, but I'm also cheating a bit as a family member has a login I can use to access most of the cable options. I was paying anywhere from $73 to $130 for DirecTV depending on what month it was. I'm currently only paying for Netflix and Hulu, and when sports fire up I'll probably latch onto a bundle service such as Sling or PS Vue. That will put me at around $55, which is still $20 less than my cheapest DirecTV bill. It isn't as easy, though.

Even as streaming gets more cumbersome with 1,001 individual options, my favorite two things are:
- I have control over what I do and don't get and can turn them on/off monthly
- I don't have to do the semi-annual song and dance with DirecTV to keep my bill at a reasonable level.

It drove me insane that in four years, I never once changed my DirecTV package, but my bill would change price three times a year, every year. If they had simply charged me $80/month, every month, I wouldn't have dumped them.

You could always "borrow" someone's Netflix and Hulu and save even more money

Seriously though, my parents have SlingTV and are quite happy with it. They'd never had satellite, so Sling gives them a lot more options. Works especially well for essentially just the one TV

 

[Mr Janny]

So, without reading through the whole thread, eventually I'll be getting the ala carte I've always wanted, but just won't be able to afford it?

depends on what your ala carte preference is. It will likely break down along the lines of who owns what. The content owners aren't likely to separate out their own properties from one another. So if you like what Viacom has, you will probably have a service for that. If you like Disney's properties, you can get those. But, I doubt you'll see a system where you can pick and choose individual channels. Their parent companies won't see a lot of benefit from that.

 

[zarnold56]

depends on what your ala carte preference is. It will likely break down along the lines of who owns what. The content owners aren't likely to separate out their own properties from one another. So if you like what Viacom has, you will probably have a service for that. If you like Disney's properties, you can get those. But, I doubt you'll see a system where you can pick and choose individual channels. Their parent companies won't see a lot of benefit from that.

Disney is already talking about having separate services for Marvel and Star Wars. So they could have a Disney, Star Wars, and Marvel streaming service. Quote from the article

http://deadline.com/2017/08/disney-buys-bamtech-launch-espn-branded-streaming-services-1202144961/

“There’s been talk about launching a proprietary Marvel service and Star Warsservice,” Iger says. “But we’re mindful of the volume of product that would go into those services. And we want to be careful about that. We’ve also thought about including Marvel and Star Wars as part of the Disney-branded service. But there we want to be mindful of the Star Wars fan, the Marvel fan, and to what extent those fans either overlap with Disney fans or are completely separate and incremental to Disney. So it’s all in discussion.”

 

[Mr Janny]

Disney is already talking about having separate services for Marvel and Star Wars. So they could have a Disney, Star Wars, and Marvel streaming service. Quote from the article

http://deadline.com/2017/08/disney-buys-bamtech-launch-espn-branded-streaming-services-1202144961/

cool. I'm sure they'll do their homework on it, and go with what they feel will have the best chance at success/profit.

 

[zarnold56]

I wonder if Disney is going to pull movies cable channels like Starz, FX, and such

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

I read that this ESPN service won't have the content they have on the other services like Sling. Which basically means, they will have crap on there or it's just a repository for the games once they are over. Did anyone else see that?

I think what they were referring to was the Watch ESPN content and not necessarily your ESPN, ESPN 2, etc. I'm guessing that with their standalone subscription you would have access to all of the ESPN content where like now your internet or cable provider has to be an authorized carrier to get Watch ESPN content such as ESPN 3. I can't see ESPN walking away from Sling or PS Vue. I can see them charging Sling or Vue more money to carry their content though.

 

[Incyte]

I think what they were referring to was the Watch ESPN content and not necessarily your ESPN, ESPN 2, etc. I'm guessing that with their standalone subscription you would have access to all of the ESPN content where like now your internet or cable provider has to be an authorized carrier to get Watch ESPN content such as ESPN 3. I can't see ESPN walking away from Sling or PS Vue. I can see them charging Sling or Vue more money to carry their content though.

No, they said quite expressly you won't get espn/espn2 wthout already subscribing to a cable/sat provider.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

No, they said quite expressly you won't get espn/espn2 wthout already subscribing to a cable/sat provider.

You sure about that?

 

[Jmarsh13]

You sure about that?

ESPN's current carriage agreements with the cable / satellite providers does not allow them to go direct to consumer with a streaming option. No content that is on their linear networks (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, etc..) would be available. This sounds like it will be a way to monetize the ESPN3 streaming only content instead of giving it away as part of the cable subscription...