Disney+ / Hulu / Etc...+ to rein in Password Sharing

[Bruce]

Have you noticed what your saying here ....

Yes, technology changes, big surprise.

You said how profitable they will become ...

No, I posted which ones should become profitable, never gave a amount.

which is great, but at the same time your showing those that have been on a downward spiral, ...

Yes, because that is how business works .

From all your previous posts, I believe most of us here know you hate change, but that is not how life works, business, relationships , vehicles, friendships, technology, etc all change over time.

How we receive and view TV Programming has been a constant change since the first TV was released-
from antenna to cable to Satellite to streaming
from B&W to color to super color
from 240i resolution to 480i to 720P/1080i to 1080P/4K.
from watch it live, to taping, to DVR, to On Demand to just hitting ok on the remote
from Kinescope to film to tapes to digital

And so much more

you (not you personally) have now about 30+ different Streaming services (probably many many more)

All you need is a few streaming services to replace Paid Live Tv, plus they would be a lot less expensive and you would receive a lot more content in better quality.

however, I would think that they will either merge and become a bunch of larger companies or die off.

As I posted above.

Sat has been up and running a very solid business for what, 30 years now ...

They are no longer solid, DirecTV has lost 15 Million paying subscribers, down to the 10 Million range, about 2-3 years from being unprofitable

Dish is in the same boat, hastened by there spectrum buying which they have been unable to monetize, they have posted two unprofitable quarters in a row, next quarter report is tomorrow, we should get some idea how things are going from that.

Let us know when the same Streaming companies can say that ....

They are starting to, as I have posted so many times that 2024-2025 will be the real time of change, some streaming will go profitable, some will merge, some will not make it (looking at AMC+ to be the first to go down).

But it will become worse for Cable and Satellite, by the end of 2025, they will be in should a tailspin, they will not be able to climb up.

But instead of going after after me from expressing my opinion, gives yours how Cable/Satellite can save themselves ( Cable will be fine with Broadband, Satellite is doomed).

I did not case this, broadcasters and providers did by treating their subscribers badly, raising the price so much and basically driving them away.

 

[Yespage]

It takes time to make a profit, for example, it had taken 6 years for both DirecTV and Netflix to have their first profitable quarter ( Netflix had a few unprofitable quarters after that, look at them now), Dish Network and Amazon 9 years.

Now today, look at where Netflix and Amazon are, then look at DirecTV, whose profits are shrinking every quarter because of sub loss (now over 15 Million have left and growing) and Dish Network, who has had two unprofitable quarters in a row, who’s only hope is if someone loans a lot of money, about $15-20 Billion to cover the next 3 years or invests in the company.

Disney+ did it in 5 Years.

Did what in 5 years? You listed two companies and the basis for them saying they made profit is open to less interpretation.

What does Disney+ being profitable actually represent in a non-accounting gimmick sort of way?

Which is why they have been buying so much, Fox, Star Wars, Marvel, etc.

They bought it because they were smart and debt was nearly at no additional cost.

If it was just plain old Disney, I agree, but with the rest, there is plenty of other content, for example on Disney+, we still have two new Live Action Star Wars and two for Marvel, plus all new movies that are at theaters this year, for example the new Planet of the Apes and Alien ( both Fox properties) will be on about 3 months after theaters.

I don't think there is. I like Marvel, I like watching Star Wars with the Rifftrax. But unless I can't buy the new movies, I don't have to be able to stream the service, as Disney is simply not producing enough to make it a must carry for 12 months a year. This is going to be the problem with a la carte. Cable/Sat worked because one channel didn't have to carry the entire subscription. Now channels want you so solely subscribe to them. ESPN+ works (as long as the sub likes the sports around the season). Disney wants a relatively high amount of money (from $85 last year to $149 next year) for me to stream a lot of movies I already own and have seen repeatedly, with the later being the bigger problem.

 

[savarese04]

It's weird to me that ESPN+ has always been the ugly stepchild/bundle throw-in for Disney when 1) it predates both Disney+ and Hulu by several years and 2) they keep talking up the OTT stuff.

You'd think they'd want to invest a little in the ESPN streaming brand to make the OTT more compelling, but it sounds like OTT is being built on completely new infra. Throwing good money to fix up an antiquated platform is bad business.

 

[Bruce]

I don't think there is. I like Marvel, I like watching Star Wars with the Rifftrax. But unless I can't buy the new movies, I don't have to be able to stream the service, as Disney is simply not producing enough to make it a must carry for 12 months a year.

That is you, myself, I find value in keeping it all year, just binged the last season Star Wars The Bad Batch for example.

Many people use the excuse of certain content not being on the streaming services and why they do not switch, like the A&E owned content (TLC, History, etc).

I hate those channels with the fake reality shows, I care nothing if anything is on Oak Island, so I would never sub to such a service, but some ( not many based on the ratings) do not wish to give them up.

This is going to be the problem with a la carte. Cable/Sat worked because one channel didn't have to carry the entire subscription.

No that is what helped to destroy them, adding so many channels, many of them with nothing but reruns, or when. they added all those sub channels, like when the split FX into 3 channels or Disney into 5, ESPN also, when they added ESPN 2 because certain games were on the same night, should of just provided a alternate feed like RSNs do instead of charging for it.

Everything they did, by adding all those extra and rerun channels, made our bills way too high because of the per sub fees of those channels.

All that rerun content you can get for free now with the FAST Service, yet you are still paying for it, Paid Live TV can reduce the monthly bill quite a bit if they got rid of all the rerun channels and the extra channels, like, for example, combine FX, FXX and FX Movies back into one channel.

But Paid Live TV providers, like the broadcasters, are addicted to the $$$ and ripping off customers.

Now channels want you so solely subscribe to them. ESPN+ works (as long as the sub likes the sports around the season). Disney wants a relatively high amount of money (from $85 last year to $149 next year) for me to stream a lot of movies I already own and have seen repeatedly, with the later being the bigger problem.

That same problem is everywhere in the industry, I remember going thru the guide when I had paid Live TV, trying to find something I wanted to watch that I had not watched before.

Go though all the channels you have and how many produce new content ( and content you actually want to watch).

I did and I found all that new content I could get on the streaming services also, plus a lot more in better quality and the bonus of being less example.

For example, FX content is on Hulu ( and in 4K vs 720P on Paid Live TV, (binging Shogun currently), CBS on P+, ABC/FOX and the other Disney owned on Hulu/D+, Warner owned on MAX (including CNN), Universal owned on Peacock, etc.

 

[Bruce]

It's weird to me that ESPN+ has always been the ugly stepchild/bundle throw-in for Disney when 1) it predates both Disney+ and Hulu by several years and 2) they keep talking up the OTT stuff.

Nope, only about a year, ESPN+ started in 2018, but D+ started in 2019.
Hulu started in 2007, 11 years before ESPN+.

 

[savarese04]

Nope, only about a year, ESPN+ started in 2018, but D+ started in 2019.
Hulu started in 2007, 11 years before ESPN+.

that may be true of ESPN+ as branded thusly and when BAMTECH was acquired. However, ESPN has been serving live content and on-demand since the early 2000s, first as ESPN360, and later as ESPN3, which were deprecated (ish) in favor of ESPN+ when it went live in 2018.

I stand corrected on Hulu, which I thought didn't start until 2011 or so.

 

[Bruce]

that may be true of ESPN+ as branded thusly and when BAMTECH was acquired. However, ESPN has been serving live content and on-demand since the early 2000s, first as ESPN360, and later as ESPN3, which were deprecated (ish) in favor of ESPN+ when it went live in 2018.

I stand corrected on Hulu, which I thought didn't start until 2011 or so.

I have never considered ESPN 3 to be the same as plus, ESPN3 still exists as something available to Paid Live TV Subscribers with different content then what is on Plus.

Moot point soon anyways, with either the new Live Channels Sport’s Service that starts up in late August, or the standalone ESPN service early next year, you will get access to all of ESPN, including 3 and plus.

Paid Live TV subscribers will still not have access to plus unless they pay extra of course.

 

[ncted]

I don't think there is. I like Marvel, I like watching Star Wars with the Rifftrax. But unless I can't buy the new movies, I don't have to be able to stream the service, as Disney is simply not producing enough to make it a must carry for 12 months a year. This is going to be the problem with a la carte. Cable/Sat worked because one channel didn't have to carry the entire subscription. Now channels want you so solely subscribe to them. ESPN+ works (as long as the sub likes the sports around the season). Disney wants a relatively high amount of money (from $85 last year to $149 next year) for me to stream a lot of movies I already own and have seen repeatedly, with the later being the bigger problem.

So, here is how I look at it: I used to pay like $120/month for Dish/DirecTV for a whole home DVR and 4 rooms with a higher-end programming package with HBO or Showtime. I probably watched about 10% of the channels I had in a given week at best, but I still struggled to find things to watch at times, so I added Netflix when it became available. We mainly watched first run TV shows and new movies as they are released for home viewing.

I now pay the around the same amount for Netflix HD, Disney+/Hulu, AppleTV+, Paramount+, Peacock, and YouTube Premium. Probably a little less actually as I use discounted gift cards and annual subscriptions to reduce the costs. But, I also get Max included with my Internet package (which I would have anyway) and I have Amazon Prime which includes Prime Video.

Aside from Prime Video, rarely a week goes by that my wife and I watch nothing on any single one of these services. So, while we are paying around the same amount as before, we are actually watching content on more of the services (aka "channels") that we are paying for. Now, we are probably watching the same amount of TV as before, and it may actually be a smaller percentage of the total hours of content available to us, so the fundamental issue of paying for a lot of things we don't watch still exists.

The model had changed, but the fundamentals of our behavior hasn't really. We can watch what we want when we want, and there is way more TV we're interested in to watch than we have time for.

 

[Bruce]

So, here is how I look at it: I used to pay like $120/month for Dish/DirecTV for a whole home DVR and 4 rooms with a higher-end programming package with HBO or Showtime. I probably watched about 10% of the channels I had in a given week at best, but I still struggled to find things to watch at times, so I added Netflix when it became available. We mainly watched first run TV shows and new movies as they are released for home viewing.

I now pay the around the same amount for Netflix HD, Disney+/Hulu, AppleTV+, Paramount+, Peacock, and YouTube Premium. Probably a little less actually as I use discounted gift cards and annual subscriptions to reduce the costs. But, I also get Max included with my Internet package (which I would have anyway) and I have Amazon Prime which includes Prime Video.

You are paying too much if close to $120.

This is current pricing for what you have, I also pay less thanks to Gift Cards I get with my CC points

Hulu/Disney+ $20 for you
Peacock-$139 a year
Paramount+ w/Showtime $119
Netflix HD -$16 (rounding)
Apple $100 a year
YT Premium $14
Prime $139

Comes out to $91 a month for you.

Myself
Paramount+ with Showtime $120 a year, so $10 a month. ( love this service)

Peacock-$20 for the year, so $1.66 a month ( will round to $2), only have it for College/NFL Football, except for that, hate this service.

Hulu/Disney+/ESPN+ $25 a month

MAX-$140 ($11.66 a month) for the year, recent special, which is the 4K tier.

Apple TV+-three years ago, Costco had Apple TV+ gift cards on sale for $29.99 for a year of service, bought 6 of them , redeemed, service expires in 2027, so basically $2.50 a month.

Netflix-$23 a month. 4K tier.

So rounded off, $74 a month, for the highest tiers, no commercials, 4K where available, the majority of new content from Paid Live TV, streaming exclusives, HBO and Showtime, etc.

The only thing missing for me, is AMC+, but I subscribe to that during Prime Day, usually it is on sale for $2 a month for 2-3 months, catch up, then cancel.

I do have Prime, but I have it for the shipping , every once in a while I will check out the shows, but I would never subscribe to it by itself.

 

[Yespage]

Of course, this is household to household thing. My point is a la carte will be problematic regarding come and go and comeback and go again churn due to the lack of newer content.

Personally, I get weary of nickel and diming with all of the services, and prioritization becomes a thing.

 

[Bruce]

Personally, I get weary of nickel and diming with all of the services, and prioritization becomes a thing.

I grew up extremely poor, nickel and dime is the way I know.

Actually get a slight thrill by getting the best deals I can get.

Hulu/Disney/ESPN, Netflix, Paramount+ and Google (last year YTTV and Sunday Ticket) I pay for with Gift Cards I get with my CC points, so the only cash is for Peacock, MAX, Apple TV, Prime which comes to $27.50 a month.

 

[ncted]

You are paying too much if close to $120.

This is current pricing for what you have, I also pay less thanks to Gift Cards I get with my CC points

Hulu/Disney+ $20 for you
Peacock-$139 a year
Paramount+ w/Showtime $119
Netflix HD -$16 (rounding)
Apple $100 a year
YT Premium $14
Prime $139

I actually have the Apple One Premier plan for my family of 5, so I was including the entire price of that. I actually get YT Premium annually as well. I use gift cards I get on sale at Target (Red Card and Target Circle discounts), Best Buy, and Sam's to save on everything except Prime, which I use my Amazon Prime Credit Card to get 5% back on. I don't track all the discounts, but it is at least 5% on everything and closer to 15% for Apple and Google.