Hacker News Reader

Comment by ProfessorLayton | Hacker News Reader

Staggering costs like these are exactly why Disney is actually in a great position to start its own streaming service. It is already one of the biggest media companies in the world, and has ownership of tons of IP beloved worldwide.

I'm all for competition so I hope both companies succeed, but its pretty evident that Netflix needed Disney more than Disney needed Netflix.

I'm also all for the democratization of great content thats happening on YouTube et al.

View on HN

The question I have is whether or not Disney is willing to kill their golden goose: DVD sales. If they are willing to cannibalize these sales, then their service is going to be very good. If not, then it probably won't have a competitive price.

And don't think they also don't have staggering content costs. ESPN paid $3.5B just for NFL and NBA rights alone[1].

Ultimately their share holders will decide how much their willing to subsidize the service.

1. https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2017/06/26/espn-sports-righ...

Think they will kill their golden goose?

Eventually, yes. In 2019, when Disney's service is set to launch, how many people do you think will still be buying DVDs? There'll be a few collectors and old people who will never switch to streaming services, but the potential for cannibalization sounds fairly low to me.

I was on the tube in London and saw ads to sign-up for Disney's on demand app with their entire library, is that the same thing or something else?

DVD sales peaked in 2006, and are down about 50% from then (~$10 to ~$5 billion), so that goose is already terminally ill. Disney is smart to get ahead of it, not wait until DVD sales drop another 50%.

Disney's golden goose is DVD sales? Then why aren't their movies on DVD? Remember the Disney Vault?

YouTube isn't always "great content" their feed algorithm is overflowing with click bait and misleading thumbnails and titles. There's no question that there is a place for YouTube, but the quality definitely hovers around what cable-access-television used to be.

Though perhaps with the advantage of advanced technology in editing and video capture.

The feed is still full of crap but the recommendations after you've watched a video have improved a lot. I've discovered tons of great bands after watching a video from a band I like

Why is everyone talking about Disney 'start its own streaming service'? Doesn't it already have Disney Life with all of the back catalog of the Disney brand I can think to search for https://disneylife.com/?

I had no idea this existed. Yeah, this is what I think most people thought they would do next. Maybe expand the scope of it to include Marvel properties?

Is this restricted to the UK? From the US i get warnings this isn't allowed in my country.

That's very strange - I don't know why the UK would get a US company's streaming service years before the US.

> I don't know why the UK would get a US company's streaming service years before the US.

One reason might be because the US company has an exclusive streaming contract in the US with a different provider. (In Disney's case, Netflix.)

Didn't know this existed. It doesn't appear to include Disney properties like Marvel, Star Wars, ESPN, ABC, etc. which I imagine the new service will.

It already has Star Wars and Marvel sections.

Because they are cutting ties with Netflix streaming [0], so people who rely on Netflix for that service will have to fork out additional $$$ for anything Disney.

[0] https://www.geekwire.com/2017/disney-cut-ties-netflix-launch...

With boomers, they loved their good ole' TV.

With millennials, they loved their good ole' streaming services.

With Gen Z, they love their smartphones. Does this mean the next big thing will be micro POV content tailored towards Gen Z? That could be the most accessible and democratized content there has ever been.

Something like that would certainly fit to the world, where many people have difficulties in allocating 1-2 hours of their day for concentrated media consumption.

Tailored block buster content, aimed to be consumed in 10-15 minute doses. Could be something for the Facebook's video endeavors.

I can't imagine the world where Netflix, Amazon, Disney, and HBO all coexist.

+ Hulu

Content actually seems like an area where you don't have overwhelming network effects. You're mostly funding a bunch of individual creatives and production companies on mostly a project by project basis. A lot is about personal relationships.

If you take Disney (less ESPN) and HBO specifically, they're pretty much diametrically different brands so it's pretty easy to see them coexisting.

It's not necessarily that hard: Showtime, Starz, HBO, Netflix, Amazon, Disney, FX, AMC, Comedy Central, ..., already all exist.

Some of the most ambitious players right now may have to scale back, and the "deliver it all to the same place" problem that's been present ever since cable-alternatives started popping up is mostly unsolved (though some of them are starting to tackle this, as are companies like Apple and Roku) but the number of channels is hardly new.

HBO includes Warner Brothers, DC, and a huge catalog. So, I think they probably have a pretty good shot on their own.

Amazon and Netflix are the wildcards given their smaller original content.

Netflix is certainly building up it's library. Amazon may decide they don't care.

Is it that different from broadcast TV where ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and The CW all coexist? The market is big enough to support multiple competitors. Also, think of HBO as Time Warner, and all that comes with (CNN, CW, Warner Bros, DC Comics).

I can. That world is called "$40/mo", or about the price of a typical cable subscription.

Don't forget Disney is also launching an ESPN platform as well

What the lifespan of IP ? will people still love Mickey Mouse in 50 years ?

IP continually used and refreshed can potentially have infinite shelf life. Look at James Bond, the original books came out a long time ago. Look at Lord of the Rings, those books came out a long time ago.

There's a reason Disney keeps fighting to extend copyright, despite how much of their own material is derived from works based on expired copyright.

They love Mickey Mouse already for 90 years. Merchandising, too. That started already in the 1930s.

Daffy Duck was referenced in Babylon 5 which plays in the 2250s and it felt believable. Shakespeare plays are still popular and adapted today, that's even longer ago.

I don't think that Disney and its IP will go away any time soon.

Plus Disney should know the longevity - they made a lot of money by adapting folk tales with hundreds of years to animation.

So begs the question, which will win, current content companies creating streaming equivalents or streaming companies creating their own content channels?

Hint: answer is not boolean, but float.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com