I usually watch everything I really want to watch on streaming then cancel and never subscribe again except for Amazon prime video which comes free with my Amazon Prime subscription

Disney is in deep hot water because Florida’s demented bigoted psychopath of a governor doesn’t like what he calls “wokeness”.

I do. As soon as I'm done watching Strangers Things 4 (and probably Pinocchio again), I'm canceling Netflix. I'm keeping AppleTV for awhile since it's cheap and has some really good content. I'll sign up for PBS streaming for a month or two when I feel like watching the Ken Burns collection. I'm not going back to HBO at all and I couldn't care less about Disney+ or Paramount+ (I also keep seeing more of those three studios quietly putting titles on Tubi and UKposts, which is interesting)

I just pirate it all

@@manidavis4126 try it, it is not gonna end well for you

I know right. It's weird how fast things change.

yep how the tables have

They don't even have real seasons. They only do 8 every other year for mandalorian. They should be doing more episodes per year.

They lived long enough to become the villain

@@artloveranimation no

Another takeaway from this is that it's becoming apparent the primary revenue for broadcasting comes from companies that want to advertise their garbage, and for these streaming services to remain profitable on-demand viewers will be expected to put up with more ads for garbage they don't need if they don't pay extra. It also risk giving these companies more leverage to dictate what shows are welcomed on streaming services, since they can easily pull ad support over more controversial content, like what they could do for social media platforms. Seems likes a big L for consumers.

Another thing everyone always ignores about pirate streaming services is, in addition to being a lot cheaper than legal streaming services, their libraries are also so much bigger. I could name a lot of really great movies and tv shows that are far from "main stream" and therefore impossible to find on legal streaming sites, but easy to find on pirate sites.

The major Hollywood studios are the non avian dinosaurs and the small indie film studios are the mammals and like with the mammals their time will come soon!

@@marshalmarrs3269 Yeah, I'm sure audiences would love to see a movie about the prehistoric Giant Ground Sloth.

Everybody licensing content to Netflix for cheap was never sustainable. They listened, but it makes no sense for them to allow streaming to wipe out cable while doing nothing.

Well that’s the thing they would have to release enough quality content to someones liking Consistently to keep people. There is normally 1 or 2 shows that someone will binge watch and after that they can cancel till the next season comes out to save money.

Maybe lowering their costs would keep some of their customers. Every year these streaming services get more greedy and expensive where soon you all will be paying just as much as the Cable companies. Sure there are sale prices or discounts for new customers, but when that ends, we are back to paying the high monthly prices. Note: Nothing anymore ever goes down in price.

I think Netflix peacock and Paramount Plus have the answer to streaming . . . Disney and hbomax are the problem they hoard their content instead of sharing it... the only content that shouldn't be shared is original . .

@@dathyr1 lowering the cost would mean cutting what makes people come to the platform in the first place, like original shows and licensed programming. I think this is why they're adding ad tiers, so it's less expensive but still profitable.

​​@@armitx9, I think the main appeal for streaming originally was that that it was a cheap and easy way to watch movies and series you missed on release or already loved. It was renting, but cheaper and easier. Being able to watch new shows was just an added benefit. Since then those two things have become reversed. A lot of people pay for new content on streaming services with the added benefit of being able to watch old things too. That's where the problem is. If you focus on constantly pumping new content, then people are only going to come for new content. It's unsustainable

Peacock is the worst. It has maybe five shows. Just ridiculous it calls itself a streaming service

can't believe i'm bout to say this but streaming was better when it was a netflix monopoly

I think if Netflix had stuck to only having licensed content from the studios in their library, I think the I think those big studios would have just continue to let Netflix do their thing. What changed is when Netflix started producing their own original content and that content was so high quality that it was competing with output of the big studios. Suddenly a lot of Industry analysts started suggesting that streaming wasn't just a replacement for physical copies for home release. It was a replacement for the entire film and television industry. Terrified of being the next Blockbuster left behind by a technological revolution, all of these studios started launching their own services.

​@@passtheapplejuice2619 If a business can only be successful if it has a near monopoly on its sector, then it's a business that shouldn't exist.

It's also frustrating when you *do* find it, but it's locked to a service you have no intention of ever subscribing to.

Worse when you find out it's not available at all in your country.

Google

Physical media is the way

It's time to create a service to search for content in streaming services, lol.

Damn bro u need a go fund me?

I reupped on an annual intro before the price increase. I am questioning that decision. Still watch a lot of the classic movies with my wife.

$7.99

@@exhaustguy I have the yearly subscription. But this October I’ll be cancelling that and going to paying month by month and just subscribing in summertime each year. I don’t think it’s worth using a streaming service more than two months to three months at a time. My only exception is UKposts which is my main viewing service. And I pay for content creators that I enjoy. I’d rather support little independent creators than big corporations that don’t really care

@Critbuff, I’m sure you know that cheap price at the start was just to get consumers to their new platform. I did one year free at the start of Disney plus because of a Verizon deal they had.

Top tier comment 😂

Exactly what I was thinking lol.

I bet DisneyOnDemand

I don't remember when it started, but D+ ALREADY has a tier with ads that's now the price of their original start-up service. I just have a window with youtube up while the ads play to watch part of a vid there until the ads are over.

Lmaoo

Maybe we’ll go back to a DVD/Blu Ray movie economy. But it’ll be digitized. Like maybe instead of paying for streaming, you’ll pay downloads of the shows you want.

@@viridianacortes9642 Why would anyone pay for a singular movie instead of just googling 'movie name free streaming' and doing that. I can somewhat understand paying for a huge library but not if you want to see something specific.

@@viridianacortes9642 Amazon technically already does this but only on a small-scale. Some of their content is locked behind paying 4-7$ to watch it for a set period of time, kinda like the rental business that, ironically, got put OUT of business thanks to streaming. lol

Years from now there will be kids growing up who didn't experience ad-free and they're gonna defend the status quo of 20 commercials per 40-minute episode.

@@TomCruz54321 exactly this. they are playing the long game. people said the same exact things about DLC and microtransactions in video games when it first started.... and now thats "just the norm, they have to make money somehow"

They can't when almost every show is 100 million dollar budget and they overlap.

They can't because they are confused about what they are. Streaming services should buy shows and movies and show them to viewers, competing on features, price and availability. Content creators should fund creation of content for the streaming services and then sell them to streaming services for a profit. When you try to be both and have the brilliant (idiotic) idea of just not selling to anyone else, you become a parasitic business, one side of the business always leeching off the other side. If anyone remember the days of cable and broadcast networks at this point, they might remember that even back then all networks sold their content for syndication the moment it had "premiered" at their station. When you remove syndication and secondary profits, you cut off the profits that would have sustained your content creation. It is logic for babies, but the executives at these companies are less smart than babies, they think they can become monopolies in all areas, force everyone else out and get 100% of every pie, instead of being in any way sane and focusing on smart revenue channels.

@@NATIK001 while you got the big broadcast networks mostly right (they typically wait a full season before going to syndication, only past seasons of the big bang theory could be watched on TBS not the current season airing on CBS), that wasn't so much the case with the cable networks in my experience; sure, after airing on Nickelodeon Spongebob would rerun on nicktoons, but it wouldn't be seen on rival cartoon network. The "profitable through syndication" thing still applies, since the shows would rerun quite regularly to fill air time and that would generate ad revenue from pre-existing content with people rewatching episodes, and personally I don't rewatch episodes after I saw it once with streaming, which cuts off any "revenue" a second viewing would make.

@@catholiccontriversy You misunderstand completely what secondary profits and syndication are for the networks. You are way too domestic in your thinking for one. Secondary profits isn't you watching it again, it is selling it to other networks so they can show it, and to a much lesser extent rerunning it later to fill space. They also really do start selling it the moment they can, but they will have restrictions for air time and frequency based on whether they are also rerunning it themselves and yes they will usually restrict others reairing during the same "season." They often had much less of these restrictions for international sales and syndication. The biggest profit driver in syndication for US networks wasn't other US networks either, it was syndication on their own networks and internationally. Which I mention, that even when shows or movies weren't syndicated on other networks domestically they were syndicated far and wide internationally. They didn't try to sell the same content to the same viewers over and over, they sold it to places where new viewers could see it. Streaming services don't take advantage of secondary revenue channels like this, because Streaming services (mostly) all try to be worldwide services, so they think they can be primary content sources in all regions and think their original content should bring in subscribers, but there are severely diminishing returns on how many subscribers can reasonably be gained this way. EDIT: Streaming services can still exploit secondary revenue channels and syndication, they just have to stop trying to create their own little walled gardens around their original content. Let the original content be its own revenue generator and let the Streaming service be its own revenue generator. If they can synergize that is awesome, but most of the time they are going to be driving revenue via different methods and offerings, the original content is a booster and way to offer something extra, not the whole key to revenue.

@@NATIK001 true, we would get teletoon shows and they would get American cable shows every now and then. Regardless, the problem is "too much given for not enough received, with all final points of sale being the streaming service and nothing else."

mhm, they demand people binge watch for the shows we like, or theyll be seen as unprofitable and cancelled. Then they also get upset when we dont stick around except to binge and leave... If they shotgun 30 new series and demand all of them get binged, its just not gonna happen, and then they get cancelled, leaving these drifting wreckages for people to wade through to get to something good, and something thats not cut short so they can get invested, and in that time the show theyre looking for looks unprofitable

Netflix ruined its original programming, Paramount+ has some great shows mostly quality hopefully it continues, AppleTV+ has some good originals but has so few shows its barely worth subscribing all year round

I don't even think it's so much an issue of diluted quality so much as diluted attention. I'm an old fashioned British sort who still watches BBC, ITV and Channel 4. Because these organisations (and even their complementary streaming services) have limited channel and time slots. Therefore they have to prioritise what they want to put forward and when, and what they will push. The selection is more limited, but also geared at trying to hit specific niches on specific times or days of the week.

I'm hoping that Netflix will cancel enough of their stuff that whatever remains will have a chance of finding an audience. The shotgun approach where they make a ton of stuff and then cancel away just isn't working. So many shows will be canceled after one season and replaced by something that's almost the same, but different that then has to go out and find its own audience. Very few shows get any real support or advertising, and once they drop off the list, they're probably dead.

You're telling me that with all this sequel-prequel-spinoff-alternatve-universe-crossover-bs, studios like Marvel suddenly run into canon issues? Wow, guess no one ever saw that coming... thank god I'm not watching this shit.

This is still true for theaters to this day, but it's funny to see it's the other way around when it comes to streaming services lol

The problem, though, is when those distributors start becoming a copyright nightmare. They either get too greedy, pull the plug on a series if it fails to meet their standards, get acquired by some rival company, or collapses entirely and puts its library of films in legal limbo.

I believe they were forced to sell the cinemas due to anti-trust regulations.

It wasn’t cheaper, it was that the DOJ sued them for it being an anti-trust violation: United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. Unless they do it again with streaming services, the studios are going to kill themselves with their monopolistic practices.

Yeah well the studio based theaters we're banned around 1950s, but this ban was reversed last year.

It gets ridiculous when people say 9 billion streaming services, when there are not even 9 billion people in the world.

@@Locutus That's called hyperbole, it's so ridicuous it feels like 9Bil to this person. Really not entering the spirit of the comment, are you?

@@vapx0075 It's ridiculous hyperbole. It's like saying, Joseph Stalin killed 9b people.

@Locutus You must be great at parties 🤦‍♀️

@Locutus Don’t be ridiculous, he said “nine billion”, not “9 billion”. Octuple check work post before posting next time.

One or the other. NOT BOTH

@@btafan11 Or 'Why not both? Both is good.' I mean movies used to go cinema->premium TV->general release (DVD/BluRay) but lately, particularly Disney, it's been Cinema->premium Streaming Service

Viewers pay for the internet, when you have the Internet you can cut out advertisers all together. They need to change their business model because they'll sink. Can't stop progress and since we've progressed to ad blockers ticktock ad companies ticktock

I'm not paying for internet and for services that show me ads. Advertising is an absolute cancer to anyone with an IQ above room temp. Streaming seemed to work when it was a few outlets that had almost all the content people wanted ad free. Now these companies have gotten greedy and are making their own streaming service thinking people are going to keep paying for endless apps. I'll just download a torrent and put it on my plex server.

As for as I am concerned ALL ADS SHOULD BE illegal and targeted ads are the worst offenders plain and simple you show me a ad I WILL GO OUT OF MY WAY NOT TOO BUY ANYTHING FROM THAT COMPANY and become I saw a ad I know exactly who that company is and I will tell My friends who will tell their friends not to buy anything from that company my hate for ads is from cable WERE THERE WAS MORE ADS THEN TV show me a ad you have lost my subscription!!!!!!!!

Disney as a whole is a cancer these days

Sure but you want them to keep giving us content don't you?

@@Tillyard86 No content is better than rewarding mediocrity

@@wlot28 can’t agree with that, I always want more content.

@@Tillyard86 And that's alright, you're just part of their target demographic that will watch whatever nonsense they produce

The quantity of ads, but also just how insulting they are to anyone with an IQ above room temp. It's like having to listen to a stupid relative that is also interrupting your show.

Those life and health insurance commercials aimed at the elderly are the worse.

I would bet you're firmly in the minority. Any young adults will (& do) take "cheaper/free service but ads" while Millennials & up have the cultural memory of cable TV. One 2min ad before my space dragon cape w/e? Beats the heck outta 20min of ads on cable!

I have Netflix with ads and ads in one episode are like 3 minutes, it's really not that bad.

Yeah. I went to the US and the amount of ads on TV over there are alarming. There's a long ad break on American TV every 5-6 minutes! In my country, and most of Europe for that matter, there are hard regulations in place dictating that broadcasters are not allowed to have Ads for longer than 7 minutes per hour. Like at any given hour of the day, if checked randomly checked, there is never allowed to be more than 7 minutes of ads within a 60 minute interval. Its government regulation and it actually makes TV pretty nice over here for the most part... Though even here broadcasters are doubling more and more down on Streaming

Yep. Basically me right now and I'm getting a few more as well

Maybe this could set the industry up for the return of physical renting?

Nice profile picture I also enjoy Perfect dark

@@eba56 Thanks! Nice to see a fellow Jo fan on here :D

What model would u like to see and how could it remain sustainable then?

Same. I always wanted to rewatch the Emperors new groove series but they never put it there.

@@blaue_sophie1317 It was on there. Maybe they took It down? But It was definitely on there

@@blaue_sophie1317 yeah it’s still on there for me? What country are you in?

I am in Germany. Good to know it exists where you are. Are in the US?

Seriously, I want to watch the Buzz Lightyear show so badly.

Yeah and all the shows (minus maybe Wandavision and Loki) were subpar at best

@@sabrinaleighwrobel They're better than most anything on Cable. People calling them subpar are spoiled rotten.

@@ShadowSonic2 you mean they're at par with anything cable puts out nowadays (minus shows like Succession)

​@@ShadowSonic2 why do you want people to have bad taste?? They are sub par shows compared to something well written. Since when did "better than cable" become a good excuse for a show not being interesting or well written?

"Let Disney+ die" amen.

It wasn't long ago I got looked at weird because, "You STILL have a BluRay player?!?" Yep, and I still use it. I have quite a collection of Must See TV shows (including the All Time best lineup of Cosby Show, Family Ties, Night Court, and Cheers). I don't have to worry about them no longer streaming on any platform...it's great!! And the best part is, because physical media no longer seems to be in vogue, individual titles are still quite cheap, usually.

Thing is, those days are long gone, have been for decades. I doubt some of these shows would be as successful if they were made today. Back then, they had a captive audience - not as many TV stations back then, and no streaming services. We also have to consider we are a "politically correct" society. If there is anything slightly non PC, not enough minorities, slightly controversial, then it doesn't get made.

@@lindseysummers5351 Car 54 is free on UKposts. That is a good show. Another good TV show is The Ghost and Mrs. Muir. It's free on UKposts too. Harry Nilsson has a cameo in one of the episodes. Soap was a great show. Especially when Bert thought he was invisible. And Jodie hides Bob in the refrigerator. Newhart is free on UKposts as well.

@@lindseysummers5351 Yep, my 2022 Christmas present to myself was all 6 seasons of Grimm on Blu-ray. Just to be clear, I do NOT have an unhealthy obsession with Rosalee, I can give her up any time I want to! 😋

Same, just went back to mainly DVDs and I'm liking it.

Or cat videos, or science videos, or video essays... It's sad when the hobbyests who are in it for fun as a side gig are more reliable than the people who ask for money!

At that price you could just buy a DVD ...

Ytube for free won't last either

just pirate stuff!

Me too. Streaming was much better when it was just a few main streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon prime.

....and it was $7.99 per month.

@@criticalfallacy that was not sustainable and was never going to last.

@@miz4535 Yes, but by the same token, the current situation where the price is $10 to $20 a month for Netflix isn't going to work either. DVDs are just too cheap and easily streamed within your home for that price point to work out. There's sellers on ebay selling used DVDs for $1 a pop, and even new ones from online retailers can be had for under $6 on sale.

no matter what makes us happy, it's the ultra-rich that takes our fun and violates us with it for FUN!?!

I dunno, I think HBO is likelier to get the axe by more people than Disney. Also WB is kind of an even bigger basket case of a studio.

If a business can only exist if it has a near monopoly on it's market, then it's a business that shouldn't be allowed to exist.

@@Christopher_TG I might not go that far. But it's more like Netflix was modestly successful third party. A sort of tail to the tooth of theaters and the main body of premium cable. The ideal model would be - Take movies to theater, make the box office revenue, a year later, put them on premium cable stations, once they're used up, sell licensing rights to netflix and release collectors edition blurays for real aficionados. This would cover all your bases over time. You get the money from the theater experience, you double dip while a property is still hot on your networks, then you get long term residuals and merchandise. Consumers would get the 'right now' theater experience. The, 'a bit later' home experience. And the either 'budget' streaming experience much later, or else the option to buy a hard copy for their personal collection.

I can’t imagine all these companies are making more money on their own platforms than they did by making Netflix pay obscene amounts to license their shows and movies. I used to rewatch The Office a ton when it was on Netflix, it was something great to have on while doing chores. But there’s no way I’m paying for Peacock just for that. I haven’t watched it again after it moved. And I noticed it’s no longer topping the list of most streamed shows, like it used to be. They should have continued making Hulu and Netflix pay and forget developing shows exclusively for streaming.

Uh, but that was only an option because it was new. It will never be like that and you don’t want that kind of duopoly. They won’t produce as many good shows or movies without the competition.

​@@Homer-OJ-Simpson but at the same time, the diversification we dot has been more harmful than beneficial. I don't know why or how, but someone definitely did it wrong. The results speak for themselves

@@Gloomdrake Results speak for themselves? Netflix the past 2 years had by far their 2 biggest profitable years. Netflix the past 5 years had by far their 5 biggest profitable years. Diversification is good for the consumer but when it's too many options, you will see the big guys eventually buy up the smaller ones or the smaller ones fold. Netflix, Amazon, Disney+, HBO Max are very likely to buy out some smaller companies over the next few years.

​@@Homer-OJ-Simpson honestly? I don't really care. Obviously there's some great Netflix and Hulu originals, but i'd rather they left the majority of media making to the media companies and they can focus their energy on improving their platforms and maybe a few media projects at a time instead of producing a bunch of shows that are left unfinished or buried under a mountain other stuff coming out

Yep! Over in Singapore, StarHub did that with their TV Plus service (pay TV) to users who subscribed to two or more passes (channel packages) and that ended on 23 February of this year.

I'd never watch an entire video on my phone (or 15" computer screen for that matter), so that would have never have been an incentive for me.

@@noneatall9060one may access the content on any device that has internet access, i.e. smart TVs, AppleTV, FireTV, ROKU, etc.

@@noneatall9060 It doesn't have to be on the phone, it is a regular account that you can watch on whatever device the streamer supports.

@@noneatall9060 If you're that particular, you probably shouldn't be using any of the streaming services. But, it wasn't ever just on the cell phone, ti was a basic account with a promotional tie in. Presumably, the carrier would get a discount in exchange for delivering a sizable group of subscribers as a marketing move.

warrior nun s2 was so trash not surprised

There's always UKposts.

@PocketMarcy I means original UKposts content, made by the little guy and not corporations.

@@bobertbopala I meant the folks just using a Webcam, more than enough entertainment for me.

My heart broke from the dark Crystal too…but from what I’ve seen from the Henson family talking about the project, they’re not giving up finding a new home for the 2nd season. I hope they find it or Netflix eventually changes their mind. That show was beautiful and chilling

Bro, They did it with anime with the new season of Bleach. It's a huge show, but we barely heard a peep about it until it was about to air. AND they didn't even any marketing on it, with fans not even knowing if it was going to air on Dusney Plus or Hulu until almost launch date, AND it was different for US viewers than international ones

Last time I've seen, Disney+ only had up to the 11th episode of season 2. The Owl Club has all episodes, they always make a premiere of a new one and they even have a discord for the fandom and for advertising the releases(though the discord's language is in Spanish).

@@FlipTheBard I'm in Sweden and we seem to only get new seasons of series like The Owl House several months after they're done airing in the U.S.; I doubt I'll see the season 3 special episodes before 2024. I keep checking if they've added season 3 of Amphibia in case I miss it

@@realmdarkness That was actually a big surprise from me because I didn't even know they were getting it, I also really enjoyed Black Rock Shooter and Summer Time Rendering (STR was so good!).

Netflix I think does a pretty good job showcasing new things. Especially with its trending thing for TV Shows and movies. It allows people to see things they want

they are actually bleeding money like a coffee filter. and commcast may FORCE them too buy the remaining 1/3 of Hulu in a court battle, very soon, when they cannot afford it. this during a time when they just shut down their brand new star wars "galactic starcruiser" hotel, where they sunk a few billion into a subpar project.

Disney’s hurting a lot more than you think. D+ is hemorrhaging money, their tentpole franchises are stumbling & even some of the theme parks are struggling. It’s their own doing, of course, and I feel no pity for them, but Disney’s gonna have to sell some shit pretty soon.

Star+ is ridiculously expensive for what it offers, I'm paying less than half for HBO MAX. So mad that Star+ keeps getting good anime.

@@D3D3D Crunchyroll?

I’m in the UK and Star gets included with Disney+ so you don’t have to pay for both

As an Australian, I can confirm this... I often go to look up where I can watch something and it says "Oh, it's on Starz". Go look for Starz... "Not available in australia". It's stupid that the streaming landscape is literally like a little bit on netflix, a bit on Binge (seemingly our HBO), and a bit on Disney+. The rest? "Hahahaha move to the US, scrub!"

Yeah the US gets screwed with the star situation. We don't get it included with disney +, and we can't even pay for it separately if we wanted to.

This is exactly what I was thinking too 😢

Yeah. Not sure if people will be satisfied with this model, because we are all tired of the constant ads on cable.

amazon prime is already pretty hard to cancel

Or, here’s a crazy idea. Why doesn’t Disney just scrap Disney+, sell their licenses to Netflix, and then Netflix can deal with the nuance of streaming the content?

@@LeTtRrZ disney already spent billions of dollars building the platform and making originals. also the license deals they have for programming on their website last several years

Worse, the pirates often have a better UI that is streamlined and easy to navigate, while these megacorps have bloated, flashy UI's that are obtuse. Throw in political and ideological maneuvering by megacorps, and its easy to tell yourself that pirating is not only has more QOL, but is also more _ethical_ than watching legally.

@@r3dp9 You're absolutely right. In fact, recently everytime I would go to watch anything in Disney+ the player would play till the disney logo played out and then stop on it's own - no rhyme or reason and unpausing it just causes it to hang in a permanent black screen. (I have very fast internet, unlimited data and good hardware so it's not on my end) This led me to simply unsubscribing because even then they weren't giving any technical support for it and I couldn't find a fix literally anywhere on the internet after hours of searching. Another thing is this: Do people pay to go watch a movie with their family members in their home? You don't right, that'd be ridiculous? Piracy is literally sharing what someone else paid for yet people say this is ethically wrong and "stealing". How exactly is someone stealing when they're simply watching something that someone else paid for and CHOSE to share with them? It isn't, companies just want you to think so so you won't do it - effectively just gaslighting and social engineering because some rich Exec/shareholder somewhere got mad they couldn't afford their new shiny 500 million $ yacht that he/she wanted to use once a year.

A lot of times it's easier to pirate games than using a legal copy riddled with problematic DRM. Same thing is gonna happen with streaming especially with their buggy, badly designed UI.

@@r3dp9 I mean, Disney's ideological maneuvering is 'we like money'. I keep hearing how their supposedly an 'activist' company, but all I see is a bland corporation trying to wave rainbow flags when selling to one demographic while pretending they don't when selling to another. Which is how you end up filming a movie within earshot of an internment camp while claiming to support diversity. Which, hey, that's an excellent reason to dislike Disney. But I don't think it's the reason most people get annoyed with Disney for being 'political'.

It could be worse-- they could have it to where it's not enough just to pay for the service; you have to pay also for each and every episode of each and every show you see (let alone each movie you see).

​@@bmasters1981 No one would accept that. Might as well buy DVDs or Blu-ray instead.

facts. not a single person i know under 30 owns cable or even uses a tv screen for anything other than streaming or videogames. the content just absolutely sucks. better versions of whatever is on tv can almost always be found on streaming or even youtube. not to mention the unholy 5 minute ad breaks every 20 minutes

I remember in the late 2000s how almost every TV channel was saturated with reality tv shows. Here in Canada even the beloved Much Music just became a channel for reruns of Ridiculousness, Seinfeld, and the Simpsons with the occasional Degrassi marathon. That's why people left for streaming and with how expensive streaming is getting for everyone, I see companies trying the ad model and companies that build ad blockers going on an arms race to try to block these ads on pc.

When I was a kid there were all kinds of awesome movies on the tv,now they put some on sundays and not always and mostly quite late. terminator,rambo,lethal weapon,rush hour,matrix,harry potter,even those toby mguire spidermans were on tv,batmans.... We as a country are also constantly being ignored by big companies. Netflix at least has subs for our country on some of the content,as I bought disney plus I noticed they dont have any for our language and we are in eu. I dont need them but my mother and kids might. And translating things is so easy now I dont get how they arent on it.

Digital cable does still exist & so does internet tv (sling, philo, hulu, youtube tv etc). But the studios have either abandoned the programming to steaming (like disney) or simulcast with a network premier & streaming next or same day. There's room for both forms of tv, but both are expensive to get EVERYTHING you want. If the cable companies lowred prices & networks had good programming blocks again many people would go back. But neither is happening so people take the more convenient option in streaming even though streaming is becoming less convenient. I prefer network tv when it's done right & programming is varied.

What I can't understand is how someone can pay for cable, and then be forced to watch ads as well. It is baffling why people pay to watch commercials.

What do you think is the best way for streaming services to remain reliable then? Wdym by over saturation

@@p_4290 Honestly I'm not even too sure. Before every production company goes its own streaming service, people had fewer choices to choose from in terms of which streaming service they wanted to stick with long term. Now we have too many options in terms of streaming services so there's less incentive to have long-term subscriptions unless people really like a specific property. Now this creates a more competitive market and having more choices is mostly a good thing but in terms of keeping long-term customers, it's crippling. So either the market would have to shrink back to the post-streaming wars era or each streaming service finds a way to create more loyal customers. I feel like oversaturation was used inappropriately in this sense and my explanation was weird. The term overabundance is more fitting and its overabundance in two areas. In terms of streaming services, we have too many options. In modern media, we have one genre that dominates the theater which is a more complicated issue but they do feed into each other. If one type of movie or show is dominating the space more than likely the algorithm of these sites will push them more leading to people being unable to find other content. And I don't want this to come off as screaming at the clouds sort of thing. I love franchises like the MCU or Star Wars but it would be nice if people had easy access to other films as well. I hope that answers your question

And it’s not like we are going to get a WoW situation again to centralise it

@@p_4290 Netflix's CEO described their number one competitor as 'sleep'. As this point, that's the over saturation we're talking about. There's only so much attention to go around. Why would you pay for one more service when you're already totally maxed out on the shows you're already watching?

Unfortunately, only few people do it because they lack the technical know how or for "morals" reasons.

​@@manidavis4126 I don't really believe anyone is doing it for "morals". I think that's just more so something they say to be contrarian. I mean if pirating were as convenient as streaming, these ppl would do it.

​​@@abelchavez2463 it is if you know how to do it ⚓

@@manidavis4126 Nowadays you don't even need to torrent. It is very easy to find the streaming sites. You'd have to be completely tech illiterate to not be able to use Bing (because they don't give a shit like Google) to find them.

Morally speaking, it's wrong. But so is drinking too much and playing Hogwarts Legacy. Doesn't exactly stop me. Also, why would anyone pay for a new Disney product? Seriously. It's mostly hot garbage anyways. I find it more morally reprehensible to make shitty stuff that makes fans angry and then expect those people to pay for it. Nobody wants it.

not gonna lie, fuck physical media. i watch like 6 movies per week, imagine if i bought a bluray of every single one. i live in a tiny apartment and i dont even have a TV screen or bluray player. not to mention how expensive bluray is compared to... yknow... pirating?

I disagree. I love physical media. But for the price of 1 blu-ray I can watch month worth of content on 3 to 4 different streaming services.

@@RubenTricky they’re literally saying they hate physical media for the reason you don’t use it. You don’t disagree with them you just disregarded their entire point

I *only* watch physical media.

Physical media for life. I am someone who rewatches things I love, and I pick what I watch VERY carefully. QUALITY over QUANTITY.

Right it’s kind of like how you can have all the security on ur device but hackers can still get through. It’s not like customers will just rollover to raising prices especially when theirs a way to get the product without them.

piracy is a tale as old as time, song as old as rhyme -Booty and the 8īţćн-

Plus DRM Fuck DRM abs anticheat for single player games

Andor and another BETTER season of Kenobi where it's just him on Tatooine kicking Tusken Raiders butts

Sucks we can't get a physical copy of Andor huh. I don't care about much else on Disney+

i was thinking exactly this😭

Yes!

@@danielanderson6933 I don’t want them to touch Kenobi with a 10 foot pole, just pretend it never happened

You do know that ad free is also an option? If they don’t want ads, they can usually buy the ad free version .

Why do you want 2016? There wasn’t as much competition so there weren’t as many good shows or movies from those platforms compared to today. Duopoly would be bad for the consumer.

I think the likelier bet is piracy just becomes even bigger than it used to be before streaming took off. A lot of people would go to great lengths not have ads come back. It’s easy now to just pay for no ads, but if things like Plutotv become standard then yar har.

@@Homer-OJ-Simpson Because the whole reason why these streaming services are failing is because people find them too expensive in general, let alone the ad-free tiers which are the most expensive tiers.

@@Homer-OJ-Simpson A part of the video discussed how a lot of these platforms are likely to shift to free ad supported (FAST) services. Yes many now offer ad tiers, but they’re still not seeing a ton of profit from doing so because not enough people are subscribing at those tiers. As to why earlier was better, even with the rotating catalogues they used to have, it was better for consumers when you basically just had Hulu and Netflix as the streaming platforms. You got a wider array of content for far less money than you do now. The idea of demand creating supply doesn’t really seem to be working for streaming as every studio tries to monopolize their content, forcing you to pay more now than you did 6 years ago to get about the same amount. Peak streaming is over. Studios made their own services, dumped content on them, and a lot of it went unnoticed. That left them with major deficits because streaming has never been particularly profitable, even in the old days. However it’s cheaper for Netflix to license a bunch of content that’s already made money through its creators via traditional release (theater, to PVOD, to home sales, to streaming) than to produce that content themselves.

That's just cable

It's also what HULU was 🤷🏾‍♂️

@@razormc954 except you get to CHOOSE the show

Yep. Trusting streaming platforms is a horrible idea. They can decide to remove, edit, or censor whatever they want whenever they want.

That's such a good idea! Just put all your shows in a Playlist and hit shuffle! Obviously with linear progression on individual shows, but which show is next is random. I like it.

And if you have an ad blocker a lot of the time the ads will be skipped! I get no YT ads because of mine.

What type of models do you think will help streaming services earn more money

@@p_4290 pay to watch.

I used to do that with Crunchyroll. That was before the UI redesign. Last time I was there, they had a threat 800 comments long talking about how people would leave over the Crunchyroll Beta if we couldn't opt out. We were allowed to opt out at first. Then we weren't. I left and haven't looked back.

so a internet streaming version of a cable/satellite bundle package.

That's cable....

Why would they work together to charge us less lol, they would squeeze us so hard if they were allowed to do that

​@@joyfulgirl91 if it's cheaper more people will pay for it, it might end up being more profitable.

I borrow shows like Yellowstone, Boardwalk Empire, Ray Donovan, The Boys, Picard (Season 1) from my local library on DVDs that I can keep for weeks at time AT MY LOCAL LIBRARY FOR FREE!. Some even appear at the same time or BEFORE Redbox.

Another reason why piracy is good actually

Not sure if that's possible anymore. I have a friend who's a writer and she told me shortened seasons were the result of one of the writers' strikes. Dunno if that affects streaming but it's why shows went from 22-24 episode seasons to 10-13.

​@@32fpsInteresting- did shorter seasons happen because the writers were being overworked and wanted a more manageable schedule, or did they manage to get wage increases but like, it was tied to the number of episodes they made so network executives just cut back on the number of episodes in a season so they didn't have to pay them more, or some other similarly cynical reason?

@@goranisacson2502 So I asked her and this is what she wrote back "I think it ended up being that network seasons originally ended up being split into two parts, like 11 episodes until the strike, then 10 to finish afterwards and then studios just liked the format??? It also gives them a chance to try out a new series for 10 episodes and if it does well it gets a full order and if it tanks it gets a mid season cancellation" - so, more an unintended outcome it seems. I also read that it made it more convenient for networks to not have "off seasons" aka during the spring or summer after shows wrapped up, so with shorter seasons they could slate one show after the other and retain viewership. I think it ultimately becomes cheaper for networks to do shorter seasons.

I agree; at least outside the US many old shows weren’t fully broadcasted and you basically saw a third or at best half of your favorite shows growing up. This FAST channels give a chance to REALLY watch them all over again from start to finish

3) ?

4) All their original content is GARBAGE

@@LuisSierra42 yeah, they bought the licensing rights to stream the live action movies of Garfield and Alvin and the Chipmunks on DIsney+

Garfield movies and Alvin and the Chipmunks are Fox properties so they own them

also the heavy handed political massages doesn't help

There's a little extension called SponsorBlock now....

Agreed

I mean, it is certainly better, but still nowhere near the Netflix of old

​@@hcxpl1 I think it's better than the Netflix of current if you're someone who watches older shows. You also have to consider that not every Netflix catalogue is/was the same and changed monthly. As an Australian I never, ever could find Lost streaming when I wanted to to watch it. New Girl always came and left Netflix periodically. Now these shows have an actual streaming home and will never leave Disney+ for me.

Honestly yeah the International Disney+ is better I almost never watch the actual Disney content.

@@elijahjones-young5270 I kind of forgot Disney content was there until I read your comment

Unfortunately in Brazil it is different, Star Plus is a different service from Disney Plus, so much of the content is divided, making it less attractive than it could be.

How can these streaming service remain more sustantable the?

@@p_4290 what is the difference between cable TV and Streaming service media ?

@@franksandoval6046 The biggest difference, at least in terms of format, is that there's no need to conform to a standard time slot. But I think that's actually been a mixed curse. Being able to vary episode lengths can allow for better pacing . . . but it also seems to be the bane of discipline. I always felt very disoriented watching episodes of the Mandalorian for this very reason.

I mean, that's essentially how shows used to run. Seasons used to be 26 episodes in broadcast for syndication purposes. So you'd run for a half a year, while filming year round. The issue is that, for streaming, the executives have it in their heads that people are only going to be interested in 'prestige' shows. And honestly, I kind of get it? You'd have to have a lot of faith that your sitcom lineup alone would get people to keep their subscription to your service.

How can these streaming services remain more sustainable

It's ironic how they all became the very thing they swore to destroy.

IMO I waited to watch She Hulk until the ire died down. And honestly . . . other than the hinky CGI, it wasn't actually terrible. The problem is that it was sort of targeted to a specific demographic compared to Marvel's usually hyper generalized action schtick. The same can be said for Ms. Marvel, which I loved, but it was very much a young adult show and got, accordingly, young adult numbers. Boba Fett . . . I think there's a couple of things that happened there. But one of them is that, by the time they made a Boba Fett show, the Mandalorian had already kind of occupied the same space. And so I think they didn't quite know what to do with him.

What model would you like to see for these streaming services would remain sustainable in the future?

I agree about movie/shows but I buy nintendo consoles solely for the exclusives (also seeing mario/kirby on a Xbox or PS5 would be horrifying). I think Xbox, Playstation, and PC could have less exclusives because those make similar type of games to each other while nintendo makes its own thing very different from the rest of the market. Edit: clarified a few points

I saw an interesting discussion about this a while back. Image spending a large sum of money to make a series for a streaming service without ads. If a a millions people watch it or 10 million people watch it does that really change your revenue? Only if that content draws in new people. The problem then is that you must make products that will bring in new subscribers in order to make revenue gains, or at least make products that stop the outflow of subscribers to staunch the losses. That means that raw viewership numbers has not been a valued metric. I think we'll see some stabilization in this space as the "ad-free binge drop" model is retired and moved to a model that can directly monetize views and spread your investment (episodes) over months to keep subscribers on the service.

​@@ttrn1 Personally I hope they go to a week to week episode model. Using social media to talk about the show or come up with fan theories would definitely keep subscribers.

What model would you think would be the best to help these streaming platforms remain sustainable in the future

netflix used to have some big name stuff...until that big name made its own streaming service and took its content away from netflix. Netflix is always having new content, good or bad. While the big name streaming companies are still trying to rely on one or two big names and nothing else....

Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem - Lord Gaben.

Honestly I've been starting to pirate again on how difficult it is to find things to watch now (miss the days of Netflix/Hulu when I could find hidden gems a lot more easily)

THIS. Disney pulling the rug under other services by making most (if not all) of their library only available on Disney+ was what killed Disney+ for me right from the start - I don't support monopolies. And of course Netflix losing a whole part of their library (and cancelling the shows which actually were good), while at the same time increasing their prices was the final reason for me to finally cancel Netflix a few months ago, too. Right now, I'm watching stuff on Tubi TV, Amazon Prime (which I didn't subscribe to for the streaming, but the delivery thingy, so their streaming is just a bonus for me) or on Roku - and I'm quite happy with it. Tubi doesn't have half as much advertisement as cable, so this is just fine for me, because I can get some snacks or have a bathroom break in between.

Why would you bother torrenting when you can stream any show online for free?

@@MrGrimlocke so I don't always need an internet connection just to watch something. For example if I travel somewhere on a train or plane.

They also didn’t have let Sony add spider verse venom and far from home on Disney plus in Canada and they’re still on Netflix for many years now even the amazing Spider-Man 1 and 2 and the Raimi trilogy are still on Netflix Canada besides them already being on disney+ only homecoming was removed was on Disney plus permanently and that was it

What type of model would help them remain sustainable in the future?

How I met your mother sucks and not funny

Disney should do with their US Disney + what they did to their Disney + services around the world. Just get rid of Hulu and add all the Hulu content on Disney +

@@rosiewalker7676 makes no sense

@@Mariofanaticanimations it's a spam bot

Yeah as an Australian all of those shows are on Disney+ for me.

The golden era of TV ended decades ago.

I'm surprised that there isn't a company designed to sell a bundling service. Probably due to legal reasons and how much of a pain in the ass it would be to nail out.

Those DVDs are pirates. But it's Disney's fault for ignoring physical media and letting pirates fill the demand.

I'm not sure they're actually pleasing anyone to be honest. A lot of people accuse Disney of Being 'Woke' but their LGBTq representation is so token that they don't really have a lot of fans in that community. I've actually heard queer friends joke that 'this will be the fifth first movie with a gay couple . . . who can easily be edited out for the Chinese market' . . . A lot of people in feminist circles point out that their attempts to 'fix' beauty and the beast actually made it worse by making the Beast a gigantic dickwad jerk for in excess of his animated counterpart. So they didn't win fans their OR with Mulan. Their handling of race is also very 'tokenistic'. Thing like race lifting Aerial is done more for attention getting than any sincere attempt at representation. I sympathize for Halle Bailley in that film. You don't turn down a major production as a young actress, but I feel like it painted a target on her unfairly. And this is something that's been problematic back to the 90s with how they, uncomfortably, sexualized characters like Pocahantas. Heck, they finally had a show with a main character who was openly bisexual, and it was treated as a wholesome and supportive relationship, and then they canceled it despite being very popular with its target audience. It wasn't like the show was doing poorly either. When the fan conventions opened up again after Covid the suits were shocked by how popular the Owl House was. Which lead to them giving it 3 1-hour specials to rap up in place of a 3rd season.

I hate modern gaming. When I buy a game now it's PS2 or older.

Oversaturation is a death sentence for ANY market. Oversaturation was a major factor in the Videogame crash of 1983.

What type of model would be sustainable for streaming platforms in the future?