Could someone with more educaton than me tell me how "cord cutting" differentiates themselves from every single flipping major TV network subsidiary creating their own streaming service and how it's actually cheaper for the consumer? Legitimate question here.
[Edit] I know Disney is not a subsidiary of a TV network but I think you get my point?
This could happen but it's not that easy to run your own reliable content-delivery network. It's the same deal with Amazon. What's to stop every retailer setting up their own e-commerce site like Amazon or eBay and buyers having to search 1000 different retailer websites for the products they want? If the product isn't desirable enough to stand on its own, not enough people will use the service and it won't be sustainable.
If a service is putting out 1080p content, they will be aiming for 5Mbps with H.264. At ~$0.06/GB, if a user is watching a couple of hours a day, they will get through about 135GB/month = $8.10. If the service's monthly subscription is lower than this, they'd make a loss, if it was say $10/month, people might not be willing to pay that much for the content on offer and it would likely still make a loss accounting for other costs involved given that the subscription is the only revenue source to cover production too. HEVC encoding will help lower costs once platforms support it but they still have to get the content to the TV so making, marketing and supporting apps for multiple platforms.
For a big company like Disney, it's ok because they will be able to get low CDN costs, they have a large library of content and long-term worldwide appeal to a large audience so they will get more of the revenue to themselves than just licensing content to a 3rd party. Reports said that Disney was getting $200-350m/year from Netflix for their content:
If Disney can reach a direct audience of 50 million worldwide (Apple TV alone is 20-30m) and charge $5/month ($60/year), that's $3b in revenue vs $200-300m. The costs will be a bit higher with them running their own service but not enough of an impact to make the 3rd party route more profitable. They can also sell new content at a higher price for one-off purchases, have interactive content, music, they can advertise movies/games/products/theme parks on the service, things that they can't do on 3rd party services.
For Netflix subscribers, having it bundled with the subscription they are already paying for is better value but the content often goes exclusive to one service so there are times Netflix subscribers lose out and times Hulu subscribers lose out:
^ That scene with the family singing in the car is horrifying. This is what they will be offering worldwide and $5/month isn't a huge expense with games, books and music included. It may even save some families money who only subscribed to Netflix/Hulu to get their exclusive Disney content.
Won't be long before every producer of content will have their hands in our pockets. Cord cutters, your dream has come true. No more free lunch grandpa, the world is taking its cues from Spirit Air, pay toilets, and toll roads. No taxes, but everything you use will cost you. Justifying your accounts at the end of the month will be a nightmare with hundreds of nickel and dime charges flowing from your phone, watch, and car. Brave New World.
Wow! Capitalism! What a concept!
Right, community out, every man for himself in. I'm sure that's how humanity progressed.
Capitalism is the only reason companies like Apple and Disney even exist so I'm not sure what you're implying. Disney has their own product they want to sell and they want to cut out the middle man not unlike, oh I don't know, Apple with their retail stores? The market will decide if this is a good move or not. Disney seems to think it is. Does it kind of suck? Well yes because I have a one year old and it's awesome to get Disney movies included with Netflix and I don't really want to shill out more money for another subscription service. Only time and people voting with their wallets will tell.
as a parent with two young kids, this is better imho - my son loves the Cars franchise but the Cars movies are not always available on Netflix, sometimes it's Cars 1 only, sometimes it's Cars 2 only, sometimes NEITHER. I had to buy it on SkyStore in the end to ensure we always had a copy - at least with a disney direct streaming service, you'll know you're getting ALL the films, ALL of the time.
Sure it might be more expensive to subscribe to each content producer individually but if I think how much I spend per month on Sky + Amazon Prime + Netflix, I'm sure £5-10 to each major producer (disney, espn, discovery, etc.) would be in the same ballpark overall.
So how long before every studio and network pulls their content from streaming services and creates their own streaming subscription service? People don't want to pay 50 different services for the fraction of the content on each service that customers care about. It's cable all over again.
Could someone with more educaton than me tell me how "cord cutting" differentiates themselves from every single flipping major TV network subsidiary creating their own streaming service and how it's actually cheaper for the consumer? Legitimate question here.
[Edit] I know Disney is not a subsidiary of a TV network but I think you get my point?
It is not cheaper for the consumer. Just more money coming directly to Disney without the Netflix 30% (or whatever it is). For the consumer it is just another $9.99/month. The likes of Disney Amazon, Hulu etc are just hoping that you don't notice how much you are spending and with a 48month interest free period on your Credit Card, who cares eh?
How many of these to do you have? Will the world end if you cancel 50% of them? You will be better off at the end of the month.
This frangmentation can't carry on. People don't thave enough money or time to get their $$$$/££££ worth which is how the provider makes money.
My TV is from Free to air Satellite (UK FreeSat) so I just pay £150 approx a year for my UK TV license and that is it. No recurring charges. even then my 1TB PVR gets full from time to time with progs that I've recorded and not had time to watch.
Could someone with more educaton than me tell me how "cord cutting" differentiates themselves from every single flipping major TV network subsidiary creating their own streaming service and how it's actually cheaper for the consumer? Legitimate question here.
[Edit] I know Disney is not a subsidiary of a TV network but I think you get my point?
It is not cheaper for the consumer. Just more money coming directly to Disney without the Netflix 30% (or whatever it is). For the consumer it is just another $9.99/month. The likes of Disney Amazon, Hulu etc are just hoping that you don't notice how much you are spending and with a 48month interest free period on your Credit Card, who cares eh?
How many of these to do you have? Will the world end if you cancel 50% of them? You will be better off at the end of the month.
This frangmentation can't carry on. People don't thave enough money or time to get their $$$$/££££ worth which is how the provider makes money.
My TV is from Free to air Satellite (UK FreeSat) so I just pay £150 approx a year for my UK TV license and that is it. No recurring charges. even then my 1TB PVR gets full from time to time with progs that I've recorded and not had time to watch.
Actually, a savvy viewer does well with rotating through various subscriptions services. It all depends on viewing habits and/or being able to adapt to a ever changing subscription paradigm. It also would depend on back catalogs available from purveyors of original content, of which there are an increasing number.
If anything, Apple and Amazon may end up as "super aggregators" of subscription services, not unlike cable networks, making it a one stop experience to start and cancel a myriad of subscriptions, in monthly increments. For most folks, that might only be a couple of subscriptions a month, followed by cancellation and new subscriptions to other services the following month.
Catch up on what you missed, and move on.
Edit:
Just wanted to add that iTunes and the AppleTV could be very useful for creating optimal subscription models based on a list of individual shows/media that you had an interest in. I can actually see the need for an app to "game" various subscription scenarios for the lowest cost/best fit to your list.
Once upon a time, we had several large record companies. They'd locate talent, invest in artists, advance money for recording. Essentially, they gambled on artists. If the bet was good, they'd profit from record sales, publishing and merch. Often, the artist got a raw deal. Still, record companies like Atlantic were incredibly good at picking and nurturing winners. They developed, aggregated and sold content. This is similar to Netflix et al. Today, that music business model is all but gone. It was fragmented by artists that decided to go it alone. This is a subjective statement, but I think artists often benefited greatly from having the infrastructure of a record company. For example, The Beatles had George Martin and Geoff Emerick, and the incredible engineering and equipment at EMI studios.
Disney is hardly a small individual artist or band, but it has decided to go it alone. I suspect this move will become the trend, mirroring the music industry. I also suspect content may suffer. Consumers will vote with their wallets, but increasingly, they'll vote for worse candidates.
Could someone with more educaton than me tell me how "cord cutting" differentiates themselves from every single flipping major TV network subsidiary creating their own streaming service and how it's actually cheaper for the consumer? Legitimate question here.
[Edit] I know Disney is not a subsidiary of a TV network but I think you get my point?
It is not cheaper for the consumer. Just more money coming directly to Disney without the Netflix 30% (or whatever it is). For the consumer it is just another $9.99/month. The likes of Disney Amazon, Hulu etc are just hoping that you don't notice how much you are spending and with a 48month interest free period on your Credit Card, who cares eh?
How many of these to do you have? Will the world end if you cancel 50% of them? You will be better off at the end of the month.
This frangmentation can't carry on. People don't thave enough money or time to get their $$$$/££££ worth which is how the provider makes money.
My TV is from Free to air Satellite (UK FreeSat) so I just pay £150 approx a year for my UK TV license and that is it. No recurring charges. even then my 1TB PVR gets full from time to time with progs that I've recorded and not had time to watch.
Actually, a savvy viewer does well with rotating through various subscriptions services. It all depends on viewing habits and/or being able to adapt to a ever changing subscription paradigm. It also would depend on back catalogs available from purveyors of original content, of which there are an increasing number.
If anything, Apple and Amazon may end up as "super aggregators" of subscription services, not unlike cable networks, making it a one stop experience to start and cancel a myriad of subscriptions, in monthly increments. For most folks, that might only be a couple of subscriptions a month, followed by cancellation and new subscriptions to other services the following month.
Catch up on what you missed, and move on.
Edit:
Just wanted to add that iTunes and the AppleTV could be very useful for creating optimal subscription models based on a list of individual shows/media that you had an interest in. I can actually see the need for an app to "game" various subscription scenarios for the lowest cost/best fit to your list.
Totally agree on the well thought out rotation of subscriptions. If you are budget conscious of just don't like wasting money then it is currently quite feasible to have a few months of each and binge through your favorite series then move on to the next provider's feast. The snag will be if the likes of HBO Now etc. ever impose minimum subscription periods of a year like cable companies do (or penalties for early termination). As long as these apps can be started and cancelled on a month by month service this makes total sense.
I agree on the super aggregator thought where Apple is concerned. My assumption is, like HBO Now and Netflix itself, the new Disney service would have an App on iTunes for the Apple TV. I can't see Disney wanting to make and sell hardware. The only downside would be if your favorite shows on Netflix suddenly move to the new subscription Disney App. Then it becomes a question of one or both then it's back to paragraph one if that becomes too expensive.
Won't be long before every producer of content will have their hands in our pockets. Cord cutters, your dream has come true. No more free lunch grandpa, the world is taking its cues from Spirit Air, pay toilets, and toll roads. No taxes, but everything you use will cost you. Justifying your accounts at the end of the month will be a nightmare with hundreds of nickel and dime charges flowing from your phone, watch, and car. Brave New World.
That is fine by me. I cut the cord two years ago and am perfectly happy with paying for the non-over-the-air content I watch on an as-desired basis. I don't pay for monthly services. I did but dropped the one I paid for last week as I wasn't watching it much. Mankind survived quite well on free over-the-air tv before and we can do so again and still have the benefit of an occasional movie rental when desired.
Edit: Like Tmay wrote, the churn rate for new content for subscription services is really fairly low. As long as the services don't start hitting people with long contracts or signup/cancel fees, it is advantageous to sign up for a short term, watch what you want, and cancel. My cable tv + internet + phone bill was, as I recall, something like $120 - $140 a month which was way out of line for a guy, a dog, and a cat. I dropped the phone and tv and am now at $68 a month. Still out of line for what I get but it is a bitter pill I have to take. However, I can watch a lot of a la carte shows and throw in some $9.99 and $6.99 subscriptions for the $72 difference.
So in the future we will need a paid streaming subscription for Disney, the broadcast networks, Paramount, etc?
That's exactly right. The cord cutters wanted to be free of cable and satellite bundles. Well they're getting ti in spades. And it will cost them more in the long run.
So how long before every studio and network pulls their content from streaming services and creates their own streaming subscription service? People don't want to pay 50 different services for the fraction of the content on each service that customers care about. It's cable all over again.
It's far worse than cable/satellite. Every major provider and content producer already has their own streaming service or is planning to, That means that many "cord cutters" will now need to manage a dozen, maybe more accounts. Each with their own user name and password and monthly charges. The only way cord cutting makes economic sense is if you are light user and can get by with maybe just Netflix or Hulu. If you are a typical consumer and a sports fan, you'll probably want content from at least three of the four major networks, ESPN, your regional providers for baseball and/or hockey and/or basketball. Maybe the Disney family of stations for the kids and throw in HBO or Showtime. This still won't include secondary networks like TNT, TBS, History, Discovery etc., if you watch original programming from any of them.
Then add on a high-speed broadband connection to satisfy multiple people streaming at the same time. Say $50.
What do you have now? Roughly the same cost with a wide array of user interfaces and no convenient way of "changing the channel". Just try to explain to Grandma how to use the 15 apps on your Apple TV when she just wants to watch the Price is Right every morning.
Wow! The stock market reacted very negatively to this in after market trading.
It seems investors think Disney and Netflix are stronger together. Both their stock took a tumble!
I can understand Netflix stock being harmed, but it's irrational (what else is a surprise) that Disney stock should be affected.
Disney just completely changed their business model after years of saying they are platform agnostic. Their spending will increase (original content, etc), and this will eat into their earnings, so the market sees this as risk. Just a reason for Hedge Funds to justify to their clients why they are selling their DIS stock (and make their commissions in the process).
There's only so many services someone is going to sign up for. For me, I would never sign up to this. I keep it simple. Antenna and Netflix, and currently Amazon which I have had because of free 2nd day shipping. I don't know how much longer I'll keep that. I have zero interest to play the sign up to everyone game. CBS All access, laughable. Should be like CW, all your content FREE. What something like this really does is drive up piracy.
Good luck to Disney, they're going to need it. This is not cable TV. You can't force people to sign up to crap they don't want to get something else.
So how long before every studio and network pulls their content from streaming services and creates their own streaming subscription service? People don't want to pay 50 different services for the fraction of the content on each service that customers care about. It's cable all over again.
It's far worse than cable/satellite. Every major provider and content producer already has their own streaming service or is planning to, That means that many "cord cutters" will now need to manage a dozen, maybe more accounts. Each with their own user name and password and monthly charges. The only way cord cutting makes economic sense is if you are light user and can get by with maybe just Netflix or Hulu. If you are a typical consumer and a sports fan, you'll probably want content from at least three of the four major networks, ESPN, your regional providers for baseball and/or hockey and/or basketball. Maybe the Disney family of stations for the kids and throw in HBO or Showtime. This still won't include secondary networks like TNT, TBS, History, Discovery etc., if you watch original programming from any of them.
Then add on a high-speed broadband connection to satisfy multiple people streaming at the same time. Say $50.
What do you have now? Roughly the same cost with a wide array of user interfaces and no convenient way of "changing the channel". Just try to explain to Grandma how to use the 15 apps on your Apple TV when she just wants to watch the Price is Right every morning.
Blah blah blah. You act as if cable will suddenly disappear as opposed to consumers having a choice of which route to go.
I have stopped watching broadcast tv and cable tv with the exception of a maybe 3 programs. I have zero interest in professional sports, cable news (I read a few newspapers online each day) and now watch HBO, Netflix and PBS via my Apple TV. I know Disney produces movies for grown up as well as the Pixar movies but most of what they release I have no interest in. I know I am not the only person with these preferences yet TV a la carte still seems years (if ever) away.
So how long before every studio and network pulls their content from streaming services and creates their own streaming subscription service? People don't want to pay 50 different services for the fraction of the content on each service that customers care about. It's cable all over again.
It's far worse than cable/satellite. Every major provider and content producer already has their own streaming service or is planning to, That means that many "cord cutters" will now need to manage a dozen, maybe more accounts. Each with their own user name and password and monthly charges. The only way cord cutting makes economic sense is if you are light user and can get by with maybe just Netflix or Hulu. If you are a typical consumer and a sports fan, you'll probably want content from at least three of the four major networks, ESPN, your regional providers for baseball and/or hockey and/or basketball. Maybe the Disney family of stations for the kids and throw in HBO or Showtime. This still won't include secondary networks like TNT, TBS, History, Discovery etc., if you watch original programming from any of them.
Then add on a high-speed broadband connection to satisfy multiple people streaming at the same time. Say $50.
What do you have now? Roughly the same cost with a wide array of user interfaces and no convenient way of "changing the channel". Just try to explain to Grandma how to use the 15 apps on your Apple TV when she just wants to watch the Price is Right every morning.
Blah blah blah. You act as if cable will suddenly disappear as opposed to consumers having a choice of which route to go.
Not at all. Just that the choice will not likely be an economic one. It will be a choice based on convenience and ease of use.
So how long before every studio and network pulls their content from streaming services and creates their own streaming subscription service? People don't want to pay 50 different services for the fraction of the content on each service that customers care about. It's cable all over again.
What do you have now? Roughly the same cost with a wide array of user interfaces and no convenient way of "changing the channel". Just try to explain to Grandma how to use the 15 apps on your Apple TV when she just wants to watch the Price is Right every morning.
That's what the TV app is for. As it adds more services, it becomes better. There are no channels, you can search for TPIR, and immediately start watching it without needing to know what app has to open.
Won't be long before every producer of content will have their hands in our pockets. Cord cutters, your dream has come true. No more free lunch grandpa, the world is taking its cues from Spirit Air, pay toilets, and toll roads. No taxes, but everything you use will cost you. Justifying your accounts at the end of the month will be a nightmare with hundreds of nickel and dime charges flowing from your phone, watch, and car. Brave New World.
Really, you do realize nothing is free today, you pay for everything one way or another. Not sure why you think it is better to pay a fee for content you never watch which is what happened to do with your cable bill. Then have to endure commercial, you do pay for commercials in the way of higher priced on the products you buy. At least being able to pay for what you watch is better then paying for what you do not watch. BYW I would not subscribe to ESPN, never watch it but I had to pay for under my directv account. I really do not want to pay Disney for it and I am a Disney stock holder.
So in the future we will need a paid streaming subscription for Disney, the broadcast networks, Paramount, etc?
That's exactly right. The cord cutters wanted to be free of cable and satellite bundles. Well they're getting ti in spades. And it will cost them more in the long run.
Eh, you’re projecting your narrative onto people you don’t know. I cut cable 15 years ago. I subscribe to netflix, and then buy shows or sign up to other providers on an ad hoc basis. It is way cheaper than spending $150+ a month for eternity. I win.
So how long before every studio and network pulls their content from streaming services and creates their own streaming subscription service? People don't want to pay 50 different services for the fraction of the content on each service that customers care about. It's cable all over again.
It's far worse than cable/satellite. Every major provider and content producer already has their own streaming service or is planning to, That means that many "cord cutters" will now need to manage a dozen, maybe more accounts. Each with their own user name and password and monthly charges. The only way cord cutting makes economic sense is if you are light user and can get by with maybe just Netflix or Hulu. If you are a typical consumer and a sports fan, you'll probably want content from at least three of the four major networks, ESPN, your regional providers for baseball and/or hockey and/or basketball. Maybe the Disney family of stations for the kids and throw in HBO or Showtime. This still won't include secondary networks like TNT, TBS, History, Discovery etc., if you watch original programming from any of them.
Then add on a high-speed broadband connection to satisfy multiple people streaming at the same time. Say $50.
What do you have now? Roughly the same cost with a wide array of user interfaces and no convenient way of "changing the channel". Just try to explain to Grandma how to use the 15 apps on your Apple TV when she just wants to watch the Price is Right every morning.
Cool story bro. Meanwhile here in real life, my mom (a grandma) has no trouble using the Netflix app to watch the shows she likes. Society is moving on, apps are here to stay and much more convenient than broadcasts.
Could someone with more educaton than me tell me how "cord cutting" differentiates themselves from every single flipping major TV network subsidiary creating their own streaming service and how it's actually cheaper for the consumer? Legitimate question here.
[Edit] I know Disney is not a subsidiary of a TV network but I think you get my point?
—SNIP—
^ That scene with the family singing in the car is horrifying. This is what they will be offering worldwide and $5/month isn't a huge expense with games, books and music included. It may even save some families money who only subscribed to Netflix/Hulu to get their exclusive Disney content.
Why do you say the scene with the singing family is "horrifying"? Families actually do things like this, you know.
Comments
There are costs for a CDN here:
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/cdn/
https://cloud.google.com/cdn/pricing
http://www.cdncalc.com
If a service is putting out 1080p content, they will be aiming for 5Mbps with H.264. At ~$0.06/GB, if a user is watching a couple of hours a day, they will get through about 135GB/month = $8.10. If the service's monthly subscription is lower than this, they'd make a loss, if it was say $10/month, people might not be willing to pay that much for the content on offer and it would likely still make a loss accounting for other costs involved given that the subscription is the only revenue source to cover production too. HEVC encoding will help lower costs once platforms support it but they still have to get the content to the TV so making, marketing and supporting apps for multiple platforms.
For a big company like Disney, it's ok because they will be able to get low CDN costs, they have a large library of content and long-term worldwide appeal to a large audience so they will get more of the revenue to themselves than just licensing content to a 3rd party. Reports said that Disney was getting $200-350m/year from Netflix for their content:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/12/disneys-abc-reaches-streaming-deal-with-netflix.html
If Disney can reach a direct audience of 50 million worldwide (Apple TV alone is 20-30m) and charge $5/month ($60/year), that's $3b in revenue vs $200-300m. The costs will be a bit higher with them running their own service but not enough of an impact to make the 3rd party route more profitable. They can also sell new content at a higher price for one-off purchases, have interactive content, music, they can advertise movies/games/products/theme parks on the service, things that they can't do on 3rd party services.
For Netflix subscribers, having it bundled with the subscription they are already paying for is better value but the content often goes exclusive to one service so there are times Netflix subscribers lose out and times Hulu subscribers lose out:
https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/28/hulu-is-getting-over-50-disney-movies-thanks-to-new-licensing-deal/
Disney already has a subscription network in Europe called DisneyLife for £5/month:
https://disneylife.com
^ That scene with the family singing in the car is horrifying. This is what they will be offering worldwide and $5/month isn't a huge expense with games, books and music included. It may even save some families money who only subscribed to Netflix/Hulu to get their exclusive Disney content.
Sure it might be more expensive to subscribe to each content producer individually but if I think how much I spend per month on Sky + Amazon Prime + Netflix, I'm sure £5-10 to each major producer (disney, espn, discovery, etc.) would be in the same ballpark overall.
For the consumer it is just another $9.99/month. The likes of Disney Amazon, Hulu etc are just hoping that you don't notice how much you are spending and with a 48month interest free period on your Credit Card, who cares eh?
How many of these to do you have?
Will the world end if you cancel 50% of them? You will be better off at the end of the month.
This frangmentation can't carry on. People don't thave enough money or time to get their $$$$/££££ worth which is how the provider makes money.
My TV is from Free to air Satellite (UK FreeSat) so I just pay £150 approx a year for my UK TV license and that is it. No recurring charges. even then my 1TB PVR gets full from time to time with progs that I've recorded and not had time to watch.
If anything, Apple and Amazon may end up as "super aggregators" of subscription services, not unlike cable networks, making it a one stop experience to start and cancel a myriad of subscriptions, in monthly increments. For most folks, that might only be a couple of subscriptions a month, followed by cancellation and new subscriptions to other services the following month.
Catch up on what you missed, and move on.
Edit:
Just wanted to add that iTunes and the AppleTV could be very useful for creating optimal subscription models based on a list of individual shows/media that you had an interest in. I can actually see the need for an app to "game" various subscription scenarios for the lowest cost/best fit to your list.
Disney is hardly a small individual artist or band, but it has decided to go it alone. I suspect this move will become the trend, mirroring the music industry. I also suspect content may suffer. Consumers will vote with their wallets, but increasingly, they'll vote for worse candidates.
I agree on the super aggregator thought where Apple is concerned. My assumption is, like HBO Now and Netflix itself, the new Disney service would have an App on iTunes for the Apple TV. I can't see Disney wanting to make and sell hardware. The only downside would be if your favorite shows on Netflix suddenly move to the new subscription Disney App. Then it becomes a question of one or both then it's back to paragraph one if that becomes too expensive.
Edit: Like Tmay wrote, the churn rate for new content for subscription services is really fairly low. As long as the services don't start hitting people with long contracts or signup/cancel fees, it is advantageous to sign up for a short term, watch what you want, and cancel. My cable tv + internet + phone bill was, as I recall, something like $120 - $140 a month which was way out of line for a guy, a dog, and a cat. I dropped the phone and tv and am now at $68 a month. Still out of line for what I get but it is a bitter pill I have to take. However, I can watch a lot of a la carte shows and throw in some $9.99 and $6.99 subscriptions for the $72 difference.
Then add on a high-speed broadband connection to satisfy multiple people streaming at the same time. Say $50.
What do you have now? Roughly the same cost with a wide array of user interfaces and no convenient way of "changing the channel". Just try to explain to Grandma how to use the 15 apps on your Apple TV when she just wants to watch the Price is Right every morning.
Really, you do realize nothing is free today, you pay for everything one way or another. Not sure why you think it is better to pay a fee for content you never watch which is what happened to do with your cable bill. Then have to endure commercial, you do pay for commercials in the way of higher priced on the products you buy. At least being able to pay for what you watch is better then paying for what you do not watch. BYW I would not subscribe to ESPN, never watch it but I had to pay for under my directv account. I really do not want to pay Disney for it and I am a Disney stock holder.
Cool story bro. Meanwhile here in real life, my mom (a grandma) has no trouble using the Netflix app to watch the shows she likes. Society is moving on, apps are here to stay and much more convenient than broadcasts.