Apple TV+ versus Disney+ compared -- the streaming wars escalate

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 78
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,153member
    MacPro said:
    A new Verge article seems to agree with my premise that Apple TV+ maybe included with product purchases ongoing (not just temporarily)  and be similar to Amazon Prime in the sence that it is bundled with another service or in Apple's case another hardware product purchase.  That, IMHO is definitely the way to go for Apple.
    Do you think adding in free AppleTV+, about a $50 value, would be enough to drive additional hardware sales profits to make up the north of $6B cost of just producing this initial abbreviated content not including maintenance and distribution? The costs going forward will be going up, probably significantly. It doesn't seem like it would be a big draw for closing iPhone sales they otherwise wouldn't have.

    Perhaps bundling everything together for one fee, music movies and a device discount or something each year aka Amazon Prime makes sense, but on the surface offering AppleTV+ at no charge just for buying "something Apple" seems like a loss leader and Apple doesn't typically play there do they? Maybe the end game is driving Netflix out of business and decreasing the value of HBO to the point it gets sold off, making controlling the stack a little easier. 
  • Reply 22 of 78
    gilly33 said:
    Now that I’ve read this article not sure I’m interested as much to jump in at launch anymore. The appeal for me is the backlog of movies from Fox and Disney. But for an ‘extra couple of dollars’ more? Hmmm. Apple hit the sweet spot with 1 year free with the purchase of a new device and I like $4.99 so unless the content absolutely sucks I’m in. Just not feeling the pull on this one.
    Apple shows I have seen so far are pretty bad,  bad enough I don’t feel like wasting anymore of my life watching them.  I watched “see” so far and “The Morning Show”.    Plus I don’t understand the app on Apple TV.   Is their not a separate app for it?  Seems to me it’s all jumbled in with the other content.  Some of the shows on Amazon Prime are good.
    razorpit
  • Reply 23 of 78
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    I watched the Dickinson pilot last night. I enjoyed it. I've now seen it and See and I'm surprised by both because I thought Apple was going more wholesome with their content. In See we have a queen pray, which in the future is masturbating until climax and in Dickinson we have some language and several scenes with the protagonist smoking tobacco. I don't care about these things being included, but I was taken aback by the complaints by people about how Apple will make everything G-rated.
    edited November 2019 razorpitjahbladeStrangeDaysAppleExposedlolliverwatto_cobraflyingdp
  • Reply 24 of 78
    Zirlin said:
    I have an idea. Why don't we put all of these paid channels together on one bill? We could give it a name like...cable.
    Actually, very different systems. I understand what you mean but cable was corrupted, in a sense, with the various networks forcing channels and cost on consumers. We don’t watch sports and the cost of sports networks for a cable subscription was enormous. We dropped cable 7 years ago. It wasn’t just cost. It was the fact we watched almost nothing on it and I didn’t want to send money to sports channels. We send about 68 a month on subscriptions, plus 90 for internet. But we make use of what we pay for.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 78
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    Zirlin said:
    I have an idea. Why don't we put all of these paid channels together on one bill? We could give it a name like...cable.
    But what are you going to do when you “cut the cord”?  :D

    peterhart said:
    Apple is certainly providing R-rated content — I can’t even count the number of times Steve Carell, Jennifer Aniston, and even Reese Witherspoon curse in The Morning Show‘s first 3 episodes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 
    They only thing we’ve watched as a family are the 8 minute Snoopy shows. My wife and I haven’t watched any of the other shows but they certainly don’t look like something I would want to watch with my 7 and 11 year olds. Ironic considering all they moaning and groaning about “kid safe stuff” when this service was announced.

    Zirlin said:
    I have an idea. Why don't we put all of these paid channels together on one bill? We could give it a name like...cable.
    Actually, very different systems. I understand what you mean but cable was corrupted, in a sense, with the various networks forcing channels and cost on consumers. We don’t watch sports and the cost of sports networks for a cable subscription was enormous. We dropped cable 7 years ago. It wasn’t just cost. It was the fact we watched almost nothing on it and I didn’t want to send money to sports channels. We send about 68 a month on subscriptions, plus 90 for internet. But we make use of what we pay for.
    So in other words you pay more than a normal cable bill bill, but don’t have sports. Ok..
    edited November 2019 jahblade
  • Reply 26 of 78
    Both services for my household. 
    jahbladelolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 78
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,882member
    Apple will eventually buy Disney, so this article is interesting but has a short shelf life.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 78
    peterhart said:
    Apple is certainly providing R-rated content — I can’t even count the number of times Steve Carell, Jennifer Aniston, and even Reese Witherspoon curse in The Morning Show‘s first 3 episodes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 
    Apple show "See", praying is very interesting (rated WTF)....
    AppleExposedwatto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 78
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,153member
    Zirlin said:
    I have an idea. Why don't we put all of these paid channels together on one bill? We could give it a name like...cable.
    Actually, very different systems. I understand what you mean but cable was corrupted, in a sense, with the various networks forcing channels and cost on consumers. We don’t watch sports and the cost of sports networks for a cable subscription was enormous. We dropped cable 7 years ago. It wasn’t just cost. It was the fact we watched almost nothing on it and I didn’t want to send money to sports channels. We send about 68 a month on subscriptions, plus 90 for internet. But we make use of what we pay for.
    I prefer streaming to my old "cable bundle" too.

    We don't use landline anymore so why pay for it? Don't watch movie channels unless there's that "sump'n special" on HBO, so why pay for those? 
    For less than $145/mo out the door we get 150MB internet (FiOS), Youtube TV, Apple TV+, ad-free Netflix, the upcoming Disney+, and Amazon Prime Video which I don't count the cost of since I get 100% of the value of my Prime subscription from the shipping discounts making video free for all intents.

    So the internet service is covered, all my local news, weather and such, sports including regionals, the high profile channels like TBS and SyFy, TNT and BBC, Fox, CBS, NBC and ABC. The USA, FX, and CW channels, Turner Classic Movies and AMC (some of those older movies are excellent!), more recent movies on Netflix and Disney than I can possibly watch and lots of original content all around. All available to stream on 3 tv's if we wish, Pixelbook, Nest Hubs, and smartphones. Why would anyone need more?

    I'm good. 
    edited November 2019
  • Reply 30 of 78
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,312member
    The captive relationship between the streaming services and the content producers is really unlike anything we’ve seen before. It’s not like the music industry where you have record producers controlling the content that was brokered through multiple sales channels. The music model led to unbundling of songs from albums so consumers could pick and choose the specific content (songs) they wanted without buying the whole album, a la iTunes. That’s the kind of pick & choose model I’d like to see with tv/movie/video content, but it can never happen now because there is no broker between the creators of the content and the sales channels for the content. They are one and the same. 

    The only hope for consumers is that these incestuous little silos will fight tooth and nail against one another to lock consumers into their bundles that prices will remain low enough to allow consumers to subscribe to multiple bundles. With all of the bundlers vying for the same limited talent their costs are bound to go up and when they do, consumers will end up paying more. Let’s see how this little experiment plays out in the long run. It’ll be interesting to watch, until the next disruptor or regulatory agency comes along to upend the apple cart.
  • Reply 31 of 78
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,153member
    tundraboy said:
    Apple will eventually buy Disney, so this article is interesting but has a short shelf life.
    I don't see any way it would leap the regulatory hurdles. Won't happen in your lifetime IMO.
    muthuk_vanalingamflyingdp
  • Reply 32 of 78
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    dewme said:
    The captive relationship between the streaming services and the content producers is really unlike anything we’ve seen before. It’s not like the music industry where you have record producers controlling the content that was brokered through multiple sales channels. The music model led to unbundling of songs from albums so consumers could pick and choose the specific content (songs) they wanted without buying the whole album, a la iTunes. That’s the kind of pick & choose model I’d like to see with tv/movie/video content, but it can never happen now because there is no broker between the creators of the content and the sales channels for the content. They are one and the same. 

    The only hope for consumers is that these incestuous little silos will fight tooth and nail against one another to lock consumers into their bundles that prices will remain low enough to allow consumers to subscribe to multiple bundles. With all of the bundlers vying for the same limited talent their costs are bound to go up and when they do, consumers will end up paying more. Let’s see how this little experiment plays out in the long run. It’ll be interesting to watch, until the next disruptor or regulatory agency comes along to upend the apple cart.
    It's much better now, except in terms of cost. There was a reason why packages bundled various channels together. Now we pay more for the same access in an à la carte network selection. If you want to know how much it would be to move to a per item selection for each TV show or movie just check out iTunes Store. Of course, if you watch relatively few shows or movies you're going to benefit from getting rentals from iTunes Store, but for most people consuming TV content today that's going to get real expensive real fast.
  • Reply 33 of 78
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,712member
    gatorguy said:
    MacPro said:
    A new Verge article seems to agree with my premise that Apple TV+ maybe included with product purchases ongoing (not just temporarily)  and be similar to Amazon Prime in the sence that it is bundled with another service or in Apple's case another hardware product purchase.  That, IMHO is definitely the way to go for Apple.
    Do you think adding in free AppleTV+, about a $50 value, would be enough to drive additional hardware sales profits to make up the north of $6B cost of just producing this initial abbreviated content not including maintenance and distribution? The costs going forward will be going up, probably significantly. It doesn't seem like it would be a big draw for closing iPhone sales they otherwise wouldn't have.

    Perhaps bundling everything together for one fee, music movies and a device discount or something each year aka Amazon Prime makes sense, but on the surface offering AppleTV+ at no charge just for buying "something Apple" seems like a loss leader and Apple doesn't typically play there do they? Maybe the end game is driving Netflix out of business and decreasing the value of HBO to the point it gets sold off, making controlling the stack a little easier. 
    I suspect longer term thinking is in order.  
  • Reply 34 of 78
    hodarhodar Posts: 357member
    Competition is good.  I would LOVE to see the major networks come out with as much creative and well executed ideas, as I have seen delivered by HBO, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon as well as Apple Plus.  Seems that the big networks just rehash the same bland ideas, over and over again.  Reality shows, that are anything but reality, and generally nothing but time wasters.

    I'm seeing some good solid thought provoking ideas coming out from the new streaming competition, and I like it.
    lolliver
  • Reply 35 of 78
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,153member
    MacPro said:
    gatorguy said:
    MacPro said:
    A new Verge article seems to agree with my premise that Apple TV+ maybe included with product purchases ongoing (not just temporarily)  and be similar to Amazon Prime in the sence that it is bundled with another service or in Apple's case another hardware product purchase.  That, IMHO is definitely the way to go for Apple.
    Do you think adding in free AppleTV+, about a $50 value, would be enough to drive additional hardware sales profits to make up the north of $6B cost of just producing this initial abbreviated content not including maintenance and distribution? The costs going forward will be going up, probably significantly. It doesn't seem like it would be a big draw for closing iPhone sales they otherwise wouldn't have.

    Perhaps bundling everything together for one fee, music movies and a device discount or something each year aka Amazon Prime makes sense, but on the surface offering AppleTV+ at no charge just for buying "something Apple" seems like a loss leader and Apple doesn't typically play there do they? Maybe the end game is driving Netflix out of business and decreasing the value of HBO to the point it gets sold off, making controlling the stack a little easier. 
    I suspect longer term thinking is in order.  
    I suspect the same. Undercut and outlast....
    edited November 2019
  • Reply 36 of 78
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Apple looks like it needs to get more content and fast. Maybe a deal with the BBC or something. 
    macplusplusMacPro
  • Reply 37 of 78
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,301member
    peterhart said:
    Apple is certainly providing R-rated content — I can’t even count the number of times Steve Carell, Jennifer Aniston, and even Reese Witherspoon curse in The Morning Show‘s first 3 episodes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 
    I haven't watch that yet. I heard it wasn't very good? I h ave watched SEE which I like. That 3rd episode is pretty bloody. Looked R rated to me.
    AppleExposed
  • Reply 38 of 78
    smaffeismaffei Posts: 237member
    gatorguy said:
    "Disney says that in addition to its library contentDisney+ will offer 10 original films and 25 original series, including three “Avengers” spinoffs, in its first year of operation"
    So just as much original content as Apple TV+, especially on the movie side, and both are planning more but yes far short of what Amazon and Netflix offer. 
    Yeah, this is a marketing lie by Disney. The first Avenger spinoff series "Falcon and the Winter Soldier" is not due until Fall 2020 which is almost a whole year away in itself. The others like "Wanda Vision" and "Loki" are not due until 2021.
    AppleExposed
  • Reply 39 of 78
    mike1mike1 Posts: 3,273member
    blastdoor said:
    Zirlin said:
    I have an idea. Why don't we put all of these paid channels together on one bill? We could give it a name like...cable.
    An analogy occurs to me involving the mainframe and ibm. The mainframe model of computing (big powerful computer shared by many users over a network) is a good model for efficient utilization of resources. The problem was IBM became a price gouging monopolist. The inefficiency of monopoly eventually eclipsed the efficiency of the mainframe model, leading to the decentralization/fragmentation of computing resources. But the efficiency of the mainframe model couldn’t be ignored — it’s back and now we call it “cloud computing”

    similarly, the bundling model for content delivery is very efficient. But the cable companies became price gouging monopolists. The inefficiency of monopoly eclipsed the efficiency of the bundling model. I’m sure it won’t be long before we get back to a bundling model — it just wont be the cable company / ISP doing the bundling. 
    Don't ignore the content providers' role in jacking up the prices for cable. Much of what you pay goes on your bill goes right back to the Disney and Vicaom and the major networks.
    edited November 2019
  • Reply 40 of 78
    edrededred Posts: 57member
    peterhart said:
    Apple is certainly providing R-rated content — I can’t even count the number of times Steve Carell, Jennifer Aniston, and even Reese Witherspoon curse in The Morning Show‘s first 3 episodes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 
    And what about See. The fights are pretty graphic. I don't mind it's just that I was surprised since Apple was supposedly going to produce "family friendly" content. By episode 3 after Jason Momoa started cutting throats I was like: Oook, this is not *that* family friendly.
    AppleExposed
Sign In or Register to comment.