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

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 78
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,564member
    MacPro said:

    That said the low cost of Apple TV + having it along with Disney isn't too onerous.  Plus it is free for most people and maybe that offer will go on (would make sense IMHO for Apple to keep this for ever if it helps sell hardware) ...   I mean who doesn't buy at least one new Apple product every year? :) 
    Since all a person has to do is create a new Apple ID each subsequent year to get that free year of service, Apple will be under great pressure to level the playing field and give it to everyone with their current Apple IDs.
  • Reply 42 of 78
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,564member
    tundraboy said:
    Apple will eventually buy Disney, so this article is interesting but has a short shelf life.
    I see the opposite. The Disney+ service will blow Apple out of the water and Disney will leverage this win to produce a piece of hardware equivalent to Apple TV HD and will blow Apple TV out of the water too. Disney is the biggest threat to Apple's sales in the next decade. Disney might attempt to buy Apple in ten years.
  • Reply 43 of 78
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,805unconfirmed, member
    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)_/¯ 
    Soli said:
    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.


    Rumors guys, they were RUMORS.

    edred said:
    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.

    Rumor has it that you can hear Tim Cook yell "Don't be so mean!" in the background while Momoa slits throats.
    lolliver
  • Reply 44 of 78
    kmarei said:

    the killer app is now something that has a pretty front end (something like popcorn time)
    that pulls content from all the streaming packages you subscribe to, and shows it all on one interface
    without me needing to remember which package has what show
    i just click mandalorian, and it starts streaming
    exactly like popcorn time, but legally :)
    The Apple TV app does a pretty good job of that.  You can find almost any TV show or movie and locate who has it to rent, buy or stream.  It also lets you find info and shows from specific actors, directors as well as ratings and reviews.  You can launch most of the shows from within the app.
    lolliver
  • Reply 45 of 78
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,805unconfirmed, member
    "Lady and the Tramp is an improvement on the truly wretched 2019 versions of Dumbo and Lion King, but I'm still not sure why the average Disney+ consumer will choose to watch the new version when the original is sitting right there."

    Ummm this movie is half the reason I wanna subscribe! If Disney provides theatrical quality exclusives (instead of straight to DVD garbage) this will be a game changer!

    Th question is, which one are they providing? If Lady and the Tramp is crapped out garbage then I'm not interested in Disney+ yet as my Disney iTunes library is better than their entire movie catalog.

    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.

    Ummm iTunes?

    I understand Apple has done a sh** job promoting iTunes as a movie/TV store but they offer pretty much everything including "exclusives" from streaming services.
  • Reply 46 of 78
    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. 
    Interesting analogy. But it wasn't monopolistic inefficiencies that led to mainframes being supplanted by decentralized computing resources. It was the fact that for the first time ever decentralized computation became possible. Home computers first had to become a reality, and then after a few generations they became more powerful, and then they started to challenge the computational power of a mainframe at a much lower price. 

    The analogy isn't completely lost though. Before high speed internet existed there was just no way to deliver content, en masse and on demand. Cable, despite the fact that it bundled many stations together and was delivered over a wire, was still a real time broadcast technology. If you missed the night that new star trek episode aired, you were screwed and had to wait for a rerun. High speed internet is really the first time it was possible to deliver each episode to each spectator, individually, at the time of their choosing.

    It will not surprise me if we go back to bundling multiple "stations" into one bill. But, that won't mean it's a step backwards, because the episodes will still be delivered on demand over the internet.
  • Reply 47 of 78
    kevin keekevin kee Posts: 1,289member
    So far I am happy with AppleTV+ contents. Can't comment about Disney+ since it's only available in 5 countries, while AppleTV+ is available almost everywhere. But I think they are different in terms of how they approach the market. Disney+ is like Netflix, it's about offering as much contents as possible. AppleTV+, like all of Apple products, is polished, exclusively only available on AppleTV apps (I can watch some Disney movies on Netflix so they are not exclusive) and emphasize more on quality than quantity. But the biggest difference is that AppleTV+ seems like a service that has one purpose: to support Apple ecosystem/hardware.
    lolliver
  • Reply 48 of 78
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,153member
    kevin kee said:
    So far I am happy with AppleTV+ contents... But the biggest difference is that AppleTV+ seems like a service that has one purpose: to support Apple ecosystem/hardware.
    Obviously not. The AppleTV+ app is designed for the widest possible exposure and no one needs even a single piece of Apple gear to enjoy it. The content is available on the Roku platform, Amazon Fire Sticks, via Chromebooks, and directly via various web browsers. Anyone who wants to consume AppleTV+ content can do so without buying the first piece of Apple gear. 

    They aren't showing any indication this is meant only to support Apple's ecosystem and hardware.
    razorpit
  • Reply 49 of 78
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,382member
    ITGUYINSD said:
    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)_/¯ 
    Dickinson has some surprising scenes also.  Was slightly uncomfortable watching with my 16 yo daughter.

    What about SEE, with the incest and the masturbation/praying scenes?

    Remember when there was those rumors, published by everyone, about how Apple dictated that all their content needs to be "family oriented" and that there will be very little to no violence/sex/language? After which there was millions of comments across the internet attacking and mocking Apple?

    Turns out those rumors were clearly bullshit. 

    lolliverrazorpit
  • Reply 50 of 78
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Remember all of the comments talking about how everything would be sanitized and family friendly, because Apple is behind it?

    Well, as usual, I guess those comments were wrong, because I heard a "fuck" about 10-15 minutes into For All Mankind when I started watching the first episode last night.

    And I haven't yet gotten a chance to watch SEE, but based on other comments, it seems to have a bit of violence in it.

    This is a good sign, as Apple should be targeting all sorts of viewer groups, and not just "kids" or "family". Apple isn't Mickey Mouse.

    It'll be interesting to see how Apple TV+ evolves in the next few years, as they continue adding more and more content to it.
    edited November 2019 lolliver
  • Reply 51 of 78
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,153member
    apple ][ said:
    Remember all of the comments talking about how everything would be sanitized and family friendly, because Apple is behind it?

    Well, as usual, I guess those comments were wrong, because I heard a "fuck" about 10-15 minutes into For All Mankind when I started watching the first episode last night.

    And I haven't yet gotten a chance to watch SEE, but based on other comments, it seems to have a bit of violence in it.

    This is a good sign, as Apple should be targeting all sorts of viewer groups, and not just "kids" or "family". Apple isn't Mickey Mouse.

    It'll be interesting to see how Apple TV+ evolves in the next few years, as they will be adding more and more content to it.
    Early on there were several AI members saying they were looking forward to AppleTV+ since it wouldn't be using the typical gratuitous sex and bloody violence selling point to attract subscribers. It was going to be a far more family friendly service than Netflix or HBO and many here were praising them for it. 
  • Reply 52 of 78
    jimh2jimh2 Posts: 606member
    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.
    The difference between Disney+ and Apple+ is that Apple has basically nothing to start with. A few programs here and there cannot begin to compete with Disney+ especially if there are any children involved. There is also plenty of material for everyone and it is proven material and not hopes and dreams.

    Apple's better play would have been to shoehorn in on Disney's offering.
    rezwits
  • Reply 53 of 78
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    gatorguy said:
    apple ][ said:
    Remember all of the comments talking about how everything would be sanitized and family friendly, because Apple is behind it?

    Well, as usual, I guess those comments were wrong, because I heard a "fuck" about 10-15 minutes into For All Mankind when I started watching the first episode last night.

    And I haven't yet gotten a chance to watch SEE, but based on other comments, it seems to have a bit of violence in it.

    This is a good sign, as Apple should be targeting all sorts of viewer groups, and not just "kids" or "family". Apple isn't Mickey Mouse.

    It'll be interesting to see how Apple TV+ evolves in the next few years, as they will be adding more and more content to it.
    Early on there were several AI members saying they were looking forward to AppleTV+ since it wouldn't be using the typical gratuitous sex and bloody violence selling point to attract subscribers. It was going to be a far more family friendly service than Netflix or HBO and many here were praising them for it. 
    True. I remember reading a few of those type of comments as well.

    I'm glad that they were wrong. And just to rub it into them, I'm glad that they were fucking wrong!

    I don't have any issues with certain shows or series targeting kids and family, but clearly, it would have been bad if the entire platform was based around that.


  • Reply 54 of 78
    kevin keekevin kee Posts: 1,289member
    gatorguy said:
    kevin kee said:
    So far I am happy with AppleTV+ contents... But the biggest difference is that AppleTV+ seems like a service that has one purpose: to support Apple ecosystem/hardware.
    Obviously not. The AppleTV+ app is designed for the widest possible exposure and no one needs even a single piece of Apple gear to enjoy it. The content is available on the Roku platform, Amazon Fire Sticks, via Chromebooks, and directly via various web browsers. Anyone who wants to consume AppleTV+ content can do so without buying the first piece of Apple gear. 

    They aren't showing any indication this is meant only to support Apple's ecosystem and hardware.
    Yes, it can be played on non Apple hardware but you still need AppleTV app and AppleID in order to watch that.
  • Reply 55 of 78
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,123member
    kevin kee said:
    gatorguy said:
    kevin kee said:
    So far I am happy with AppleTV+ contents... But the biggest difference is that AppleTV+ seems like a service that has one purpose: to support Apple ecosystem/hardware.
    Obviously not. The AppleTV+ app is designed for the widest possible exposure and no one needs even a single piece of Apple gear to enjoy it. The content is available on the Roku platform, Amazon Fire Sticks, via Chromebooks, and directly via various web browsers. Anyone who wants to consume AppleTV+ content can do so without buying the first piece of Apple gear. 

    They aren't showing any indication this is meant only to support Apple's ecosystem and hardware.
    Yes, it can be played on non Apple hardware but you still need AppleTV app and AppleID in order to watch that.
    Everything requires 1) an app or a browser, and 2) an account. That includes Netflix, Disney, Amazon Prime, DirecTV, Sling, etc. 

    razorpit
  • Reply 56 of 78
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,123member

    jimh2 said:
    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.
    The difference between Disney+ and Apple+ is that Apple has basically nothing to start with. A few programs here and there cannot begin to compete with Disney+ especially if there are any children involved. There is also plenty of material for everyone and it is proven material and not hopes and dreams.

    Apple's better play would have been to shoehorn in on Disney's offering.
    With that sort of wisdom it’s incredible that some you’re not running a Fortune 500 company or an entire country. 

    /s
  • Reply 57 of 78
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,312member
    "Lady and the Tramp is an improvement on the truly wretched 2019 versions of Dumbo and Lion King, but I'm still not sure why the average Disney+ consumer will choose to watch the new version when the original is sitting right there."

    Ummm this movie is half the reason I wanna subscribe! If Disney provides theatrical quality exclusives (instead of straight to DVD garbage) this will be a game changer!

    Th question is, which one are they providing? If Lady and the Tramp is crapped out garbage then I'm not interested in Disney+ yet as my Disney iTunes library is better than their entire movie catalog.

    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.

    Ummm iTunes?

    I understand Apple has done a sh** job promoting iTunes as a movie/TV store but they offer pretty much everything including "exclusives" from streaming services.
    Wow, you’re right. I didn’t realize iTunes had exclusive Netflix content. Who dathunk?
    edited November 2019
  • Reply 58 of 78
    imat said:
    Big difference: AppleTV + is available where I live, as well as Netflix, whereas Disney + isn't. So that settles it, for the time being.
    Sounds like your in the U.K. like me? I also have Amazon Prime video
  • Reply 59 of 78
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    flydog said:
    kevin kee said:
    gatorguy said:
    kevin kee said:
    So far I am happy with AppleTV+ contents... But the biggest difference is that AppleTV+ seems like a service that has one purpose: to support Apple ecosystem/hardware.
    Obviously not. The AppleTV+ app is designed for the widest possible exposure and no one needs even a single piece of Apple gear to enjoy it. The content is available on the Roku platform, Amazon Fire Sticks, via Chromebooks, and directly via various web browsers. Anyone who wants to consume AppleTV+ content can do so without buying the first piece of Apple gear. 

    They aren't showing any indication this is meant only to support Apple's ecosystem and hardware.
    Yes, it can be played on non Apple hardware but you still need AppleTV app and AppleID in order to watch that.
    Everything requires 1) an app or a browser, and 2) an account. That includes Netflix, Disney, Amazon Prime, DirecTV, Sling, etc. 

    I just watched the morning show. Much better than the rotten tomato critics score of 60%. The audience score is a better representation at 95%. 

    (I’m replying to you not because this is actually a reply to your point but because posting without replying doesn’t work on safari on iPhones. Which you would think would be a core AI market). 
  • Reply 60 of 78
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,712member
    I signed up for the annual Disney+ subscription when I realized the bill last night for a modest tapas for two and two drinks cost more.
    chemengin1
Sign In or Register to comment.