Disney+ to offer 'Mulan' as $30 in-app purchase on iOS, Apple TV

Posted:
in General Discussion edited August 2020
Disney on Friday announced distribution plans for the hotly anticipated live action remake of "Mulan," saying the VOD release will be available to Disney+ subscribers as an in-app purchase.

Mulan


The entertainment giant earlier in August said the film would hit Disney+ as a paid exclusive on "premier platforms," but failed to name partner providers, Deadline reports.

According to a Disney+ webpage, "Mulan" will be available from Sept. 4 as an in-app purchase on Apple, Roku and Google platforms. The film is also set to go up for purchase through Disney's website.

Disney+ subscribers are slated to get access to the film following its September premiere, though a streaming date has not been announced.

The move comes amid controversy surrounding app store fees implemented by Apple and Google, each of which faces lawsuits from developers for taking a slice of in-app transactions. By making "Mulan" available as an in-app Disney+ "premium" purchase, Disney subjects its film to app store fees, which in Apple's case is 30%.

"We thought we would give it a try, to try to recapture some of that investment that we've got," said Bob Chapek, CEO of The Walt Disney Company. Chapek characterized the "one-off" strategy as a "a chance to learn," Deadline reports.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 48
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 2,007member
    Is the article conflating the 30% cut with a $30 price for the film?
    That sounds a little high...
  • Reply 2 of 48
    I saw this mentioned somewhere last week and people were freaking out about it in the comments. Mostly complaining they should get it free since they’re already paying for Disney+. 

    I’m still of the mindset that $30 at home is still less than tickets for (at least 2), snacks and a babysitter for 4-5 hours, so this sort of thing has a certain appeal. I likely won’t do it for Mulan but there are definitely movies I would pay that for. 
    Xedleeeh2razorpitlolliverJWSCdasanman69
  • Reply 3 of 48
    $30? Typo?

    If not, LOL
    edited August 2020
  • Reply 4 of 48
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,222member
    I saw this mentioned somewhere last week and people were freaking out about it in the comments. Mostly complaining they should get it free since they’re already paying for Disney+. 

    I’m still of the mindset that $30 at home is still less than tickets for (at least 2), snacks and a babysitter for 4-5 hours, so this sort of thing has a certain appeal. I likely won’t do it for Mulan but there are definitely movies I would pay that for. 
    Corporate bean counters must just love this point of view. I hope they deliver a hamper to you for Christmas.

    I will be damned if I pay extra. I have already told my daughters they can’t watch it until it is part of the subscription. Once subscribers let Disney get away with it once, it will be in for more and more. On top of a subscription.

    if you want to rent there is iTunes movies.
    Beats
  • Reply 5 of 48
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 2,007member
    entropys said:
    I saw this mentioned somewhere last week and people were freaking out about it in the comments. Mostly complaining they should get it free since they’re already paying for Disney+. 

    I’m still of the mindset that $30 at home is still less than tickets for (at least 2), snacks and a babysitter for 4-5 hours, so this sort of thing has a certain appeal. I likely won’t do it for Mulan but there are definitely movies I would pay that for. 
    Corporate bean counters must just love this point of view. I hope they deliver a hamper to you for Christmas.

    I will be damned if I pay extra. I have already told my daughters they can’t watch it until it is part of the subscription. Once subscribers let Disney get away with it once, it will be in for more and more. On top of a subscription.

    if you want to rent there is iTunes movies.
    I understand Disney’s problem. They spent big on this movie and they want some $$$ back—Disney+ isn’t going to add much in the way of new subscribers just for this movie, so I can understand charging a premium. 

    But I can’t see many people shelling out $30 for a rental when so many of us already have more streaming options than they can consume!

    I wish them well, but I’ll wait...
    lolliverAMcKinlay21JWSC
  • Reply 6 of 48
    XedXed Posts: 2,704member
    I saw this mentioned somewhere last week and people were freaking out about it in the comments. Mostly complaining they should get it free since they’re already paying for Disney+. 

    I’m still of the mindset that $30 at home is still less than tickets for (at least 2), snacks and a babysitter for 4-5 hours, so this sort of thing has a certain appeal. I likely won’t do it for Mulan but there are definitely movies I would pay that for. 
    It's amazing the bitching people are doing over the entitlement that first-run theatrical films should be included even though there was never anything in their marketing that claimed that the live action Mulan movie would be included in their D+ subscription.

    I don't even have to worry about additional costs, like a baby sister, and it's still both cost savings and a major convenience to watch movies at home for $30. I hope other follow suit sooner rather than later because I do want to see Tenet, Black Widow, Wonder Woman 1984, and many others.
    lolliverJWSCbbhpscooter63JaiOh81retrogusto
  • Reply 7 of 48
    XedXed Posts: 2,704member
    entropys said:
    I saw this mentioned somewhere last week and people were freaking out about it in the comments. Mostly complaining they should get it free since they’re already paying for Disney+. 

    I’m still of the mindset that $30 at home is still less than tickets for (at least 2), snacks and a babysitter for 4-5 hours, so this sort of thing has a certain appeal. I likely won’t do it for Mulan but there are definitely movies I would pay that for. 
    Corporate bean counters must just love this point of view. I hope they deliver a hamper to you for Christmas.

    I will be damned if I pay extra. I have already told my daughters they can’t watch it until it is part of the subscription. Once subscribers let Disney get away with it once, it will be in for more and more. On top of a subscription.

    if you want to rent there is iTunes movies.
    You sound like an Android user with your logic. Your entitlement is making you miss the obvious question: how much would this movie cost your family if you saw it in the theater v being able to see it at home?

    If the seeing it for $30 at home is considerably less expensive and more convenient than going to the theater then why complain? The only other feasible option is for Disney to shelve it until movie theaters are both possible and popular again… which may never happen.

    Your notion that Disney should instead rent it on iTunes for the same price as they rent it on D+ and thinking that makes some difference then you're really not thinking this through. Most prominent is that if they only let it stream through iTunes Store as a rental it would be around $40 to cover having to go through a middle man… which is a ridiculous notion as a "requirement" in your world when Disney has their own servers and streaming SW.
    lolliverJWSCJaiOh81
  • Reply 8 of 48
    castcorecastcore Posts: 141member
    Apple TV+ gave us Tom Hanks GreyHound for free!
    Rayz2016anantksundaramJWSCspock1234
  • Reply 9 of 48
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    castcore said:
    Apple TV+ gave us Tom Hanks GreyHound for free!
    That was a good price for it.
    lolliverlkrupp
  • Reply 10 of 48
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    WTF? So this won't be on iTunes?

    That's what pisses me off if it's a Disney+ exclusive purchase.
  • Reply 11 of 48
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    bageljoey said:
    Is the article conflating the 30% cut with a $30 price for the film?
    That sounds a little high...
    The article is trying to make a connection, but there isn’t one. 

    Disney has decided that they’d rather recoup the production and marketing costs by charging for it, rather than putting it in their streaming service which would just have people watching it during the trial period for free.  

    The price was arrived at by looking at how much it would cost for a family of four to see the film in a cinema, adding on a bit for snacks for everyone, then knocking off a third of that cost to arrive at $30
  • Reply 12 of 48
    XedXed Posts: 2,704member
    Beats said:
    WTF? So this won't be on iTunes?

    That's what pisses me off if it's a Disney+ exclusive purchase.
    This is a first-run theatrical release, not a streaming DVD rental coming many months after it left the theater. Why do you people have so many unreasonable expectations with this business model? Do you bitch when a movie this the theater long before coming to iTunes, too?
    JWSCbbhJaiOh81
  • Reply 13 of 48
    XedXed Posts: 2,704member
    Rayz2016 said:
    bageljoey said:
    Is the article conflating the 30% cut with a $30 price for the film?
    That sounds a little high...
    The article is trying to make a connection, but there isn’t one. 

    Disney has decided that they’d rather recoup the production and marketing costs by charging for it, rather than putting it in their streaming service which would just have people watching it during the trial period for free.  

    The price was arrived at by looking at how much it would cost for a family of four to see the film in a cinema, adding on a bit for snacks for everyone, then knocking off a third of that cost to arrive at $30
    I don't know how their system will work, but if it's like iTunes you'll be able to rewatch it for 24 hours after starting it. This is great for kids.
  • Reply 14 of 48
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,222member
    Xed said:
    Beats said:
    WTF? So this won't be on iTunes?

    That's what pisses me off if it's a Disney+ exclusive purchase.
    This is a first-run theatrical release, not a streaming DVD rental coming many months after it left the theater. Why do you people have so many unreasonable expectations with this business model? Do you bitch when a movie this the theater long before coming to iTunes, too?
    Just release it as rental on those services that are rental models, like iTunes. If you can’t see this as a Trojan horse that ends up with most movies that are interesting costing more on top of a Disney + subscription, you deserve what you end up with.

    I am happy to wait a longtime. I would also be happy to pay a rental on a service I am not already paying a subscription.  If you are weak, the hyena corporates will drag you down.

    this is what happened to cable. At first it was worth paying to avoid advertising, then before you know it you were paying for the service and then getting ads anyway. Don’t be a sucker.. And don’t encourage them.
    edited August 2020 blurpbleepbloopspock1234Beats
  • Reply 15 of 48
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,222member
    Xed said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    bageljoey said:
    Is the article conflating the 30% cut with a $30 price for the film?
    That sounds a little high...
    The article is trying to make a connection, but there isn’t one. 

    Disney has decided that they’d rather recoup the production and marketing costs by charging for it, rather than putting it in their streaming service which would just have people watching it during the trial period for free.  

    The price was arrived at by looking at how much it would cost for a family of four to see the film in a cinema, adding on a bit for snacks for everyone, then knocking off a third of that cost to arrive at $30
    I don't know how their system will work, but if it's like iTunes you'll be able to rewatch it for 24 hours after starting it. This is great for kids.
    I think it is like an iTunes movie purchase, not a rental.
    anantksundaram
  • Reply 16 of 48
    powpow Posts: 1member
    Xed said:
    I saw this mentioned somewhere last week and people were freaking out about it in the comments. Mostly complaining they should get it free since they’re already paying for Disney+. 

    I’m still of the mindset that $30 at home is still less than tickets for (at least 2), snacks and a babysitter for 4-5 hours, so this sort of thing has a certain appeal. I likely won’t do it for Mulan but there are definitely movies I would pay that for. 
    It's amazing the bitching people are doing over the entitlement that first-run theatrical films should be included even though there was never anything in their marketing that claimed that the live action Mulan movie would be included in their D+ subscription.

    I don't even have to worry about additional costs, like a baby sister, and it's still both cost savings and a major convenience to watch movies at home for $30. I hope other follow suit sooner rather than later because I do want to see Tenet, Black Widow, Wonder Woman 1984, and many others.
    What a flawed and sick perspective on whats something „worth“. You look at what people pay for cinema (a middleman, paying rent and employees etc.) and tell us its okay to pay $30 for rent, since you „can“ pay the same at cinema. But: with a cinema employees working there can feed their kids, i don’t need to have my own equipment, but hey, youre also arguing for taking $40 since apple, the middleman needs to get compensated. What the f* is wrong with you? We don’t care that youve enough money, but what the heck is just wrong with you? Yeah, lets maximise the money we can wrench out of bullshit that people at the bottom will never see again. The marketing (and people like you) will do.
    lkrupp
  • Reply 17 of 48
    danvdrdanvdr Posts: 25member
    Agree with Xed. At no time did Disney say they were including first run movies in the subscription. If it weren't for COVID people would be paying $15/viewer plus other expenses at the theater. It's rather unreasonable to think that after putting a couple hundred million into a movie that Disney (or any other production company) is just going to give it away.
    JWSCpscooter63montrosemacs
  • Reply 18 of 48
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    castcore said:
    Apple TV+ gave us Tom Hanks GreyHound for free!
    I was a bit disappointed by Greyhound 
  • Reply 19 of 48
    bbhbbh Posts: 134member
    Mulan is a First Run Major Production. I saw the previews pre-covid and it looked awesome. I don't even have a family, but I think $30 to essentially "own" the film is not a bad deal. Would I have preferred free as part of my Disney + subscription ? Sure, but this is not unreasonable. 

    I liked Greyhound, but this movie is in a totally different production world. Show 'em with your wallet. 
    montrosemacs
  • Reply 20 of 48
    Hank2.0Hank2.0 Posts: 151member
    entropys said:
    I will be damned if I pay extra. I have already told my daughters they can’t watch it until it is part of the subscription...
    I hope you coordinated that with your wife. If not, that $30 might seem a bargain.
    spock1234montrosemacsjcs2305
Sign In or Register to comment.