Disney and Netflix sign licensing agreement

[Future Lovers 7,912]

6 minutes ago, River said:

 Can all the services just work on one hub with 1 payment and get their fair share? Would also open up opportunities to work together 🤷‍♂️

I mean the current state of the streaming services is simply not working  and the quality is free falling for years now..

That wouldn’t really be possible to do for several different reasons unfortunately, even if there was an interest in doing it from the players involved. 

It would require completely new talent contracts, massive investment in a completely new platform, they would have to completely start over on a branding front, they would have to void hundreds of contracts with advertisers and promotional partners (such as deals with phone carriers) and, perhaps biggest of all, I don’t actually think that it would be legal in the first place as it would be a clear cut violation of regulations that are in place that limit the size and activities of media conglomerates.

Especially because not every studio is on equal footing (and there is no way to give them all an equal share of the pie; that would require them all being equal in terms of valuation, market cap, and reach, and that is not the case) and not every studio has a service to fold into this. It would be a massive conflict of interest and be flagged as anti-competitive.   

Edited Monday at 07:30 AM by Future Lovers

[River 129,468]

4 minutes ago, Future Lovers said:

That wouldn’t really be possible to do for several different reasons unfortunately, even if there was an interest in doing it from the players involved. 

It would require completely new talent contracts, massive investment in a completely new platform, they would have to completely start over on a branding front, they would have to void hundreds of contracts with advertisers and promotional partners (such as deals with phone carriers) and, perhaps biggest of all, I don’t actually think that it would be legal in the first place as it would be a clear cut violation of regulations that are in place that limit the size and activities of media conglomerates.

Especially because not every studio is on equal footing (and there is no way to give them all an equal share of the pie; that would require them all being equal in terms of valuation, market cap, and reach, and that is not the case) and not every studio has a service to fold into this. It would be a massive conflict of interest and be flagged as anti-competitive.   

dinsey and hbo already doing a bundle though

what I meant is one app, a hub, where u you can choose which service h want to watch and u simply pay once.

So it’s like a bundle but more organize in one app and one payment

[gagzus 26,471]

8 minutes ago, River said:

 Can all the services just work on one hub with 1 payment and get their fair share? Would also open up opportunities to work together 🤷‍♂️

I mean the current state of the streaming services is simply not working  and the quality is free falling for years now..

I’m basically paying netflix for one month once a year and watching everything i need then I cancel it lol

Here in the UK if you have some Sky subscriptions (our cable network basically) you automatically get free streamers added on with ads. For example I pay £60 for both tv and internet a month but I get all of Sky’s own programming as well as Netflix, Disney+, Paramount, HBO Max, Prime Video and Discovery+ included in those.

I think the reason that doesn’t happen much abroad is mostly because of how expensive cable seems to be in the US and having streamers essentially functioning like cable “invalidates” their original premise (although arguably, they have went against it themselves by including live TV channels)

[gagzus 26,471]

11 minutes ago, Future Lovers said:

That wouldn’t really be possible to do for several different reasons unfortunately, even if there was an interest in doing it from the players involved. 

It would require completely new talent contracts, massive investment in a completely new platform, they would have to completely start over on a branding front, they would have to void hundreds of contracts with advertisers and promotional partners (such as deals with phone carriers) and, perhaps biggest of all, I don’t actually think that it would be legal in the first place as it would be a clear cut violation of regulations that are in place that limit the size and activities of media conglomerates.

Especially because not every studio is on equal footing (and there is no way to give them all an equal share of the pie; that would require them all being equal in terms of valuation, market cap, and reach, and that is not the case) and not every studio has a service to fold into this. It would be a massive conflict of interest and be flagged as anti-competitive.   

Very much this, the biggest point that is used both for and against streaming platforms—and was the reason people were so against the Skydance merger—is consumer choice.

It mostly comes down to everything being considered homogenous, for example someone who only watches Netflix exclusively now would have their consumer right to choice inflicted upon if they suddenly had to pay 3-4x the price because now all the streaming services were combined into a platform. Even cable has/had consumer choice through packages.
 

It was already been a point of the court case against Skydance when it was happening, that now customers of either Warner or Paramount were going to have to pay for services they didn’t agree to upon sign up. 

Edited Monday at 07:39 AM by gagzus

[River 129,468]

5 minutes ago, gagzus said:

Here in the UK if you have some Sky subscriptions (our cable network basically) you automatically get free streamers added on with ads. For example I pay £60 for both tv and internet a month but I get all of Sky’s own programming as well as Netflix, Disney+, Paramount, HBO Max, Prime Video and Discovery+ included in those.

I think the reason that doesn’t happen much abroad is mostly because of how expensive cable seems to be in the US and having streamers essentially functioning like cable “invalidates” their original premise (although arguably, they have went against it themselves by including live TV channels)

Yeah here sky is giving hbo content + apple tv

but I’m not subscribing because of hbo for now even though I want to watch some shows, I know I can find them in different places but I prefer the legal way, so well..  maybe when hbo will be on the good side one day

[gagzus 26,471]

9 minutes ago, River said:

Yeah here sky is giving hbo content + apple tv

but I’m not subscribing because of hbo for now even though I want to watch some shows, I know I can find them in different places but I prefer the legal way, so well..  maybe when hbo will be on the good side one day

I think the freedom of choice is the key point, even though here the content is automatically added into your Sky package regardless—you can still not watch them, and you can equally subscribe to some on their own. Instead of having to pay for Sky specifically to get the streamers themselves. Which obviously was a big deal for the Warner+Paramount merger.

[Defmix100 7,247]

2 hours ago, River said:

dinsey and hbo already doing a bundle though

what I meant is one app, a hub, where u you can choose which service h want to watch and u simply pay once.

So it’s like a bundle but more organize in one app and one payment

Even if that could happen I wonder how many people they'd lose? Like I only pay for 2 streaming services, if I had to then pay more for a bundle of a lot more content I would never watch just to access the ones I do want it would turn me away. Or do you mean a bundle option, but services could still also be accessed separately too for people who don't care about most of it?