Disney has announced that it will stop providing new movies to Netflix in 2019, in favor of its own streaming service:
Disney has decided it wants to create its own internet services built around its ESPN and Disney entertainment brands. As a result, Disney said it would stop making its newly released movies available to stream on Netflix beginning in 2019. That means Netflix Inc. has roughly 18 months to figure out how to replace fresh Disney and Pixar movies, which are popular draws for its subscribers. A Netflix executive has said Disney programs are responsible for something like 30 percent of Netflix viewing in the U.S. (Disney movies are available on Netflix only in the U.S. and Canada.)
[...] This Walt Disney Co. announcement may also explain why Netflix on Monday announced the first acquisition in its 20-year history, for a company that specializes in creating superhero characters. Netflix also has an arrangement with Disney's Marvel brand under which Marvel makes series exclusively for Netflix based on Marvel characters. That relationship is responsible for buzzy Netflix shows including "Daredevil" and "Luke Cage."
Also at Reuters, CNBC, and Walt Disney.
Previously: Netflix Acquires Comic Book Publisher Millarworld
Related Stories
http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/07/media/netflix-millarworld/index.html
Netflix just made a deal with the creative mind behind blockbuster movies including Captain America: Civil War and Logan. On Monday, the streaming service announced its first-ever acquisition: Comic book publisher Millarworld.
You may not be familiar with Millarworld, but you've likely heard of founder Mark Millar's work. Before he created Millarworld, Millar wrote a number of comic books for Marvel including Old Man Logan and Civil War, which were brought to the silver screen as the blockbuster hits Logan and Captain America: Civil War. He also authored the comic book series Kick-Ass and Kingsman: The Secret Service, both of which have been turned into successful feature films.
In a statement, Netflix said that it will develop new films, series and shows with Millarworld, and will also draw on Millarworld's existing portfolio.
Also at Reuters, Hollywood Reporter, Millarworld, and Netflix.
Netflix Inc is in "active discussions" with Walt Disney Co about keeping Marvel and "Star Wars" films after 2019, when new Disney and Pixar movies will stop appearing on the streaming service, a senior executive said late on Thursday.
Disney announced on Tuesday that it was pulling new Disney and Pixar films from Netflix, starting with new releases in 2019. It will start putting the movies on a new Disney-branded online service that year.
Disney Chief Executive Officer Bob Iger told analysts the company had not yet decided where it would distribute superhero films from Marvel Studios and movies from "Star Wars" producer Lucasfilm, which the company owns, at that time.
Netflix is still in discussions with Disney about retaining rights to stream Marvel and Lucasfilm releases after 2019, Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos told Reuters.
Source:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-disney-netflix-idUSKBN1AR0V0
Previous:
Disney to Break Away From Netflix With its Own Streaming Service
Netflix Acquires Comic Book Publisher Millarworld
Netflix has continued to add millions of new subscribers, even after it raised prices:
Netflix Inc snagged 2 million more subscribers than Wall Street expected in the final three months of 2017, tripling profits at the online video service that is burning money on new programming to dominate internet television around the world.
The results drove Netflix to a market capitalization of more than $100 billion for the first time. Shares jumped 9 percent to over $248 in after-hours trading on Monday after rallying throughout the month and rising 53 percent last year.
The company has signed up more than half of all U.S. broadband households and is building its customer base in 190 countries by spending billions on programming.
Netflix picked up 6.36 million subscribers in international markets from October through December, when it released new seasons of critically acclaimed shows "Stranger Things" and "The Crown" as well as Will Smith action movie "Bright." That topped Wall Street expectations of 5.1 million, according to FactSet.
Along with 1.98 million customer additions in the United States, the company ended the year with 117.58 million streaming subscribers around the globe, despite a price hike in October.
From a Bloomberg op-ed: "The rapid pace of subscriber additions is impressive, but so is the amount of cash going up in flames."
Also at USA Today and The Street.
Previously: Netflix Has More Subscribers Than Major Cable Providers in the U.S.
Disney to Break Away From Netflix With its Own Streaming Service
Netflix Adds 5 Million Subscribers, Doubles Profit
(Score: 4, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:00PM (22 children)
I wonder how long it will be until TV implodes from people dumping cable for streaming only to have content producers jump ship and create their own streaming services. We go full circle back to having individual channels served up to us by the cable companies.
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:12PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Thursday August 10 2017, @07:41PM
This is already starting to happen in various circles: VRV is an example. Several Indy content streams and importers combined to perform on-demand streaming like Netflix. It and similar services probably will end up being something like the cable channels of their time. Probably only a handful of very prodigiously productive content producers like Disney will be able to strike out on their own.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:16PM (19 children)
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:20PM
Nah, the dream is using some Russian or Chinese or Barbados streaming site to get all of the content in one place, for free. While using an adblocker. Fall back to BitTorrent if you can't find something.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by theluggage on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:10PM (16 children)
No, what we want is (a) for new, high-profile content, the ability to pay for only the shows we want to see. (b) for older "syndicated" content, few-year-old movies, classics and post-pub rubbish - a single subscription like Netflix, or Amazon Prime, offering a comprehensive range.
Oh, and we want to be able to "rent" a recent movie online, in HD, for significantly less than it costs to *buy and keep* a nicely packaged DVD/blu-ray with bonus content etc.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Pino P on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:04PM (9 children)
Yet many of us also want to end digital restrictions management (DRM) [defectivebydesign.org]. But as far as I can tell, the only way "rent" can be cheaper than "buy and keep" is through DRM. Otherwise, producing a copy to keep through teeing in blatant violation of the terms of rental would become widespread.
So which do Soylentils actually want? A discount for a limited viewing period, or ending DRM? If you find this a false dilemma, please explain in detail how we can have both.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:27PM (1 child)
please explain in detail how we can have both.
One word: bittorrent. Time for us to set the rules and the prices.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:56PM
Technically, BitTorrent takes away the cost of hosting, but not the digital restrictions management. Files with a DRM container can still be distributed through BitTorrent so that only subscribers can view them. In order to make works copyrighted to Disney lawfully available through BitTorrent other than to subscribers, someone would need to come up with the money to buy Disney's copyrights from its shareholders.
The market has already set that price, and Disney's $168 billion market cap [google.com] is about four orders of magnitude bigger than even an exceptionally successful crowdfunding campaign.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zinho on Thursday August 10 2017, @05:14PM (4 children)
TL;DR: High-bitrate stream == rental, should cost less. Physical media == purchase, can cost more. No DRM needed either case, hard drives cost money, too.
two parts to this solution:
1) reject the concept of rental, anything sold and delivered can be kept if desired
2) tiered ownership levels - in this case, digital-only vs physical media
If the media companies send the movie as a streamed, digital-only copy that is too large to practically be stored locally then the effect is the same as a rental. No resale value, as that would violate copyright laws. If made available as part of a subscription then the business plan is to charge more than enough to cover cost of streaming 24/7 to the end user, any time not spent streaming == extra profit. Also, the customer gets great video quality, perhaps even better than a physical disk (depends on a strong network infrastructure). I think a DRM-free Netflix would be fairly immune to piracy if the price were right.
For customers who want a physical disk for their collection, they can have that, too. No need for DRM here, either. Ensure 1st sale doctrine still applies (stop trying to squash 2nd hand sale of the physical media), and anywhere that there's functioning rule-of-law you won't have a problem with counterfeit physical media. While you're removing the DRM, take care of the rest of your user experience problems [labnol.org] as well. Do this and you've got a second - fully-satisfied - customer base for the content.
I know that I have stopped compulsively ripping and backing up copies of my DVDs ever since most of their content became available on my streaming subscription, and I'm happy to not need to maintain a physically large library of fragile disks or a local DNLA server in order to have access to the movies I want whenever I feel like watching them. I have better things to do with my life than maintain an ever-growing NAS array just to keep my movies on. And if what I want to watch is easier to find and start watching on my streaming subscription than it is to torrent/store/pipe to my living room screen then I'd rather pay for the convenience of the streaming service. I prefer streaming to digging out the physical DVD, even if I already own the movie on disk. Make a better product, keep getting paid. This should be a no-brainer.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday August 11 2017, @01:56PM (3 children)
I don't see how "too large to practically be stored locally" can be achieved for a couple reasons.
DRM exists as an attempt to prevent users from willfully flouting copyright laws.
Including all the cast and crew whose contract specifies residuals for each showing?
Except "anywhere that there's functioning rule-of-law" tends not to include casual under-the-table infringement by people whose friends have DVD or BD burners.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Friday August 11 2017, @03:55PM (2 children)
TL;DR: Stop delivering a bad product and stop assuming that all customers are criminals.
(changed to ordered list to make replies easier)
For point one, anyone motivated to do this and savvy enough to pull it off is not being prevented from doing so by DRM. Retaining the DRM is only inconveniencing honest customers, and costing money to implement while providing no benefit. Spending money to reduce sales is illogical from a business standpoint. Be nicer to your customers, let them fill up their local drives with compressed video if they want. As I mentioned before, having a higher quality, well-indexed stream available 24/7 is a service I'm willing to pay for even if I have a local copy. Make it more convenient to simply stream and your legitimate customers won't bother with local storage.
For point two, these customers are an edge case which is not causing a problem.
It is failing at this mission. Every blockbuster release lately has been shortly available on Bittorent DRM-free. Somehow the studios are still making money at the theater, on streaming services, and on physical media sales. Some people will pirate the movies/shows/etc regardless of whether it's available legally; these are not your customers. People sharing burned DVDs with their friends are in this category. As long as they aren't setting up carts in the street selling their counterfeit wares this will remain a minor problem, and should be considered an acceptable loss.
A much larger group are law-abiding citizens who pay for what they use because it's the right thing to do and they want to see more good media getting produced. These people are only inconvenienced by DRM, it gives them no benefit and the vendor gets no benefit from applying DRM to the product sold to them. Media companies will get this group's money whether or not DRM is applied to the product.
Another group of indeterminate size is willing to pay for a streaming service or physical media if the content they want is available and easier to access than a pirated copy. Adding DRM to the official product does not prevent them from getting a DRM-copy some other way. DRM makes their customer experience worse when they choose to follow the law, discouraging them from doing so. Making the user experience better would help these people move back into category 2 and allow the media companies to take their money.
In all of the customer cases I've outlined above having DRM is only a liability, one that causes lost customers after incurring extra expense. Even the locked-in customers in the "piracy is bad, mkay?" group may choose to read a book instead of watching a show, or go for a walk, or take up a hobby if the user experience is bad enough. Shut up and take their money, for goodness sake.
Perhaps hookers and blow for all and sundry shouldn't be the measure of success for a media venture. People not in this for the love of the art are a problem, not part of the solution. Yes, there is profit to be made. No, it's not $500-1000/household annually. The price point for media sales is currently set too high, and the market will need to readjust. I expect several entrenched business models will die out (e.g. blockbuster video) in the process; good riddance. The competition for the fence-sitters is bittorrent @ free + mild inconvenience vs legal @ expensive + moderate inconvenience. The industry is better served by making the product much more convenient and slightly cheaper to win back some of the contested customers. I'm positive that there are economists willing to help forecast an optimum price point for competing against free at maximum profit.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday August 11 2017, @06:18PM (1 child)
Correct. In the land of cheap fuel and expensive Internet access, copyright infringers use sneakernet rather than BitTorrent, carrying around terabytes of infringing copies of movies on a portable NAS.
If only the licensors of programming to the streaming services understood this...
What sort of "pressure" are you imagining? NFLX shareholders probably wouldn't appreciate, for example, Netflix getting into the last-mile ISP business in order to compete with sat, cell, and low-speed DSL ISPs.
The market has already spoken: adaptations of well-known superhero comics costing more than a hundred million dollars to produce sell more tickets than original films produced by hobbyists.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Friday August 11 2017, @07:49PM
[skipping to where we aren't simply agreeing with each other]
The pressure I was hoping for was political, not business competition. I'm a believer in separation of content from delivery, and I favor last mile service as a utility. Unfortunately, the cable and ISP companies don't agree with me, and are happier with the fractured last-mile system we currently have (leading to me having 4 different boxes fastened to my house from previous ISP/cable providers, only two of which are my fault). I'd love to see Netflix start lobbying for better last mile solutions, public buildout to rural locations, etc. $DIETY knows the ISPs and cable companies spend enough lobbying for the shutdown of city networks and co-ops, a little counterpressure would be good for the health our our network.
Agreed, this is self-evident. I'd argue that the recent involvement of people with more love/respect for the source material makes a HUGE difference; just compare the 2003 Daredevil movie to the Netflix series. Netflix took the risk of spending $40 Million to pay actors, directors, crew, etc to produce the show, and the public rewarded them with lots of viewership. Which reminds me, I need to re-watch season 2 in preparation for the season 3 release :)
My point isn't that actors etc shouldn't be paid. It's that once a production company spends the money on producing a show those artists are already compensated. Return on investment isn't guaranteed, and the market will decide whether compensating the studio for its effort (via movie tickets, streamed binge-watching, etc) is warranted. I really liked the link you made [soylentnews.org] to The Oatmeal; people want to do the right thing. The industry needs to stop treating its potential customers like a cross between sheep to be fleeced and desperate criminals.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Thursday August 10 2017, @06:50PM
I have no particular problem with DRM if the choice is to (a) rent the right to stream, with DRM, at a reduced price or (b) pay extra to download in a standard format and keep - with no DRM. I.e. pretty much the way music works, for the moment.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday August 11 2017, @02:55PM
You're making that false assumption again that SD/SN is of uniform opinion. Some people want A, some people want B, some want both.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Thursday August 10 2017, @07:31PM (4 children)
Then happy day! You can do this right now! Most shows are available to purchase season by season on Amazon, Apple, Google, Vudu, etc...
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday August 11 2017, @01:58PM (3 children)
Season-by-season doesn't help when co-workers are slinging spoilers around the water cooler on the business day after first airing. Nor does any provider that I'm aware of offer season-by-season purchases of Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea (the English language dub of the animated series Les mondes engloutis) to U.S. residents.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Friday August 11 2017, @02:55PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday August 11 2017, @03:28PM (1 child)
"Usually"? Matthew Inman of The Oatmeal illustrated his difficulty with availability of current season episodes for purchase getting delayed until the end of the season [theoatmeal.com].
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Friday August 11 2017, @06:16PM
However many, many shows do air the next day. For example, I've purchased current seasons of Doctor Who, Dark Matter, Wynonna Earp, Bates Motel, Preacher, and Killjoys this year alone and all were released by the next morning after each episode aired.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Thursday August 10 2017, @07:33PM
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:44PM
It's not a dream, more like a nightmare. Each "channel" will require their own accounts, play pricing games, bidding wars on content so shows bounce from one service another, and increases in advertising. And on top of that we might have ISP's playing net neutrality games charging you more and more money to access more and more channels.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:05PM (3 children)
Disney will be restricting themselves to a smaller audience, maybe they can increase profit margins enough to make that a good decision, but it will be reducing their market exposure.
I suspect they're going to do this for 5-10 years, then cycle back out to whatever mainstream services are dominant at the time, like putting movies "in the vault" to reduce saturation and increase demand. Back in the 1970s, "The Wonderful World of Disney" played a movie a week on a major commercial network - they need that kind of broad exposure periodically to build demand for their product, but they do occasionally oversaturate people to the point that they just get sick of all the big eyed long haired princesses.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:11PM
ESPN might help make the platform less niche. Get the parents paying for ESPN, and then the kids get Disney.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:27PM (1 child)
I would agree with you for the most part, except Disney has enough size and brand recognition to gain traction. I am curious what they plan on getting out of their own services though. Is the profits for content providers on Netflix that bad?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by stretch611 on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:05PM
Why accept a portion of the profit when you can have it all.
Disney is just one huge corporate entity with nothing other than dollar signs in its eyes. (like many others.) Profit is its only motivation.
Disney also owns ESPN. ESPN just had a streaming platform built for it to stream live sporting events. If you already have the system, it doesn't take much more to add more content to it, even with different subscribers and content.
Also, Disney recently acquired a majority share in the company that built ESPN's streaming platform. Win-Win for profit on all sides.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:12PM (1 child)
Really it looks like you will have to splice that cord back together to get all the content you want in the same place. Good news for pirate sites though.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:53PM
That won't work, cable today is basically a bunch of ads and shitty self-produced garbage/reality tv/other shit nobody wants to watch. To get the content that was on old-cable you need to spend just as much on individual pay TV channels that will fleece you just as much as the plethora of streaming services would. TPB and co are the only sensible choice.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:30PM (1 child)
Ah shit, does that mean that there will be no new series of Luke Cage, Daredevil, Iron Fist or Jessica Jones? Or will they be "rebooted" with new actors, plots and stories? If so, count me out.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:21PM
Those series will continue to live on Netflix and be developed, is my understanding.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:39PM (1 child)
How long before every big content corporation does the same? (my guess is they are all planning it now, and have been for a while.)
If you want to see Disney/ABC/ESPN/Marvel/Star Wars content you will have to subscribe to Disney.
If you want to see Time Warner/HBO/Cartoon Network/TBS/TNT you will have to subscribe to Time Warner.
If you want to see Fox/FX/Fox Sports/American Idol you will need to subscribe to Fox.
If you want to see CBS/Star Trek/Big Brother you will need to subscribe to CBS.
... and so on...
The big companies will want the consumers to pay them directly and put all their content behind their own platform. Then content on other subscription/streaming sites will slowly dry up as content is removed when old contracts expire.
At worse, Netflix will become a ghost town the only content it will have is what it produces. (Very smart move on their part, IMO) They might have some old content and probably become a platform of choice for smaller content producers.
At best, Netflix will have the above, but also previews of content of the major players. Think of a major TV series being produced or even a streaming only series... You get the first season if you have Netflix, it ends with a huge cliffhanger episode, and then the viewer is told to subscribe to Disney's platform to see future seasons and find out what happens to cast after the cliffhanger.
All the while the consumer gets screwed. The content producers vastly overvalue their own content and you will have to pay for it at their inflated prices if you want to see it. All content will increasingly be behind individual studio platforms and be removed from places like Netflix forcing families to pay for multiple subscriptions or forgo watching everything they like.
Proof of their overvaluation of content can be seen already... When your cable bill goes up, a lot of that is the greed of the cable monopolies, but the greed of the content providers is in that price increase every year as well. As mentioned elsewhere in the comments, piracy will go up as a result of this as well.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:46PM
The solution: more Big Content mergers!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday August 10 2017, @06:41PM (1 child)
If you have been reading these threads about streaming for any length of time you have read me predicting exactly this outcome. So long as Netflix was an "in addition to" cable service, basically reselling the same shows the customer had already paid the cable company (and thus Hollywood) for they were content to license their libraries cheap so Netflix could charge $10ish per month. Once people started cutting the cord and jacked their viewing from occasional "movie night" type viewing to having streams running for hours on end as their background viewing, something would have to be done. And that something is raise the licensing fees to a point where if Netflix wanted to become a cable company they would have to charge rates like one. In the end, Hollywierd needs $500 - $1000 per American household to keep everyone supplied with hookers and blow, if people won't pay the cable company they will have to pay the streaming services. Customers would never accept streaming rates going that high and the Internet infrastructure was beginning to seriously complain about the strain of 24/7 streaming.
So they have picked the wise option, soak up all that .com fake money as long as the gravy train rolls while quietly transforming into a cable channel. Think about it, in three or four years when the current licensing contracts expire, they will be a content provider with about the same amount of original content as HBO. Expect them to be indistinguishable from HBO by then. They will still stream, but so does HBO, but their primary viewing path will be the Netflix channel which will be a premium service on every cable system. High chance they leverage all that streaming infrastructure into some joint ventures with cable systems to provide "On Demand" content with some residual deals to stream back catalog programming that the big studios will find it profitable to let Netflix and the cable companies deal with the details of monetizing. And of course they will still be big on delivering streaming to devices, but it will be by your cable subscription username / password / billing instead of Netflix maintaining their own system.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday August 10 2017, @11:51PM
All indications are that will continue. Certainly splitting it up between Netflix and Disney Streaming Service while people continue to drop cable isn't going to slow "the strain" down.
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/complete-white-paper-c11-481360.html [cisco.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]