[chi17]

Splitting from Netflix would've been genius if the idea were that they'd partner with a competitor to challenge Netflix, namely someone like Hulu or, better yet, Amazon.

Going off on their own without being part of a larger more diverse set of content could deal a serious blow to Disney. I for one would not ever pay Disney through a Disney-specific service just for streaming Disney content, as much as I like Disney movies.

[sdrothrock]

Why does it have to be just Disney content? Keep in mind that even that is not just the movies, but also all of the TV content that's run on the Disney Channel.

Disney also owns Marvel, which brings all Marvel content.

Disney also owns Star Wars now, too.

Disney also owns ABC and ESPN.

One of the major complaints with all of these streaming companies is "no sports" -- imagine if Disney leveraged their sports library and technology to bring live streams to their library? How about old classic games? Best Of series?

It seems like Disney is actually in a FANTASTIC position to provide entertainment for every single person in the family.

[ricardobeat]

The article addresses this specifically, saying Disney does not intend to make any of that content available in this new service.

[sdrothrock]

I didn't see that. What I saw was Iger saying that they're still considering what this theoretical service may offer and whether it makes sense to have everything under a Disney brand.

[usrusr]

A subscription for those who want to actively avoid anything non-Disney? I know that market exists, but it can't be very big. When I first read about Disney launching their own streaming subscription I was undecided between corporate hubris and me underestimating their off-brand catalog, but this seems to decide it.

[pgodzin]

What's the difference at that point if Disney's content is on Amazon rather than Netflix. They are betting that their entire catalog (ABC, Marvel, Star Wars, ESPN, etc) is worth more direct to consumer than whatever small fraction they are getting of every subscriber fee.

[snuxoll]

I don't think Disney produces enough content that could justify such a service, they have a diverse catalog but it really doesn't have the depth.

Maybe I'm weird, but I get my fix of Disney IP's by purchasing a Blu-Ray once or twice a year - I can't stand the garbage Disney puts on their cable channels (seriously, to hell with the Disney Channel and Disney Jr.), their classic movie library I won't let my daughter near, I couldn't care less about anything on ESPN and ABC. That basically leaves Pixar, Star Wars, (sometimes) Marvel and on (rare) occasion their newer films and licensed content. Why on earth would I pay $5-10/mo ($60-120/yr) when I can spend $20-40/yr on a disc or two?

[icebraining]

Right, but you are weird, just like many of us here. Hannah Montana had an average viewership of 4-5M people. In comparison, Breaking Bad only surpassed the 2M in the last season, and Mad Men never hit 3M. And while HM is a peak, all their Disney Channel live-action show are in the 1-2M zone.

[chi17]

The article indicated otherwise:

'At the same time, Disney might not even include all of its own content in the service. Iger said of Marvel and Star Wars, “We’ve also thought about including Marvel and Star Wars as part of the Disney-branded service, but there where we want to be mindful of the Star Wars fan and the Marvel fan and to what extent those fans are either overlapped with Disney fans or they’re completely basically separate or incremental to Disney fans.”'

If the only way I could stream new Marvel movies would be to go to Disney directly, I might pay per movie, or if it were cheap enough, I'd pay $7 for a single month of service to get that new movie or watch the original Tron re-engineered to look incredible in 8K one day when I'm 80 years old and have an old 8K monitor. But, I feel safe in my decision not to pay for a streaming service of only Disney content; I'm not a Zac Efron fan, though I did think Radio Rebel was Debbie Ryan's best movie.