Disney's Streaming Services: Disney+ (and Hulu, ESPN+, Star, & hotstar)

[CaptainAmerica]

Please educate me, as I have access to both D+/Hulu and D+/Star so would be curious on what if any is not there, what Disney owned content (including 20th Century) is available on D+/Hulu that isn't on D+/Star?

Edit - I will also add the Disney has been adding a lot of the Disney owned TV shows to Star recently as well, including new episodes, to put it on the same footing there as Hulu. So basically when a new episode is released to Hulu its released to Star around the same time. So even that content is also now pretty much the same.

My comments weren't limited to "Disney-owned" content. All I said was that you don't get everything on Star that you get on Hulu. Most of the differences are going to be in licensed content.

Schitt's Creek, for example, is on American Hulu (not Hulu Live, vanilla Hulu), and not on Canadian Disney+ with Star. Monday Night RAW streams next-day on American Hulu, and is not available in Canada. There are others.

 

[_caleb]

My comments weren't limited to "Disney-owned" content. All I said was that you don't get everything on Star that you get on Hulu.

Schitt's Creek, for example, is on American Hulu (not Hulu Live, vanilla Hulu), and not on Canadian Disney+ with Star.

Isn't Schitt's Creek owned by CBC and licensed to Hulu (and Netflix)? Any ideas why it's not offered in the D+/Star package?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Isn't Schitt's Creek owned by CBC and licensed to Hulu (and Netflix)? Any ideas why it's not offered in the D+/Star package?

Disney only licensed the US rights.

 

[Disney Irish]

My comments weren't limited to "Disney-owned" content. All I said was that you don't get everything on Star that you get on Hulu. Most of the differences are going to be in licensed content.

Schitt's Creek, for example, is on American Hulu (not Hulu Live, vanilla Hulu), and not on Canadian Disney+ with Star. Monday Night RAW streams next-day on American Hulu, and is not available in Canada. There are others.

And that is the only difference, as I mentioned I'm not counting Hulu TV which includes the licensed shows from other studios.

On just a pure "Disney owned" content basis they both have the same content.

 

[_caleb]

Disney only licensed the US rights.

I'm curious why they'd do that, and for how many properties they've done that. Maybe metrics showed appeal primarily for D+ audiences in the US?

 

[Disney Analyst]

Yikes.

I don’t understand this? Why do you care how we’ve engaged in Netflix before? And how we don’t feel it’s worth it for us to purchase for ourselves?

Judgemental much?

 

[Disney Irish]

I'm curious why they'd do that, and for how many properties they've done that. Maybe metrics showed appeal primarily for D+ audiences in the US?

It likely wasn't Disney's decision, but rather the show's owners only licensing the US rights.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

And that is the only difference, as I mentioned I'm not counting Hulu TV which includes the licensed shows from other studios.

On just a pure "Disney owned" content basis they both have the same content.

You seem to be misunderstanding what Hulu is.

Hulu... NOT HULU LIVE... includes loads of licensed content from other studios. Hulu is not limited to Disney owned content.

Schitt's Creek is on regular old Hulu. The one you get for $10 bundled with Disney+. You don't need Hulu Live to watch it.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I'm curious why they'd do that, and for how many properties they've done that. Maybe metrics showed appeal primarily for D+ audiences in the US?

The content owners choose how to license their stuff. They might do a global license. They might do regional. They might go by country. They might go by language.

 

[Disney Irish]

You seem to be misunderstanding what Hulu is.

Hulu... NOT HULU LIVE... includes loads of licensed content from other studios. Hulu is not limited to Disney owned content.

I'm well aware, but thank you. This is why I was saying I wasn't counting it and just going based on "Disney owned" content.

For "licensed content" only you are correct its not likely available on Star depending on the rights. It'll be the same the other way around too, there are some "licensed content" outside the US that will only be available on Star and not on Hulu, I believe some of the Korean shows are that way but would have to double check.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I'm well aware, but thank you. This is why I was saying I wasn't counting it and just going based on "Disney owned" content.

For "licensed content" only you are correct its not likely available on Star depending on the rights. It'll be the same the other way around too, there are some "licensed content" outside the US that will only be available on Star and not on Hulu, I believe some of the Korean shows are that way but would have to double check.

And that's all I was saying.

Someone made the claim that Disney+ with Star in Canada gets you all the same stuff as Disney+ with Hulu in the United States at a lower price, and I said that was incorrect.

 

[Disney Irish]

And that's all I was saying.

Someone made the claim that Disney+ with Star in Canada gets you all the same stuff as Disney+ with Hulu in the United States at a lower price, and I said that was incorrect.

Except as just pointed out it would work both ways, as regionally locked licensed content is always going to be different. This is true even for Netflx where content in one region won't be available in another region even if the region without the content costs less.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Except as just pointed out it would work both ways, as regionally locked licensed content is always going to be different. This is true even for Netflx where content in one region won't be available in another region even if the region without the content costs less.

EXACTLY! And the prices are different too! That's my whole freaking point.

 

[Elijah Abrams]

Let’s face it : When Disney starts licensing their content to third-party streamers instead of tending to Disney+ and Hulu more often, then the Disney/20th merger has gone nowhere. Disney and 20th would rather license their content when they are separate entities instead of merged ones. The time has come for shareholders (especially @Disney Irish) to face the facts.

 

[_caleb]

Let’s face it : When Disney starts licensing their content to third-party streamers instead of tending to Disney+ and Hulu more often, then the Disney/20th merger has gone nowhere. Disney and 20th would rather license their content when they are separate entities instead of merged ones. The time has come for shareholders (especially @Disney Irish) to face the facts.

Huh? Why would you think this? (And why would you frame it in such a condescending way?)

Disney put almost all their content on D+ and raided the Fox/20thC. library for what they thought would add value for their subscribers. This got them to be the subscriber base they were after. Now, they're moving to the monetization phase of the plan, which is "is everything making us as much money as possible?"

Licensing is one way to make money off content that isn't adding as much value or might serve to attract new subs from other platforms. How is this an indication that the "merger" has "gone nowhere?"

 

[Elijah Abrams]

Huh? Why would you think this? (And why would you frame it in such a condescending way?)

Disney put almost all their content on D+ and raided the Fox/20thC. library for what they thought would add value for their subscribers. This got them to be the subscriber base they were after. Now, they're moving to the monetization phase of the plan, which is "is everything making us as much money as possible?"

Licensing is one way to make money off content that isn't adding as much value or might serve to attract new subs from other platforms. How is this an indication that the "merger" has "gone nowhere?"

There was no monetization phase in Disney’s streaming plans at all when they were first announced. Also, the streaming era is starting to slowly die off, especially with FAST services starting to rise. Plus, if Disney monetizes only 20th Century content, it wouldn’t make any sense, since, separately, 20th can do that on its own in order to make money.

 

[_caleb]

FAST is still streaming. Just with ads.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "no monetization phase," but from the beginning, Disney's plan was to spend like crazy to amass a huge subscriber base, and then optimize (control costs, add the ad-supported tier) to achieve profitability by fiscal 2024.

Despite high content costs, Disney expects OTT service to profit in fiscal 2024

The media conglomerate will allocate $1 billion for original programming on its streaming service Disney+ in fiscal 2020 and about $2.5 billion four years later.

www.spglobal.com

 

[CaptainAmerica]

There was no monetization phase in Disney’s streaming plans at all when they were first announced. Also, the streaming era is starting to slowly die off, especially with FAST services starting to rise. Plus, if Disney monetizes only 20th Century content, it wouldn’t make any sense, since, separately, 20th can do that on its own in order to make money.

Until someone figures out how to attach a DVR to those FAST services, and 'round and 'round we go.

 

[Elijah Abrams]

There was no monetization phase in Disney’s streaming plans at all when they were first announced. Also, the streaming era is starting to slowly die off, especially with FAST services starting to rise. Plus, if Disney monetizes only 20th Century content, it wouldn’t make any sense, since, separately, 20th can do that on its own in order to make money.

The Bloomberg article also mentions that Disney is shifting away from their streaming strategy, which puts their Fox purchase in question. Said purchase was for their streaming strategy.

 

[Disney Irish]

Let’s face it : When Disney starts licensing their content to third-party streamers instead of tending to Disney+ and Hulu more often, then the Disney/20th merger has gone nowhere. Disney and 20th would rather license their content when they are separate entities instead of merged ones. The time has come for shareholders (especially @Disney Irish) to face the facts.

There was no monetization phase in Disney’s streaming plans at all when they were first announced. Also, the streaming era is starting to slowly die off, especially with FAST services starting to rise. Plus, if Disney monetizes only 20th Century content, it wouldn’t make any sense, since, separately, 20th can do that on its own in order to make money.

Monetization of content has ALWAYS been part of the plan. Whether through placing it on their own services, adding an ad tier for ads to play during content viewing, or to license it out to other services, the plan has been to monetize the content. Iger doesn't have to announce every piece of his plan, nor does it have to be followed to the letter. Also the 21CF merger hasn't gone nowhere, plenty of things that prove that, we've already gone over that.

Also it was Murdoch who decided 20th Century Fox could no longer do it on its own, he was always going to sell the film assets of the company. So the part here where facts need to be faced is that 20th Century Fox was not and is not going to be an independent studio any more. It was always going to be bought by another company, whether Disney, Comcast, Amazon, Apple, Sony, someone. It was always going to become part of another company. That isn't on Iger, blame Murdoch for that.