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

[mikejs78]

@Tony Perkis while I'll agree with @BrianLo your responses are well thought out there is a couple flaws in your thinking.

1. Disney couldn't initially put Hulu under a single streaming app because they didn't own it fully. Even now technically they don't own it fully, but they do now own the controlling share which gives them more power. Its the reason why they started marketing it as well as ESPN with the + to show that its under one brand. The Disney brand, all under the + apps. So you have Disney+, Hulu+, and ESPN+. So if you didn't want people to associate Hulu content with Disney, well that ship has sailed. And from what I can tell those lines will blur even more as time goes on. Maybe not a single app like myself and @BrianLo are talking about but a blurring of the lines none the less.

2. There are many reasons why you keep an existing entity that gets purchased as a named subsidiary. Specifically for tax benefits and established contracts. For example Marvel has existing contracts with Sony and Universal that as we've seen played out in the media can't just simply be rewritten. So the names of those entities must legally be maintained for such reasons.

3. From a app side you don't actually store all the content on the device. So having one app for all services wouldn't cause slow downs on the devices if written correctly. Additionally even Disney+ content is not all stored on a single server in the backend (at least it shouldn't be for many reasons). Its stored on many servers in a large server farm, likely now where Hulu content is also stored. In the world of cloud it is even possible to silo content on a single server, its called colocation. Its the ability to have a single host have a multitude of services under a single roof without co-mingling the services. In fact without going into much detail I can say they are doing this for sure, I have personal knowledge of it. It only makes sense to bring all content under one roof to save money and resources, no matter if you display it to the end user as multiple apps. Apple does the same thing for all their services as well. So does Google, Amazon, or any cloud vendor. In fact I can say that even with Amazon AWS they don't have a single server for each company they host. That would be too costly. They virtualize it under a cluster of servers and host many customers on shared hardware. Its what allows them to spin up your resources quickly for your business.

4. Corporate synergy does mean everything under one roof. Its the whole point of synergy, a larger corporation that is better than the two separate entities alone. Otherwise why merge Company A with Company B in the first place. If you have a company that can't synergize well then you have multiple competing forces that lead to all entities failing. Its the reason why you are seeing many Disney creatives from other Disney business units working on projects from another business unit. Marvel working on Lucas for example and so on.

There are other points, such as Disney removing the Fox name, but that is more for specific branding and marketing purposes. Basically to separate it from the "New Fox" company.

As someone who has worked heavily with the building of apps and has conducted numerous user studies, I can tell you that the vast majority of people prefer/do better with smaller, purpose-driven apps (especially those who are less tech savvy). It's why Facebook has multiple, separate apps that work together. It's why Google doesn't just have an all encompassing "Google App". It's why YouTube has a bunch of different apps that serve different purposes. People tend to get overwhelmed by large "kitchen-sink" apps that contain everything, and are much more comfortable with apps that are smaller in scope. Now, that's obviously not a universal sentiment, but in user study after user study that I've done for numerous apps, it's been a common thread.

It's not about performance, server space, anything like that. I'd say it's about two things: branding, and user experience (UX).

Now,

 

[mikejs78]

The Disney brand, all under the + apps. So you have Disney+, Hulu+, and ESPN+. So if you didn't want people to associate Hulu content with Disney, well that ship has sailed.

Hulu+ hasn't entered the consciousness of most people. Most people just think of it as Hulu.

Also, Disney doesn't own a monopoly on. "+", even for streaming. AppleTV+?

 

[LSLS]

Is it really that difficult and that much of a hassle to have 2 different apps?

If I'm a betting man, they separate. And I bet it for 2 reasons, both involving money. First, there is a significant base of people who only want Disney + and don't want Hulu (especially with ads). Second, it appeals much more to people that do want both to pay $7 and $11 individually than it does to pay $18 for one app.

 

[Disney Irish]

As someone who has worked heavily with the building of apps and has conducted numerous user studies, I can tell you that the vast majority of people prefer/do better with smaller, purpose-driven apps (especially those who are less tech savvy). It's why Facebook has multiple, separate apps that work together. It's why Google doesn't just have an all encompassing "Google App". It's why YouTube has a bunch of different apps that serve different purposes. People tend to get overwhelmed by large "kitchen-sink" apps that contain everything, and are much more comfortable with apps that are smaller in scope. Now, that's obviously not a universal sentiment, but in user study after user study that I've done for numerous apps, it's been a common thread.

It's not about performance, server space, anything like that. I'd say it's about two things: branding, and user experience (UX).

Now,

I don’t disagree with you that there are a set of people that don’t mind or even prefer multiple apps. Just like there are a set of people that prefer the ease of having a single app. Obviously it’s all based on personal preference which plays a huge role in this. And those as well as trends change over time. So what is in vogue with UX design today is going to change in the future. And you probably know this.

Also just like we saw the surge of cord cutting over the last 10 years, you also saw the surge of streaming services. This paradigm shift will swing back the other way in the future as people won't want to pay for 15 different services. In fact the very idea of the bundling of D+, Hulu+, and ESPN+ goes completely against the cord cutting idea. But yet its applauded because it allows consumers to get their services under a single cost savings bundle. Hmm, sounds familiar, where have we seen bundled TV services before? Oh yeah, cable companies which is what cord cutting was suppose to get away from. So what we're starting to see is that consumers actually prefer bundles. And so the paradigm shift will go back to bundled services and Disney has a lead on the game in my opinion. And this shift in my opinion will lead to consumers wanting a single entry point into bundled services.

Anyways as I said it all comes down to personal preference. And I for one would prefer a single app with access to all my content.

Hulu+ hasn't entered the consciousness of most people. Most people just think of it as Hulu.

Also, Disney doesn't own a monopoly on. "+", even for streaming. AppleTV+?

As we go on, Hulu+ will become the norm and enter consumer's lexicon.

And why did Apple do that? Why to compete with Disney and it’s trio of “+” services of course.

 

[mikejs78]

In fact the very idea of the bundling of D+, Hulu+, and ESPN+ goes completely against the cord cutting idea. But yet its applauded because it allows consumers to get their services under a single cost savings bundle. Hmm, sounds familiar, where have we seen bundled TV services before? Oh yeah, cable companies which is what cord cutting was suppose to get away from.

There are two crucial difference between the bundles of streaming services vs the bundles of cable. Cable forced you into bundles, and they were very large bundles. As a cable customer, I maybe wanted a dozen specific channels, but to get them, I had no choice but to subscribe to 100. With streaming, even with Disney's bundle, I have a choice to only get one or two of the services, but there's an incentive to get the bundle. For example, right now I don't have the bundle because I got the early multi-year D23 price for D+, and I subscribe to Hulu.

The second thing about streaming services that is very different from cable - you don't have to subscribe to all of the services all of the time. For example, I subscribed to CBS all access to watch Star Trek Picard, but now that it's done, I cancelled. I'll subscribe again when Discovery season 3 comes out. I also dropped Netflix because I don't use it much, but will subscribe again when a show I want to watch is released.

Comparing the streaming bundles to the cable bundles is comparing Apples to Oranges. The amount of flexibility and choices you get with cord cutting is far greater than you ever got with Cable. I pay less for my streaming services than I did for Cable, and get far more content than I ever had on Cable and far more flexibility to add/drop services as needed.

Anyways as I said it all comes down to personal preference. And I for one would prefer a single app with access to all my content.

It does come down to personal preference, but some trends are more preferred among more users than not. And in the user studies I have done, something along the lines of 60-70% of people prefer smaller, more purpose driven apps.

That doesn't negate the 30-40% of people who prefer single apps. But it gives you a clue as to why companies generally create more apps than a single app. And yes, trends change and user preferences change over time, but that's where things stand at the moment.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Should Disney combine D+ and Hulu in one app? Debatable.

Will they? Absolutely not. Besides not allowing R rated movies near the "Disney brand", Hulu is more than a library, it's also a live TV streaming device. It has its own regulatory issues to deal with. Issues that differ in every national market.

 

[Disney Irish]

There are two crucial difference between the bundles of streaming services vs the bundles of cable. Cable forced you into bundles, and they were very large bundles. As a cable customer, I maybe wanted a dozen specific channels, but to get them, I had no choice but to subscribe to 100. With streaming, even with Disney's bundle, I have a choice to only get one or two of the services, but there's an incentive to get the bundle. For example, right now I don't have the bundle because I got the early multi-year D23 price for D+, and I subscribe to Hulu.

The second thing about streaming services that is very different from cable - you don't have to subscribe to all of the services all of the time. For example, I subscribed to CBS all access to watch Star Trek Picard, but now that it's done, I cancelled. I'll subscribe again when Discovery season 3 comes out. I also dropped Netflix because I don't use it much, but will subscribe again when a show I want to watch is released.

Comparing the streaming bundles to the cable bundles is comparing Apples to Oranges. The amount of flexibility and choices you get with cord cutting is far greater than you ever got with Cable. I pay less for my streaming services than I did for Cable, and get far more content than I ever had on Cable and far more flexibility to add/drop services as needed.

Agree to disagree. I just don't see a long term trend where consumers will want to pay for multiple services to get their content. Even for short term bingers such as yourself. Its a long term strategy that I don't see being sustainable. Namely because this type of subscription model where you have consumers signing up, binging a show, and then canceling isn't a sustainable model long term. Companies will be finding ways to keep subs longer, even if it means adding termination fees to prevent cancelling.

It does come down to personal preference, but some trends are more preferred among more users than not. And in the user studies I have done, something along the lines of 60-70% of people prefer smaller, more purpose driven apps.

That doesn't negate the 30-40% of people who prefer single apps. But it gives you a clue as to why companies generally create more apps than a single app. And yes, trends change and user preferences change over time, but that's where things stand at the moment.

Again agree to disagree. I'm already starting to see business apps consolidate into unified apps. And based on many years of watching trends such as this typically business trends like this are 2-5 years ahead of consumer trends. So I'll say we'll see a shift back to unified consumer apps here in the medium to long term. Just my opinion, but its something I predict.

 

[BrianLo]

Should Disney combine D+ and Hulu in one app? Debatable.

Will they? Absolutely not. Besides not allowing R rated movies near the "Disney brand", Hulu is more than a library, it's also a live TV streaming device. It has its own regulatory issues to deal with. Issues that differ in every national market.

I actually don't see Hulu being used for live streaming Internationally. All of our major networks already have an app and integration into devices and primarily license all the content from the US four majors. I don't think that will stop.

Hulu will really have to stand on its own catalogue - which is maybe why it is taking them 7 years.

 

[NateD1226]

Not again...

Live-Action 'Robin Hood' Remake In The Works For Disney+

Disney is going to tell the tale of Robin Hood again, as the studio is in development on a live-action remake of the 1973 animated film.

thedisinsider.com

 

[PiratesMansion]

Not again...

Live-Action 'Robin Hood' Remake In The Works For Disney+

Disney is going to tell the tale of Robin Hood again, as the studio is in development on a live-action remake of the 1973 animated film.

thedisinsider.com

If they MUST make these (and it's clear that Disney believes they must), better on D+ than in actual movie theaters.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Not again...

Live-Action 'Robin Hood' Remake In The Works For Disney+

Disney is going to tell the tale of Robin Hood again, as the studio is in development on a live-action remake of the 1973 animated film.

thedisinsider.com

That it's going to be a musical may elevate it from blandness of the original.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Not again...

Live-Action 'Robin Hood' Remake In The Works For Disney+

Disney is going to tell the tale of Robin Hood again, as the studio is in development on a live-action remake of the 1973 animated film.

thedisinsider.com

They already have a live-action Robin Hood on Disney+

 

[MisterPenguin]

List of films and television series featuring Robin Hood - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Tony Perkis]

List of films and television series featuring Robin Hood - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Still the best.

 

[Tony Perkis]

@Tony Perkis while I'll agree with @BrianLo your responses are well thought out there is a couple flaws in your thinking.

1. Disney couldn't initially put Hulu under a single streaming app because they didn't own it fully. Even now technically they don't own it fully, but they do now own the controlling share which gives them more power. Its the reason why they started marketing it as well as ESPN with the + to show that its under one brand. The Disney brand, all under the + apps. So you have Disney+, Hulu+, and ESPN+. So if you didn't want people to associate Hulu content with Disney, well that ship has sailed. And from what I can tell those lines will blur even more as time goes on. Maybe not a single app like myself and @BrianLo are talking about but a blurring of the lines none the less.

Disney owns 67% of Hulu. They control the future of the platform.

I assume they'll be respectful of current licensing deals, because there's no reason to make enemies amongst competitors that won't go away anytime soon.

Also, you need to drop the "+" as a branding option for Hulu. You know why Hulu+ doesn't exist currently? Because this existed early in Hulu's life:

This was the pay service when Hulu offered a free option. There is a strong possibility that Comcast owns that branding, since they were the primary backers when that option was introduced.

2. There are many reasons why you keep an existing entity that gets purchased as a named subsidiary. Specifically for tax benefits and established contracts. For example Marvel has existing contracts with Sony and Universal that as we've seen played out in the media can't just simply be rewritten. So the names of those entities must legally be maintained for such reasons.

I don't see how anything in this post invalidates my previous comment.

3. From a app side you don't actually store all the content on the device.

I never once made any indication that content is stored on the device. I think I was pretty clear where the content comes from.

So having one app for all services wouldn't cause slow downs on the devices if written correctly. Additionally even Disney+ content is not all stored on a single server in the backend (at least it shouldn't be for many reasons). Its stored on many servers in a large server farm, likely now where Hulu content is also stored. In the world of cloud it is even possible to silo content on a single server, its called colocation. Its the ability to have a single host have a multitude of services under a single roof without co-mingling the services. In fact without going into much detail I can say they are doing this for sure, I have personal knowledge of it. It only makes sense to bring all content under one roof to save money and resources, no matter if you display it to the end user as multiple apps. Apple does the same thing for all their services as well. So does Google, Amazon, or any cloud vendor. In fact I can say that even with Amazon AWS they don't have a single server for each company they host. That would be too costly. They virtualize it under a cluster of servers and host many customers on shared hardware. Its what allows them to spin up your resources quickly for your business.

Having 3 apps combined into one is asking a coder to perform magic to make things run seamlessly. That's an unreasonable expectation, only to find out after the fact that the end user was fine with 3 apps with differing purposes all along.

The more you add into a product, the more it complicates coding, which further complicates efficiencies. Microsoft made a recent gamble with combining the Word/Power Point/Excel app into a singular Office app, and I have no idea if it'll be successful (I assume the vast majority of operations will be handled via cloud like Google), but there's a reason the vast majority of services are getting smaller and more streamlined.

4. Corporate synergy does mean everything under one roof. Its the whole point of synergy, a larger corporation that is better than the two separate entities alone. Otherwise why merge Company A with Company B in the first place. If you have a company that can't synergize well then you have multiple competing forces that lead to all entities failing. Its the reason why you are seeing many Disney creatives from other Disney business units working on projects from another business unit. Marvel working on Lucas for example and so on.

You pretty much made my point for me.

Marvel and Lucasfilm aren't operating under the same roof, unless same roof means the main conglomerate in general, which is misleading, since the leaders of the conglomerate don't deal with day-to-day operations of subsidiaries and override their management (hopefully) on a consistently scheduled basis.

It's pretty clear that Marvel and Lucasfilm operate independently of each other in general, and pull from shared resources whenever.

There are other points, such as Disney removing the Fox name, but that is more for specific branding and marketing purposes. Basically to separate it from the "New Fox" company.

Disney removed "Fox" from 20th Century because Sinclair Broadcasting still owns regional Fox Sports channels and Fox News Channels. That's the primary reason for the rebranding - to avoid confusion, avoid unneeded notoriety, and build on a new foundation.

 

[Disney Irish]

Disney owns 67% of Hulu. They control the future of the platform.

I assume they'll be respectful of current licensing deals, because there's no reason to make enemies amongst competitors that won't go away anytime soon.

Also, you need to drop the "+" as a branding option for Hulu. You know why Hulu+ doesn't exist currently? Because this existed early in Hulu's life:

View attachment 463155

This was the pay service when Hulu offered a free option. There is a strong possibility that Comcast owns that branding, since they were the primary backers when that option was introduced.



I don't see how anything in this post invalidates my previous comment.



I never once made any indication that content is stored on the device. I think I was pretty clear where the content comes from.



Having 3 apps combined into one is asking a coder to perform magic to make things run seamlessly. That's an unreasonable expectation, only to find out after the fact that the end user was fine with 3 apps with differing purposes all along.

The more you add into a product, the more it complicates coding, which further complicates efficiencies. Microsoft made a recent gamble with combining the Word/Power Point/Excel app into a singular Office app, and I have no idea if it'll be successful (I assume the vast majority of operations will be handled via cloud like Google), but there's a reason the vast majority of services are getting smaller and more streamlined.



You pretty much made my point for me.

Marvel and Lucasfilm aren't operating under the same roof, unless same roof means the main conglomerate in general, which is misleading, since the leaders of the conglomerate don't deal with day-to-day operations of subsidiaries and override their management (hopefully) on a consistently scheduled basis.

It's pretty clear that Marvel and Lucasfilm operate independently of each other in general, and pull from shared resources whenever.



Disney removed "Fox" from 20th Century because Sinclair Broadcasting still owns regional Fox Sports channels and Fox News Channels. That's the primary reason for the rebranding - to avoid confusion, avoid unneeded notoriety, and build on a new foundation.

I think your assessment is incorrect especially when it comes to the overall structure of Disney. Coming from a company that is run in the same structure I can tell you that Disney divisions are not run with the independent autonomy that you think they are. If it was there wouldn't be multiple threads on forums like this claiming that Disney ruined Star Wars. And given your own contributions to those threads I don't know if you even really believe what you just posted. Basically there is a lot more cross-over and a lot more integration of the divisions than you realize. I know it doesn't seem like it sometimes but its there.

Myself, and obviously others, have an opinion that a single unified app would be better for consumers. Obviously there are others such as yourself that don't think so. You gave the example of Microsoft with going back to their combined suite of Office products (they used to be combined, then they were separated, and now being combined once again). As I indicated in an earlier post a lot of business apps are doing the same. Because consumers use these same apps across the board, it tends to lend the trends in consumer products. So that is where I believe other consumer products will go. Will that mean Disney will do the same with their multiple streaming products, I have no idea. But I really do hope so, again just my opinion.

I'm just going to end this with saying again I disagree with some of your assessments but appreciate your opinion. I can see where you and the others are coming from, but just disagree. I think we can put this topic to bed. We're not going to see eye-to-eye on it and that is ok.

 

[mikejs78]

As I indicated in an earlier post a lot of business apps are doing the same. Because consumers use these same apps across the board, it tends to lend the trends in consumer products. So that is where I believe other consumer products will go

Two points about this irrespective of the current debate. First, it is incorrect to say that consumer apps follow business apps. In fact, the inverse is usually true. Business apps tend to lag behind consumer apps which are more forward-facing. Business apps tend to lag three to five years behind consumer app trends. Hence the reason that it took businesses a number of years before they started adopting mobile platforms to a large degree.

Second, business apps have different spheres of influence that drive how they are developed to then consumer apps. Consumer apps tend to be UX first because if your user experience is bad, you fail immediately as a consumer app. Business apps have many other drivers such as cost, efficiency of internal development teams, captive audience, that drive how they are developed. I've also seen numerous businesses attempt to combine into a single large uber-app, and every one of them received poor usability scores from internal employees or outside customers/contractors. But the business persisted in pushing them because it was more economical to do so, and the users of the app where I captive audience. The apps either failed as no employees would actually use them, or they marginally succeeded in that employees would use the apps because they had no alternative, but complain about them extensively in user surveys.. You don't have those same kinds of pressures on the vast majority of consumer apps.

 

[Disney Irish]

Two points about this irrespective of the current debate. First, it is incorrect to say that consumer apps follow business apps. In fact, the inverse is usually true. Business apps tend to lag behind consumer apps which are more forward-facing. Business apps tend to lag three to five years behind consumer app trends. Hence the reason that it took businesses a number of years before they started adopting mobile platforms to a large degree.

Second, business apps have different spheres of influence that drive how they are developed to then consumer apps. Consumer apps tend to be UX first because if your user experience is bad, you fail immediately as a consumer app. Business apps have many other drivers such as cost, efficiency of internal development teams, captive audience, that drive how they are developed. I've also seen numerous businesses attempt to combine into a single large uber-app, and every one of them received poor usability scores from internal employees or outside customers/contractors. But the business persisted in pushing them because it was more economical to do so, and the users of the app where I captive audience. The apps either failed as no employees would actually use them, or they marginally succeeded in that employees would use the apps because they had no alternative, but complain about them extensively in user surveys.. You don't have those same kinds of pressures on the vast majority of consumer apps.

Again agree to disagree, after over 25 years of watching and being on the front lines of business/consumer technological trends I have my opinions for a reason. We'll see how things turn out over the next 3-5 years. Thanks for the debate.

 

[Darkprime]

 

[NateD1226]

New Look at The Disney+ Film âSecret Society of Second-Born Royalsâ Released

Entertainment Weekly has released some first look images for the upcoming Disney+ film Secret Society of Second-Born Royals.

thedisinsider.com