https://www.businessinsider.com/disney- ... mD2NlmJ9jA

Disney is entering the streaming war this year with its Netflix rival, Disney Plus.

On top of its already extensive library of content, Disney is developing several original shows and movies for the platform, including two live-action "Star Wars" shows and Marvel TV series spinning out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Disney has confirmed that one starring Tom Hiddleston as Loki is in the works, and Variety reported last year that more are in development starring Scarlet Witch, Winter Soldier, and the Falcon. They will be big-budget, limited series of six to eight episodes.

Its original content also includes a "Monsters Inc." series, a "High School Musical" series, and movies starring Anna Kendrick and Willem Dafoe.

Disney will go head-to-head with Netflix, ending a licensing deal with the streaming giant this year. All new Disney theatrical releases, starting with "Captain Marvel," will eventually land on Disney Plus.

Wall Street analysts have high expectations for Disney's streaming efforts. Barclays analysts said in a report on Wednesday that Disney could reach 170 million subscribers by 2025 among its three services: Disney Plus, Hulu (of which it now owns 60%), and ESPN Plus. UBS analysts estimated in January that Disney Plus alone could reach 50 million subscribers in five years.

But the service could face hurdles. Some of Disney's library, such as old "Star Wars" movies, could be missing because of licensing agreements, making its original content all the more important.

Obviously, I'm here for The Mandalorian & the Cassian Andor show. And the Clone Wars. Of the Marvel ones, the Loki series interests me much more than that other one they talk about, but I'm sure I'll check them both out, and whatever other Marvel content they come up with. Other than that seems like there's going to be a lot of children's content, as should be expected. Moderately intrigued by the Sword In The Stone remake and High Fidelity-inspired series.

Yeah why the shows on Netflix will be pulled and have been. Disney has bought up a lot of the popular show license now so it's going to get initial subscription value right away.

A couple years in were going to see secondary streamers bought up by Disney and Comcast and it will be a monopoly again like the Bells and Cable was a few years back.

So we got an official announcement, Disney Plus will be launching Nov 12 at a price of 6.99/mo.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/11/disney- ... month.html

Definitely looking forward to the Nat Geo series "The World According To Jeff Goldblum" among others.

Lots of new Marvel series confirmed in that article too.

Nope. Not doing it. I am already paying enough for Hulu, Amazon, Netflix and DISH. I live in the country, and cannot even get high speed internet so I can’t even cut the cord. Our DSL speed is barely fast enough to stream anything. I will buy the Marvel movies and shows through Vudu when they become available.

Seahwkgal wrote:Nope. Not doing it. I am already paying enough for Hulu, Amazon, Netflix and DISH. I live in the country, and cannot even get high speed internet so I can’t even cut the cord. Our DSL speed is barely fast enough to stream anything. I will buy the Marvel movies and shows through Vudu when they become available.

Drop DISH.. no need to watch a show that's not streaming at this point, unless the service cost is tied to your DSL fee.

Im excited for Disney +... but i have 5 kids

Uncle Si wrote:
Im excited for Disney +... but i have 5 kids

From what I'm reading about content you're in the prime demo for Disney Plus, people with kids. I honestly see very little I'd be interested in to justify paying for another streaming service.

Which is smart on Disney's part, they know the market is already saturated with the main streaming services catering to adult content, why not go hard after families? Works with their brand and wheelhouse of what Disney does best.

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Uncle Si wrote:
Im excited for Disney +... but i have 5 kids

From what I'm reading about content you're in the prime demo for Disney Plus, people with kids. I honestly see very little I'd be interested in to justify paying for another streaming service.

Which is smart on Disney's part, they know the market is already saturated with the main streaming services catering to adult content, why not go hard after families? Works with their brand and wheelhouse of what Disney does best.

The new marvel and star wars series debuting will draw the 20 somethings too.

No need to compete with the other services. We may even drop netflix.

My TV came with Fandango pre-loaded. We rent movies there.

Uncle Si wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Uncle Si wrote:
Im excited for Disney +... but i have 5 kids

From what I'm reading about content you're in the prime demo for Disney Plus, people with kids. I honestly see very little I'd be interested in to justify paying for another streaming service.

Which is smart on Disney's part, they know the market is already saturated with the main streaming services catering to adult content, why not go hard after families? Works with their brand and wheelhouse of what Disney does best.

The new marvel and star wars series debuting will draw the 20 somethings too. .

Maybe. I have two 20 somethings and they're cheap as hell........so I highly doubt they'd give up their beloved Netflix in order to watch 2-3 shows at best on another service.

Maybe in 3-4 years when Disney has their library at full force and way more original content, that's when I think if all things go well they'll be a serious threat to Netflix, Amazon and Hulu.

Uncle Si wrote:

Seahwkgal wrote:Nope. Not doing it. I am already paying enough for Hulu, Amazon, Netflix and DISH. I live in the country, and cannot even get high speed internet so I can’t even cut the cord. Our DSL speed is barely fast enough to stream anything. I will buy the Marvel movies and shows through Vudu when they become available.

Drop DISH.. no need to watch a show that's not streaming at this point, unless the service cost is tied to your DSL fee.

Im excited for Disney +... but i have 5 kids

Dude, I would love to drop DISH. Here is the problem: I have only ONE internet option out here. ATT DSL service. Like, I said, it’s barely fast enough to stream ON ONE DEVICE. We have two SmartTVs, and my recluse of a stepson streams video games when he is home. He’s 22 years old, really good looking and NEVER socializes with his peers. All he wants to do is go in his cave(room) and game, which means that on weekends if my husband and I want to binge watch a show, we have to ask him not to game. If we had high speed internet out here that would be no problem.
The messed up thing is that ATT charges more a month than cable does for high speed. Our monthly internet bill ranges from 55 to 85 a month depending on how much we stream. Yeah, there’s a cap on the data, which is BS. It’s a line in the ground, not a freaking cell phone.

So instead of paying $50 a month for cable, we get to spend $50 a month subscribing to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and Disney Plus. Nice.

fenderbender123 wrote:So instead of paying $50 a month for cable, we get to spend $50 a month subscribing to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and Disney Plus. Nice.

Yes, because thats where all the good shows are.

Plus.. you get multiple subscriptions. If you have friends, you split the cost

Seahwkgal wrote:

Uncle Si wrote:

Seahwkgal wrote:Nope. Not doing it. I am already paying enough for Hulu, Amazon, Netflix and DISH. I live in the country, and cannot even get high speed internet so I can’t even cut the cord. Our DSL speed is barely fast enough to stream anything. I will buy the Marvel movies and shows through Vudu when they become available.

Drop DISH.. no need to watch a show that's not streaming at this point, unless the service cost is tied to your DSL fee.

Im excited for Disney +... but i have 5 kids

Dude, I would love to drop DISH. Here is the problem: I have only ONE internet option out here. ATT DSL service. Like, I said, it’s barely fast enough to stream ON ONE DEVICE. We have two SmartTVs, and my recluse of a stepson streams video games when he is home. He’s 22 years old, really good looking and NEVER socializes with his peers. All he wants to do is go in his cave(room) and game, which means that on weekends if my husband and I want to binge watch a show, we have to ask him not to game. If we had high speed internet out here that would be no problem.
The messed up thing is that ATT charges more a month than cable does for high speed. Our monthly internet bill ranges from 55 to 85 a month depending on how much we stream. Yeah, there’s a cap on the data, which is BS. It’s a line in the ground, not a freaking cell phone.

That does suck. DISH and cable in general is a scattergun use of money.

Read where Disney who owns 60 percent of Hulu wants to buy out the rest and then bundle Hulu, Disney+ and ESPN, this is just the beginning folks.

fenderbender123 wrote:So instead of paying $50 a month for cable, we get to spend $50 a month subscribing to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and Disney Plus. Nice.

You also have the freedom to cancel any time without paying an astronomical fee. So you can binge a season of 1 show, cancel that subscription and binge another. The only reason to keep 1 year round if youre concerned about money is amazon prime for the shopping.

Disney has announced a streaming bundle containing Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+ for $12.99 a month. Piecemeal, they'd cost $17.97. This is potentially a good thing. Bundling services could force other content providers to streamline their offers (I'm looking at you, WarnerMedia).

https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/6/20757626/disney-plus-espn-hulu-bundle-price-date-streaming-service

I'm interested to see how quickly this goes south for Disney. ESPN plus and Hulu are hemorrhaging money which is why they are packaging everything together.

Disney has an impressive library with strong IP's, but they don't stand a chance against Amazon in a streaming war. Amazon has the infrastructure and capital to destroy Disney's and Netflix's streaming services if they wanted to. Both Disney and Netflix use Amazon's infrastructure for streaming, and considering there is no viable option outside of AWS for streaming, it's only a matter of time before Netflix and Disney are apart of Amazon prime in some shape or form.

Eventually Amazon will own everything.

Zebulon Dak wrote:Eventually Amazon will own everything.

Walmart could buy Amazon twice over.

I wish that were a joke.

I think there will be about 5 or 6 brands running everything within the next 20 years. Probably Amazon, Walmart, Disney, Google, maybe Apple and Sony. AT&T and Comcast are wildcards.

Ma Bell, look at it and where everything is now after their divestiture, Comcast and Turner, Cox booing the big players in cable are going to have to adapt like the Bells did getting into communications systems and not just dial tone.

These streaming services are going to be a lot like the cable companies and the Bells, out of the gate everyone will be trying to make a play for the market.

Disney and Comcast have a huge leg up since they own content, production companies networks etc. Comcast already has a highway and are going wireless also.

Now lets throw in Space X, don't need Fiber, Don't need Coax, Don't need copper.

What they do need is a distribution method and a receiving hub for the content they are going to sell, or re sell.....


Disney owns so many things we don't know about I would not count them out, Comcast is who will be re inventing itself shortly, they re distribute streamers now but at some point there is going to be a pay for content war. People are not going to buy 20 streaming services as content gets spread around.

Maulbert wrote:

Zebulon Dak wrote:Eventually Amazon will own everything.

Walmart could buy Amazon twice over.

I wish that were a joke.

I think there will be about 5 or 6 brands running everything within the next 20 years. Probably Amazon, Walmart, Disney, Google, maybe Apple and Sony. AT&T and Comcast are wildcards.

Amazon's market cap is 3x higher than Walmart's right now. Walmart makes most of its revenue from a dying business model, and they are years behind Amazon in terms of eCommerce. They can't afford to buy Amazon.

knownone wrote:I'm interested to see how quickly this goes south for Disney. ESPN plus and Hulu are hemorrhaging money which is why they are packaging everything together.

Disney has an impressive library with strong IP's, but they don't stand a chance against Amazon in a streaming war. Amazon has the infrastructure and capital to destroy Disney's and Netflix's streaming services if they wanted to. Both Disney and Netflix use Amazon's infrastructure for streaming, and considering there is no viable option outside of AWS for streaming, it's only a matter of time before Netflix and Disney are apart of Amazon prime in some shape or form.

LOL, you don't know what you're talking about. Google has larger and more efficiently scalable infrastructure than Amazon does.

RolandDeschain wrote:

knownone wrote:I'm interested to see how quickly this goes south for Disney. ESPN plus and Hulu are hemorrhaging money which is why they are packaging everything together.

Disney has an impressive library with strong IP's, but they don't stand a chance against Amazon in a streaming war. Amazon has the infrastructure and capital to destroy Disney's and Netflix's streaming services if they wanted to. Both Disney and Netflix use Amazon's infrastructure for streaming, and considering there is no viable option outside of AWS for streaming, it's only a matter of time before Netflix and Disney are apart of Amazon prime in some shape or form.

LOL, you don't know what you're talking about. Google has larger and more efficiently scalable infrastructure than Amazon does.

Care to explain? The company I work for does a lot of work with Amazon and Microsoft. So pretty much everything I know about this topic, I learned from their employees which is obviously subject to bias.

Here's what I do know. AWS has 33% of the market share, Google has 9.5%. AWS is also public; the vast majority of GC's infrastructure is used privately. On top of that, Google is not a more viable option for Netflix or Disney because they also have a competing streaming service. The only real non-competitive alternative would be Azure.

Off topic... Google's days are numbered.

knownone wrote:Care to explain? The company I work for does a lot of work with Amazon and Microsoft. So pretty much everything I know about this topic, I learned from their employees which is obviously subject to bias.

Here's what I do know. AWS has 33% of the market share, Google has 9.5%. AWS is also public; the vast majority of GC's infrastructure is used privately. On top of that, Google is not a more viable option for Netflix or Disney because they also have a competing streaming service. The only real non-competitive alternative would be Azure.

Off topic... Google's days are numbered.

You have no idea how much infrastructure Google has. You are also talking about only a small percentage of total large-scale enterprise infrastructure. Those percentages are public cloud infrastructure only. Google has tons more infrastructure that is not part of GCP for running all their own stuff. They also use top-tier enterprise hardware. AWS uses commodity-level enterprise hardware. I have friends who work in the EBS department at AWS, and one in a secretive storage-related department at GCP. I can't give specifics, but Google's infrastructure and how they purchase, design, and scale it is like a Lamborghini compared to AWS being more like a Mustang. AWS is not even in Google's league "under the hood", so to speak.

Ever notice how you can't even effectively search Amazon.com for stuff beyond the first few pages for a lot of categories? They can't even get database querying correct, or even results sorting correct. Example: go to Amazon.com, type in USB flash drive, then sort by Avg. Customer Review on the menu on the upper right. By the bottom of the first page, you're at 4.4 average review. Go to the second page of results, you've got plenty of 4.6, 4.8, etc. ones in there as well.

As someone who does work in deploying infrastructure for clients in AWS, Azure, and GCP...

Just. Lol. AWS was the first, which is why they are the biggest, when it comes to public cloud IaaS. They're more expensive than both Azure and GCP for most things, and you bet more performance from GCE than EC2 for the same price/specs in almost all scenarios. GCP is also offering some cool AI-related stuff that neither AWS nor Azure are offering, and they are rapidly growing. GCP also has the fastest growth rate of any of the big three. https://www.itprotoday.com/iaaspaas/clo ... oogle-grow

Google is not going anywhere.

Knowone is dropping facts while others are dropping conspiracy theories.

No one shreads flat-earthers like knowone. No one.

RolandDeschain wrote:

knownone wrote:Care to explain? The company I work for does a lot of work with Amazon and Microsoft. So pretty much everything I know about this topic, I learned from their employees which is obviously subject to bias.

Here's what I do know. AWS has 33% of the market share, Google has 9.5%. AWS is also public; the vast majority of GC's infrastructure is used privately. On top of that, Google is not a more viable option for Netflix or Disney because they also have a competing streaming service. The only real non-competitive alternative would be Azure.

Off topic... Google's days are numbered.

You have no idea how much infrastructure Google has. You are also talking about only a small percentage of total large-scale enterprise infrastructure. Those percentages are public cloud infrastructure only. Google has tons more infrastructure that is not part of GCP for running all their own stuff. They also use top-tier enterprise hardware. AWS uses commodity-level enterprise hardware. I have friends who work in the EBS department at AWS, and one in a secretive storage-related department at GCP. I can't give specifics, but Google's infrastructure and how they purchase, design, and scale it is like a Lamborghini compared to AWS being more like a Mustang. AWS is not even in Google's league "under the hood", so to speak.

Ever notice how you can't even effectively search Amazon.com for stuff beyond the first few pages for a lot of categories? They can't even get database querying correct, or even results sorting correct. Example: go to Amazon.com, type in USB flash drive, then sort by Avg. Customer Review on the menu on the upper right. By the bottom of the first page, you're at 4.4 average review. Go to the second page of results, you've got plenty of 4.6, 4.8, etc. ones in there as well.

As someone who does work in deploying infrastructure for clients in AWS, Azure, and GCP...

Just. Lol. AWS was the first, which is why they are the biggest, when it comes to public cloud IaaS. They're more expensive than both Azure and GCP for most things, and you bet more performance from GCE than EC2 for the same price/specs in almost all scenarios. GCP is also offering some cool AI-related stuff that neither AWS nor Azure are offering, and they are rapidly growing. GCP also has the fastest growth rate of any of the big three. https://www.itprotoday.com/iaaspaas/clo ... oogle-grow

Google is not going anywhere.

Interesting. I did mention that the vast majority of Google's infrastructure is used privately, so...

The rest of what you've said seems unrelated to my initial point, and I don't know enough about the rest to presume I have anything interesting to say. I appreciate the insight.

As for Google's days being numbered... 80-90% of their revenue comes from advertising. A significant portion of that revenue is fraudulent or reliant on invasive trackers. Most people are not aware that their privacy is being breached and sold without their permission. That's not a sustainable business model. The EU is studying ways to regulate the industry, and congress (slow old people) have only recently started looking the problem. On top of that, privacy browsing and decentralized ad exchanges are a few years away from taking a significant portion of that revenue stream.

Google will still be relevant, but will they won't compete with Amazon at least in terms of market capital.

knownone wrote:

RolandDeschain wrote:

knownone wrote:Care to explain? The company I work for does a lot of work with Amazon and Microsoft. So pretty much everything I know about this topic, I learned from their employees which is obviously subject to bias.

Here's what I do know. AWS has 33% of the market share, Google has 9.5%. AWS is also public; the vast majority of GC's infrastructure is used privately. On top of that, Google is not a more viable option for Netflix or Disney because they also have a competing streaming service. The only real non-competitive alternative would be Azure.

Off topic... Google's days are numbered.

You have no idea how much infrastructure Google has. You are also talking about only a small percentage of total large-scale enterprise infrastructure. Those percentages are public cloud infrastructure only. Google has tons more infrastructure that is not part of GCP for running all their own stuff. They also use top-tier enterprise hardware. AWS uses commodity-level enterprise hardware. I have friends who work in the EBS department at AWS, and one in a secretive storage-related department at GCP. I can't give specifics, but Google's infrastructure and how they purchase, design, and scale it is like a Lamborghini compared to AWS being more like a Mustang. AWS is not even in Google's league "under the hood", so to speak.

Ever notice how you can't even effectively search Amazon.com for stuff beyond the first few pages for a lot of categories? They can't even get database querying correct, or even results sorting correct. Example: go to Amazon.com, type in USB flash drive, then sort by Avg. Customer Review on the menu on the upper right. By the bottom of the first page, you're at 4.4 average review. Go to the second page of results, you've got plenty of 4.6, 4.8, etc. ones in there as well.

As someone who does work in deploying infrastructure for clients in AWS, Azure, and GCP...

Just. Lol. AWS was the first, which is why they are the biggest, when it comes to public cloud IaaS. They're more expensive than both Azure and GCP for most things, and you bet more performance from GCE than EC2 for the same price/specs in almost all scenarios. GCP is also offering some cool AI-related stuff that neither AWS nor Azure are offering, and they are rapidly growing. GCP also has the fastest growth rate of any of the big three. https://www.itprotoday.com/iaaspaas/clo ... oogle-grow

Google is not going anywhere.

Interesting. I did mention that the vast majority of Google's infrastructure is used privately, so...

The rest of what you've said seems unrelated to my initial point, and I don't know enough about the rest to presume I have anything interesting to say. I appreciate the insight.

As for Google's days being numbered... 80-90% of their revenue comes from advertising. A significant portion of that revenue is fraudulent or reliant on invasive trackers. Most people are not aware that their privacy is being breached and sold without their permission. That's not a sustainable business model. The EU is studying ways to regulate the industry, and congress (slow old people) have only recently started looking the problem. On top of that, privacy browsing and decentralized ad exchanges are a few years away from taking a significant portion of that revenue stream.

Google will still be relevant, but will they won't compete with Amazon at least in terms of market capital.

Until they make it illegal to track and sell on line activity then Google will rule for a long time, Money talks, stalls and gets lobbyist's and politicians behind them.

Every time you use an app or a site that agreement says they can sell your stuff as long as it doesn't violate Hippa laws and other higher level information.


You know that accept button, Old people read the whole document many times and the fine print......

chris98251 wrote:Until they make it illegal to track and sell on line activity then Google will rule for a long time, Money talks, stalls and gets lobbyist's and politicians behind them.

Every time you use an app or a site that agreement says they can sell your stuff as long as it doesn't violate Hippa laws and other higher level information.


You know that accept button, Old people read the whole document many times and the fine print......

The EU passed a law in 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation, which prevents companies from using personally identifiable information without your consent, and they can't hide that consent form in fine print / legalese. In a few years, they'll be forced to remind you that you can withdrawal your consent at any time, and that process has to be as easy as it was to opt in. That's just the beginning too, they are actively working on stricter regulations that require more transparency from companies using your data.

May of this year was the first time the senate actually had credible people in to discuss data protection. Obviously, we're still a few years behind, but things are moving in the direction of stricter regulations.

Google's tracking is pretty easy to get around, so the legality is only a small piece of the puzzle. The question comes down to whether or not privacy browsers can gain a large enough share of the market. Why? because Google's primary source of data is Chrome and to a lesser extent gmail (although for different reasons). Get people off Chrome and their market share takes a massive hit. Give advertisers an alternative that doesn't involve massive amounts of fraudulent traffic, and Google loses their hold on the market.

We'll see what happens...

knownone wrote:

RolandDeschain wrote:

knownone wrote:Care to explain? The company I work for does a lot of work with Amazon and Microsoft. So pretty much everything I know about this topic, I learned from their employees which is obviously subject to bias.

Here's what I do know. AWS has 33% of the market share, Google has 9.5%. AWS is also public; the vast majority of GC's infrastructure is used privately. On top of that, Google is not a more viable option for Netflix or Disney because they also have a competing streaming service. The only real non-competitive alternative would be Azure.

Off topic... Google's days are numbered.

You have no idea how much infrastructure Google has. You are also talking about only a small percentage of total large-scale enterprise infrastructure. Those percentages are public cloud infrastructure only. Google has tons more infrastructure that is not part of GCP for running all their own stuff. They also use top-tier enterprise hardware. AWS uses commodity-level enterprise hardware. I have friends who work in the EBS department at AWS, and one in a secretive storage-related department at GCP. I can't give specifics, but Google's infrastructure and how they purchase, design, and scale it is like a Lamborghini compared to AWS being more like a Mustang. AWS is not even in Google's league "under the hood", so to speak.

Ever notice how you can't even effectively search Amazon.com for stuff beyond the first few pages for a lot of categories? They can't even get database querying correct, or even results sorting correct. Example: go to Amazon.com, type in USB flash drive, then sort by Avg. Customer Review on the menu on the upper right. By the bottom of the first page, you're at 4.4 average review. Go to the second page of results, you've got plenty of 4.6, 4.8, etc. ones in there as well.

As someone who does work in deploying infrastructure for clients in AWS, Azure, and GCP...

Just. Lol. AWS was the first, which is why they are the biggest, when it comes to public cloud IaaS. They're more expensive than both Azure and GCP for most things, and you bet more performance from GCE than EC2 for the same price/specs in almost all scenarios. GCP is also offering some cool AI-related stuff that neither AWS nor Azure are offering, and they are rapidly growing. GCP also has the fastest growth rate of any of the big three. https://www.itprotoday.com/iaaspaas/clo ... oogle-grow

Google is not going anywhere.

Interesting. I did mention that the vast majority of Google's infrastructure is used privately, so...

The rest of what you've said seems unrelated to my initial point, and I don't know enough about the rest to presume I have anything interesting to say. I appreciate the insight.

As for Google's days being numbered... 80-90% of their revenue comes from advertising. A significant portion of that revenue is fraudulent or reliant on invasive trackers. Most people are not aware that their privacy is being breached and sold without their permission. That's not a sustainable business model. The EU is studying ways to regulate the industry, and congress (slow old people) have only recently started looking the problem. On top of that, privacy browsing and decentralized ad exchanges are a few years away from taking a significant portion of that revenue stream.

Google will still be relevant, but will they won't compete with Amazon at least in terms of market capital.

Haha @Rolandbighog

Mandalorian trailer coming on Friday

https://comicbook.com/starwars/2019/08/ ... ease-date/

...

Intriguing.

GIMME DAT TRAILER

^ although I've given up on the rebootvfranchise that actually looks okay.

I definitely dig that trailer. I'm really hoping we get Sabine Wren in this series. Wouldn't mind it at all if this loops back together with Rebels, that's for sure.

Disney was already planning to make a very serious effort at entering the streaming entertainment space. This move is savage AF, though; lol. Talk about dropping a nuke on all their competitors. They are going to allow you to still watch content you've downloaded after you've cancelled their service.

https://www.engadget.com/2019/10/24/dis ... -bob-iger/

RolandDeschain wrote:Disney was already planning to make a very serious effort at entering the streaming entertainment space. This move is savage AF, though; lol. Talk about dropping a nuke on all their competitors. They are going to allow you to still watch content you've downloaded after you've cancelled their service.

https://www.engadget.com/2019/10/24/dis ... -bob-iger/

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the way I read that was that they may remove certain content from time to time, but if you have it downloaded and you continue your account you'll be able to still watch it even though it's no longer available to live stream on the site. I still think that's a pretty cool perk. I just hope there will be some sort of month to month notice of what's coming and going like they have for other streaming services like Netflix, Amazon, etc.

Ugh - that article got a major update and change between when I posted it and now. Disney "clarified" their stance...they misspoke. It felt too good to be true...and it was.

I'm resisting the pull of Disney Plus for now. Will see how long that lasts.

Well if you've got Verizon with an unlimited data plan, looks like you won't have to pull the trigger.

https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/d ... 203379631/

Under Verizon’s special promo, Disney Plus will be free for one year to 4G LTE and 5G wireless customers on unlimited-data plans as well as new Fios broadband or 5G home wireless internet customers. After the one-year promo pricing expires, Verizon customers will revert to the regular $6.99 monthly subscription price (unless they cancel Disney Plus).

Verizon says it has about 50 million customers on unlimited plans who are eligible for the free Disney Plus offer. The pact is designed as a carrot to bring more subscribers to Verizon’s rolls, while also giving Disney Plus a healthy subscriber bump at launch.

JGfromtheNW wrote:Well if you've got Verizon with an unlimited data plan, looks like you won't have to pull the trigger.

https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/d ... 203379631/

Under Verizon’s special promo, Disney Plus will be free for one year to 4G LTE and 5G wireless customers on unlimited-data plans as well as new Fios broadband or 5G home wireless internet customers. After the one-year promo pricing expires, Verizon customers will revert to the regular $6.99 monthly subscription price (unless they cancel Disney Plus).

Verizon says it has about 50 million customers on unlimited plans who are eligible for the free Disney Plus offer. The pact is designed as a carrot to bring more subscribers to Verizon’s rolls, while also giving Disney Plus a healthy subscriber bump at launch.

That is a huge subscriber bump. Assuming Verizon's 50 million unlimited plan customers are US based, and the vast majority accept the free Disney plus, that would already put it within about 10 million of Netflix's $60.62 million US subscribers.

In the third quarter of 2019, Netflix had over 158 million paying streaming subscribers worldwide as well as over 5.5 million free trial customers. Of these subscribers, 60.62 million were from the United States.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/250934/quarterly-number-of-netflix-streaming-subscribers-worldwide/

JGfromtheNW wrote:Well if you've got Verizon with an unlimited data plan, looks like you won't have to pull the trigger.

https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/d ... 203379631/

Under Verizon’s special promo, Disney Plus will be free for one year to 4G LTE and 5G wireless customers on unlimited-data plans as well as new Fios broadband or 5G home wireless internet customers. After the one-year promo pricing expires, Verizon customers will revert to the regular $6.99 monthly subscription price (unless they cancel Disney Plus).

Verizon says it has about 50 million customers on unlimited plans who are eligible for the free Disney Plus offer. The pact is designed as a carrot to bring more subscribers to Verizon’s rolls, while also giving Disney Plus a healthy subscriber bump at launch.

Well that's awesome. I don't have Verizon phones but I do have a hotspot with unlimited data and a few other things. Hopefully that is enough to qualify.

When does this show start?

Cyrus12 wrote:When does this show start?

To which show are you referring?

Cyrus12 wrote:When does this show start?

Disney+ goes live on November 12.

SeatownJay wrote:

Cyrus12 wrote:When does this show start?

Disney+ goes live on November 12.

Here's a good list of when each show/movie is coming to Disney+ Streaming

https://www.cnet.com/news/disney-plus-every-show-movie-original-series-available-to-stream-release-date-marvel-star-wars-pixar/

^ thanks

There are a few things not on there that don't surprise me, but do make me a little sad. Condorman, No Deposit, No Return, The North Avenue Irregulars, Hot Lead and Cold Feet, and Five Mile Creek. I'm glad to see some other obscure ones show up, like Blackbeard's Ghost, Snowball Express, The Million Dollar Duck,, and The Cat From Outer Space.

New trailer for the Mandalorian

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmI7WKrAtqs