Disney+ Gearing Up to Take on Netflix

[snakeeyes]

Netflix has the UI thing down pretty well. Amazon's is bad but HBO's is the absolute worst. I actually cancelled HBO Go and added the HBO channel to Prime Video just to use Amazon's interface!

The last time I cancelled it was when Deadwood ended but I came back for Game of Thrones. I may cancel HBO again soon.

 

[j_garcia]

Gizmodo saying Apple's service may drop in April. Sounds like a shootout at the OK corral.

I will have to have some sort of HBO access to watch GOT final season.

 

[Darenwh]

Shoot out indicates that only one company may be standing in the end. In this case I think it is different. It is going too come down to content. The company that controls the content will be fine. I suspect content owners will be the streaming companies. If you don't have the content then your only choice is going to be create content to stream or find a content creator that does not have the ability to stream the content. Since so little is needed to become a streamer nearly every content maker will likely have their own streaming service eliminating a middle man and maximizing profits. It will come down to paying for individual content but prices will be substantially higher for that content as you will only be able to get it from one source. Your quality stream may also be impacted by this as if a company is the only source for the program they do not have to provide as good an option for sound or picture quality as most will be happy with whatever they are given.

 

[snakeeyes]

Shoot out indicates that only one company may be standing in the end. In this case I think it is different. It is going too come down to content. The company that controls the content will be fine. I suspect content owners will be the streaming companies. If you don't have the content then your only choice is going to be create content to stream or find a content creator that does not have the ability to stream the content. Since so little is needed to become a streamer nearly every content maker will likely have their own streaming service eliminating a middle man and maximizing profits. It will come down to paying for individual content but prices will be substantially higher for that content as you will only be able to get it from one source. Your quality stream may also be impacted by this as if a company is the only source for the program they do not have to provide as good an option for sound or picture quality as most will be happy with whatever they are given.

Either way the cloud provider such as AWS also wins as this is big data to push across the Internet to deliver that content.

 

[Darenwh]

Either way the cloud provider such as AWS also wins as this is big data to push across the Internet to deliver that content.

For some it will be but that depends on the method utilized for delivery of the data. Fair disclosure, I work for AT&T. Telecom companies that get into content delivery will likely utilize what was Central Office Locations to host content delivery network (CDN) servers to provide shortest path to the subscribers for wired connections. For wireless they will likely utilize CDN servers placed at the cell site to deliver content to wireless customers. Regional data centers, such as those utilized for cloud computing, are not as good a choice as the more concentrated the content (say a server farm in the Atlanta area serving the entire South Eastern US) the more of likely you are to encounter backhaul bottlenecks reaching the various customers in the area.

By placing content as close as possible to the customer you greatly reduce the demands on the network to deliver that content to the customer. The result is better quality streams to the customer. This quality could be the difference between delivering HD and UHD or UHD with HDR and Atmos sound tracks while maintaining quality of the content. Remember, the amount of data going over core network resources is increasing very quickly. Keeping up with that demand is very difficult. Reducing the amount of data that goes over the network by hosting large data files at locations close to the customer greatly reduces demands on the core network. A key component of delivering the best possible service will be placing that data as close to the customer as possible and for that the regional cloud data servers is a poorer choice than hosting that data at local locations.

 

[snakeeyes]

For some it will be but that depends on the method utilized for delivery of the data. Fair disclosure, I work for AT&T. Telecom companies that get into content delivery will likely utilize what was Central Office Locations to host content delivery network (CDN) servers to provide shortest path to the subscribers for wired connections. For wireless they will likely utilize CDN servers placed at the cell site to deliver content to wireless customers. Regional data centers, such as those utilized for cloud computing, are not as good a choice as the more concentrated the content (say a server farm in the Atlanta area serving the entire South Eastern US) the more of likely you are to encounter backhaul bottlenecks reaching the various customers in the area.

By placing content as close as possible to the customer you greatly reduce the demands on the network to deliver that content to the customer. The result is better quality streams to the customer. This quality could be the difference between delivering HD and UHD or UHD with HDR and Atmos sound tracks while maintaining quality of the content. Remember, the amount of data going over core network resources is increasing very quickly. Keeping up with that demand is very difficult. Reducing the amount of data that goes over the network by hosting large data files at locations close to the customer greatly reduces demands on the core network. A key component of delivering the best possible service will be placing that data as close to the customer as possible and for that the regional cloud data servers is a poorer choice than hosting that data at local locations.

Ok so content is served up locally. I was under the impression AWS is still involved and making tons off Netflix at the cloud portion of the network. The Netflix example is one of the case studies on AWS.

 

[Darenwh]

Ok so content is served up locally. I was under the impression AWS is still involved and making tons off Netflix at the cloud portion of the network. The Netflix example is one of the case studies on AWS.

Currently that is true. I am stating what we are going to see in the near future. There is only so much bandwidth on back haul circuits and traffic is exploding for video. Keeping a centralized solution is pushing the limits of what the network can do. By pushing large files such as video content (movies) and VR/Augmented reality traffic to edge CDN servers we can reduce the amount of traffic going over the core network while also providing customers with reduced latency and increasing the reliability of their streams insuring little or no buffering of content that is being delivered to the customer.

The delivery methods are fundamentally changing and content will be pushed closer and closer to the customer. This is necessary to provide the best experience for the customer. Streaming services that do not use this method may find that their offerings will need to be of lower quality to work across the network while others that use the technology will be able to provide the best possible quality of content. In the end it will come down to companies needing to do this to stay competitive.

 

[snakeeyes]

Currently that is true. I am stating what we are going to see in the near future. There is only so much bandwidth on back haul circuits and traffic is exploding for video. Keeping a centralized solution is pushing the limits of what the network can do. By pushing large files such as video content (movies) and VR/Augmented reality traffic to edge CDN servers we can reduce the amount of traffic going over the core network while also providing customers with reduced latency and increasing the reliability of their streams insuring little or no buffering of content that is being delivered to the customer.

The delivery methods are fundamentally changing and content will be pushed closer and closer to the customer. This is necessary to provide the best experience for the customer. Streaming services that do not use this method may find that their offerings will need to be of lower quality to work across the network while others that use the technology will be able to provide the best possible quality of content. In the end it will come down to companies needing to do this to stay competitive.

It’s creative but expensive to do that. Imagine doing this at 10,000 local sites.

 

[Darenwh]

Correct, but also imagine the amount of traffic to support video to those same sites. No matter how much it costs for CDN servers it is much cheaper than new fiber... Imagine the cost of 10,000 servers made with cheap, off the shelf, compute systems (basically desktops), then compare that price to running additional fiber to 100 sites at costs that can reach tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars per mile. CDN servers start to look mighty cheap once you do that. Also, for some things, like VR and AR, even a small amount of lag can result in issues when using the devices. If your content is close the lag can be very low, 3ms or even less. At these speeds and responsiveness AR and VR becomes much better for most people with little of the effects that cause some people to get sick when trying it.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Daredevil season 3 was just amazing. I was crushed when I heard it was not going another season.

I'm looking forward to S04 of Daredevil (DD) on the new DISN streaming service.

Who knows when, but as popular and great as DD is, there is no way DISN won't continue DD. Just a matter of time.

Punisher will most likely be cancelled by NFLX also and continue on DISN.

 

[panteragstk]

One thing about the streaming services going nuts like they are is they're just creating another dumb cable/satellite type of service using our internet connection.

Want Disney, but not ESPN on cable? Not happening. I feel like this streaming model will end up the same way. We'll all pay for tons of crap we don't want/need. The big studios still own tons of networks and when all of them have exclusive content on their own service it will get expensive (as others have said).

I use SlingTV, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and HBO now($5/mo from hulu) and that's all I intend to use. I'll be interested in what Disney does, but it will depend on the content and the cost.

I think the MOST interesting thing about all of this is that streaming services have made piracy come back big time. It was going down considerably when you could subscribe to a few services and get damn near everything you wanted to watch. Not anymore...

 

[snakeeyes]

One thing about the streaming services going nuts like they are is they're just creating another dumb cable/satellite type of service using our internet connection.

Want Disney, but not ESPN on cable? Not happening. I feel like this streaming model will end up the same way. We'll all pay for tons of crap we don't want/need. The big studios still own tons of networks and when all of them have exclusive content on their own service it will get expensive (as others have said).

I use SlingTV, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and HBO now($5/mo from hulu) and that's all I intend to use. I'll be interested in what Disney does, but it will depend on the content and the cost.

I think the MOST interesting thing about all of this is that streaming services have made piracy come back big time. It was going down considerably when you could subscribe to a few services and get damn near everything you wanted to watch. Not anymore...

I’m sure Bezos has a plan in mind to win this but I’m not clear how much they get paid from Netflix already.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...It's going to be interesting to see what happens in the next few years as streaming seems to be displacing everything else.

Just what I need this to be bundled so I have to pay for stuff I never watch like none of the sports channels just to get one that I may watch.

 

[mtrycrafts]

... I think Mickey needs some viagra. ...

I think he needs a hearing aid.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Just what I need this to be bundled so I have to pay for stuff I never watch like none of the sports channels just to get one that I may watch.

Exactly. It’s one of my favorite things about dish network too!

I think he needs a hearing aid.

Definitely.

 

[Darenwh]

I suspect that if you subscribe to any streaming service you are paying for stuff you never watch. If you subscribe to Netflix do you watch every movie or series they offer? Amazon? Hulu? HBO Now?, etc...

Paying for only what you wish to watch, even now, is almost certainly an illusion. Even when you purchase a movie on disk you still likely get things with it (that are part of the cost) that you never watch. Previews, Credits, for many the Extra's, alternate soundtracks/languages, etc...

Even if you could pay for a single channel to get it only would you watch all that is on it? If not, you are still paying for more than you watch. Sorry to ruin the illusion for some of you but you will rarely, if ever, get to pay for only the part that you want to watch.

IMHO, eventually people will need to concentrate on getting the most affordable package that gives them access to the content they wish to have the most. This will likely be the least expensive way to get all the content that you wish to have. Going the piecemeal route in hopes of saving money will likely cost more or be more work than it will be worth in the long run. The real question here is will the package option even be available in the future?

 

[snakeeyes]

This whole conversation makes me want to buy more movies on Blu-ray and UHD discs new and/or used. As far as content, I know I’m going to end up paying for NFL and NHL content no matter who provides it.

 

[Darenwh]

This whole conversation makes me want to buy more movies on Blu-ray and UHD discs new and/or used. As far as content, I know I’m going to end up paying for NFL and NHL content no matter who provides it.

I have been doing exactly that. I would rather have a good collection of titles that I enjoy watching more than once for the future as I suspect we will be paying for every viewing of content within a few years. The collection is slow to grow but by looking at the right locations a good collection can be had for not too much money. I get many movies and tv series from estate sales. Doing this I need to check cases to insure the correct disk(s) are in the packaging and that they are in good condition but I am up to over 700 movies and series.

 

[shadyJ]

I'm looking forward to S04 of Daredevil (DD) on the new DISN streaming service.

Who knows when, but as popular and great as DD is, there is no way DISN won't continue DD. Just a matter of time.

Punisher will most likely be cancelled by NFLX also and continue on DISN.

Not gonna happen. Netflix owns all of those assets. Disney has to start all over with those characters, no way is Netflix going to hand them that content rights without huge fees.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Not gonna happen. Netflix owns all of those assets. Disney has to start all over with those characters, no way is Netflix going to hand them that content rights without huge fees.

They can't hire the same actors (and writers)?

Just start S04 fresh. But use the same actors and great writers, directors.