Disney

prime-video-looking-to-fix-“extremely-sloppy-mistakes”-in-library,-report-says

Prime Video looking to fix “extremely sloppy mistakes” in library, report says

Morfydd Clark is Galadriel in <em>The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power</em>.” src=”https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/lotr-rings-of-power-listing-800×450.png”></img><figcaption>
<p><a data-height=Enlarge / Morfydd Clark is Galadriel in The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power.

Amazon Studios

Subscribers lodged thousands of complaints related to inaccuracies in Amazon’s Prime Video catalog, including incorrect content and missing episodes, according to a Business Insider report this week. While Prime Video users aren’t the only streaming users dealing with these problems, Insider’s examination of leaked “internal documents” brings more perspective into the impact of mislabeling and similar errors on streaming platforms.

Insider didn’t publish the documents but said they show that “60 percent of all content-related customer-experience complaints for Prime Video last year were about catalogue errors,” such as movies or shows labeled with wrong or missing titles.

Specific examples reportedly named in the document include Season 1, Episode 2 of The Rings of Power being available before Season 1, Episode 1; character names being mistranslated; Continuum displaying the wrong age rating; and the Spanish-audio version of Die Hard With a Vengeance missing a chunk of audio.

The documents reportedly pointed to problems with content localization, noting the “poor linguistic quality of assets” related to a “lack of in-house expertise” of some languages. Prime Video pages with these problems suffered from 20 percent more engagement drop-offs, BI said, citing one of the documents.

Following Insider’s report, however, Quartz reported that an unnamed source it described as “familiar with the matter” said the documents were out of date, despite Insider claiming that the leaked reports included data from 2023. Quartz’s source also claimed that customer engagement was not affected,

Ars Technica reached out to Amazon for comment but didn’t hear back in time for publication. The company told Insider that “catalogue quality is an ongoing priority” and that Amazon takes “it seriously and work[s] relentlessly alongside our global partners and dedicated internal teams to continuously improve the overall customer experience.”

Other streaming services have errors, too

Insider’s report focuses on leaked documents regarding Prime Video, but rival streaming services make blunders, too. It’s unclear how widespread the problem is on Prime Video or across the industry. There are examples of people reporting Prime Video inaccuracies online, like on Amazon’s forum or on Reddit. But with some platforms not offering online forums and it being impossible to know how frequently users actually report spotted problems, we can’t do any apples-to-apples comparisons. We also don’t know if these problems are more prevalent for subscribers living outside of the US.

Beyond Prime Video, users have underscored similar inaccuracies within the past year on rival services, like Disney+, Hulu, and Netflix. A former White Collar executive producer pointed out that the show’s episodes were mislabeled and out of order on Netflix earlier this month. Inaccurate content catalogs appear more widespread if you go back two years or more. Some video streamers (like (Disney and Netflix) have pages explaining how to report such problems.

Streaming services have only gotten more expensive and competitive, making such mistakes feel out of place for the flagship video platform of a conglomerate in 2024.

And despite content errors affecting more than just Prime Video, Insider’s report provides a unique look at the problem and efforts to fix it.

Prime Video looking to fix “extremely sloppy mistakes” in library, report says Read More »

the-lines-between-streaming-and-cable-continue-to-blur

The lines between streaming and cable continue to blur

Here we go again —

Disney+ to offer 24/7 channels to play Star Wars content, commercials.

O.B., aka Ouroboros, in Marvel's <em>Loki</em> show, which streams on Disney+.” src=”https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ARC-201-10072_R-1200×800-5b2df79-800×533.jpg”></img><figcaption>
<p><a data-height=Enlarge / O.B., aka Ouroboros, in Marvel’s Loki show, which streams on Disney+.

Despite promises of new and improved TV and movie viewing experiences, streaming services remain focused on growing revenue and app usage. As a result of that focus, streaming companies are mimicking the industry they sought to replace—cable.

On Monday, The Information reported that Disney plans to add “a series” of channels to the Disney+ app. Those channels would still be streamed and require a Disney+ subscription to access. But they would work very much like traditional TV channels, featuring set programming that runs 24/7 with commercials. Disney hasn’t commented on the report.

Disney is exploring adding channels to Disney+ with “programming in specific genres, including either Star Wars or Marvel-branded shows,” The Information said, citing anonymous “people involved in the planning.” It’s unknown when the Disney+ channels are expected to launch.

The report comes as streaming services continue trying to find ways to capitalize off cable companies’ customer base. NBCUniversal’s Peacock streaming service already offers subscribers over 50 always-on live channels. Hulu and Paramount+ offer live TV with cable channels. Streaming platforms are also eager to license content normally delegated to traditional TV channels, including old shows like Suits, the 2023 streaming record-setter, and live sporting events like WWE Raw.

Channel surfing 2.0

If you’ve followed the streaming industry lately, you won’t be surprised to hear that ad dollars are reportedly behind the push for live channels. Disney+, like many streaming services, aims to be profitable by the end of Disney’s 2024 fiscal year and extract as much revenue from each subscriber as possible (including by using tactics like password crackdowns) to fuel profits.

The news follows similar moves by Disney, including adding Hulu to the Disney+ app, as well as plans to add ESPN to Disney+, too, according to The Information. Disney is also attempting to launch a joint sports-streaming app with Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD). It’s not hard to imagine Disney one day (assuming the app ever debuts) making the sports app’s content accessible through Disney+.

“The idea is to make Disney+ a service that has something for everyone, anytime,” The Information reported.

That sounds an awful lot like cable, which spent years growing customers’ monthly bills by adding more channels and bundles aimed at specific interests, like children’s entertainment, sports, and lifestyle. The ability to hop from on-demand Disney kids’ movies to on-demand sitcoms on Hulu to live programming centered on (the seemingly endless piles of) Marvel and Star Wars content feels a lot like channel surfing. It wasn’t too long ago when channel surfing was viewed as a time-suck.

Netflix has also reportedly considered ways to unite other streaming platforms with Netflix in order to extend the amount of time spent on Netflix. In late 2022, Netflix “explored creating a store within its app for users to subscribe to and watch other streaming services, all without leaving the Netflix app,” The Information said, citing an unnamed person “who was involved in those exploratory discussions.” Netflix reportedly decided not to move ahead with the plans for now but still could. It hasn’t commented on The Information’s report.

As we saw with Netflix’s password crackdown and streaming’s shift to ads, streaming companies tend to copy each other’s strategies for revenue growth. And live channels could be something more streaming companies get involved in, as WBD and Amazon, as examples, already have (albeit separate from their flagship, on-demand streaming apps, which differs from what Disney+’s live channel reportedly will reportedly be like).

Disney, notably, is no stranger to the business of online live channels, having 21 similar offerings within the ABC.com app, including a channel for ABC News and another for General Hospital.

Subscription-based streaming services may even have an easier time competing for ad dollars than free, ad-supported TV (FAST) streaming channels, such as those on Tubi and Pluto TV. Susan Schiekofer, chief digital investment officer for GroupM, the top US ad-buying company, told The Information that advertisers might feel more comfortable allotting dollars to ad-supported channels that are tied to users who have already spent money on a subscription.

Streaming services initially were a way to get only the content you wanted on demand and commercial-free. But the report about Disney+ and Netflix are just two examples of growing interest in reinvigorating the strategies of linear TV. Instead of jumping from network to network within cable, there’s interest in getting people to jump from one streaming service to another within one platform—with plenty of commercials along the way.

The lines between streaming and cable continue to blur Read More »

does-fubo’s-antitrust-lawsuit-against-espn,-fox,-and-wbd-stand-a-chance?

Does Fubo’s antitrust lawsuit against ESPN, Fox, and WBD stand a chance?

Collaborating conglomerates —

Fubo: Media giants’ anticompetitive tactics already killed PS Vue, other streamers.

In this photo illustration, the FuboTV Inc. logo is displayed on a smartphone screen and ESPN, Warner Bros. Discovery and FOX logos in the background.

Fubo is suing Fox Corporation, The Walt Disney Company, and Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) over their plans to launch a unified sports streaming app. Fubo, a live sports streaming service that has business relationships with the three companies, claims the firms have engaged in anticompetitive practices for years, leading to higher prices for consumers.

In an attempt to understand how much potential the allegations have to derail the app’s launch, Ars Technica read the 73-page sealed complaint and sought opinions from some antitrust experts. While some of Fubo’s allegations could be hard to prove, Fubo isn’t the only one concerned about the joint app’s potential to make it hard for streaming services to compete fairly.

Fubo wants to kill ESPN, Fox, and WBD’s joint sports app

Earlier this month, Disney, which owns ESPN, WBD (whose sports channels include TBS and TNT), and Fox, which owns Fox broadcast stations and Fox Sports channels like FS1, announced plans to launch an equally owned live sports streaming app this fall. Pricing hasn’t been confirmed but is expected to be in the $30-to-$50-per-month range. Fubo, for comparison, starts at $80 per month for English-language channels.

Via a lawsuit filed on Tuesday in US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Fubo is seeking an injunction against the app and joint venture (JV), a jury trial, and damages for an unspecified figure. There have been reports that Fubo was suing the three companies for $1 billion, but a Fubo spokesperson confirmed to Ars that this figure is incorrect.

“Insurmountable barriers”

Fubo, which was founded in 2015, is arguing that the three companies’ proposed app will result in higher prices for live sports streaming customers.

The New York City-headquartered company claims the collaboration would preclude other distributors of live sports content, like Fubo, from competing fairly. The lawsuit also claims that distributors like Fubo would see higher prices and worse agreements associated with licensing sports content due to the JV, which could even stop licensing critical sports content to companies like Fubo. Fubo’s lawsuit says that “once they have combined forces, Defendants’ incentive to exclude Fubo and other rivals will only increase.”

Disney, Fox, and WBD haven’t disclosed specifics about how their JV will impact how they license the rights to sports events to companies outside of their JV; however, they have claimed that they will license their respective entities to the JV on a non-exclusive basis.

That statement doesn’t specify, though, if the companies will try to bundle content together forcibly,

“If the three firms get together and say, ‘We’re no longer going to provide to you these streams for resale separately. You must buy a bundle as a condition of getting any of them,’ that would … be an anti-competitive bundle that can be challenged under antitrust law,” Hal Singer, an economics professor at The University of Utah and managing director at Econ One, told Ars.

Lee Hepner, counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project, shared similar concerns about the JV with Ars:

Joint ventures raise the same concerns as mergers when the effect is to shut out competitors and gain power to raise prices and reduce quality. Sports streaming is an extremely lucrative market, and a joint venture between these three powerhouses will foreclose the ability of rivals like Fubo to compete on fair terms.

Fubo’s lawsuit cites research from Citi, finding that, combined, ESPN (26.8 percent), Fox (17.3 percent), and WBD (9.9 percent) own 54 percent of the US sports rights market.

In a statement, Fubo co-founder and CEO David Gandler said the three companies “are erecting insurmountable barriers that will effectively block any new competitors” and will leave sports streamers without options.

The US Department of Justice is reportedly eyeing the JV for an antitrust review and plans to look at the finalized terms, according to a February 15 Bloomberg report citing two anonymous “people familiar with the process.”

Does Fubo’s antitrust lawsuit against ESPN, Fox, and WBD stand a chance? Read More »

can-a-$3,500-headset-replace-your-tv?-we-tried-vision-pro-to-find-out

Can a $3,500 headset replace your TV? We tried Vision Pro to find out

Apple Vision Pro Review —

We kick off our multi-part Vision Pro review by testing it for entertainment.

  • The Apple Vision Pro with AirPods Pro, Magic Keyboard, Magic Trackpad, and an Xbox Series X|S controller.

    Samuel Axon

  • You can see the front-facing cameras that handle passthrough video just above the down-facing cameras that read your hand gestures here.

    Samuel Axon

  • There are two buttons for Vision Pro, both on the top.

    Samuel Axon

  • This is the infamous battery pack. It’s about the size of an iPhone (but a little thicker) and has a USB-C port for external power sources.

    Samuel Axon

  • There are two displays inside the Vision Pro, one for each eye. Each offers just under 4K resolution.

    Samuel Axon

  • Apple offers several variations of the light seal to fit different face shapes.

    Samuel Axon

  • A close-up look at the Vision Pro from the front.

    Samuel Axon

The Vision Pro is the strangest product Apple has introduced in the time I’ve been covering the company. By now, it’s well established that the headset is both impressively cutting-edge and ludicrously expensive.

You could certainly argue that its price means it’s only for Silicon Valley techno-optimists with too much money to burn or for developers looking to get in on the ground floor on the chance that this is the next gold rush for apps. But the platform will need more than those users to succeed.

Part of Apple’s pitch behind the price tag seems to be that the Vision Pro could replace several devices, just like the iPhone did back in the late 2000s. It could replace your laptop, your tablet, your 4K TV, your video game console, your phone or other communications device, your VR headset, and so on. If it truly replaced all of those things, the price wouldn’t seem quite so outrageous to some.

And those are just the use cases Apple has put a lot of effort into facilitating for the launch. Many of the most important uses of the company’s prior new product categories didn’t become totally clear until a couple of years and generations in. The iPhone wasn’t originally intended as a meditation aid, a flashlight, and a number of other common uses until third-party developers invented apps to make it do those things. And Apple’s approach with the Apple Watch seemed to be to just throw it out there with a number of possible uses to see what stuck with users. (The answer seemed to be health and fitness, but the device’s distinct emphasis on that took a bit of time to come into focus.)

So while I could write a dense review meandering through all the possibilities based on my week with the Vision Pro, that doesn’t seem as helpful as drilling in on each specific possibility. This is the first in a series of articles that will do that, so consider it part one of a lengthy, multi-step review. By the end, we’ll have considered several possible applications of the device, and we might be able to make some recommendations or predictions about its potential.

So far, I believe there’s one use case that’s a slam dunk, closer to clarity during launch week than any of the others: entertainment. For certain situations, The Vision Pro is a better device for consuming TV shows and movies (among other things) away from a dedicated theater than we’ve ever seen before. So let’s start there.

My (perhaps too) exacting standards

I know I’m not the usual TV consumer. It’s important to note that before we get too deep.

I bought my first OLED television (a 55-inch LG B6) in 2016. I previously had a 50-inch plasma TV I liked, but it only supported 1080p and SDR (standard dynamic range), and Sony had announced the PlayStation 4 Pro, which would support 4K games (sort of) and HDR (high dynamic range). Game consoles had always driven TV purchases in the past, so I sprung for the best I could afford.

I always cared about picture quality before I bought an OLED, but that interest turned into something more obsessive at that point. I was stunned at the difference, and I began to find it hard to accept the imperfections of LCD monitors and TVs after that. Granted, I’d always disliked LCDs, going straight from CRT to plasma to avoid that grayish backlight glow. But the comparison was even harsher once I went to OLED.

My fellow Ars Technica writers and editors often talk about their robust, multi-monitor PC setups, their expensive in-home server racks, and other Ars-y stuff. I have some of that stuff, too, but I put most of my time and energy into my home theater. I’ve invested a lot into it, and that has the unfortunate side effect of making most other screens I use feel inadequate by comparison.

All that said, some have argued that the Vision Pro is a solution in search of a problem, but there is one pre-existing problem I have that it has the potential to solve.

I travel a lot, so I spend a total of at least two months out of every year in hotel or Airbnb rooms. Whenever I’m in one of those places, I’m always irritated at how its TV compares to the one I have at home. It’s too small for the space, it’s not 4K, it doesn’t support HDR, it’s mounted way too high to comfortably watch, or it’s a cheap LCD with washed-out black levels and terrible contrast. Often, it’s all of the above. And even when I’m home, my wife might want to watch her shows on the big TV tonight.

I end up not watching movies or shows I want to watch because I feel like I’d be doing those shows a disservice by ruining the picture with such terrible hardware. “Better to hold off until I’m home,” I tell myself.

The Vision Pro could be the answer I’ve been waiting for. Those two displays in front of my eyes are capable of displaying an image that stands up to that of a mid-range OLED TV in most situations, and I can use it absolutely anywhere.

Can a $3,500 headset replace your TV? We tried Vision Pro to find out Read More »

disney-invests-$1.5b-in-epic-games,-plans-new-“games-and-entertainment-universe”

Disney invests $1.5B in Epic Games, plans new “games and entertainment universe”

Steamboat Willie in Fortnite when? —

Major move continues Disney’s decades-long, up-and-down relationship with gaming.

What is this, some sort of

Enlarge / What is this, some sort of “meta universe” or something?

Disney / Epic

Entertainment conglomerate Disney has announced plans to invest $1.5 billion for an “equity stake” in gaming conglomerate Epic Games. The financial partnership will also see both companies “collaborate on an all-new games and entertainment universe that will further expand the reach of beloved Disney stories and experiences,” according to a press release issued late Wednesday.

A short teaser trailer announcing the partnership promises that “a new Universe will emerge,” allowing players to “play, watch, create, [and] shop” while “discover[ing] a place where magic is Epic.”

In announcing the partnership, Disney stressed its long-standing use of Epic’s Unreal Engine in projects ranging from cinematic editing to theme park experiences like Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge. Disney’s new gaming universe will also be powered by the Unreal Engine, the company said.

Content and characters from Disney’s Marvel and Star Wars subsidiaries were some of the first third-party content to be included in Epic’s mega-popular Fortnite, helping establish the game’s reputation as a major cross-media metaverse. Disney says that its new “persistent universe” will “interoperate with Fortnite” while offering games and “a multitude of opportunities for consumers to play, watch, shop and engage with content, characters, and stories from Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, Avatar, and more.”

While a $1.5 billion investment sounds significant on its face, it only represents a small portion of a company like Epic, which was valued at $32 billion in a 2022 investment by Sony. Since 2012, nearly half of Epic has been owned by Chinese gaming conglomerate Tencent (market cap: $356 billion), an association that has led to some controversy for Epic in the recent past.

Here we go again

In announcing the new Epic investment, Disney CEO Bob Iger called the partnership “Disney’s biggest entry ever into the world of games… offer[ing] significant opportunities for growth and expansion.” But this is far from Disney’s first ride in the game industry rodeo; on the contrary, it’s a continuation of an interest in gaming that has run hot and cold since Walt Disney Computer Software was first established back in 1988.

Two logos plus an X means a partnership is official, right?

Enlarge / Two logos plus an X means a partnership is official, right?

Disney / Epic

That publisher, which operated under several names over the years, mainly published lowest-common-denominator licensed games based on Disney properties for dozens of platforms. Disney invested heavily in the Disney Infinity “toys-to-life” line starting in 2013 but then shut the game down and left game publishing for good in 2016. Since then, Disney has interacted with the game industry mainly as a licensor for properties such as the Sony-published Spider-Man series and Square Enix’s Kingdom Hearts 3.

After acquiring storied game developer LucasArts in 2012 (as part of a much larger Star Wars deal), Disney unceremoniously shut down the struggling game development division just six months later. But in 2021, Disney brought back the Lucasfilm Games brand as an umbrella for all future Star Wars games.

While today’s announcement doesn’t include any specific mention of linear TV or movie adaptations of Epic Game properties, the possibility seems much more plausible given this new financial and creative partnership. Given the recent success of linear narratives based on video game properties from Super Mario Bros. to The Last of Us, a Disney+ streaming series targeting Fortnite‘s 126 million monthly active players almost seems like a no-brainer at this point.

Disney’s stock price shot up nearly 8 percent to about $107 per share in 15 minutes of after-hours trading following the announcement, but has given back some of those gains as of this writing.

Disney invests $1.5B in Epic Games, plans new “games and entertainment universe” Read More »

hulu,-disney+-password-crackdown-kills-account-sharing-on-march-14

Hulu, Disney+ password crackdown kills account sharing on March 14

profit push —

New subscribers are already banned from sharing logins outside their household.

Selena Gomez and Martin Short on the set of <em>Only Murders in the Building</em> on February 14, 2022, in New York City. ” src=”https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/GettyImages-1370661621-800×513.jpg”></img><figcaption>
<p><a data-height=Enlarge / Selena Gomez and Martin Short on the set of Only Murders in the Building on February 14, 2022, in New York City.

Hulu and Disney+ subscribers have until March 14 to stop sharing their login information with people outside of their household. Disney-owned streaming services are the next to adopt the password-crackdown strategy that has helped Netflix add millions of subscribers.

An email sent from “The Hulu Team” to subscribers yesterday and viewed by Ars Technica tells customers that Hulu is “adding limitations on sharing your account outside of your household.”

Hulu’s subscriber agreement, updated on January 25, now states that users “may not share your subscription outside of your household,” with household being defined as the “collection of devices associated with your primary personal residence that are used by the individuals who reside therein.”

The updated terms also note that Hulu might scrutinize user accounts to ensure that the accounts aren’t being used on devices located outside of the subscriber’s residence:

We may, in our sole discretion, analyze the use of your account to determine compliance with this Agreement. If we determine, in our sole discretion, that you have violated this Agreement, we may limit or terminate access to the Service and/or take any other steps as permitted by this Agreement (including those set forth in Section 6 of this Agreement).

Section 6 of Hulu’s subscriber agreement says Hulu can “restrict, suspend, or terminate” access without notice.

Hulu didn’t respond to a request for comment on how exactly it will “analyze the use” of accounts. But Netflix, which started its password crackdown in March 2022 and brought it to the US in May 2023, says it uses “information such as IP addresses, device IDs, and account activity to determine whether a device signed in to your account is part of your Netflix Household” and doesn’t collect GPS data from devices.

According to the email sent to Hulu subscribers, the policy will apply immediately to people subscribing to Hulu from now on.

The updated language in Hulu’s subscriber agreement matches what’s written in the Disney+/ESPN+ subscriber agreement, which was also updated on January 25. Disney+’s password crackdown first started in November in Canada.

A Disney spokesperson confirmed to Ars Technica that Disney+ subscribers have until March 14 to comply. The rep also said that notifications were sent to Disney+’s US subscribers yesterday; although, it’s possible that some subscribers didn’t receive an email alert, as is the case with a subscriber in my household.

The representative didn’t respond to a question asking how Disney+ will “analyze” user accounts to identify account sharing.

Push for profits

Disney CEO Bob Iger first hinted at a Disney streaming-password crackdown in August during an earnings call. He highlighted a “significant” amount of password sharing among Disney-owned streaming services and said Disney had “the technical capability to monitor much of this.” The executive hopes a password crackdown will help drive subscribers and push profits to Netflix-like status. Disney is aiming to make its overall streaming services business profitable by the end of 2024.

In November, it was reported that Disney+ had lost $11 billion since launching in November 2019. The streaming service has sought to grow revenue by increasing prices and encouraging users to join its subscription tier with commercials, which is said to bring streaming services higher average revenue per user (ARPU) than non-ad plans.

Hulu, which Disney will soon own completely, has been profitable in the past, and in Disney’s most recent financial quarter, it had a higher monthly ARPU than Disney+. Yet, Hulu has far fewer subscribers than Disney+ (48.5 million versus 150.2 million). Cracking down on Hulu password sharing is an obvious way for Disney to try to squeeze more money from the more financially successful streaming service.

Such moves run the risk of driving away users. However, Hulu, like Netflix, may be able to win over longtime users who have gotten accustomed to having easy access to Hulu, even if they weren’t paying for it. Disney+, meanwhile, is a newer service, so a change in policy may not feel as jarring to some.

Netflix, which allowed account sharing for years, has seen success with its password crackdown, saying in November that the efforts helped it add 8.8 million subscribers. Unlike the Disney-owned streaming services, though, Netflix allows people to add extra members to their non-ad subscription (in the US, Netflix charges $7.99 per person per month).

As Disney embarks on an uphill climb to make streaming successful this year, you can expect it to continue following the leader while also trying to compete with it. Around the same time as the password-sharing ban takes full effect, Disney should also unveil a combined Hulu-Disney+ app, a rare attempt at improving a streaming service that doesn’t center on pulling additional monthly dollars from customers.

Hulu, Disney+ password crackdown kills account sharing on March 14 Read More »