Disney

Leaked Disney+ financials may shed light on recent price hike

Disney, Disney Plus, streaming, Tech / Mike M. / September 6, 2024

woman shot in black and white against color background fluffing 1960s bouffant — Enlarge / A shot from *Agatha All Along*, an upcoming Disney+ exclusive.

Marvel Studios/Disney+

A leak of data from Disney points to the Disney+ streaming service making about $2.4 billion in revenue in its fiscal quarter ending on March 30. Disney doesn’t normally share how much revenue its individual streaming services generate, making this figure particularly interesting.

Leaked data

In August, Disney confirmed that it was investigating the leak of “over a terabyte of data from one of the communication systems” it uses. In a report this week, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) said it looked over files leaked by a hacking group called Nullbulge that include “a range of financial and strategy information,” apparent login credentials for parts of Disney’s cloud infrastructure, and more. The leak includes over “44 million messages from Disney’s Slack workplace communications tool, upward of 18,800 spreadsheets, and at least 13,000 PDFs,” WSJ said.

“We decline to comment on unverified information The Wall Street Journal has purportedly obtained as a result of a bad actor’s illegal activity,” a Disney spokesperson told WSJ.

$2.4 billion

According to WSJ, financial information came via “documents shared by staffers that detail company operations,” adding, “It isn’t official data of the sort Disney discloses to Wall Street and might not reflect final financial performance for a given period.” That means we should take these figures with a grain of salt.

“Internal spreadsheets suggest that Disney+ generated more than $2.4 billion in revenue in the March quarter,” WSJ reported, referencing Disney’s fiscal Q2 2024. “It underscores how significant a revenue contributor Hulu is, particularly as Disney seeks to buy out Comcast’s stake in that streaming service, and as the two sides spar over its value.”

The publication noted that the $2.4 billion figure represents “about 43 percent”—42.5 percent to be more precise—of the direct-to-consumer (DTC) revenue that Disney reported that quarter, which totaled $5,642,000,000 [PDF]. In its Q2 report, Disney put Disney+, Hulu, and Disney+ Hotstar under its DTC umbrella. DTC revenue in Q2 represented a 13 percent increase compared to the same quarter in the prior fiscal year.

Further, subscriber counts for Disney+ and Hulu increased year over year in Q2. The leaks didn’t specify how much revenue Disney’s streaming businesses made in Q3, but Disney reported that DTC revenue increased to $5.8 billion [PDF].

Right before announcing its Q3 numbers, though, Disney announced price hikes across Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+ by as much as 25 percent. As we wrote at the time, the price hike seemed like an attempt to push people toward bundle packages offering a combination of Disney+, Hulu, and/or ESPN+ (bundles are supposed to make subscriber churn less likely). Disney CFO Hugh Johnston tried convincing us that Disney’s streaming catalog meant that it had “earned” the streaming price hikes.

But the recently leaked numbers shed a little more light on the situation.

Leaked Disney+ financials may shed light on recent price hike Read More »

TV viewers get screwed again as Disney channels are blacked out on DirecTV

DIRECTV, directv disney, directv disney blackout, Disney, Policy / Mike M. / September 3, 2024

Disney/DirecTV blackout —

Two days into blackout, DirecTV will fight Disney “as long as it needs to.”

Jon Brodkin – Sep 3, 2024 8: 49 pm UTC

Disney-owned channels have been blacked out on DirecTV for the past two days because of a contract dispute, with both companies claiming publicly that they aren’t willing to budge much from their negotiating positions. Until it’s resolved, DirecTV subscribers won’t have access to ABC, ESPN, and other Disney channels.

While there have been many contentious contract negotiations between TV providers and programmers, this one is “not a run-of-the-mill dispute,” DirecTV CFO Ray Carpenter said today in a call with reporters and analysts, according to The Hollywood Reporter. “This is not the kind of dispute where we’re haggling over percentage points on a rate. This is really about changing the model in a way that gives everyone confidence that this industry can survive.”

Carpenter was quoted as saying that DirecTV will fight Disney “as long as it needs to” and accused Disney of timing the blackout before big sporting events “to put the most pain and disruption on our customers.” Carpenter also said DirecTV doesn’t “have any dates drawn in the sand” and is “not playing a short-term game,” according to Variety.

On Sunday, Disney issued a statement attributed to three executives at Disney Entertainment and ESPN. “DirecTV chose to deny millions of subscribers access to our content just as we head into the final week of the US Open and gear up for college football and the opening of the NFL season,” the Disney statement said. “While we’re open to offering DirecTV flexibility and terms which we’ve extended to other distributors, we will not enter into an agreement that undervalues our portfolio of television channels and programs.”

DirecTV users must apply for $20 credits

DirecTV is offering $20 credits to affected customers, but the TV firm is not applying those credits automatically. Customers need to go to this webpage to request a bill credit.

AT&T owns 70 percent of DirecTV after spinning it off into a new entity in 2021. AT&T explored options for selling its 70 percent stake almost a year ago. Private equity firm TPG owns the other 30 percent.

Based on previous TV carriage fights, a DirecTV/Disney agreement could be reached within days. A similar dispute between Disney and Charter Communications happened almost exactly a year ago and was resolved after eight days.

Carpenter said today that DirecTV wants to sell smaller channel packages and that Disney’s proposed terms conflict with that goal. Variety summarized his comments:

At the heart of the dispute, says Carpenter, is a desire by DirecTV to sell “skinnied down” packages of programming tailored to various subscriber interests, rather than forcing customers to take channels they may not want or watch very often. The company believes such a model would help retain subscribers, even if they were paying less. There is also interest in helping customers find other content, even if it’s not sold directly on the service, Carpenter says.

Streaming add-ons and “skinny” bundles

Last year’s agreement between Disney and Charter included access to the Disney+ and ESPN+ streaming services for Charter’s Spectrum cable customers. Carpenter was quoted by the Hollywood Reporter as saying there is “value” in that kind of deal, “but what’s important is that it’s not a replica of the model that got us here in the first place, where it has to be distributed and paid for by 100 percent or a large percentage of the customers.”

A lobby group that represents DirecTV and other TV providers, the American Television Alliance, blasted Disney for “seek[ing] to raise rates and force distributors to carry an unwieldy ‘one-size fits all’ bundle of more than a dozen channels to the vast majority of their subscribers.” The group said Disney’s proposed terms would require TV companies to sell “fat bundles” that “force consumers to pay for programming they don’t watch.”

Disney’s statement on Sunday claimed that DirecTV rejected its offer of “a fair, marketplace-based agreement.”

“DirecTV continues to push a narrative that they want to explore more flexible, ‘skinnier’ bundles and that Disney refuses to engage,” Disney said. “This is blatantly false. Disney has been negotiating with them in good faith for weeks and has proposed a variety of flexible options, in addition to innovative ways to work together in making Disney’s direct-to-consumer streaming services available to DirecTV’s customers.”

We contacted both companies today and will update this article if there are any major developments.

Disclosure: The Advance/Newhouse Partnership, which owns 12.4 percent of Charter, is part of Advance Publications, which also owns Ars Technica parent Condé Nast.

TV viewers get screwed again as Disney channels are blacked out on DirecTV Read More »

Disney fighting restaurant death suit with Disney+ terms “absurd,” lawyer says

Disney, disney springs, Florida, Policy, raglan road Irish pub, streaming service, Walt Disney World resorts, wrongful death / Ari B / August 14, 2024

Enlarge / Raglan Road Irish Pub at Disney Springs in Orlando, Florida, USA.

After a woman, Kanokporn Tangsuan, with severe nut allergies died from anaphylaxis due to a Disney Springs restaurant neglecting to honor requests for allergen-free food, her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, sued on behalf of her estate.

In May, Disney tried to argue that the wrongful death suit should be dismissed because Piccolo subscribed to a one-month free trial of Disney+ four years before Tangsuan’s shocking death. Fighting back this month, a lawyer representing Tangsuan’s estate, Brian Denney, warned that Disney was “explicitly seeking to bar its 150 million Disney+ subscribers from ever prosecuting a wrongful death case against it in front of a jury even if the case facts have nothing to with Disney+.”

According to Disney, by agreeing to the Disney+ terms, Piccolo also agreed to other Disney terms vaguely hyperlinked in the Disney+ agreement that required private arbitration for “all disputes” against “The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates” arising “in contract, tort, warranty, statute, regulation, or other legal or equitable basis.”

However, Denney argued that “there is simply no reading of the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement, the only Agreement Mr. Piccolo allegedly assented to in creating his Disney+ account, which would support the notion that he was agreeing on behalf of his wife or her estate, to arbitrate injuries sustained by his wife at a restaurant located on premises owned by a Disney theme park or resort from which she died.”

“Frankly, any such suggestion borders on the absurd,” Denney said.

Denney argued that Disney’s motion to compel arbitration was “so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience.”

It’s particularly shocking, Denney argued, because of a “glaring ambiguity” that Disney “ignores”—that Piccolo more recently agreed to other Disney terms that “directly conflict” with the terms that Disney prefers to reference in its motion.

Denney argued that Disney is “desperately” clinging to “Piccolo’s purported consent to the Disney Terms of Use in November of 2019, because the My Disney Experience Terms and Conditions he allegedly consented to in 2023″—when purchasing tickets on Disney’s website to Epcot that went unused—”do not contain an arbitration provision.”

Those terms instead “rather expressly contemplate that the parties may file lawsuits and requires those suits to be filed in Orange County Florida and to be governed by Florida law,” Denney said. They also specify that the My Disney Experience terms prevail amid any conflict with other terms.

This renders “the arbitration provision in the Disney Terms of Use unenforceable,” Denney argued, requesting Disney’s motion be denied and suggesting that Disney is attempting “to deprive the Estate of Kanokporn Tangsuan of its right to a jury trial.”

He also reminded the court that in nursing home cases, Florida courts have “repeatedly held that a resident’s estate will not be bound by an arbitration agreement signed by a spouse or other family member in their individual capacity.”

Disney is hoping that its Disney+ terms argument will push the litigation out of the court and behind closed doors of arbitration, arguing that “Piccolo’s remaining claims against Great Irish Pubs”—which does business as Raglan Road Irish Pub—”should be stayed as well.” That would be proper, Disney argued, because Piccolo’s claims against Disney “are based entirely on Great Irish Pubs’ alleged misconduct” and “it would be problematic for this litigation to continue since each tribunal may decide the issues differently.”

Disney also noted that the litigation should also be stayed if Great Irish Pubs joined the arbitration, which Disney “would not oppose.”

Denney argued that Disney’s motion to compel arbitration was “fatally flawed for numerous independent reasons.”

“There is not a single authority in Florida that would support such an inane argument,” Denney argued. It’s “preposterous,” he said, that Disney is arguing that “when Jeffrey Piccolo, individually, allegedly signed himself up for a free trial of Disney+ back in 2019 or bought Epcot tickets in 2023, he somehow bound the non-existent Estate of Kanokporn Tangsuan (his wife, who was alive at both times) to an arbitration agreement buried within certain terms and conditions.”

Disney fighting restaurant death suit with Disney+ terms “absurd,” lawyer says Read More »

“So tired”: Disney+, Hulu, ESPN+ prices increase by up to 25 percent in October

Disney, Disney Plus, ESPN, streaming, Tech / Blake Jones / August 6, 2024

The cycle continues —

Not even ad tiers are safe as Disney looks to coax people into bundle packages.

Scharon Harding – Aug 6, 2024 6: 50 pm UTC

The Doctor and Ruby in 1960s — Enlarge / A scene from the new season of *Doctor Who*, which is streaming on Disney+.

Disney+

Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+ will get more expensive as of October 17, whether users have a subscription with or without ads. After most recently jacking up streaming prices in October 2023, The Walt Disney Company is raising subscription fees by as much as 25 percent, depending on the streaming service and plan.

Here’s how pricing will look in October compared to now:

	Now	As of October 17
Disney+ with ads	$8/month	$10/month
Disney+ without ads	$14/month $140/year	$16/month $160/year
Hulu with ads	$8/year $80/year	$10/month $100/year
Hulu without ads	$18/month	$19/month
Hulu and Live TV with ads	$77/month	$83/month
Hulu and Live TV without ads	$90/month	$96/month
Disney+ and Hulu with ads	$10/month	$11/month
Disney+ and Hulu without ads	$20/month	No change
ESPN+	$11/month $110/year	$12/month $120/year
Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+ with ads	$15	No change
Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+ without ads	$25	No change

Disney didn’t announce any pricing changes for the bundle that contains Disney+, sister streaming service Hulu, and Warner Bros. Discovery’s rival streaming platform, Max.

Based on the updated pricing, Disney is seemingly trying to coax people to sign up for one of its streaming bundles, which combine multiple services for a lower price than if the services were each subscribed to individually. Streaming companies have been trying to use bundles to deter people from frequently canceling their streaming subscriptions. But as we’ve written before, streaming bundles don’t address subscribers’ complaints around incessant price hikes, content quality, confusing packages, or features.

Another price hike

One of the biggest problems that streaming subscribers, especially long-term ones, are facing is ever-rising prices. Disney already increased prices in October 2023, meaning Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+ are facing their second price hikes in about a year.

Early reactions online, including on forums like Reddit, show people dissatisfied with streaming price hikes that don’t seem to align with the quality of content available. For example, Reddit user Montysucker wrote: “easy[,] cancel now,” adding:

“The enshittification of media in the last few years is insane and it’s wild how seemingly no one cares anymore about making something that is actually enjoyable to watch and not their egotistic[al] pipe dream.”

Of course, many expressed being overwhelmed with continuing to see streaming prices rise, as Slow_Investment_2211 wrote:

On October 12, 2023, as Variety summarized, Disney+ without ads went up by 27 percent, from $11 to $14 per month. Hulu without ads went up 20 percent ($15 to $18/month). Hulu with Live packages each also increased by $7 at the time, while ESPN+ pricing increased by $1.

Disney paired the price hike announcement with the revealing of new upcoming features for Disney+. However, the new linear channels are little comfort for people who don’t use Disney+.

The new channels will be ABC News Live, which Disney+ users can access on September 4, and channels “focused on preschool content, featuring TV series and shorts available on Disney+.” Disney+ will also get four more channels (or as Disney’s calling them, playlists) that show: 1) “Seasonal Content” from Disney+; 2) “Epic Stories” from big franchises like Marvel and Star Wars; 3) “Throwbacks” with “nostalgic pop culture”; and 4) “Real Life” documentaries.

It’s possible that Disney will introduce more channels to appeal to more users. But with all the price hikes that streaming subscribers have endured over the past few years, many would prefer avoiding price bumps that are partially for extra channels that they may never watch. Charging for unwanted content in media packages that are already priced questionably is reminiscent of cable, something that streaming was initially supposed to replace, not replicate.

Subscribers to Disney’s trio of streaming services will be unlikely to be alone in facing price hikes for long; analysts suspect Netflix pricing will also increase this year.

“So tired”: Disney+, Hulu, ESPN+ prices increase by up to 25 percent in October Read More »

The “Netflix of anime” piracy site abruptly shuts down, shocking users

anime, anime piracy, animeflix, copyright, copyright infringement, copyright law, copyright takedowns, Disney, online piracy, Policy, the fable, universal, Warner Bros. / Ari B / July 5, 2024

Disney+ promotional art for <em>The Fable</em>, an anime series that triggered Animeflix takedown notices.” src=”https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/The-Fable-press-image-800×450.jpeg”></img><figcaption>
<p><a data-height=

Thousands of anime fans were shocked Thursday when the popular piracy site Animeflix voluntarily shut down without explaining why, TorrentFreak reported.

“It is with a heavy heart that we announce the closure of Animeflix,” the site’s operators told users in a Discord with 35,000 members. “After careful consideration, we have decided to shut down our service effective immediately. We deeply appreciate your support and enthusiasm over the years.”

Prior to its shutdown, Animeflix attracted millions of monthly visits, TorrentFreak reported. It was preferred by some anime fans for its clean interface, with one fan on Reddit describing Animeflix as the “Netflix of anime.”

“Deadass this site was clean,” one Reddit user wrote. “The best I’ve ever seen. Sad to see it go.”

Although Animeflix operators did not connect the dots for users, TorrentFreak suggested that the piracy site chose to shut down after facing “considerable legal pressure in recent months.”

Back in December, an anti-piracy group, Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), sought to shut down Animeflix. Then in mid-May, rightsholders—including Netflix, Disney, Universal, Paramount, and Warner Bros.—won an injunction through the High Court of India against several piracy sites, including Animeflix. This briefly caused Animeflix to be unavailable until Animeflix simply switched to another domain and continued serving users, TorrentFreak reported.

Although Animeflix is not telling users why it’s choosing to shut down now, TorrentFreak—which, as its name suggests, focuses much of its coverage on copyright issues impacting file sharing online—noted that “when a pirate site shuts down, voluntarily or not, copyright issues typically play a role.”

For anime fans, the abrupt closure was disappointing because of difficulty accessing the hottest new anime titles and delays as studios work to offer translations to various regions. The delays are so bad that some studios are considering combating piracy by using AI to push out translated versions more quickly. But fans fear this will only result in low-quality subtitles, CBR reported.

On Reddit, some fans also complained after relying exclusively on Animeflix to keep track of where they left off on anime shows that often span hundreds of episodes.

Others begged to be turned onto other anime piracy sites, while some speculated whether Animeflix might eventually pop up at a new domain. TorrentFreak noted that Animeflix shut down once previously several years ago but ultimately came back. One Redditor wrote, “another hero has passed away but the will, will be passed.” On another Reddit thread asking “will Animeflix be gone forever or maybe create a new site,” one commenter commiserated, writing, “We don’t know for sure. Only time will tell.”

It’s also possible that someone else may pick up the torch and operate a new piracy site under the same name. According to TorrentFreak, this is “likely.”

Animeflix did not reassure users that it may be back, instead urging them to find other sources for their favorite shows and movies.

“We hope the joy and excitement of anime continue to brighten your days through other wonderful platforms,” Animeflix’s Discord message said.

ACE did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment.

The “Netflix of anime” piracy site abruptly shuts down, shocking users Read More »

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

Amazon, amazon prime video, Disney, Disney Plus, Hulu, streaming, Tech / Mike M. / April 19, 2024

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=

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

ads, cable, Disney, Disney Plus, netflix, streaming, Tech / Mike M. / April 16, 2024

Here we go again —

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

Scharon Harding – Apr 16, 2024 5: 42 pm UTC

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=

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?

antitrust, Disney, Fox, lawsuits, Policy, sports, streaming, Tech, warner bros. discovery / Ryan Harris / February 23, 2024

Collaborating conglomerates —

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

Scharon Harding – Feb 22, 2024 5: 56 pm UTC

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

Apple, Apple TV, apple vision, apple vision pro, Disney, Features, Tech, visionOS / Mike M. / February 11, 2024

Apple Vision Pro Review —

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

Samuel Axon – Feb 9, 2024 3: 41 pm UTC

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, epic, epic games, fortnite, gaming / Blake Jones / February 8, 2024

Steamboat Willie in Fortnite when? —

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

Kyle Orland – Feb 7, 2024 10: 48 pm UTC

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.

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

Disney, Hulu, streaming, Tech / Ari B / February 1, 2024

profit push —

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

Scharon Harding – Feb 1, 2024 7: 49 pm UTC

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=

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 »