Fairly obvious I would have thought, as the deals expire they'll be pulled into the Disney+ portal and disappear from Sky. Same was true with Netflix various Marvel series.

Is this why UK is getting disney+ half a year late?

Yeah, i'm looking at doing away with my aerial and tv licence, and getting Disney+ along with Netflix OR Amazon prime video, haven't decided which of those 2 to plump for yet.

Disney are a bit late to the party. Kind of hope they get burnt by this. There is only so many monthlys a family can take on.

Does this not need to be sent to the monopoly and mergers commission in the uk as im not paying for another service if they are going to push their way in.

Meanwhile all those in the UK who ‘really’ wanted to see The Mandalorian…have.

JaymondoGB
Disney are a bit late to the party. Kind of hope they get burnt by this. There is only so many monthlys a family can take on.

Welcome to the future where you need to switch providers every few months so you take advantage of offers and binge watch the exclusives!

Nollauno
Does this not need to be sent to the monopoly and mergers commission in the uk as im not paying for another service if they are going to push their way in.

Good luck - Disney already own all this stuff (Its also no monopoly as Sky/Netfix/Amazon prime still exist) and lets face it - Its just the same tactic Sky did to get all the content in the first place! (Also do you really think a Boris Johnson government will get in the way of Big Business?)

Bagpuss
Meanwhile all those in the UK who ‘really’ wanted to see The Mandalorian…have.

Arr!

Usernamist
Is this why UK is getting disney+ half a year late?

Yes.

JaymondoGB
Disney are a bit late to the party. Kind of hope they get burnt by this. There is only so many monthlys a family can take on.

I suspect Disney and it's subsidiaries have enough content that it'll be one of the others people drop to have access to Disney/Pixar/20th century fox/Marvel/star wars/NatGeo.

Nollauno
Does this not need to be sent to the monopoly and mergers commission in the uk as im not paying for another service if they are going to push their way in.

So you think an extra service that provides more competition in the TV market needs referring on the grounds of monopoly? Curious.

At the minute there is one provider of Disney content (sky) with an asking price of £20+ a month. After this there will still be one provider of this content (Disney+) for an asking price under half that. How is this anticompetitive?

spacein_vader
So you think an extra service that provides more competition in the TV market needs referring on the grounds of monopoly? Curious.

People regularly confuse monopoly with competition when it means they have to pay for more things just to watch what they want.

At the end of the day, what consumers actually want is 1 single service the shows everything, which is a monopoly, what they get is the privilege of paying for lots of services just to get a few shows on each, which is competition.

Whilst an adult household might be happy to switch services every couple of months to have a quick binge on shows then rotate, I can image the nag power of little ones is going to be a powerful force keeping multiple subscriptions running because all the friends in the playground watch X & y & z across the services.

spacein_vader

Usernamist
Is this why UK is getting disney+ half a year late?

Yes.

JaymondoGB
Disney are a bit late to the party. Kind of hope they get burnt by this. There is only so many monthlys a family can take on.

I suspect Disney and it's subsidiaries have enough content that it'll be one of the others people drop to have access to Disney/Pixar/20th century fox/Marvel/star wars/NatGeo.

Nollauno
Does this not need to be sent to the monopoly and mergers commission in the uk as im not paying for another service if they are going to push their way in.

So you think an extra service that provides more competition in the TV market needs referring on the grounds of monopoly? Curious.

At the minute there is one provider of Disney content (sky) with an asking price of £20+ a month. After this there will still be one provider of this content (Disney+) for an asking price under half that. How is this anticompetitive?

Nope. It's corporate greed like this that pushes users to piracy.

You then have the fat cats and lawyers stating how piracy is evil (hence the term they enforce to describe it, it's not piracy, but the real terms don't sound vile or evil enough)

These fat cats will attempt to push these overpriced subscriptions, with limited content (mostly bland filler and old shows) amongst all other subscriptions.

Let's not forget the gaming subscriptions (especially for families who may have more than one brand or different preferences)

Mobile subscriptions/ Bill's, this is just the first few off the top of my head.

Granted, these are first world problems, undoubtedly. But if you take the costs into account, not only is the general use without disposable income, they are far beyond their means.

I feel I should mention here the action taken by these conglomerate a few years back.

Instances like dead grandmothers being sent cease and desist orders, court summons, etc.

They couldn't accept user demand and simply want to control and dictate, at VERY high cost and profitability.

Disney was VERY washed out at the time.

They've clearly realised that, despite their size, they would go the way of the dodo.

They've bought Fox, made various changes and now look to take the helm as a controlling conglomerate once more.

I am aware I sound very cynical, but if they take even a fraction of the users the aim to, everyone is in trouble.

If Netflix can survive, at least there's some competition, but in a few years we could be back to where we were with physical media.

BobF64
People regularly confuse monopoly with competition when it means they have to pay for more things just to watch what they want.

At the end of the day, what consumers actually want is 1 single service the shows everything, which is a monopoly, what they get is the privilege of paying for lots of services just to get a few shows on each, which is competition.

Maybe, but that hasn't existed in the UK TV market since ITV launched in 1955. It's also the opposite of what the Monopolys commission (or whatever it's called these days,) is designed to do, so any referal to them will go nowhere.

Yoyoyo69
Nope. It's corporate greed like this that pushes users to piracy.

You then have the fat cats and lawyers stating how piracy is evil (hence the term they enforce to describe it, it's not piracy, but the real terms don't sound vile or evil enough)

These fat cats will attempt to push these overpriced subscriptions, with limited content (mostly bland filler and old shows) amongst all other subscriptions.

Let's not forget the gaming subscriptions (especially for families who may have more than one brand or different preferences)

Mobile subscriptions/ Bill's, this is just the first few off the top of my head.

Granted, these are first world problems, undoubtedly. But if you take the costs into account, not only is the general use without disposable income, they are far beyond their means.

Current TV networks show mostly bland filler and old shows too, but at least with streaming services the cost is lower and can be cancelled at 30 days notice.

Also while I take your point on subs for other things there really is no model that works for mobile phone coverage. They provide you with an ongoing service (access to their network for calls/texts/data,) with ongoing costs so there's an ongoing charge.

Yoyoyo69
Nope. It's corporate greed like this that pushes users to piracy.

Looking at this currently and to where it seems to be heading, I can imagine that piracy will return in force if there is too much fragmentation of the streaming services. That would cost far more than having less competition where everyone has their own streaming services for their own content they own. It's odd to see this potentially happening a little further down the road.

As to Disney pulling content from Sky and NOW TV? I take no issue with that, I'm keeping Netflix (even without Disney content there is still content I want to watch), I'm keeping Amazon Prime (because I don't get it for the video component, although that's a nice extra). I'll likely drop NOW TV on a rotational basis and have Apple TV and Disney+ for more variety. Either way, my limit is Netflix / Amazon + £15. Be interesting to see how SKY adapt or respond.

spacein_vader
Maybe, but that hasn't existed in the UK TV market since ITV launched in 1955. It's also the opposite of what the Monopolys commission (or whatever it's called these days,) is designed to do, so any referal to them will go nowhere.

Indeed. It's more that “competition” isn't determined by what consumers want, but by what they're told they can have.

As long as one more more other company makes something “equivalent”, its competition. Even if the 2 things are vastly different and incompatible.

BobF64
Indeed. It's more that “competition” isn't determined by what consumers want, but by what they're told they can have.

As long as one more more other company makes something “equivalent”, its competition. Even if the 2 things are vastly different and incompatible.

Or even when they're not. The current state of multiple providers showing Premier League football shows this. It may be cheaper than when it was all on Sky to watch some premier league football, but people don't want to watch some of it. They want to watch their team. And if they're on Sky this week, BT next and Amazon the week after then people will be annoyed if they can't afford all 3.

JaymondoGB
Disney are a bit late to the party. Kind of hope they get burnt by this. There is only so many monthlys a family can take on.

They actually aren't, they have been running an app called Disney Life for a few years now and all those customers will be switched to Disney+, also the US already has over 25 Million customers.

Although I do suspect a slight price increase and a signing up of new terms in general for current Disney Life customers to cover the extra content.

Nollauno
Does this not need to be sent to the monopoly and mergers commission in the uk as im not paying for another service if they are going to push their way in.

Given that the M&MC hasn't existed for nigh on 20 years they probably wouldn't be able to help much.

And people say the BBC is expensive ??? rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish the bed , this has gone too far .. unfurl the jolly roger, Me heartys!

It's not that it's expensive, unless you are prepared to jump through hoops and ignore threatening mail, the BBC licence TAX is FORCED upon you, with a threat of a CRIMINAL prosecution if you don't pay. There's no option to unsubscribe from their biased BS channel without a heap load of hassle, which is fine for some of us, but for others, it's just too much trouble.

Nollauno
Does this not need to be sent to the monopoly and mergers commission in the uk as im not paying for another service if they are going to push their way in.

Your age is showing a bit there. The M&MC ceased to exist more than 20 years ago. It was replaced by the Competition Commission, which itself ceased to exist several years ago (2013) and the functions of which are broadly covered by the Competition and Markets Authority.

But pedantics aside, I don't get your logic. The function (or rather a primary function) of all three was anti-competitive practices, such as ‘mergers’ leading to market dominance (the so-called ‘monopoly’ bit) by reducing the options given to consumers.

In what sense does a new entrant in the field reduce competition? You end up with one more option than you had before.

I get why increasing granularity might be a right nuisance if you have to sign up for several services to get the same content range, but anti-competitive it ain't. You have a choice. Currently, if you want (simplistically put) Sky and Disney, you sign up for Sky, but suppose you only wanr Sky, or only want Disney? You get (and pay for) both, like it or not. After this change, if you want Disney but object (for whatever reason) to Sky, you can just get Disney, and not pay Sky a penny.

As for the content, that's basic IP rights. The rights holder gets to determine what rights in content they own they will sell, lease or give away, and under what terms. Buyers can accept, decline or try to negotiate a variance. All Disney appear to be doing is declining to renew an existing contract, which is zero to do with mergers, etc.

Even I licence IP rights in different ways in different markets but, unless I've given perpetual rights, don't have to renew when a contract lapses.