More Disney+ Nonsense

Forums › Online streaming services › More Disney+ Nonsense

1 | 2 | 3

2733 posts

Uber Geek

#3345344 21-Feb-2025 16:39

jonathan18:

Well, before any of you kill your sub, I suggest you give this series a go - I'd never heard of it before it was recommended by a friend: an Australian black 'comedy' with episodes that are a short and sweet <30 mins. Bloody brilliant. (Like all SVOD services it can be hard to sort the wheat from the chaff, and I doubt I'd have come across this if not directly recommended.)

https://www.disneyplus.com/en-nz/series/mr-inbetween/4lPI5VghBpTi

The shorts on YT for this look very good. However I really don't want to subscribe to D+ to just get this one program which might take me months to watch through (not a binge watcher). Is it available anywhere by itself as a ppv?

Backblaze

Backblaze Unlimited Backup. World’s easiest cloud backup. Get peace of mind knowing your files are backed up securely in the cloud (affiliate link).

Interslice

159 posts

Master Geek

#3345345 21-Feb-2025 16:46

maoriboy:

It might be time to break out the parrot, peg leg and eye patch and take to the high seas once again......

Done this for the last year, best decision ever.

nzkc

1557 posts

Uber Geek

#3345348 21-Feb-2025 17:06

networkn:

I honestly never understood why people thought this wasn't always going to be the outcome. It seemed extremely obvious.

I'm not going to rehash the arguments. You can know its coming and still be angry about it when it does.

Personally; I think you're silly to pay for a service and also accept adverts on that service.

Handle9

11241 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3345478 21-Feb-2025 20:55

networkn:

tdgeek and I have pretty much been talking about this since NF was new and people were trashing Sky. Now most people are subscribed to more services and spend more than they did with Sky and complaining they are getting ripped off.

The trashing of sky was more than justified. They offered a really substandard service relative to the profits they were making. If they hadn't just milked the cow during the last 10 years of the Fellet era there would have been a very different perception of Sky. Unfortunately they were arrogant and thought nothing would change which has led to a collapse of their value.

If Sky, or any of these services, offer enough value people will pay for them. For all of Spotifys problems it's hard to deny the value and quality of service they bring to users. Sky, and many streaming services, don't do that and there are many other options for people to find entertainment.

networkn

Networkn
32236 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3345578 22-Feb-2025 16:50

Handle9:

The trashing of sky was more than justified. They offered a really substandard service relative to the profits they were making. If they hadn't just milked the cow during the last 10 years of the Fellet era there would have been a very different perception of Sky. Unfortunately they were arrogant and thought nothing would change which has led to a collapse of their value.

If Sky, or any of these services, offer enough value people will pay for them. For all of Spotifys problems it's hard to deny the value and quality of service they bring to users. Sky, and many streaming services, don't do that and there are many other options for people to find entertainment.

Most of the complaints weren't justified. People kept claiming it didn't have a good selection of content and that Sky was ripping them off.

They are now seeing that getting a similar breadth of content costs just as much, or in most cases, more than what Sky costs.

Also, provably wrong that people were getting ripped off by the fact that Sky hasn't made decent profits in way more than a decade and is the only option for many rural Kiwi's and maintaining that infrastructure is expensive.

Sky's obligations are to it's shareholders and stakeholders. They were under no obligation to provide a better deal than was required to make the product attractive to as many people as possible, for the most amount the market would sustain.

People get treated the same every day by businesses and don't complain. The bottom line is, people don't really want to pay for content.

There is no comparison between Sky and Spotify. For a start, pretty much all the streaming music services are offering almost all the same content. It's not like Apple Music is the only service that has Taylor Swift and Spotify only has Ed Sheeran. When everyone has the same content, then you are in a market that has competition, hence the value of Spotify. If they were the only game in town, do you think their prices would be under $35 a month? I doubt it.

The music industry has accepted fragmentation isn't in their best interests. Film and TV doesn't obviously feel the same way, hence rights aren't available for everything to every platform.

Handle9

11241 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3345579 22-Feb-2025 16:58

networkn:

Sky's obligations are to it's shareholders and stakeholders. They were under no obligation to provide a better deal than was required to make the product attractive to as many people as possible, for the most amount the market would sustain.

If you treat your customers like chumps then you deserve what you get.

Businesses that want to be sustainable understand that it's a balance between shareholders, customers and staff. I have no sympathy for Sky, they have made their own bed.

BlakJak

1249 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3345590 22-Feb-2025 18:48

Suspended our account today (takes effect next week, billing date is 28/2).

They only let you suspend for 8 weeks. Wonder how long before I get annoyed and kill it entirely.

No signature to see here, move along...

TG09

234 posts

Master Geek

#3345591 22-Feb-2025 18:58

Great, will wait and see what happens if i like it or not. Otherwise will cancel it as well.

heapsort

245 posts

Master Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3345818 23-Feb-2025 06:34

networkn:

Also, provably wrong that people were getting ripped off by the fact that Sky hasn't made decent profits in way more than a decade and is the only option for many rural Kiwi's and maintaining that infrastructure is expensive.

That logic is incorrect. A history of modest profit does not even imply, let alone prove, that customers are not being ripped off in any market where monopoly conditions exist. The monopoly provider (and Sky is one, in the set of sports for which it holds exclusive rights at any time) can estimate the elasticity of demand and choose the size of the market accordingly: a large customer base at a modest price, a small customer base at an expensive price, or anywhere in between.

(To keep the discussion on topic, this also applies to Disney+ and other streaming services where they have exclusive rights to content.)

Delorean

646 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3345847 23-Feb-2025 10:04

When I went to cancel my Disney+ subscription, it redirected me to a page offering a discounted deal of $16.25 for 6 months, down from the usual $21.99. It’s pretty clear they’re offering a 25% retention discount, which suggests they’re keeping a close eye on how many people are accepting the new pricing. It feels like they’re using a bit of a "behavioural pricing" strategy, offering discounts or incentives for people who are on the verge of cancelling, almost like a last-ditch effort to keep subscribers around.

It reminds me of the "Apple Pricing" when it comes to pricing and consumer behaviour. Apple is known for setting prices just high enough that people feel they’re paying for something premium, but not so high that they scare potential customers away. The idea is that people are willing to pay a bit more for perceived value or exclusivity, and Apple knows how to balance that fine line.

With Disney+, it’s a similar approach. By offering a retention discount right when people are thinking of cancelling, they’re tapping into that same psychological play. They’re making the price feel more reasonable just when you’re about to walk away, creating a sense of urgency or "fear of missing out" on a "limited-time offer." At the same time, they’re careful not to drop the price too low, so the service doesn’t feel devalued in the long run.

It’s a clever tactic, using consumer psychology to nudge you into staying with the service, even if it’s just for a few more months. It’s a mix of the Apple approach and classic behavioural economics in action. They’re giving you a taste of a better deal, without fully committing to a lower price long-term, but it’s enough to make you reconsider your decision.

Referral Link: | Quic Broadband (use R142206E0L2CR for free setup)

rugrat

3095 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3345901 23-Feb-2025 12:48

I paid through Apple, so got no offer of discount when canceled. Signing up through Apple is same price as signing direct. I keep an eye on this as when setting up YouTube discovered a $4-$5 monthly price difference so signed direct with them. Youtube has just canceled my grandfather contract so in last month have paused it end of this month, with intention of canceling while paused, just seeing how find it with ads. Interesting it has upgrade for $12.99 my old price, but see if that remains once this month is up.

If I subscribe for a month maybe better signing direct with Disney if get offers when cancel, but guessing offers maybe for only people that signed at lower price on subscription.

tdgeek

29631 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3346049 23-Feb-2025 18:59

heapsort:

networkn:

Also, provably wrong that people were getting ripped off by the fact that Sky hasn't made decent profits in way more than a decade and is the only option for many rural Kiwi's and maintaining that infrastructure is expensive.

That logic is incorrect. A history of modest profit does not even imply, let alone prove, that customers are not being ripped off in any market where monopoly conditions exist. The monopoly provider (and Sky is one, in the set of sports for which it holds exclusive rights at any time) can estimate the elasticity of demand and choose the size of the market accordingly: a large customer base at a modest price, a small customer base at an expensive price, or anywhere in between.

(To keep the discussion on topic, this also applies to Disney+ and other streaming services where they have exclusive rights to content.)

Wasnt aware Sky had a monopoly. There is a lot of content that is on ONE platform, that is also a monopoly. If you don't see that Sky or any other provider that has content that is nowhere else, hence a monopoly, unsubscribe. Or subscribe. That is the free market.

openmedia

3308 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3346177 23-Feb-2025 23:24

tdgeek:

Wasnt aware Sky had a monopoly. There is a lot of content that is on ONE platform, that is also a monopoly. If you don't see that Sky or any other provider that has content that is nowhere else, hence a monopoly, unsubscribe. Or subscribe. That is the free market.

Sorry I'm not aware of the ONE platform. Can you provide a link?

Generally known online as OpenMedia, now working for Red Hat APAC as a Technology Evangelist and Portfolio Architect. Still playing with MythTV and digital media on the side.

Ragnor

8196 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3348573 28-Feb-2025 02:35

Disney+ has racked up $11 billion USD of operating losses since launching so not sure why anyone is surprised the price is being jacked up

Tinkerisk

4198 posts

Uber Geek

#3351698 9-Mar-2025 15:50

Ragnor:

Disney+ has racked up $11 billion USD of operating losses since launching so not sure why anyone is surprised the price is being jacked up

Then I won't be like that and even allow them to discontinue their business model. 😁

- NET: FTTH, OPNsense, 10G backbone, GWN APs, ipPBX
- SRV: 12 RU HA server cluster, 0.1 PB storage on premise
- IoT: thread, zigbee, tasmota, BidCoS, LoRa, WX suite, IR
- 3D: two 3D printers, 3D scanner, CNC router, laser cutter

1 | 2 | 3