Facebook restricts Live streaming access

Facebook has introduced new restrictions on its video streaming platform, Live, suggesting those who break other Facebook policies will be banned for a period of time.

The move comes in response to the live broadcast of the terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand. The social media platform broadcast the incident for 29 minutes, with around 200 people viewing the content, before it was cut. After heavy criticism, Facebook needed to act in an attempt to prevent a repeat of such a broadcast.

“Following the horrific terrorist attacks in New Zealand, we’ve been reviewing what more we can do to limit our services from being used to cause harm or spread hate,” said Guy Rosen, VP Integrity at Facebook.

“As a direct result, starting today, people who have broken certain rules on Facebook – including our Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy – will be restricted from using Facebook Live.”

Although some might suggest this is a potential limitation of free speech principles, Facebook has had to do something about the grey areas. It is unreasonable for moderators to view and approve every piece of content, while artificial intelligence technologies are still not advanced enough to tackle the problem. Taking a merit approach, removing privileges from those who already break the rules, is a less-than adequate approach but one of the few options without shutting down the feature completely.

The ‘one strike rule’ is a tightening up of rules which already existed. Facebook has been limiting the access of those who break the platforms rules, though this is a much more stringent approach specific to the Live feature.

“From now on, anyone who violates our most serious policies will be restricted from using Live for set periods of time – for example 30 days – starting on their first offense,” said Rosen. “For instance, someone who shares a link to a statement from a terrorist group with no context will now be immediately blocked from using Live for a set period of time.”

This is an incredibly difficult equation to balance, and this is not a perfect approach. It is still reactionary not preventative, but it should limit the risk. Unfortunately for Facebook, and everyone in general, whatever is done to attempt to limit these abuses, and technological abuses in general, will only be hurdles; there will always be a way to get around the safeguards.

The only way Facebook can prevent a repeat of this incident is to shut down Live completely, however, the vast majority of those using the feature are doing so as intended. More work needs to be done, but Facebook is attempting to make progress.

Streaming platforms are starting to become less attractive

Netflix started as a platform where old-series could be relived, but now with rivals aiming to replicate the success of the streaming giant, the content world is becoming increasingly fragmented.

The big question which remains is how big is the consumers appetite for content? How many streaming subscriptions are users willing to tolerate?

The news which hit the headlines this morning concerned Hulu. Disney has come to an agreement to purchase Comcast’s stake in the streaming service, for at least $5.8 billion, in a divorce proceeding which will take five years. This transaction follows the confirmation AT&T sold its 10% stake in Hulu to Disney last month.

Disney consolidating control of Hulu is not much of a surprise to those in the industry, but fan favourites disappearing from the various different streaming services might shock a few consumers.

AT&T has also confirmed it will be pulling WarnerMedia content, such as Friends and ER, from rival’s platforms. The Office, one of the most popular titles on Netflix, will be pulled by owner NBCUniversal. The series, and other NBCUniversal content, will also be pulled from Hulu in favour of parent-company Comcast’s streaming service which will launch next year. Disney will also be pulling its headline content, the Marvel movie franchise for example, back behind its own paywall. Amazon Prime has its own exclusive originals, and YouTube has ambitions with this model as well.

Over the next 12-18 months, content will be pulled back away from the licensing deals to reside only on the owners streaming platform. Users will find the content world which they have come to love is quickly going to change. Some might have presumed the cord-cutting era was one of openness, a stark contrast to one of exclusivity in traditional premium media, but it does seem to be heading back that direction.

It is perfectly reasonable to understand why this is being done. These are assets which need to be monetized, and the subscription model is clearly being favoured over the licensing one. WarnerMedia, 21st Century Fox, AT&T, Comcast and Disney might have had an interest in the licensing model in by-gone years, but following the consolidation buzz, it has become increasingly popular to create another streaming service to add into the mix.

The issue which may appear on the horizon is the fragmented nature of the streaming world; consumers wallets are only so thick, how many streaming services can the market handle?

The test over the next couple of months, or years, will be the quality of original programming. Netflix grew its original audience through a library of shows other content companies were ignoring, but today’s mission is completely different; original and local content is driving the agenda.

The question is whether other providers will be able to provide the same quality? With subscription revenue being spread thinner across multiple providers, will there be enough money flowing into the coffers to fuel the creation of this content? Will the pressures of increased competition decrease overall quality?

Today it is very easy to find the best and deepest range of content available. You might have to subscribe to more than one service, but at the moment consumers are able to afford it. Tomorrow might be a different case. The more streaming services in the market and the more fragmented the content, the more decisions consumers will have to made. Having 4/5 services is probably unreasonable. And we’re only talking about quality of experience, the mess of different discovery engines is another topic.

The question which remains is whether the economics of a fragmented content segment can support the original content dream which has been promised to consumers, or whether the old-world of low-quality, low-budget, limited and repetitive content returns. Soon enough Disney+ will launch, as will Comcast’s streaming service, to add to Hulu, Netflix, DirecTV, Amazon Prime, YouTube’s premium service, and any others which might be in the mix.

Content will become fragmented, thinner on the platforms, before consumers wallets become strained. How long the budget for content will last in this scenario remains to be seen as executives look to cut corners and increase profitability. It’s hard to see how current trends are going to benefit consumers.

Loyalty penalties for broadband, mobile and TV finally tackled

Ofcom has introduced rules which will aim to tackle ‘penalties’ imposed on renewing customers by broadband, mobile and content providers.

As part of the new rules, providers will have to inform customers 10 to 40 days prior to the end of the customers contract, the period where financial penalties would be applied for changing providers. In the notification, customers will be told the end date of the contract, differences in contract pricing moving forward, termination conditions and availability of cheaper deals.

Although customers will still have to be proactive in contacting rival competitors for better deals on the market, the hope is a more transparent approach with spur consumers into finding the best possible option. Telcos will have a year to ensure the right business processes and technologies are in place to action the rules.

“We’re making sure customers are treated fairly, by making companies give them the information they need, when they need it,” said Lindsey Fussell, Ofcom’s Consumer Group Director.

“This will put power in the hands of millions of people who’re paying more than necessary when they’re no longer tied to a contract.”

The initial idea was put forward back in December, with the belief as many as 20 million UK consumers have passed their initial contract period and could be paying more than necessary. The Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport escalated the issue in February with a public consultation aimed at moving the industry towards a position where loyalty was rewarded, ending aggressive cultures towards customer acquisition.

In September last year, the UK Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) launched a super-complaint with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) suggesting service providers over-charging renewing customers to bring in an extra £4.1 billion a year. Research commissioned by Broadband Genie has found many over 55s could be paying too much for their broadband service but lack the knowledge or confidence to choose a new package.

“Pre-emptive alerts and information about broadband and TV contract periods are good news for consumers since many have in effect been paying a premium for their loyalty once out of contract,” said Adrian Baschnonga, EY’s Telecoms Lead Analyst. “Today’s rules pave the way for a more proactive dialogue between service providers and their customers, which can unlock higher levels of satisfaction in the long term.”

While it will certainly take some work to bed in, such rules have the potential to move attitudes in the industry to prioritise customer retention over acquisition to meet profitability objectives. Much research points to this being a more rewarding approach to business, though few in the telco space practice this theory.

“uSwitch’s research found that the aggregate cost of out-of-contract charges to telecoms consumers is £41 a second,” said Richard Neudegg, Head of Regulation at uSwitch.com. “This is why time is of the essence – everyday spent waiting for these notifications to be rolled out, another £3.5 million is overspent on these services – meaning that more than £350 million has already been wasted since the consultation closed in February.

“While it has been a long time coming, this is an important step by the regulator to address what has long been a clearly unacceptable gap in the rules, penalising consumers to the tune of millions.”

This is a step in the right direction, but it will take more to ensure telcos shift their culture. The idea of customer acquisition over retention is deeply engrained in every aspect of the business and will define how the business operates. That said, progress is progress.

San Francisco puts the brakes on facial recognition surveillance

The City of San Francisco has passed new rules which will significantly curb the abilities of public sector organisations to purchase and utilise facial recognition technologies.

Opinions on newly emerging surveillance technologies have varied drastically, with some pointing to the benefits of safety and efficiency for intelligence and police forces, while others have bemoaned the crippling potential it could have on civil liberties and privacy.

The new rules in San Francisco do not necessarily ban surveillance technologies entirely, but barriers to demonstrate justification have been significantly increased.

“The success of San Francisco’s #FacialRecognition ban is owed to a vast grassroots coalition that has advocated for similar policies around the Bay Area for years,” said San Francisco Supervisor Aaron Peskin.

The legislation will come into effect in 30 days’ time. From that point, no city department or contracting officer will be able to purchase equipment unless the Board of Supervisors has appropriated funds for such acquisition. New processes will also be introduced including a surveillance technology policy for the department which meet the demands of the Board, as well as a surveillance impact report.

The department would also have to produce an in-depth annual report which would detail:

  • How the technology was used
  • Details of each instance data was shared outside the department
  • Crime statistics

The impact report will have to include a huge range of information including all the forward plans on logistics, experiences from other government departments, justification for the expenditure and potential impact on privacy. The department may also have to consult public opinion, while it will have to create concrete policies on data retention, storage, reporting and analysis.

City officials are making it as difficult as possible to make use of such technologies, and considering the impact or potential for abuse, quite rightly so. As mentioned before, this is not a ban on next-generation surveillance technologies, but an attempt to ensure deployment is absolutely necessary.

As mentioned before, the concerns surround privacy and potential violations of civil liberties, which were largely outlined in wide-sweeping privacy reforms set forward by California Governor Jerry Brown last year. The rules are intended to spur on an ‘informed public debate’ on the potential impacts on the rights guaranteed by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution.

Aside from the potential for abuse, it does appear City Official and privacy advocates are concerned over the impact on prejudices based on race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, income level, sexual orientation, or political perspective. Many analytical technologies are based on the most likely scenario, leaning on stereotypical beliefs and potentially increasing profiling techniques, effectively removing impartiality of viewing each case on its individual factors.

While the intelligence and policing community will most likely view such conditions as a bureaucratic mess, it should be absolutely be viewed as necessary. We’ve already seen the implementation of such technologies without public debate and scrutiny, a drastic step considering the potential consequences.

Although the technology is not necessarily new, think of border control at airports, perhaps the rollout in China has swayed opinion. When an authoritarian state like China, where political and societal values conflict that of the US, implements such technologies some will begin to ask what the nefarious impact of deployment actually is.

In February, a database emerged demonstrating China has used a full suite of AI tools to monitor its Uyghur population in the far west of the country. This could have been a catalyst for the rules.

That said, the technology is also far from perfect. Police forces across the UK has been trialling facial recognition and data analytics technologies with varied results. At least 53 UK local councils and 45 of the country’s police forces are heavily relying on computer algorithms to assess the risk level of crimes against children as well as people cheating on benefits.

In May last year, the South Wales Police Force has to defend its decision to trial NEC facial recognition software during the 2017 Champions League Final as it is revealed only 8% of the identifications proved to be accurate.

It might be viewed by some as bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy but considering the potential for abuse and damage to privacy rights, such administrative barriers are critical. More cities should take the same approach as San Francisco.

Google goes back to ad-supported model for its YouTube Originals

Google seems to come a cropper when it comes to its YouTube content ambitions, announcing all of its Original content will now be available for ‘free’.

As part of the evolution of YouTube, Google attempted something which could have been viewed as quite drastic; it introduced a paywall. For $11.99 a month, users could access ad-free content, Google’s library of music and also its Original content. For a platform which has a reputation for free content, it was a strategy which flew in the face of logic.

However, it would appear this strategy has been less than successful. This is not to say it is dead, but more work needs to be done on the foundations before the palace can be built. Starting at some point this year, YouTube Original content will be available for ‘free’, with adverts, on the YouTube platform for all to view.

“Today, we announced that all new YouTube Original series and specials will soon be available for fans around the world to watch for free with ads — just like they enjoy other content on the platform,” YouTube said in a blog entry.

The paywall business model might be attractive in the long-run, but Google is still a business with investors; it has to make money now as well.

“Presumably YouTube’s gargantuan global audience means its more lucrative to use advertising rather than subs to monetise those shows [YouTube Originals],” said Ed Barton, Chief Analyst at Ovum.

“YouTube has huge audiences in many countries which don’t have much propensity to subscribe to online video services so focusing on advertising presumably unlocks a lot of value in those markets.”

Perhaps this is what we should take away from this move; Google tried to do something new, it didn’t reap the rewards, and now the team is going back to the tried and tested ad-supported model. It was too much self-disruption to stomach is a single sitting.

The content conundrum

Despite content being one of the biggest discussions in the tech world over the last few years, the question of how to make money still remains.

On one side of the fence, you have the paywall business model. There are numerous benefits here, recurring revenues and brand stickiness being the most obvious, though it does also create a sense of authority in the field. This premium perception will be attractive to the content creators, and it does also simplify the process of paying the creators themselves.

However, a paywall does make it more difficult to scale viewing figures and does mean you have to justify the cost to consumers. Dud content is punishable through the trials of social media meaning more attention (and money) much be spent on creating original content.

Looking at the ad-supported model, the practice which drove Google to the behemoth it is today, content is much more accessible and simpler to scale. You also have the advantage of not being punished for suspect-quality content as consumers are being entertained for ‘free’.

But there is also the downside, which mirrors the paywall approach almost perfectly. Content creators will be afraid of de-valuing their work, while there is also the complicated matter of getting paid. Consumers are not necessarily guaranteed to come back, and when you have created a reputation for a free-content provider, shifting users towards premium products becomes much more difficult.

Google’s long-term ambitions

The ad-supported business model has fuelled Google’s growth over the last decade, though it would be stupid to ignore the trends which are in the market.

“Google and YouTube should certainly have an eye on over-arching trends in the content space,” said Paolo Pescatore of PP Foresight.

“Traditional content creators are gradually moving towards the world of OTT, and YouTube is the most popular streaming platform on the planet. It has to figure out how to change its perception in the eyes of the consumer, ushering the masses behind the paywall.”

As Pescatore points out, consumers view YouTube as a platform for free content. This engrained perception will present challenges in driving adoption of the premium products, however offering the Original programming for free might work as somewhat of a teaser to justify the expense of a subscription.

YouTube is a platform which can survive by solely focusing on the ad-supported model, however it will be leaving money on the table. Premium streaming services are certainly gaining more traction, creating more value throughout the entire digital ecosystem. Why would Google want to ignore this potential boost to revenues?

Diversification is key for every business, not just the ones who are under financial pressures. Google has consistently shown it is an organization which consistently strives for the new and is not afraid of setbacks.

The movement towards a paywall on the YouTube platform might not have worked for the moment, but there are simply too many gains to ignore. Releasing YouTube Originals as free content might be a smart way to alter the perception of YouTube, demonstrating the value of what is behind the paywall to consumers, and also proving content creators their pride and joy would not be devalued on the platform.

For the moment, Google executives seem to have decided that there is more money in ad-supported revenues than the paywall for YouTube Originals. This might not help long-term ambitions of making the paywall model work, but perhaps it was too much of a drastic step away from the traditional Google business model.

This is a minor set-back, but the YouTube paywall is far from destroyed.

Huawei set to launch 5G telly – report

A report is claiming Huawei wants to become a major TV and PC player and will use its 5G expertise as a differentiator.

The scoop comes courtesy of Nikkei Asian Review which was contacted by people who think they know what they’re talking about. Those people reckon Huawei is going big on TVs and will not only stick a 5G modem in its first device, which could even be launched this year, but will go with 8k resolution.

It looks like part of the point of this telly will be to show how great 5G is, which let’s not forget is a far bigger concern to Huawei, by steaming this mega high definition video wirelessly. Apparently Huawei fancies becoming as Samsung-like consumer electronics giant and judging by the momentum it has in the smartphone market it seems to have a decent chance of succeeding.

As part of that drive Nikkei reports that Huawei wants to become a top five PC vendor, which is a strange aspiration since that market has been in decline for years and the margins are miniscule. Again its motivation might be provide another market for its 5G modems as well as another front in Huawei’s continued search for western brand recognition.

Huawei has been making smartphone CPUs for a while but seems to fancy a move up to PC ones too. These would presumably be ARM-based and intended for Chromebook-style laptops rather than gaming PCs. Huawei started making PCs back in 2017 and apparently already has a 4% market share in China.

Virgin Media shows off its new bundle of joy

UK multiplay operator Virgin Media has attempted to raise the stakes in the consumer and SME markets with some new products.

The consumer initiative involves bundling together everything Virgin Media offers and charging one price for it all. Not especially innovative in itself, but it seems to be the size of the bundle that Virgin thinks will be a differentiator. The ultimate manifestation of this latest effort is the VVIP bundle, that offers the fastest broadband Virgin does as well as an unlimited data mobile tariff.

“We’re combining the UK’s fastest widely available broadband speeds with a superfast 4G mobile network that’s faster on average than Vodafone, 02, Three and Sky, and a  top-notch TV line-up to give Virgin Media customers greater choice, flexibility and an unrivalled connected entertainment experience,” said Virgin Media’s Chief Operating Officer, Lutz Schüler.

VVIP comes in at £99 per month, but that’s only for the first year, after which it goes up to £139 per month. That deal is only available to new customers, which feels like an own-goal. It’s understood that customer acquisition is a priority but why not extend the same deal to your existing ones too? They probably could get it if they threatened to leave, but that’s a hassle and makes them feel exploited. This ‘new customer only’ tactic seems self-defeating and petty.

“A major overhaul in its bundles represent a renewed drive to kick-start the UK multiplay market,” said Telecoms and Media Analyst Paolo Pescatore. “This feels like multiplay v2.0 as most offers still rely on cross-selling additional services. The premium all singing and dancing bundle is very punchy compared to rivals in terms of value. This will put pressure on BT and Sky to integrate more services into a convergent bundle. More so given the huge focus on retention and reducing churn.”

On top of that Virgin has created a feature called ‘boost your bundle’, which seems similar in concept to super-sizing a fast food order except in this case you get things like mobile SIMs and increased broadband speeds instead of more chips and Coke. “With our boosted bundles, we’re offering the best of all worlds: a superfast 4G mobile network; even bigger broadband with ultrafast speeds – quicker than those included in our standard packages – and the option to spread the cost of the latest and greatest mobile handsets,” said Schüler.

Virgin Media's new bundles

Lastly Virgin is also trying to disrupt the SME broadband market with the launch of Voom 500, which claims to be the UK’s fastest of its kind with speeds of ‘up to’ (hasn’t that been banned?) 500 Mbps. “With a free upgrade to Voom 500 on offer for existing Voom customers when they take selected mobile or Cloud Voice services, our customers can stop worrying about their broadband and focus on using it,” said Rob Orr, Executive Director of Commercial Marketing at Virgin Media Business. Otherwise it will set you back £62 per month.

Verizon expands 5G supported by Samsung 5G phone

US operator Verizon will switch on 5G in 20 more cities and has opened pre-orders of Samsung’s Galaxy S10 5G smartphone.

Verizon announced that it will switch on 5G Ultra Wideband service within this year in: Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dallas, Des Moines, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Little Rock, Memphis, Phoenix, Providence, San Diego, Salt Lake City and Washington DC. That will take the total number of cities to offer 5G Ultra Wideband to at least 22 by the end of the year, with the networks in Chicago and Minneapolis already live since March. Verizon stands by its plan to deploy 5G network in about 30 cities across the country during the year, so a few more cities may still join the club later.

Meanwhile, all Verizon users can start pre-ordering the Samsung Galaxy S10 5G, though only those in the 22 cities and on Verizon’s Above and Beyond Unlimited plans will be able to enjoy 5G service. The S10 5G will be exclusive to Verizon for a limited period, and will arrive at Verizon stores on 16 May.

“The Galaxy S10 5G on Verizon’s 5G Ultra Wideband network will give our customers access to incredible speeds and the latest and greatest streaming, augmented-reality, gaming, and consumer and business applications that bring us into a future powered by 5G,” said Ronan Dunne, EVP of Verizon and president of Verizon’s consumer group. “With the rollout of 5G in more than 30 markets by the end of 2019 and the upcoming launch of Samsung’s first 5G Galaxy smartphone, we are pulling further ahead of the competition in 5G.”

When Verizon first launched 5G at the end of last year in four cities, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Indianapolis, and Houston, the service was limited to fixed wireless access, due to the lack of smartphones in the market. Consumers in Chicago and Minneapolis, the first two cities to go live on 5G Ultra Wideband in March were supported by the 5G Moto Mod attached to the LTE Moto Z3.

In addition to just fast internet, which Verizon promised to reach “typical” download speeds of 450 Mbps when the Chicago and Minneapolis service was switched on, Verizon’s group-level partnership with YouTube TV will also give the new 5G users plenty of content to fill the bandwidth with, similar to what SK Telecom does with its own 5G service.

Skint AT&T flogs its 10% of Hulu for $1.43 billion

Having dropped $85 billion on Time Warner AT&T needs to raise some cash sharpish and getting out of OTT TV company Hulu us a start.

Hulu is a private company that is roughly 60% owned by Disney, 30% by Comcast and 10% AT&T. The latter stake (9.5% to be precise) is being bought back by Hulu itself for $1.43 billion, valuing the whole company at $15 billion. Hulu will presumably apportion the stake such at Disney owns two thirds of the company and Comcast one third.

“We thank AT&T for their support and investment over the past two years and look forward to collaboration in the future,” said Hulu CEO Randy Freer. “WarnerMedia will remain a valued partner to Hulu for years to come as we offer customers the best of TV, live and on demand, all in one place.”

AT&T says it will use the case to pay down its debt pile a bit, but the ongoing relationship of its expensively acquired media business with OTT players like Hulu will remain a source of intrigue. Disney recently announced its own streaming service, as did Comcast’s NBCUniversal at the start of this year.

On top of that Apple is getting funny ideas, Netflix and Amazon continue to throw money at original content and you’ve got all the various on-demand versions of traditional broadcasters. They can’t all go it alone. So the aggregation of this proliferation of video on-demand is a critical issue. How long WarnerMedia will remain a valued partner of Hulu now that AT%T doesn’t own a piece of it remains to be seen.

Disney+ streaming service looking good ahead of November launch

Disney might have a lot of ground to catch up on the established players in the streaming world, but its offering does look pretty competitive.

Priced at $6.99 per month, the streaming service will be home to an armoury of content, old and new, launching in November. The platform will also give customers the option to bundle in ESPN+ and Hulu services, creating the depth and breadth of content which one day might be able to compete with Netflix.

“Disney+ marks a bold step forward in an exciting new era for our company – one in which consumers will have a direct connection to the incredible array of creative content that is The Walt Disney Company’s hallmark,” said CEO Bob Iger.

“We are confident that the combination of our unrivalled storytelling, beloved brands, iconic franchises, and cutting-edge technology will make Disney+ a standout in the marketplace and deliver significant value for consumers and shareholders alike.”

Perhaps one of the most useful features of the platform will be the downloadable content. Every title will be available for subscribers to download and watch offline, a move which might push the other platforms in this direction. Netflix is another which has introduced this feature, though it is limited to date.

Alongside properties such as Pixar, Marvel and Star Wars, the content library will also include all of Disney’s family favourite films, all 30 seasons of The Simpsons, Fox titles like The Sound of Music, The Princess Bride and Malcolm in the Middle, and original content leaning on well-known assets, such as Marvel Studios’ series Loki starring Tom Hiddleston.

This is perhaps the worry many commentators have had surrounding the Disney entry into the streaming world, as while it certainly does have attractive assets, the breadth and depth of content does not match Netflix. This is one of the reasons Netflix is dominating the streaming world, and perhaps why Sky has continued to maintain its leadership position in the UK premium TV segment; content to serve all purposes, audiences and moods.

Disney will find success in the early days, such is the power of the brand and the curiosity of consumers, $6.99 is cheap enough to allow for curiosity, but long-term success will depend on whether the team are bold enough with content acquisition and curation. Netflix is incredibly aggressive in securing and funding a wide range of international and locally-tailored content, and Disney will have to match these actions to maintain success in the long-run.

That said, the team is promising big things. By the end of year five, Disney expects 50 original series, 10,000 past episodes and more than 500 movies in the content library. These numbers certainly sound promising, as long as the content meets user expectations.

What we don’t know right now is much about the platform itself. Disney has said the content will be available through all devices and has also named PS4 and Roku as launch partners. The idea is to enable users to view the content wherever desired, but whether the platform will be any good we’ll only know in November.

This is where the leaders in the content world have made their presence known. Netflix and Sky for example have intuitive and simple platforms, whereas some are difficult to navigate or do not look pleasing on the eye. This will have a negative impact on user experience and considering how many streaming options are going to be on the market, this will go some way in deciding Disney’s success.

November will come around quicker than many will hope for, but Disney is certainly giving itself a good start in the streaming world with what looks like an impressive offering.