Disney To Merge Hulu + Live TV With Fubo (hollywoodreporter.com)
- Reference: 0175838743
- News link: https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/25/01/06/145221/disney-to-merge-hulu--live-tv-with-fubo
- Source link: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/disney-hulu-live-tv-with-fubo-1236100636/
> The new company will continue to be traded publicly under the Fubo name, however Disney will control 70% and appoint a majority of the board. Fubo management, including co-founder and CEO David Gandler, will run the combined venture.
>
> The deal will do a couple of big things if and when it is completed: For starters, it will create a much bigger player in the virtual multichannel video provider (vMVPD) space, one that can more aggressively take on the market leader YouTube TV. YouTube TV said a year ago that it had 8 million subscribers, while Hulu + Live TV had 4.6 million subscribers and Fubo had 1.6 million subscribers, giving a combined offering 6.2 million subs.
[1] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/disney-hulu-live-tv-with-fubo-1236100636/
Did a cat walk across their keyboard? (Score:3)
Hulu and Fubo merging sounds like parodies of generic tech company names. Is the combined company going to be Fulo, Hubo or some other completely random combination of letters?
Re: (Score:3)
" Is the combined company going to be Fulo, Hubo or some other completely random combination of letters?"
My guess would be FUBAR
Re: (Score:2)
I've been wondering if that's why Vudu has been rebranding itself to the far more clumsy and harder to remember "Fandango at Home". I'd have rebranded Fandango to Vudu instead in their position, as I'm pretty sure more people are familiar with Vudu, but maybe they feel it keeps being confused with Hulu, Roku, and Fubo.
This is about the Venu sports JV (Score:2)
Disney buying Fubo (and that is really what this is, it is just a merger for tax reasons) clears the deck for the Venu sports JV (if you can't beat them in court, buy them out).
Enshittification (Score:2)
> The Walt Disney Co. will merge its streaming multichannel video service Hulu with Live TV with its competitor Fubo in a surprise deal that will shake up the streaming TV business, the companies said Monday. From a report:
Is anyone else sick of these fucking "streaming shake ups"?
Seems like every week, now
I just kicked YTTY to the curb... (Score:2)
I just kicked YTTY to the curb after the latest price hike and replaced it with a HDHomeRun FLEX 4K. Works great so far and seamlessly integrated into my Plex server.
These streaming services must learn there are limits to how much we are willing to pay for lackluster content.
it's time to drop ESPN if it can't be an add on pa (Score:2)
it's time to drop ESPN if it can't be an add on package and if ESPN starting it's own stand alone package the cable co's really don't lose as much with ESPN not being on there TV system.
Streaming is expensive and CAC is often unknown (Score:2)
This has been the problem since streaming services started. Streaming services are like gyms, they want customers to pay but not to actually show up. On demand streams are pricey and actual regular users cost real money. Spending millions on advertising campaigns and new content has no honest way to calculate how many customers are added or retained with the investment. The whole business is luck and hope. Eventually there will be 2-3 streaming companies and they will share/trade almost all the same co
It's so bizarre... (Score:3)
Recently had a trial for one of these services and it just seemed so backwards to going back to the "bad old days" of scheduled programming where you had to wait for your showtime before the "DVR" could let you watch it. The whole concept made sense on shared media solutions like broadcast, cable, and satellite, but just are obnoxious nonsense in this era of individualized content access.
Further, they cost even more than the on-demand services.
An antiquated model that is held up by weird licensing arrangements that just isn't worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
There are enough people out there that still want a traditional linear cable package so these companies are offering it. Not sure why myself. I imagine sports are one reason, but I'm not a sportsball fan so who knows.
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose is to give people the same channels as they had with cable, so they can "cut the cord" without losing access to HGTV and Comedy Central.
If that's not of interest to you, it's not of interest to you. But there are people out there who like "cable TV", and others who are reluctant to get rid of it completely, so having an online version, be it GoogleTV, Sling, or whatever this is, is a great way to cut costs.
Also bear in mind how much content right now is behind cable-subscription firewalls. You c
Re: (Score:2)
> is a great way to cut costs.
From what I see, they are charging just as much, if not more so than what would be my typical cable tv provider.
> Also bear in mind how much content right now is behind cable-subscription firewalls.
Hence my "held up by weird licensing arrangements". I can roughly get why people would want the content, but the style of the service is just so off-putting I'd have to *really* want that particular content to put up with it, even at the same price but they charge a premium. Given how much content is available with on-demand services, I'm surprised people are still that hungry for broadcast-exclu
Re: (Score:2)
It's mostly sports. Most people who still subscribe to these live TV services are doing so because they want access to their favorite live sports, which mostly is unavailable any other way...at least legally.