Disney+'s Fire TV availability is reportedly in question due to an advertising dispute...

Polycount

TS Evangelist
Staff member

Unfortunately, the service might be hamstrung on release day. Although most other streaming services are available across all streaming boxes and TVs -- thus exposing them to a much wider customer base -- Amazon's Fire TV service has not been confirmed as a supported platform for Disney+.

According to a report from the Wall Street Journal, this may be due to an advertising dispute between Disney and Amazon.

The latter reportedly wants a greater ad presence throughout Disney's existing family of Fire TV-supported video apps; including the likes of ABC, ESPN, and Disney Channel. So far, Disney has allegedly refused to budge for the most part, which has put Disney+'s place in the Fire TV ecosystem -- as well as that of the other Disney apps we just mentioned -- in jeopardy.

So far, the most Disney has been willing to give up is "10% of its ad inventory," according to the Journal's sources. Whether or not that will be enough for Amazon remains to be seen, but a mutually-beneficial and swift resolution (ideally before Disney+'s launch) is desirable for all parties.

Not just for the two companies, but for consumers, who will ultimately benefit by having extra way to access the upcoming streaming service. After all, if you already own a Fire TV device of some sort, you likely won't want to pick up, say, an Apple TV box just so you can watch new Disney-exclusive shows or movies.

We'll keep you updated on the negotiations between Disney and Amazon as further details are revealed.

Image credit: Shutterstock

Permalink to story.

 

Scshadow

TS Evangelist
If I'm paying for a service, why am I seeing ads?
Because you are not paying enough. Whether legitimately or illegitimately, the streaming service provider deems the value provided is higher then what is being charged. It is your prerogative to determine whether or not the content provided and the presentation of ads, in whatever level of intrusiveness that it is presented in, is such that you deem acceptable in that you are comfortable in accepting the month to month contract offered by the service provider. I thought this was simple logic but I see people whining about it all the time and it perplexes me.

There are two responses I have to the article. "It's certainly not likely to eclipse Netflix or Hulu in terms of popularity." I mean maybe not initially as you are talking about services that are well established. But lets be real, in a couple years time, the subscription base could legitimately compete. Disney has a lot of content. A lot of children's content. To discount this as just another half baked attempt to start a streaming service is underselling it a bit. On another note, I'm more then happy to see Disney in dispute with Amazon over ad revenue. Disney has obviously ripped content from other streaming services in order to take revenue from Netflix and I'm plenty happy to see someone try to do the same to Disney. Turn about is certainly fair play.
 

IAMTHESTIG

TS Evangelist
Because you are not paying enough. Whether legitimately or illegitimately, the streaming service provider deems the value provided is higher then what is being charged. It is your prerogative to determine whether or not the content provided and the presentation of ads, in whatever level of intrusiveness that it is presented in, is such that you deem acceptable in that you are comfortable in accepting the month to month contract offered by the service provider. I thought this was simple logic but I see people whining about it all the time and it perplexes me.
Ehh... I see your point, but have you heard the old adage "the customer is always right"? The customer determines what they feel is worth it, and if they don't think it is worth it then they will either not pay or, rightfully, complain about it. Another thing is, they don't tell us they have ads before all their videos. At least not up front, maybe it is in some terms of service user agreement thing but those are basically a "how we screw you" written in legalese that no one actually cares to read.

Sure Netflix promotes their stuff by shoving it in your face but you can at least immediately skip past it. It isn't as easy with Amazon's service. I don't particularly want to be forced to watch an ad for some show I don't care about and isn't even related to the episode of The Grand Tour I'm about to watch.
 

Scshadow

TS Evangelist
Another thing is, they don't tell us they have ads before all their videos. At least not up front, maybe it is in some terms of service user agreement thing but those are basically a "how we screw you" written in legalese that no one actually cares to read.
To be honest, I don't see it being a real problem. Most services offer a free trial. That way you can get in and see if and how the ads are presented. I don't really expect companies to go out of their way to advertise how they advertise on their product. If they remove ads on the free trial and then add them when the trial ends, then thats a problem.
 

yRaz

Nigerian Prince
Because you are not paying enough. Whether legitimately or illegitimately, the streaming service provider deems the value provided is higher then what is being charged. It is your prerogative to determine whether or not the content provided and the presentation of ads, in whatever level of intrusiveness that it is presented in, is such that you deem acceptable in that you are comfortable in accepting the month to month contract offered by the service provider. I thought this was simple logic but I see people whining about it all the time and it perplexes me.

There are two responses I have to the article. "It's certainly not likely to eclipse Netflix or Hulu in terms of popularity." I mean maybe not initially as you are talking about services that are well established. But lets be real, in a couple years time, the subscription base could legitimately compete. Disney has a lot of content. A lot of children's content. To discount this as just another half baked attempt to start a streaming service is underselling it a bit. On another note, I'm more then happy to see Disney in dispute with Amazon over ad revenue. Disney has obviously ripped content from other streaming services in order to take revenue from Netflix and I'm plenty happy to see someone try to do the same to Disney. Turn about is certainly fair play.
I'm not unwilling to pay more for ad free service, I do with Hulu. But if I'm paying for a service where there isn't an ad free option and a third party adds ads to it? Why am I plying for it? Should my business with Amazon not offset the amount of money they would otherwise make from ads?
 

Theinsanegamer

TS Evangelist
To be honest, I don't see it being a real problem. Most services offer a free trial. That way you can get in and see if and how the ads are presented. I don't really expect companies to go out of their way to advertise how they advertise on their product. If they remove ads on the free trial and then add them when the trial ends, then thats a problem.
Except the free trials are, you know, "FREE". If I am paying for a service, dont shove ads in my face. If you have ads, dont charge me for the service, simple as that. Most people would assume you pay to get rid of those ads.

These media companies are speeding right into the streaming bubble, and the fallout from all these millions going to waste will be fantastic to watch.