Netflix and Disney are now considering free, ad-supported streaming

[Alfonso Maruccia]

In brief: Video-on-demand streaming services continue to raise their prices, and consumers are increasingly frustrated by the trend. So much so, in fact, that two of the industry's largest streaming companies are reportedly considering offering a limited viewing experience at no cost beyond watching advertisements.

In a recent investor call, Disney CEO Josh D'Amaro confirmed that the company is actively exploring a potential free offering for its Disney+ streaming service. D'Amaro, who took over Disney's leadership from Bob Iger earlier this year, said that a free option could provide several benefits, particularly for "price-sensitive" customers who may be unwilling to tolerate the regular price increases streaming companies are now imposing on subscribers.

Since its launch in 2024, Disney+ has raised prices for US viewers several times. The most recent increase came in October 2025, raising ad-supported plans by $2 per month and ad-free plans by $3. D'Amaro said a free offering would allow the company to reach a different customer segment, which has become a top priority for Disney's streaming business.

Unlike other major AVOD (advertising video-on-demand) platforms, Disney+ is already "well-sold" and could quickly accelerate growth in the advertising revenue market. A free option could also help the company attract more paying subscribers. However, Disney is still only exploring the idea and has no specific plans to announce at this time.

D'Amaro's statements highlight the growing pains of the video streaming business, which began as a more affordable alternative to cable companies but is now moving toward a similar model. A free, ad-supported service would bring the industry full circle, some users argue, transforming streaming into what is essentially an IP-based television system hidden behind a login screen.

Even Netflix, which has nearly twice as many subscribers as Disney+ (more than 325 million versus 131.6 million and counting), is facing significant price-hike fatigue and slower customer growth. Netflix's latest price increases came just a few months ago, when the company raised its Ads plan by $1 per month and its ad-free plans by $2 per month.

Netflix co-CEO Greg Peters addressed the free streaming dilemma during an investor call in July. Peters said the company needs to be "thoughtful" about free offerings, as they could eventually cannibalize its more lucrative paid tiers. Netflix is still expected to explore free streaming, but it would first need to develop and scale a strong advertising business across local markets.

For now, Netflix has no immediate plans to announce. However, all streaming giants may eventually face the same challenge, as free services like Pluto TV continue gaining popularity and potentially draw users away from paid platforms.

Permalink to story:

Netflix and Disney are now considering free, ad-supported streaming

 

[NumberNine]

The ads are why I deleted my account. Not the pricing.
Even when you pay for ad-free tier, still ads.
Not as many, but more than zero and I paid for zero.

 

[mbrowne5061]

One of the reasons TV shows used to be ~24 episodes, released weekly at the same time, renewing each year for several years, was because they needed to get eyes on screens to view their ad content. This kind of schedule maximized their ad revenue and profits. Meanwhile, streaming demands new paid subscribers, which incentivizes minimizing episode count, generating new shows that run for just 1-2 seasons, and have years between seasons.

If they bring back shows that run for ~6 months, with new seasons, I think I could tolerate ads.

 

[BobHome]

Meh, wouldn't matter. Nothing worth watching there, anymore.

Like those 'superhero' movies: same story told slightly differently with *maybe* a few different actors. Repeat, repeat, repeat. Or get them all in one movie (last gasp?). Nope!

Any yeah, I remember the 24-26 episode seasons with summer reruns.

 

[MaXtor]

Are people still paying for streaming services? They've become cable TV, too many different subscriptions to cover everything you want to watch, all over priced, plus ads. Piracy is the better option again; higher quality, a better experience, way more convenient, and it's free.

https://www.reddit.com/r/StremioAddons/comments/1dxchyj/the_complete_stremio_torrentio_debrid_guide_with

 

[Subset6]

Apparently Netflix is now true crime everywhere and Disney is just for Star Wars or kids and both are over priced. Apple TV is not bad tho.

 

[Alpine7995]

The free tier will probably start with a reasonable number of commercials, then gradually become unbearable so viewers can be rescued by a new premium subscription.

 

[MasterFig]

Are people still paying for streaming services? They've become cable TV, too many different subscriptions to cover everything you want to watch, all over priced, plus ads. Piracy is the better option again; higher quality, a better experience, way more convenient, and it's free.

https://www.reddit.com/r/StremioAddons/comments/1dxchyj/the_complete_stremio_torrentio_debrid_guide_with

AND ILLEGAL!

 

[MaXtor]

AND ILLEGAL!

It's how we create good services.

Music was cumbersome and inconvenient, so we got Napster. Then P2P downloading gradually dropped off as iTunes and Spotify made buying and streaming music affordable and convenient.

Cable was horribly inconvenient, overpriced, and full of ads. That drove the popularity of torrents and MegaUpload, and eventually services like Netflix proved that affordable, convenient streaming was what people actually wanted.

People happily pay for a better service.

As it stands now, streaming shows and movies have become fragmented and overpriced, with ads creeping back in. Piracy has become the best option again.

Be thankful, because piracy will once again force companies to improve and compete by offering something better.

 

[p51d007]

I'm surprised "over the air" (in the USA, required by the FCC for the license) is still around. Figured by now everything would be "streaming".

 

[Theinsanegamer]

I'm surprised "over the air" (in the USA, required by the FCC for the license) is still around. Figured by now everything would be "streaming".

Not for long. The average age of a TV viewer int he US is now 75 years old. Check out the commercials, its all medications and diapers and other trite. Once you pass the first few years of Gen X, TV viewing time falls off a cliff, with gen z watching almost none of it.

That's why:

One of the reasons TV shows used to be ~24 episodes, released weekly at the same time, renewing each year for several years, was because they needed to get eyes on screens to view their ad content. This kind of schedule maximized their ad revenue and profits. Meanwhile, streaming demands new paid subscribers, which incentivizes minimizing episode count, generating new shows that run for just 1-2 seasons, and have years between seasons.

If they bring back shows that run for ~6 months, with new seasons, I think I could tolerate ads.

Returning to the old TV medium would be a major mistake. The 24 episode season was born of necessity. Digital streaming offers on demand access, without fighting for timeslots, instead of going back to the old ways, they need to find something better.

The 8 episodes at 1-1.5 hrs each formula allows for far more intricate stories to be told, the Chinese have had great success with the 3 minute episode mini drama, and so on.

 

[UncleMikeRetro]

God help me, I cancelled Netflix a while ago. I'd watch some ads for the "free" content.

 

[Loadedaxe]

AND ILLEGAL!

While I do not promote illegal behavior, he does have a point.

 

[NumberNine]

AND ILLEGAL!

For whatever that means these days.

 

[mbrowne5061]

Returning to the old TV medium would be a major mistake. The 24 episode season was born of necessity. Digital streaming offers on demand access, without fighting for timeslots, instead of going back to the old ways, they need to find something better.

The 8 episodes at 1-1.5 hrs each formula allows for far more intricate stories to be told, the Chinese have had great success with the 3 minute episode mini drama, and so on.

The 24ep format wasn't born out of timeslot limitation. It was born out of "we need butts in seats predictably so we can price these ad slots". Runtime had almost nothing to do with it, other than the number of commercial breaks you could fit into a show or movie.

So, while your implication that 24eps at 45 minutes is the same runtime as 12eps at 1.5hrs, we haven't had reliable 12ep shows for years, and they're only 1hr long each. Shows these days are 8-10eps at 1hr each. We went from ~18hr seasons to ~8-10hr seasons.

But do you know what else 24ep seasons get you? Costs spread out over more episodes, lowering the cost per-episode, improving profits on the show (because 24eps have more ad slots than 12eps). And a regular "new season every year" format gets you greater prop and set re-use, too, since they only sit unused for a few months instead of a few years. A shorter format (assuming they go back to ~45 minute runtimes for 60 minute shows) also forces writers to keep the story tighter.

Nothing about streaming prevents a return to ads. Streamers would simply be charging for ad slots on shows, instead of at show times.