10 ms·

> Any consolidation like this seems like a negative for consumers This is a very common narrative to this news. But coming into this news, I think the most com

• yojo 11mo ago
  Netflix was also still in the “grow users at all cost” phase. They have since moved to “grow revenue at all costs.” Everyone likes a service when it’s subsidized by VC dollars. Until they inevitably start turning the screws.
  • jasode 11mo ago
    >Everyone likes a service when it’s subsidized by VC dollars. Netflix went public in 2002. It was +8 years later that the streaming-only service was launched in 2010. The digital streaming wasn't "subsidized by VC". Netflix had more content from everybody back then because the other studios licensed their content for cheap prices to Netflix. But those studios then realized that Netflix was growing rapidly on the backs of their content. Once those multi-year contracts expired, studios like Disney didn't renew with Netflix and instead, started their own platform (e.g. Disney+).
    • shermantanktop 11mo ago
      These content library contracts are only for a couple of years, and each time one lapses, some terms get negotiated. Nobody in the streaming industry is successful because they have a long term lock on someone else’s content. It’s all about eyeballs and margins.
      • aidenn0 11mo ago
        Netflix had a 4 year deal with Starz, which is where a significant chunk of their early streaming content came from (Including all the Disney films).
        • shermantanktop 11mo ago
          Sure, that was very early though. You could argue that was crucial for establishing their brand, but the industry has caught up and doesn't do that very much now.
    • gspencley 11mo ago
      You're not wrong, but that doesn't mean they weren't still in "growth" phase. Their pricing, and their doubling down on account sharing policies over the last few years have shown that they are no longer in a growth phase. I cancelled my Netflix account a few months ago because I had gotten the "You're not accessing this from your typical location" blocker. Even though I was trying to watch from my permanent residence and I was the account owner / payee. The reason that happened was that my wife and I own two properties. We are happily married, not separated, but we just like our space... especially with two adult daughters who still live at home with one of their significant others also living in the house. We are a single family "unit" but have two locations. Furthermore, my wife has sleeping issues and was using Netflix at night in order to fall asleep. To have to get me to check my email for an access code, was a total deal breaker since I would be fast asleep. So that cut her off from her typical usage of Netflix. And the reason Netflix thought that I was accessing the service from a different location was that I hardly ever watched it. Every time I'd pull it up, I would spend more time scrolling for something to watch than actually watching anything.. and typically I'd just give up and go watch a 30m YouTube video instead. So I was paying more, receiving less ... mostly had the account purely for my wife and daughters who watched it the most ... and then the final deal breaker was logistical barriers preventing me from being able to use what I'm paying for. Fuck Netflix.
      • nemomarx 11mo ago
        Agree, but I think they moved away from growth to this not because they lost investor money / vc demands but because they started losing a lot of licensing deals and content, and had to shift from redistribution to making more and more originals with capital investment cost and etc. Slightly different reasons for enshitiffication - if Spotify lost half of their catalogue suddenly they might move in the same way I guess.
      • deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
• tim1994 11mo ago
  The problem is content exclusivity. It would be great if all the content or at least most would be available on all platforms. At least eventually. That would be great for consumers. Mergers like this typically not.
  • aaronblohowiak 11mo ago
    Like we had for music on the radio, compulsory licensing
  • autoexec 11mo ago
    We could do that by limiting copyright to just 10-14 years. All platforms could have all that content forever without paying a dime. New stuff and exclusives would still be a draw to attract people to one platform or another.
    • joelwilliamson 11mo ago
      Give 10 years of copyright for free, then a $1000 fee for the next decade, and make every subsequent decade 100x more expensive.
      • autoexec 11mo ago
        Nah, there's no reason why trillion dollar companies should be allowed to pay anything to keep our shared culture locked up. Doing so only hinders innovation and the creation of new works. 14 years was long enough back when global distribution was unimaginable and any distribution at all was highly expensive. Today you can instantly distribute media to the entire planet at near zero expense. If you can't make money after a decade you have only yourself or your product to blame. Also, it's not as if once something goes into the public domain all income stops either. With even a small amount of effort creators can continue to successfully package and sell their stuff to the fans even when it's avilable for free. It's worked on me several times in fact.
  • nonethewiser 11mo ago
    It would be great for consumers if it was just free
• sa-code 11mo ago
  > There is not enough consolidation This is an absolutely wild (and incorrect) thing to assume. The problem of content lock-in is anti-competitive and it would be better solved without mergers
  • supportengineer 11mo ago
    As a consumer, I feel that consolidation is wonderful because it is one less account and password and charge on my credit card that I have to think about.
    • sa-code 11mo ago
      As a consumer, you want the streaming service to be decoupled from the studios so your single streaming service can access all the content
• duped 11mo ago
  Consumers don't care so much about consolidation as they care about not getting ripped off. When Netflix and Hulu were the only streaming platforms you paid a pretty low price to get virtually everything you wanted. Now you pay more for a worse experience. Netflix at least has technical chops. Other studios (looking at you, Paramount-) put out barely functional apps because they know consumers ultimately will pay for their content.
  • ghaff 11mo ago
    >you paid a pretty low price to get virtually everything you wanted Depends what you wanted. Both a deep back catalog of TV and film more generally were always pretty lacking on all-you-could-eat streaming services. Frankly, my biggest complaint with Netflix is that they basically drove local video rental out of business and then shut their own rental down.
    • bloomingeek 11mo ago
      This. I loved the DVD service and I don't think I was alone. Younger folks didn't perhaps use it as much as some, but for those who don't have the best internet speed or service, they were great.
      • autoexec 11mo ago
        Even when I had good service/speeds the DVD service was amazing because it had way more options than streaming does even now, including some pretty hard to find DVDs, and you got the extra features! It was also nice to regularly get something in my mailbox besides spam...
  • autoexec 11mo ago
    Netflix may have the technical ability, but they don't deliver. Their UI just gets worse and worse in terms of usability and they keep cutting features on top of steadfastly refusing to provide features people have been asking for since they started steaming movies. Basically every streaming app is minimally functional and obnoxious in their own ways. netflix isn't the worst of them, but it's no exception and getting worse all the time.
• cedilla 11mo ago
  People were happy because they only needed one subscription and one app. Buying Warner Bros won't bring that back. If anything, it makes it less likely.
  • ghaff 11mo ago
    >People were happy because they only needed one subscription and one app. Buying Warner Bros won't bring that back. If anything, it makes it less likely. Plus a cable TV subscription in many/most cases.
• chipotle_coyote 11mo ago
  I think you're right, but I've always been a bit skeptical of that vision -- it implicitly relies on the assumption that "THE streaming service" will choose to make as much content available as technically and legally possible; they're imagining something like "Spotify but for movies and TV shows". But I was always worried about "Apple's App Store but for movies and TV shows": one company with ultimate gatekeeper status over what you can and can't legally watch. (The movie and television business is not like the music business; the financial incentives don't, as far as I can tell, support the same kind of distribution models.) I'm not particularly thrilled about this kind of consolidation, but given that Warner was going to be bought by somebody, Netflix may be one of the least worst outcomes.
  • nemomarx 11mo ago
    I think ideally you'd have 2-3 streaming services that all have all the content without exclusives? (So the spotify of movies and tv, the tidal of movies and tv, the bandcamp of movies and tv...)
    • chipotle_coyote 11mo ago
      That would be ideal. It's my (very limited) understanding that the costs of making television and movies makes that kind of scenario unlikely, though.
  • themerone 11mo ago
    HBO owns Westworld and stopped streaming it to avoid paying residuals.
    • Nevermark 11mo ago
      Wow. That is dysfunctional. I would be curious how the financial wires got crossed. I would have assumed residuals were proportional to views, and views valued proportionally as contributing to subscription demand. And it would be a rare viewer to watch one show like that, over & over. I.e. only upside. Something went sideways.
• MangoToupe 11mo ago
  As a rule of thumb, consolidation is never good. There are exceptions where consolidated services can improve (eg arguably physical infrastructure, healthcare), but in general this will not benefit the consumer.
  • philipallstar 11mo ago
    As a rule of thumb maybe, but in this case it might well.
    • MangoToupe 11mo ago
      How? This only means prices will go up.
      • philipallstar 11mo ago
        But if you don't need to pay for two subs, and the cost of two apps and two lots of infra goes away, that could be good value.
        • Firehawke 11mo ago
          We already know prices will go up considerably-- they always do after a merger, and you'll lose the option of subbing for one or the other only when they have something you want to watch. Most people are not keeping two subs going constantly and are just alternating when there's something worthwhile.
• eloisant 11mo ago
  We just need to end all exclusives. Make it like music streaming, where all services have the same catalog so you can choose on price, features, etc.
  • alephnerd 11mo ago
    That only happened because the content libraries decided to exit the music streaming game. It also helped that the largest player in the music content library game (Sony) was not really as adept at software as Comcast, Disney, and NBCU were.
  • raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
    So does that mean if I ever create a video I just allow anyone to have it?
• makeitdouble 11mo ago
  People were happy when Netflix was cheaper that total sum of what they were paying on cable. Lower prices is the last thing we'd expect from that deal.
• Yokolos 11mo ago
  The assumption back then was that other companies would be making shows. Consolidating even more show production in one company is not something we should want.
• thayne 11mo ago
  I want a separation between the streaming platform companies and the content making companies, so that the streaming companies can compete on making a better platform/service and the content companies compete on making better content. I don't want one company that owns everything, I want several companies that are able to license whatever content they want. And ideally the customer can choose between a subscription that includes everything, and paying for content a la carte, or maybe subscriptions that focus on specific kinds of content (scifi/fantasy, stuff for kids, old movies, international, sports, etc.) regardless of what company made it.
  • jajuuka 11mo ago
    This would be ideal. The cable model was inherently flawed; it was just a series of local monopolies that poisoned it. Give consumers a choice. But considering everyone operates like Disney anymore and is highly protective of its IP I doubt this world will ever exist without direct government intervention.
    • autoexec 11mo ago
      Honestly the biggest problem was/is copyright law. Make everything older than 10-14 years public domain and streaming services would have endless amounts of content always available. Independently operated streaming sites would be all over the internet.
      • roguecoder 11mo ago
        That would also solve the problem of AI training data. Build a data set, wait 14 years, and it's guaranteed to be legal.
  • throwaway7783 11mo ago
    This should really be the end goal. We are worse off than cable right now with all these streaming services and worse , overlapping content.
    • 11mo ago
• dataflow 11mo ago
  People want a single service to pay for that serves all content, not a single corporate entity creating the content the service provides access to. Like how people want a single payment method that works everywhere globally, not a single company that produces all products globally. Bizarre that you don't see a distinction between the two.
• doctorpangloss 11mo ago
  the POV really is: for every 19 people who will pay $14/mo for their preferred, unbundled service, there's 1 person who would happily pay $300/mo for a bundled service. premium subs are for people who BUY subs not for people who WANT subs.
• mlsu 11mo ago
  Netflix was still competing with blu-ray/DVD/cable at that point. "why should I watch TV on the fiddly computer when I can just pop a disc in?" or "why should I turn on Netflix when there's clearly stuff on cable TV?" -- that was Netflix's competition in those days. Because there was competition, they had to lower prices and improve service to win consumers. Now, that competition is being destroyed. Rest assured, Netflix will use this market power to extract more from the consumer.
  • raddan 11mo ago
    Netflix is still "competing" with discs at this point, although I would accept that discs aren't exactly winning. Most of the content I watch comes from blu-rays, and with a few exceptions (The Americans, grr), most of the things I want to watch have been released on disc. In fact, there is a small community of film enthusiasts who continue to purchase media outright, e.g., https://www.blu-ray.com https://www.blu-ray.com. I started using Netflix in 2001 as a DVD subscriber. It was wonderful for nearly 20 years. I ended up canceling before the service officially ended because it was clear that the writing was on the wall and the service was going downhill fast. You used to be able to get nearly any movie or TV series, domestic or foreign. It's a lot more work to find good stuff now, even with streaming in the mix.
    • nemomarx 11mo ago
      I think the main reason they aren't competing as much now is that blu ray players / computers with disc drives / consoles with disc drives are getting more scarce? I don't even know where I would get a good blu ray drive. The videophile subreddits keep suggesting very specific models with flashed firmware, which is not exactly accomodating to the public.
      • diab0lic 11mo ago
        The causality might be backwards there. Blu ray and other disk players are likely becoming scarce because people are using them less rather than people using them less because the devices are scarce. What happened to Netflix DVD by mail was that Redbox ate its lunch, which ultimately was also a failing business model.
• commandlinefan 11mo ago
  > People were happy when Netflix was the streaming service That was also before they started aggressively pushing their own content. For a while, it looked like Netflix was going to be the place you go to stream any movie that ever existed (which was pretty much what they were with mail-in DVDs before the streaming service came along). Now it seems like they don't really want to be in that business either.
• SubiculumCode 11mo ago
  I am happy to stream surf. Spend a month on amc+, the next month on paramount+, the next in Hulu. It keeps them wanting me back. Competition is good
  • poisonarena 11mo ago
    for me it is pirating everything since since the video stores closed down and never giving any money to any of these companies
• deegles 11mo ago
  I mean... did we really expect the content owners to roll over and let the streaming platforms capture the potential profits?
• dangus 11mo ago
  This idea doesn’t mean those people are correct. Netflix was great when it was the only streaming service because all the legacy media companies licensed shows for cheap. They basically considered it bonus income like syndicated television. Most of Netflix’s content at that time was very popular but was basically just reruns. The Office, etc. It was a time when you’d be hard pressed to find any movie resembling a blockbuster, just bargain DVD bin type of stuff. If all the streaming services consolidate there will be less reason than ever to put effort into content. As long as most people stay subscribed the less they spend on content the better. With an à la carte landscape that we have now, streaming services all have to fight it out in open competition to keep their service on your monthly bill. It might be less convenient but it is better for content than having a market with just one, two, or three players.
  • roguecoder 11mo ago
    We could get back to that world with anti-trust enforcement and mandatory licensing, while still keeping whatever positive effects competition has had on content production (which I think are debatable at best: it seems like no one outside of low-budget stuff like Dropout is making anything interesting in the US right now.)
    • dangus 11mo ago
      I think a great copyright compromise to the insanely long copyright periods would be if certain types of content had standardized licensing costs that kicked in after a certain amount of time. It would be a very interesting concept if after 10/20 years, anyone could grab any copyrighted content and redistribute it as long as they paid the copyright owner a license fee determined by copyright law.
    • raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
      So should Disney be forced to license Avengers at the same price I license my cat videos? Should every content creator be forced to license everything? Why stop at video? What about books? Software?
• snapdeficit 11mo ago
  I was happy when Netflix was a DVD service. Streaming turned everything to shit. Netflix in 2003-2008 was its golden era: any movie you could think of from the past century was available. I will not lament the loss of visual mass media. I’ve already reduced my viewing to just Kanopy, but even they are reducing tickets. Fortunately there are plenty of other fun and entertaining things to do than sit in front of a screen and drool at slop. Unfortunately people will “suffer” with their first-world problems of not getting new Marvel movies every 8 months or Spider-Man reboots every 2 years, or having to pay $100+/month for drivel. Oh the humanity.
• renegade-otter 11mo ago
  Netflix was the STREAMING platform - it was not really making content until the House of Cards went supernova. This is true consolidation and monopolization - regardless of the "narrative" in whichever news you happen to consume.
• reincarnate0x14 11mo ago
  I think it would be more accurate to say there was not enough cross-licensing. The generally preferable model seems to be service platforms that compete with each other, but with access to all the same production companies that also compete with each other. Vertical integration is an obvious win for the owners, but this fight has been going on since the earliest days of mass media with radio and motion picture studios. Netflix was the early beneficiary of broad licensing because the draw bridges hadn't been pulled up yet.
• jmull 11mo ago
  With a lot of competition you might have 20 great shows spread across 10 streamers. People will complain because they’d have to subscribe to 10 streamers to get everything. Consolidation reduces the number of streamers, but reduces the competition too. The number of great shows will go down faster than than the number of streamers too. The endpoint would be one streamer, with maybe 0-1 great shows. The vast majority of content will be low risk and cheap to produce. With one big streamer it will be easy to manage your subscription, but the price will still be at least as high as subscribing to half a dozen small streamers, and the shows will be worse. (Hope you like repetitive, formulaic shows, which, at best, are a rehash last year’s mildly entertaining show. That’s what you can look forward to.)
• khannn 11mo ago
  Watch Netflix keep HBO Max as a separate service
• wat10000 11mo ago
  That's caused by consolidation. Compare with music: a bunch of different companies make music, a bunch of different companies stream music, but they're not the same companies, so approximately everybody's music is available on every platform. With video, many platforms are also creators, which leads to exclusivity, and fragmentation. Combining everything into a monopoly would also fix this problem, but would have downsides.
• kmeisthax 11mo ago
  People want consolidation in the sense that they want to just have a service that has everything instead of having to juggle multiple competing channels around. The problem is that this service would have to be very expensive. The glory days of streaming had 10 services all selling more or less the same product. The kind of consolidation on offer here just means having to pay for two streaming services at once. That is, at some point HBO Max will get rolled up into Netflix, and Netflix will increase their prices to make sure you don't save any money from it. Because let's be honest here: the only reason why the glory days of streaming were so glorious is that nobody knew what anything was worth and everything was being subsidized by the suckers still paying for cable. The problem is once you run out of suckers, you have to start charging what the show actually costs to make (or license). Once you account for that plus margin you have a cable bill again[0]. Except since there's like five major services they can split the content and bill five ways. They have to charge about the same as the others to maintain this equilibrium, but with fewer services there's less alternatives and they can raise prices higher. What people really want out of their streaming service is a free ride, no more and no less. Either that, or they're going back to physical media because one time payments are the only fair and consumer-friendly way of paying for creative works. [0] Yes, I know most of that was actually sports. For everything else, there was a second layer of subsidy involved: ads. Most of the stuff that didn't charge carriage fees were getting shittons of ad revenue, and that subsidy has also largely vanished.
• nrhrjrjrjtntbt 11mo ago
  I dont mind disconsolidation. The main downside is price as you have to pay for multiple services. Having all the services is "the one service".
• gxs 11mo ago
  That crazy thing is that a knee jerk reaction can still be right This IS bad for consumers - we are slowly inching towards the pre streaming world of only a handful of studios who run Hollywood, except now it’s pretentious tech companies
• CyberDildonics 11mo ago
  This isn't just two streaming services being merged, it's two giant media companies now becoming one media company.
• datahack 11mo ago
  Isn’t that mixing up library size with market power? Consumers are going to pay for this consolidation through higher subscription prices because the cost always goes somewhere. What you’re seeing now is the same consolidation and ad loading that drove the old piracy waves.
• supportengineer 11mo ago
  Our family loved Disney+ from the outset and then to see consolidation into the service was amazing. I can watch Aliens and Avengers in the same place? Now I’m just waiting for somebody to fold Paramount into either Netflix or Disney+ so I’ll have Star Trek as well.
• mastax 11mo ago
  People were happy when Netflix was the streaming service and it cost $7.99. People will be unhappy if Netflix is the streaming service and it costs $159.99. The glory days were only possible because the streaming market didn’t matter.
• philipov 11mo ago
  The availability of exclusive content should not be the point over which streaming services compete. The same content should be available on all streaming services, and they should compete on the quality of their delivery and discoverability technology. Content producers must not be vertically integrated with content distributors.
• Suppafly 11mo ago
  >People were happy when Netflix was the streaming service, but then everyone pulled their content and have their own (Disney, Paramount, etc.) This, it's been horrible ever since all of the content owners have pulled their content from netflix.
• mensetmanusman 11mo ago
  Consolidation is only needed in the context of people not allowing other platforms to sell or rent everything. Eg movies need their iTunes moment.