6 ms·

I brought popcorn, who are we rooting for?

Larrikin 11mo ago
The best outcome would be for all of the bids to fail, all the streaming services would bleed money due to people sick of the siloing, and for there to be multiple streaming services competing on experience because they all have access to the same catalog. The second best outcome would be the cartoon villain Larry not getting what he wants.
- nubinetwork 11mo ago
  I honestly don't think cbs paramount would be any better, if anything, wb content would be further paywalled and tiered off
  - Spivak 11mo ago
    Which is why the model that would actually be good for consumers and the model that absolutely no content producer wants which is splitting content creation from distribution isn't going to happen. Let a bunch of companies compete over being the best streaming platform and then let those companies all compete for licensing deals for content. I think a big copyright holders in a strange way actually don't want a repeat of cable. They want all content to be exclusive by default to their own streaming service.
    - andsoitis 11mo ago
      When you make something (eg TV shows), you might also want a direct relationship with your customer (eg viewer). Consequently, A platform where you get to choose how to present and celebrate the stories seems like a reasonable thing.
      - ndiddy 11mo ago
        In the US, the film industry originally worked like the streaming industry does today. Besides just creating films, the major studios distributed them through the theaters they owned. If you wanted to see a Paramount film you had to go to a Paramount owned theater, if you wanted to see an MGM film you had to go to an MGM owned theater, and so on. In 1948, this distribution scheme was ruled to be in violation of antitrust law and the studios were forced to divest themselves of their theaters. Now you can see major films in any studio and the theaters have to compete on price and amenities. I don't see why the same logic shouldn't apply to streaming services.
        raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
        So you want to pass a law that no one can produce content and put it on their own website?
        magicalhippo 11mo ago
        Here in Norway we have a law for mobile carriers which is intended to prevent moats. It states that carriers must provide access for a "reasonable price" to other phone companies. It seems to have worked fairly well. One could imagine something similar, that sure you can put your own movie or TV show on your own website, but you must also sell it to companies who asks on reasonable terms. So Netflix can make a movie but couldn't say no to say Plex if they wanted to buy the rights to show it on Plex.tv.
        raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
        This is completely different. Cell phone infrastructure in particular is by nature a natural monopoly. Two carriers can’t operate over the same frequency and only certain frequencies are conducive for cell phones. Content has no such restriction. Are you really saying every piece of content anyone produces must be licensed? Who decides what is “reasonable”?
        Larrikin 11mo ago
    - raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
      > no content producer wants which is splitting content creation from distribution isn't going to happen. Sony does that now
- account42 11mo ago
  > and for there to be multiple streaming services competing on experience because they all have access to the same catalog. That's a weird way to write "and for us to go back to owning copies of movies instead of just renting them."
  - LunaSea 11mo ago
    More and more content can't be bought at all due to streaming platforms. That's a real problem.
- raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
  They will all go back to just licensing to Netflix. Meet the new boss…
aomix 11mo ago
I want Netflix to lose. After living with their binge release schedule for however long now I think we're all worse off for it. So I want less of the industry to use it.
- figmert 11mo ago
  You are not forced to buy their product, or to buy into their schedule.
  - almosthere 11mo ago
    Once Netflix buys all of these companies, you won't ever be able to watch a WB movie without a $25 netflix sub per month. (and yeah, when they are done buying all the competition that's what the monthly will be.
    - Jtsummers 11mo ago
      > Once Netflix buys all of these companies, you won't ever be able to watch a WB movie without a $25 netflix sub per month. (and yeah, when they are done buying all the competition that's what the monthly will be. That's kind of a silly argument. "People are better off paying $100+/month for 4+ streaming services than $25/month for one that has everything." If your argument were that you'd have to pay more than the current combined cost, it'd be a better argument against mergers. Arguing against something because it's a better deal is just strange.
      - almosthere 11mo ago
        thats not how most people do streaming, they consume everything on netflix - when the content gets stale, they cancel, move to P+, consume for a few months, stale, d+, stale, A+, etc.... 1 at a time
        Jtsummers 11mo ago
        That's what some people do, the average household (per polling) has 4+ video service subscriptions.
whateveracct 11mo ago
definitely not Ellison Jr lol
- magicalhippo 11mo ago
  Ah that Ellison, didn't make the connection.
kgwxd 11mo ago
I'm never paying any of them, anything, ever again, but I'm sure we'll all get a little fucked somehow. I do hope it triggers more in-fighting amongst the scum of the earth.
- tombert 11mo ago
  Don't worry, no matter which way it goes, each executive will still figure out a way to give themselves hundreds of millions of dollars for their hard work.
lyu07282 11mo ago
Piratebay

The best outcome would be for all of the bids to fail, all the streaming services would bleed money due to people sick of the siloing, and for there to be multiple streaming services competing on experience because they all have access to the same catalog. The second best outcome would be the cartoon villain Larry not getting what he wants.

nubinetwork 11mo ago
I honestly don't think cbs paramount would be any better, if anything, wb content would be further paywalled and tiered off
- Spivak 11mo ago
  Which is why the model that would actually be good for consumers and the model that absolutely no content producer wants which is splitting content creation from distribution isn't going to happen. Let a bunch of companies compete over being the best streaming platform and then let those companies all compete for licensing deals for content. I think a big copyright holders in a strange way actually don't want a repeat of cable. They want all content to be exclusive by default to their own streaming service.
  - andsoitis 11mo ago
    When you make something (eg TV shows), you might also want a direct relationship with your customer (eg viewer). Consequently, A platform where you get to choose how to present and celebrate the stories seems like a reasonable thing.
    - ndiddy 11mo ago
      In the US, the film industry originally worked like the streaming industry does today. Besides just creating films, the major studios distributed them through the theaters they owned. If you wanted to see a Paramount film you had to go to a Paramount owned theater, if you wanted to see an MGM film you had to go to an MGM owned theater, and so on. In 1948, this distribution scheme was ruled to be in violation of antitrust law and the studios were forced to divest themselves of their theaters. Now you can see major films in any studio and the theaters have to compete on price and amenities. I don't see why the same logic shouldn't apply to streaming services.
      - raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
        So you want to pass a law that no one can produce content and put it on their own website?
        magicalhippo 11mo ago
        Here in Norway we have a law for mobile carriers which is intended to prevent moats. It states that carriers must provide access for a "reasonable price" to other phone companies. It seems to have worked fairly well. One could imagine something similar, that sure you can put your own movie or TV show on your own website, but you must also sell it to companies who asks on reasonable terms. So Netflix can make a movie but couldn't say no to say Plex if they wanted to buy the rights to show it on Plex.tv.
        raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
        This is completely different. Cell phone infrastructure in particular is by nature a natural monopoly. Two carriers can’t operate over the same frequency and only certain frequencies are conducive for cell phones. Content has no such restriction. Are you really saying every piece of content anyone produces must be licensed? Who decides what is “reasonable”?
        Larrikin 11mo ago
  - raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
    > no content producer wants which is splitting content creation from distribution isn't going to happen. Sony does that now
account42 11mo ago
> and for there to be multiple streaming services competing on experience because they all have access to the same catalog. That's a weird way to write "and for us to go back to owning copies of movies instead of just renting them."
- LunaSea 11mo ago
  More and more content can't be bought at all due to streaming platforms. That's a real problem.
raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
They will all go back to just licensing to Netflix. Meet the new boss…

aomix 11mo ago

I want Netflix to lose. After living with their binge release schedule for however long now I think we're all worse off for it. So I want less of the industry to use it.

figmert 11mo ago
You are not forced to buy their product, or to buy into their schedule.
- almosthere 11mo ago
  Once Netflix buys all of these companies, you won't ever be able to watch a WB movie without a $25 netflix sub per month. (and yeah, when they are done buying all the competition that's what the monthly will be.
  - Jtsummers 11mo ago
    > Once Netflix buys all of these companies, you won't ever be able to watch a WB movie without a $25 netflix sub per month. (and yeah, when they are done buying all the competition that's what the monthly will be. That's kind of a silly argument. "People are better off paying $100+/month for 4+ streaming services than $25/month for one that has everything." If your argument were that you'd have to pay more than the current combined cost, it'd be a better argument against mergers. Arguing against something because it's a better deal is just strange.
    - almosthere 11mo ago
      thats not how most people do streaming, they consume everything on netflix - when the content gets stale, they cancel, move to P+, consume for a few months, stale, d+, stale, A+, etc.... 1 at a time
      - Jtsummers 11mo ago
        That's what some people do, the average household (per polling) has 4+ video service subscriptions.

whateveracct 11mo ago

definitely not Ellison Jr lol

magicalhippo 11mo ago
Ah that Ellison, didn't make the connection.

kgwxd 11mo ago

I'm never paying any of them, anything, ever again, but I'm sure we'll all get a little fucked somehow. I do hope it triggers more in-fighting amongst the scum of the earth.

tombert 11mo ago
Don't worry, no matter which way it goes, each executive will still figure out a way to give themselves hundreds of millions of dollars for their hard work.

lyu07282 11mo ago

Piratebay