Live data from Hacker News

Disney to Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox

thewaltdisneycompany.com

231–240 of 362 posts

Re: Disney to Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox

#231

Sane antitrust regulations should kill this deal. It is bad for everybody other than shareholders of those two companies. In particular bad for customers, other companies and employees: https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/2172555... https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21695385-profits-are...

It's not so black and white. Stratchery posits consolidation may promote competition at the distribution layer, where Netflix presently stands to dominate: "To that end, might it be better for consumers, not-so-much today but ten years from now, if Disney were fully empowered to compete with Netflix? What is preferable? A dominant streaming company and a collection of content companies trying to escape the commoditiz…

This deal kills one streaming platform. We previously had Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon as the big players. Disney recently purchased BAMTech which does the streaming for MLB, HBO, NHL, WWE, ESPN, League of Legends, and others. After this purchase, Disney planned to create a streaming service with the BAMTech technology and Disney catalog in 2019. [1] That new service would be a strong instant competitor with Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon. Now BAMTech and Hulu have the same majority owners so it is unlikely that they ever come into direct competition with each other.

[1] - https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/walt-disney-company-acquire...

Re: Disney to Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox

#232
I have a hard time believing this will be approved. Given how much regulatory scrutiny the AT&T/Time Warner merger is under as a vertical merger, it would be wildly inconsistent to then approve a horizontal merger of this size, even if the AT&T/Time Warner merger ultimately goes through.

Re: Disney to Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox

#233

So, will the Fox fanfare return to all Star Wars films, past and present, from now on?

Serious question: why do people want this so badly? Just nostalgia? (Too young to have see the OT movies in theaters, so I don't have that)

For me, sticking the cheesy fox logo and fanfare at the beginning of the movies would make them worse, not better.

Re: Disney to Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox

#234
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that, given tech-side developments in the entertainment industry, increased density on the content side makes perfect sense. I'd be more concerned about a pair of CDNs merging than a pair of movie houses.

You must live in a constant state of fear. Akamai literally buys every up and coming CDN once they gain double digit market share. Limelight is the only real holdout, Fastly hasn't been hit by the Akamai lawyers yet (which is always step 1 in their playbook), and they are waiting for Cloudflare to collapse under their own business model. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/akamai-technologies/...

Right. I'm saying that, if you care about "monopoly power in consumer home entertainment," you'd almost certainly have to rank edge network consolidation over movie studio consolidation. Judging by the number of animated logos before any current movie starts, there seem to be millions of these studios!

Re: Disney to Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox

#235
post #225
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Netflix approaching monopoly? If anything I've seen a ton of competition coming up from the likes of Amazon, HBO, and a billion smaller services.

That's why I never liked having Netflix be the poster child for "Net Neutrality". Like with Pro Life vs Pro Choice we have two campaign slogans "Net Neutrality" and "Internet Freedom" coined by entrenched interests.

Netflix is the poster child not because of monopoly issues but because there's a public, known record of Comcast slowing down Netflix before the Title II regulation came into being, it's the most prominent and widely concerning proof that non-neutral stuff does (and will) happen.

Re: Disney to Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Disney planning to start their own Netflix-like service or are they planning to just open the online Disney store where it will only have Disney content. The latter doesn't seem like a proper Netflix competitor. Netflix serves more than their own home-grown content.

They're actually doing two services, one for sports based on their ownership of ESPN and another for TV/Movies. Not sure if their plan is to license other content or just rely on their own. If it's the latter I don't think it will be much of a Netflix competitor, it will be more like HBO Go. Otherwise, if I was Netflix, I'd be very worried. Disney has some deep pockets! I think they are set to launch in 2019.

> Not sure if their plan is to license other content or just rely on their own. If it's the latter I don't think it will be much of a Netflix competitor

All of the Netflix original Marvel shows alone may be a reason they can "win" just by taking all their balls and going home to a streaming service they control. They've already admitted that all of their current contracts with Netflix have been set to expire in 2019 precisely for this launch (and presumably a part of why this still unnamed service has such an explicit but two year away launch date).

That's just Marvel's relationship with Netflix. Factor in all of Star Wars, the Miramax back catalog, the Buena Vista back catalog, Pixar, ABC, and of course the Disney brand itself. (…and potentially now the entire film and TV catalog of 21st Century Fox is on the table to be controlled by Disney going forward.)

Re: Disney to Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox

#237
post #9

So along with Disney pulling all their titles from Netflix for their own streaming service, I guess the FX content will be next to go from Netflix.

Oh it's crazy how much stuff Disney can pull off Netflix, I don't know if they will, because it's in their interest to have some stuff accessible over more than one place, but they own ABC (Lost, Castle, Firefly, etc), ESPN, Marvel, LucasArts, now Fox and their assets, not to mention they distribute on behalf of many publishers (Dreamworks for example), they would probably clear more than half of Netflix's content if…

Just as an FYI the Dreamworks distribution deal wasn't renewed in 2016 so they're 'on their own' as it were. I believe the two companies are still friendly but don't directly have the distribution deal in place any longer.

Re: Disney to Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox

#238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stratchery has a pretty laissez-faire attitude towards government regulation in general. He seems ok with the net neutrality repeal, for example.[1] [1] https://stratechery.com/tag/net-neutrality/

It would be more accurate to say, he's ok with reclassifying internet services as Title I, given that 1) ISPs have almost never tried to throttle by traffic type, 2) business model innovation (e.g. zero rating, etc) can have positive effects, and 3) internet access has lots of room for improvement that will require investment, and tying the hands of the providers may prevent that. (I don't necessarily agree with all…

Do you actually believe that these points are useful? You're distancing yourself from "agreeing" with them, maybe because you know how wrong they are, but you still seem to be sympathetic to them.

>1) ISPs have almost never tried to throttle by traffic type

They have been shown to do this, have an interest in doing it, and it's illegal to do it. Say you're playing chess, and you consider making a move such that, if they move their rook to h7 it would be mate for you. Is it a reasonable argument in favor of making the move anyway to point out that your opponent "almost never" moves his rook to h7?

>2) business model innovation (e.g. zero rating, etc) can have positive effects

This is difficult to disprove since the statement is incredibly weak. "Can have"??! ISPs have local monopolies everywhere they exist. Business model innovation for monopolies is exclusively going to be about charging people more money for the same service, and protecting your monopoly status. You could argue that this is a positive effect, but not to me, and probably not to this board.

>3) internet access has lots of room for improvement that will require investment, and tying the hands of the providers may prevent that.

They have no incentive to improve it as long as they maintain their monopoly status. People are already being charged as much money as they are willing to pay for their internet access, you can't improve the service and expect to extract more money from them.

In short, none of these points have any merit at all, and if you present them in the future, you should also explain why they don't make any sense.

Re: Disney to Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nowadays Chrome seems to be the new IE but at least they're a bit more open overall. eeeeeh "Google Chrome is required to run the new Google Earth. Please try this link in Chrome. Learn more." "Launching the new Allo Web, only available in Chrome." "Launching Google Inbox Beta, only available in Chrome." Granted, Allo and Inbox and the new YouTube design are now available in Firefox, but with artificial performance…

Let's not forget when Google forced Mobile IE to switch to the WAP site for Google Maps even though maps.google.co.uk worked perfectly, then blocked Microsoft's YouTube app and refused to help create one that worked properly just to punish Windows Phone users for picking the wrong platform.

And when Google a few weeks ago decided to ban all Amazon Kindle’s from accessing their websites, by banning any browser with that User Agent string.

Re: Disney to Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox

#240

I'm kind of torn on whether this is the same as other media mergers like Comcast-Universal or the upcoming Sinclair-Tribune mergers. I think mergers of news and broadcast outlets are generally bad but the bulk of what Disney is buying is intellectual property. Can owning tons of trademarks and copyrights ever be considered a monopoly? I am uncomfortable with one company owning Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, Aliens…

Media properties are natural monopolies thanks to copyright anyway so, sans quality, it really doesn't matter who owns them.

On the other hand it's definitely possible to have a monopoly on distribution but good luck arguing that it's possible to have a monopoly on art.

Post reply on HN