Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 844 posts

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#271

Post by tomjen3 »

mountainb wrote: post #91
libertine wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This will be my prediction: the usage of piracy to consume this type of content will increase. And they will blame PLATFORM X (or just the ol'piratebay) for the losses of revenue, when in reality it's just a matter of people not being able to access content because everything has a paywall gate. It's like they want to bring cable TV back to the internet, and you had massive bills just for channels subscriptions.

Have they been releasing material worth pirating in the last 10-15 years? The movies coming out aren't even worth the bandwidth.

I was a fan of GoT, I loved ST:P.

I don't watch that many movies anymore.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#272

Post by jbay808 »

divs1210 wrote: post #225
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We could really use laws that force, once again, some sort of separation between production and distribution. Piracy is competition to bad content behavior. It's a meaningful consumer response to monopoly, balkanization and other anti-consumer practices.

THIS. Forcing consumers to sign up to 10 platforms to watch 10 movies will no doubt lead to a shift back to torrents. YouTube is pretty good in this regard, as it allows paying for renting a single movie for a weekend for a reasonable price.

Blockbusters used to be really good for this. You could even get a movie for a whole week for less than YouTube will rent it to you for 24 hours.

Maybe they'll make a comeback?

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#273

Post by fabbari »

lostgame wrote: post #215
w0m wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Piracy was the Easiest/Only way to get content until ~2008ish. Since then; Netflix and (...x streaming platform) made it easier/better to Pay for the content than pirate it. It does feel like we're approaching a tipping point now in the other direction with all of these streaming fiefdoms. My household has Netflix, Hulu, D+, and Prime streaming now - that's already too many and needs pairing IMO.

>> Piracy was the Easiest/Only way to get content until ~2008ish. Since then; Netflix and (...x streaming platform) made it easier/better to Pay for the content than pirate it. Fragmentation still hurts this to an extreme, and - worse - God-awful region locks. As a fan of obscure, cult and independent cinema in particular it’s a wasteland of titles strewn across 5 different services, and being Canadian, piracy is jus…

I think that 'most items' mentioned in the sibling comment is the problem. Who decides what's included in that subset?

Practical example: "Mockingbird Lane" was released by NBC in 2012, they decided it was 'not worthy' and removed it from their streaming library.

Can you guess what's the only way to watch it now?

I do understand the concept of 'What NBC giveth, NBC taketh', but that doesn't mean I have to be happy with it.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#274

Post by kin »

adaisadais wrote: post #234
scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #23

So what we're seeing is a repeat of the film industry from 1930's-1950's. You want to see a Paramount movie, you must go to a Paramount theater. Today you want to watch an Apple show you must go to Apple's VOD. We could really use laws that force, once again, some sort of separation between production and distribution. Better stuff gets made in this kind of ecosystem.

You’re looking at this wrong. This is a massive opportunity for someone to do what iTunes did to music and what Spotify did after. It just might end up being Amazon...

I don’t think you can make the same comparison to iTunes. No record label had the ability to reach millions of paying users like Netflix already has. Netflix has no incentive to license their original content to a different aggregate platform.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#275

Post by kangaroozach »

DrBazza wrote: post #230
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We could really use laws that force, once again, some sort of separation between production and distribution. Piracy is competition to bad content behavior. It's a meaningful consumer response to monopoly, balkanization and other anti-consumer practices.

> Piracy is competition to bad content behavior I really wish we had the bandwidth we have now, back in the Napster-era. Napster, and others forced, persuaded and cajoled the music industry to consolidate, whether they liked it or not, on Spotify, and iTunes. If we'd had easy free sharing of movies, it's not hard to envisage something similar to what we see now in the music industry forced on the movie companies. Now…

We have not yet approached the pre-streaming willingness to pay (WTP). People used to pay $150 to $200 plus onDemand for the whole package with their cable provider. Today you can have YouTubeTV, HBO, Netflix, Prime, AppleTV+, Disney+, and Spotify for less than that. So perhaps the average will hover around $100 with many paying closer to $200 a month. We are creeping back up to those numbers because people will pay.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#276

Post by unethical_ban »

jerf wrote: post #49
xixixao wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I started watching SG1 again (I saw it incomplete as a kid). It’s incredibly good. It pushes rationalism and feminism in a sane way that I’m not sure would happen in today’s environment. It’s incredibly rich in historical references and concepts. It’s rarely dumb and often preempts cliches. It’s still worth watching imho (and is much less known that Star Trek in US).

I consider it hands down better than any Star Trek except possibly TNG. And that's giving TNG some grace due to being a bit older; take that away and I'll give SG-1 the prize. I will agree that people can reasonably disagree about Deep Space Nine vs SG-1. But that's the level of quality we're talking about, in my opinion. It's top tier, and much less well known. Also strongly recommend binging the first season in par…

I had only seen TNG until two years ago. I knew almost every episode past season 2, and really loved it. Still do.

But then I watched Deep Space Nine, and wow. I got hooked. I "only" watched about 80 episodes that are the plot arc + a few outstanding solos, but still. The quality of the acting, the more "on the nose" social messaging, the darker side of the Federation, the racial struggles between the crew - if I hear anyone make fun of DS9, I send them on their way (which doesn't happen much like it did in the 00's).

I have some friends who liked SG-1 as kids, maybe I should take the time to watch it. But it can't be better than Battlestar Galactica :)

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#278

Post by margaretdouglas »

DrBazza wrote: post #230
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We could really use laws that force, once again, some sort of separation between production and distribution. Piracy is competition to bad content behavior. It's a meaningful consumer response to monopoly, balkanization and other anti-consumer practices.

> Piracy is competition to bad content behavior I really wish we had the bandwidth we have now, back in the Napster-era. Napster, and others forced, persuaded and cajoled the music industry to consolidate, whether they liked it or not, on Spotify, and iTunes. If we'd had easy free sharing of movies, it's not hard to envisage something similar to what we see now in the music industry forced on the movie companies. Now…

Why do you need cable/satellite if you're playing the a la carte game of streaming? I feel like the world where you have cable and streaming services is ending and you either live in a world with cable and maybe or two streaming services; similar to paying extra for HBO and Cinemax with your cable service in the past, or you cut the cord and manage bundling the "networks" yourself. Netflix+Hulu+HBOMax+Sports/Local News subscriptions all tally to less than cable used to, you get more content, and all that content is on demand and free of commercials. This notion that service has backpedaled is nonsense. It baffles me why people still cling to their cable service and then expect "premium" channels be free and also share their content with one another. Which cable networks did that? When new episodes of Seinfeld were airing which networks could you watch them on? Just one? So unfair! I prefer the commercials on ABC! Perhaps you felt differently because you had no alternative to buying all the "streaming services of the day" under a single bundle. Now you do. You don't like TNT? Don't pay for it. ESPN never get turned on? Now you can drop it from your bill.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#280

Post by adamrezich »

jbay808 wrote: post #272
divs1210 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

THIS. Forcing consumers to sign up to 10 platforms to watch 10 movies will no doubt lead to a shift back to torrents. YouTube is pretty good in this regard, as it allows paying for renting a single movie for a weekend for a reasonable price.

Blockbusters used to be really good for this. You could even get a movie for a whole week for less than YouTube will rent it to you for 24 hours. Maybe they'll make a comeback?

what will users insert physical media into, these days?
Post reply on HN