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

681–690 of 844 posts

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#681

Post by divbzero »

tguedes wrote: post #160
wut42 wrote: post #16

> The deal can be viewed as a doubling down on business strategy that Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s CEO, articulated at a conference in 2016: “When we win a Golden Globe, it helps us sell more shoes,” he had said, referring to Amazon's diverse business divisions. This part is a real nugget.

From https://stratechery.com/2021/distribution-and-demand/ : `I do get the argument that Prime Video is a waste of money for Amazon; Brad Stone notes in his new book Amazon Unbound that “there was little evidence of a connection between viewing and purchasing behavior” and that “any correlation was also obfuscated by the fact that Prime was growing rapidly on its own.”` Is that nugget actually true or is Bezos just o…

I’m skeptical of the argument that Prime Video attracts Prime subscriptions. The true motivation could be Hollywood glamor, or having the data to link viewing behavior to product recommendations.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#682

Post by cabalamat »

akira2501 wrote: post #432
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. No it isn't. It's a workaround. This is an 8 billion dollar deal, there would have to be an impossible amount of piracy for it to count as "competition." This is precisely the reason why government regulation here is correct, as consumers, we don't have a lever long enough to have any real impact on the core problem. And we're just one side of the deal. These types of…

Government regulation would be one solution. Another would be less government regulation, specifically making piracy legal.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#683

Post by midasuni »

hnbad wrote: post #291
anoncow wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Musk playing with BTC is any indication, Mars would've been an interesting socio-political experiment if we had the terraforming technology.

Corporate towns were bad enough but now we're talking about corporate space colonies where the company can literally charge you for oxygen. I'd be interesting for sure, but not something anyone should want to participate in at table stakes.

The original total recall had this set up

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#684

Post by cabalamat »

saltyfamiliar wrote: post #651
NikolaNovak wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really not. I'm a computer geek, and I'm LONG past the point where setting up safe VMs and signing up to half a dozen services like newsgroup server and directories and search engines and what nots, download software with impossible names like sabnzbd (I'm waiting up for somebody to scream how nobody uses sabnzbd anymore, it's been replaced by jidwiaj and iqerqip, which are super easy, and that just proves my po…

I truly cannot relate. All one needs is a VPN, a torrent client, a browser and an internet connection. Most tv's nowadays are smart enough to either connect to a simple Windows share or at least be able to play movie files. My SO and I watch a new movie almost every single night with a very simple setup and rarely encounter problems. It reads to me like you've over engineered movie night and are now complaining about…

> All one needs is a VPN

You don't need that. At least, I don't.

> a torrent client

All good operating systems (i.e. Linux) come with one. Though obviously most non-technical people don't use Linux.

> a browser

Pretty much standard on everything.

> an internet connection

Which they would be using anyway for streaming services.

> Most tv's nowadays are smart enough

Aaagh! Don't use "smart" TVs!

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#685

Post by scyzoryk_xyz »

_0w8t wrote: post #505
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.

In [1] Arthur De Vany showed rather convincingly that the split between distribution and production for movie production made things worse for the consumers. The problem is that the profit of the whole industry is dominated by very few titles and that split lead to a few non-trivial consequences like lack of diversity in Hollywood. [1] - https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0415312612?psc=1&ref=ppx_po... EDIT: one of the…

This depends on what you think makes a great movie and a great system and there really is no right answer. I'm not sure the above 'proves' that things were made worse for consumers. Fact is, weird independent 'auteur' filmmakers and foreign films entered the market in the 1960's and were able to distribute without being locked out. The producers taking those risks perhaps didn't feel they were taking a risk at all. Maybe they knew they had a winning hand and had better know-how than the studio bosses and their risk avoidance BS. That's how you get those Easy Riders and Raging Bulls.

At the same time, movie theatres ceased to be these lavish 'palaces'. So what 'going to the movies' meant shifted in consumers' minds. Film productions also shrunk in size and scale so there is that. I would assume the business side actually deteriorated while cultural relevance rose. Probably not everyone on the consumer side was happy with all of that.

If we're talking about that studio era though, these portfolios of movies being managed from the top definitely made films bland and predictable. But then on the other hand they also forced the talent to hone skill through repetition. So you had some specific aspects of the films being executed on a high polished level like the noir cinematography. I'm feeling/seeing something similar going on right now with the VOD offering. Even though it's all really well produced and shot and put together, I just sense everyone is following the same seemingly risque but safe playbook optimized for social media marketing.

Seen in another way, the internet aspect of these distribution systems really can make all of the above completely irrelevant too. I find my satisfaction with MUBI and weird niche shit on YouTube. A piece of my money still goes toward partially paying for the very same infrastructure. As someone else mentioned here already - I'm not physically limited from seeking what I want to find online, and it's all there side by side for me to view. This was not at all the case in the 1950's.

In my mind one thing is certain, and this is just my take - I don't really want to watch a James Bond that has been developed by a goofy logistics e-commerce corporate giant. I just really don't see it.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#686

Post by graeme »

awb wrote: post #593
chrisin2d wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A customer buys into the Amazon Prime bundle. You can get standalone Amazon Prime Video membership — buuut it's about the same price as complete Amazon Prime membership! So you might as well get the complete membership and get all the perks you might want in the future. And bam, you're now in the Amazon Prime universe. One day you'll be comparison shopping for a specific pair of shoes you like online, and you'll see…

Sure, just surprised that people are finding Amazon through Prime Video and not the other way around.

It’s more like Prime Video helps retain you once you’re in Prime. And if you stay in, you order more. The goal of Prime Video is to decrease churn.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#687

Post by mudlus »

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.

All hail Plex and torrents.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#688

Post by xsmasher »

eric-hu wrote: post #583
simias wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it hard to believe as well, although of course if you subscribe to prime for movies and TV you're probably more likely to use it for free deliveries as well. But if the plan is to make Prime more popular there seem to be many, many simpler and probably cheaper ways to do that. It's as if McDonalds started a movie studio in order to sell Movie + Big Mac bundles.

Not quite McDonald’s, but KFC released: - a limited edition gaming console in partnership with Cooler Master (with integrated chicken heater): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KFConsole - a Lifetime mini-movie starring Christian Slater as Colonel Sanders in “A Recipe for Seduction”: https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/kfc-colonel-sanders-mario-l... - a dating sim video game, “I Love You Colonel Sanders”: https://store.st…

A.C. Slater, not Christian Slater.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#689

Post by tmp231 »

AlexandrB wrote: post #618
tmp231 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Had to” They did not have to. They could have let market forces dictate how it played out.

The market is currently "dictating" that I have to do business with Amazon no matter how odious I think their practices are. They're almost as hard to avoid as Google at this point.

People seem to like them. And what a wonderful service they have done for society.

But I guess Walmart is always available, or boutique stores if you don’t like big box.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#690

Post by coryfklein »

I for one am very happy with all of the content consolidating into 4-5 major brands. I can pay $10-15 a month and rotate through individual streaming services. I don't need to be able to watcth James Bond at any particular point in time, I just need to be able to find some content I'm going to enjoy tonight.

Interestingly enough, Prime Video is bundled with my Amazon Prime subscription so it's the one video service that I don't actually rotate.

Post reply on HN