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

741–750 of 844 posts

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#741

Post by bogwog »

908B64B197 wrote: post #725
bogwog wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other day I was helping my brother setup Python on his Windows 10 computer. So I went to python.org and installed it as usual, then why I typed "python" in the console, it launched the Microsoft Store app and took me to the download page for their distribution of Python. Apparently, it's some kind of alias "feature" they added to Windows at some point. What legitimate reason is there for that if not to try and tr…

> Apparently, it's some kind of alias "feature" they added to Windows at some point. What legitimate reason is there for that It's a loophole so they don't have to ship Windows with a version of Python and then have to support it for how long that version of Windows will be supported. So instead the user gets it from the store (and it's upgraded via the store). Same thing they did for years "Add or Remove features" w…

Why Python though? If a user knows what Python is, they probably know enough about technology to install it themselves.

Are there any Windows 10 features that require Python?

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#742

Post by NaturalPhallacy »

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.

They are much harder to avoid than google:

Look at this list: https://www.contino.io/insights/whos-using-aws

Amazon, and their primary revenue stream (AWS) is *immune* to boycott because it's so diversified. The fact that a company is immune to boycott is alarming.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#744

Post by zeusk »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #487
darkwizard42 wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually a better way to think about it is that they are compensating their shareholders... That $77B that is now returned to shareholders can be spent on whatever those shareholders want. It isn't really Apple's money to begin with... kind of the issue with being a public company. Unless of course its shareholders would look at that investment as sound, which might be a stretch given Apple's lack of background in an…

> That $77B that is now returned to shareholders can be spent on whatever those shareholders want. It isn't really Apple's money to begin with... kind of the issue with being a public company. Apple and its shareholders are the same entity when discussing “whose” money it is. If shareholders want it used to do buybacks, they vote for company leadership to do that. If they want dividends, they vote for company leaders…

Well. With such large firms, shareholders are quite a stretch of distribution. Voting proxies and the complexity of introducing a shareholder vote proposal quite drastically restricts the number of shareholders who can make stuff happen at these firms.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#745

Post by NaturalPhallacy »

FredPret wrote: post #667
nickthemagicman wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'voters' in America = gerrymandered district super pac funded politicians The actual people have no say whatsoever.

I wouldn’t agree with “no say whatsoever” but of course constant reform is needed in any society.

How about “a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

Because that's what this Princeton study found: https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem

We live in a plutarchy disguised as a constitutional democracy sold to its employee-citizens as a democracy.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#746

Post by throwaway3699 »

patmorgan23 wrote: post #728
cabalamat wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

You do need a VPN to mask your IP. Especially if you're going to be using public trackers. Otherwise you'll get copyright notices and you're ISP could terminate your service.

Depends on where you live. At least in the UK, ISPs can kick and scream but generally won't terminate you.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#747

Post by jonny_eh »

ajpkco wrote: post #454
aero-glide2 wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could have used that $77B to fund fusion research, carbon capture research, build private space stations and put man on Mars, but no they wanted to make their already high share price even higher.

The $77B didn't vanish, it went back to shareholders. Indeed Apple could have used it to fund fusion research, but this seems like a complete stretch of their expertise and capacity to execute on a project like that, the money could just have ended up being wasted on projects that went nowhere. Shareholders can cash out, the government tax the capital gains, and both entities can use the cash in the investments that…

It went to ex-shareholders.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#748

Post by tmp231 »

rileymat2 wrote: post #722
tmp231 wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a cowardly view. > If anything, breaking up these monopolies will lead to more innovation Yes, let’s violate a company’s right to exist and conduct business just because we don’t like ads, or have preferences for how the run things. If you’re so concerned that they are not doing the right thing, then you go out and do it.

I am not sure the right for a company to exist, is a real thing. These are artificial entities created by the government that give groups of people liability protection and the ability to act as one entity legally. It is not really a right, so much as a practical privilege we have set up. As such they should be open to whatever democratic will of the people. If the people arbitrarily decide they can only have so much…

> created by the government

The entity sure, but beyond the entity you have a group of people who have created something and want to sell it to you. If the Democratic will of the people said that we should jail them for creating shows we don’t like, I’m sure you’d object. Just because the people will it doesn’t mean it is correct.

People have a right to get together and create things and sell them to you under a contract. You have the right to accept or refuse. That simple.

Our society is regulation drunk.

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#749

Post by KingMachiavelli »

caeril wrote: post #512
akira2501 wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> No it isn't. It's a workaround. Sure, but it's a trivially easy workaround. Our focus of attention on matters of regulation ought to be in those areas where working around the problem is not nearly as dead simple as a torrent client, a NAS, and a Plex server.

It's extremely important to recognize that piracy is only a workaround for the consumer side. The consolidation of media production undoubtedly also changes what media gets produced. The types & style of content produced in each era of 'Hollywood' is incredibly influenced by who held power in the content creation process.

At several points the studios had the upper hand which meant that actors would only appear in a single studio's films. When more regulation freed actors from those types of contracts then celebrity actors were the major selling point. And for a while individual directors had a lot of power including final cut privileges which is why older in the 80s often had a theatrical release and a directors cut.

It seems that overall we are moving back towards studio control as single companies once again control production and distribution. For the most part this has worked out OK since most of these companies (Netflix, Hulu, etc.) were actually competing with the 'legacy' studios. However, now that major consolidation has taken place including the growth of Disney, etc; we are likely to see the industry and content itself shift to meet their interests. You can already see that, outside of small players and foreign sources, most studios focus on single annual big budget films marketed to an international audience (read: US & China). Just look at the top 20 films from 2015 vs 1995 vs 1985.

[2015] https://www.imdb.com/list/ls073655785/ [1995] https://www.imdb.com/list/ls057887703/ [1985] https://www.imdb.com/list/ls057991323/

Re: Amazon acquires MGM for $8.5B

#750

Post by 015a »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #612
caeril wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No it isn't. It's a workaround. Sure, but it's a trivially easy workaround. Our focus of attention on matters of regulation ought to be in those areas where working around the problem is not nearly as dead simple as a torrent client, a NAS, and a Plex server.

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…

1. Go to {insert-seedbox-website-because-there-are-so-many-like-seriously}.com (I'd share my favorite, but you know, don't want to break any rules, suffice to say there's a great search engine named "Google" that will point you in the right direction)

2. Pay $5-$10/month for a seedbox that pre-hosts rTorrent. Zero configuration. It will give you a web address, you visit it, and boom, torrent client.

Wait, should I pay for it in Bitcoin? I mean, you can. But you don't have to. It literally doesn't matter. No one gets caught doing it this way, unless you're a real Whale.

3. Go to {any-number-of-piracy-websites-even-that-one-everyone-knows-about-yeah-it-still-exists-and-its-fine}.com

4. Download torrent -> Upload into your rTorrent

You can, alternatively, skip all of that, pay for NordVPN or whatever, and just use your favorite local torrent client. Same thing.

A whole 3 pages, to be sure. I've got friends who wouldn't know a Mac from a PC, and they still pirate all the latest movies. Its startlingly easy. Experientially, there's near-zero risk of getting caught. It hasn't changed even a millimeter in a decade. Its the same process we all used back in middle school (or, you know, wherever you were ten years ago). Its just gotten cheaper, and also less interesting because of the Golden Days of streaming, but I think it'll come back if streaming continues splintering as it has.

Post reply on HN