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

Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

about.netflix.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

911–920 of 1001 posts

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#911

Post by OhioMan2943 »

somehnguy wrote: post #742
jasonvorhe wrote: post #341

I cancelled all my content subscriptions and I'm back to torrenting. I barely watch anything made my Netflix regardless. I think either Dark or the 3rd season of Stranger Things was the last time. Snyder's SciFi movie wasn't much good either. By now the streaming services are en route to become as terrible as whatever they were set out to replace. Once one of them started heavily advertising their own productions eve…

Usenet + the *arr stack + Plex or Jellyfin make it completely effortless to watch any movie or TV show I can think of. And I don't have to play the 'which service has this?' game.

Jumping on the efficiency wagon- going from torrent site to download station is fast enough

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#912

Post by MarkMarine »

afavour wrote: post #182

Any consolidation like this seems like a negative for consumers. But at least it wasn’t bought by Larry Ellison, as was considered very likely (assuming this merger gets approved, in the current administration you never know). From a Hacker News perspective, I wonder what this means for engineers working on HBO Max. Netflix says they’re keeping the company separate but surely you’d be looking to move them to Netflix…

as a positive, maybe this will make fast forward work on HBO streaming. One of the little UX pebbles in my shoe that Netflix has figured out.

Jokes aside, HBO is a prestige TV brand. Netflix had a deep desire to create and run premium content previously, but the cost and volume they could put out was clearly a problem for the business. Maybe HBO becomes the premium, prestige TV brand and we get 1-2 series at a time from that + movies, and Netflix remains as it is. This consumer would be quite happy with that.

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#913

Post by smsm42 »

thayne wrote: post #514
nonethewiser wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any consolidation like this seems like a negative for consumers This is a very common narrative to this news. But coming into this news, I think the most common narrative against streaming was essentially "There is not enough consolidation." People were happy when Netflix was the streaming service, but then everyone pulled their content and have their own (Disney, Paramount, etc.)

I want a separation between the streaming platform companies and the content making companies, so that the streaming companies can compete on making a better platform/service and the content companies compete on making better content. I don't want one company that owns everything, I want several companies that are able to license whatever content they want. And ideally the customer can choose between a subscription t…

I wish that'd happen, but instead what we have is that everybody is making terrible new content, and getting any of the old content is a nightmare too because there are 28 or so subscriptions needed, which are constantly increasing prices (yeah, they are supposed to be competing, but somehow...) and constantly shuffling their lists, so you can just lose access to a series in the middle of a rewatch. I hope eventually it will organize into something resembling normalcy, but it's not happening so far... There's of course other solution (ahoy, matey!) but I'd rather just pay reasonable sum for a subscription. I know Netflix buying everything is not a solution either, but so far it's only getting worse.

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#914

Post by yugioh3 »

moviegoing has always been evolving. from kinetoscopes to grand movie palaces to suburban multiplexes. nothing has ever stayed the same for long in cinema.

heck, most theaters used to be continuous program viewing, meaning you’d show up not knowing what was playing, halfway through a movie, cartoon, or newsreel. scheduled viewing was pretty rare until the early 60s, only reserved for tentpole movies like Gone With The Wind or Ben-Hur.

in some ways, where we are heading is back to where we were: tentpole cultural moments like Barbie or Avatar thrive, but the bread and butter of entertainment happens informally, but now at home.

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#916

Post by dizhn »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #536
dizhn wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's $4.50 superscript 1

I thought someone really had to break some threshold so they wouldn't close the deal unless they got another .001. Like maybe some bonus depended upon some target value.

I read it as $4501. It's common to put a dot after the thousands in some places. :)

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#917

Post by TuringNYC »

thayne wrote: post #514
nonethewiser wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any consolidation like this seems like a negative for consumers This is a very common narrative to this news. But coming into this news, I think the most common narrative against streaming was essentially "There is not enough consolidation." People were happy when Netflix was the streaming service, but then everyone pulled their content and have their own (Disney, Paramount, etc.)

I want a separation between the streaming platform companies and the content making companies, so that the streaming companies can compete on making a better platform/service and the content companies compete on making better content. I don't want one company that owns everything, I want several companies that are able to license whatever content they want. And ideally the customer can choose between a subscription t…

>>> I want a separation between the streaming platform companies and the content making companies, so that the streaming companies can compete on making a better platform/service and the content companies compete on making better content. >>> I don't want one company that owns everything, I want several companies that are able to license whatever content they want. And ideally the customer can choose between a subscription that includes everything, and paying for content a la carte, or maybe subscriptions that focus on specific kinds of content (scifi/fantasy, stuff for kids, old movies, international, sports, etc.) regardless of what company made it.

This sounds fine in theory, but how would it work if the content were continuously changing? For example, the final straw that made my cut the cord of cable-tv was getting locked into a 3yr plan for cable TV only to get the Disney channel for the kids -- only to learn that Verizon/Disney had a fight and I lost the channel. https://deadline.com/2018/12/disney-warns-verizon-fios-custo...

Now, i'm still locked into the 3yr plan with Verizon but dont have the content I wanted. I know people complain about paying $10 or $15 for a streaming service, but imagine paying $100 for cable TV and being locked into a 3yr contract. I'd much, much rather have a la carte services I can pick and choose and cancel as desired.

However, if you're talking about the Amazon Prime TV model, then I'd totally agree with you. I think that is the ideal model -- Prime is a nominal cost (for now) and you can add/remove channels as you wish.

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#918

Post by djtango »

wiseowise wrote: post #104
djtango wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like how did these companies drop the ball so bad. Most notably Sony which produced TVs, Computers, DVD players, Media Centers. They owned a movie studio and record label. They also have in house expertise with cloud content distribution via PlayStation. Unfortunately for them around the time of Netflix's ascent they were embroiled with all kinds of financial issues but still the mind boggles

> how did these companies drop the ball so bad Companies didn't, leadership did. For a big, fat check. And they're happily retired now, sitting in their expensive villas with millions on their balance. They couldn't care less about your happy childhood memories that the content produced by their predecessors engraved in your mind.

I am not attached to any memories, I am remarking that a company that is currently 170~B market cap allowed a tiny upstart become a 460~B company when they had all the means and distribution to have stop them or outcompete them at many stages of the ascent.

Really, it is probably an inevitable and somewhat healthy feature of life and the business cycle, but it is also baffling to witness.

When I was at Amazon, I came away feeling that the gap between retail and Amazon was too large and the disruption was warranted. But in the case of Sony, it feels they were so much closer to the space that it feels like a much bigger own goal...

Post reply on HN