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

Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 55 posts

Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states

#31

Post by happymellon »

bko wrote: post #21
happymellon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> More risky movies. If a company has more diversified income stream, it can take more risks on new and interesting movies. Citation. This is not my observation.

Do you think a company w less diversified source of income would be willing to take more risk, knowing that room for error is very small?

All I asked for was a citation, as my observations have been that smaller companies are more willing to take risks as they need to survive.

The larger the corporation, the more risk adverse they are.

Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states

#33

Post by dpoloncsak »

master_crab wrote: post #30
bko wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Birdsong and Golden Peanut together have controlled roughly 80% of U.S. peanut shelling, with Olam holding another 10% or more. Warner Bros. releases roughly 20-30 wide theatrical films per year, or about 8-12% of all U.S. theatrical releases (counting independent films as well). Paramount Pictures releases roughly 10-20 wide theatrical films per year, or about 3-7% of all U.S. theatrical releases. Hope this helps

That’s not good either. It’s the same with poultry, many types of fruit, etc. This just makes the case further.

Not the original commentator, but I think they're suggesting that you're free to compete in these markets, but the margins are too tight until you're working at the scale of these big guys, so nobody does.

Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states

#34

Post by bko »

happymellon wrote: post #31
bko wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think a company w less diversified source of income would be willing to take more risk, knowing that room for error is very small?

All I asked for was a citation, as my observations have been that smaller companies are more willing to take risks as they need to survive. The larger the corporation, the more risk adverse they are.

You don't need a citation for everything. It's common sense.

But sure, look at big tech with a money printing machine, insane margins and revenue. Amazon spends 90b a year on r&d (~14% of revenue). Meta is about 26% of revenue and so on.

That's risk as it's not tied to their core business and most if not all is punted away.

Can you give me a citation of a small company willing to punt 14-24% of their revenue on long term projects that may not bare any results?

Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states

#36

Post by avisser »

bko wrote: post #21
happymellon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> More risky movies. If a company has more diversified income stream, it can take more risks on new and interesting movies. Citation. This is not my observation.

Do you think a company w less diversified source of income would be willing to take more risk, knowing that room for error is very small?

start-ups spend over 100% of revenue on risky ventures.

Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states

#37

Post by shivapb80 »

cyanydeez wrote: post #17
bko wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

you'd have to actually care about politics, the far right, how ruper murdoch and nixon's advisors spent 50 years making Fox news an unassailable fortress of misinformation a geriatric rapist used as a platform to take over a democratic leadership. Those are the same people trying to take another media entity into.

i stay out of politics but to say that only fox is doing misinformation is turning a blind eye to the lies of NYT, CBS, CNN, ABC, BBC (although foreign owned) and MSNBC.

Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states

#38

Post by serf »

bko wrote: post #9
toymin wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who cares? People who like movies, presumably

What's your mental model for bigger company = worse movies? Here are a few positives: Larger movie catalog all under one place, better value bundle due to fewer transaction costs in negotiation. Imagine the extreme where every movie was owned by a different owner. Netflix would not be able to license content effectively. More risky movies. If a company has more diversified income stream, it can take more risks on new…

all one has to do is look at movies from indie groups versus conglomerates in order to pick apart every point you made aside from technology investment and movie volume.

your most laughable point is the one about risk : no one takes less risk than a huge conglomerate beholden to a board and shareholders.

real risk in cinema comes the cast and crew that decide to forego dinner in order to get their vision to the screen, and the arts are filled with such passionate examples.

Not everyone wants the 1500th star wars or marvel movie, even the fan bases for those releases are tired.

Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states

#39

Post by serf »

bko wrote: post #21
happymellon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> More risky movies. If a company has more diversified income stream, it can take more risks on new and interesting movies. Citation. This is not my observation.

Do you think a company w less diversified source of income would be willing to take more risk, knowing that room for error is very small?

the most obvious display of risk aversion is the greenlighting and production of "Spiderman 35 Electric Boogaloo" and "Batman # 740 The Dark Knight Re-Rises Again" -- meanwhile indies are still struggling to find first investors or writing money.

as I said in another comment : These large firms do not take risk.

Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states

#40

Post by shagmin »

bko wrote: post #34
happymellon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All I asked for was a citation, as my observations have been that smaller companies are more willing to take risks as they need to survive. The larger the corporation, the more risk adverse they are.

You don't need a citation for everything. It's common sense. But sure, look at big tech with a money printing machine, insane margins and revenue. Amazon spends 90b a year on r&d (~14% of revenue). Meta is about 26% of revenue and so on. That's risk as it's not tied to their core business and most if not all is punted away. Can you give me a citation of a small company willing to punt 14-24% of their revenue on long…

How much of Meta's r&d is spent on keeping people addicted to their apps? I'd argue Amazon and Meta were both more innovative when there was no or very little revenue.

Meta essentially replaced myspace, which basically went down hill after being bought out by a much larger company.

Post reply on HN