The worst acquisition in history, again • Hacker News Board

Re: The worst acquisition in history, again

#21

Post by alephnerd » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 10:12 PM UTC

cyanydeez wrote: post #18

alephnerd wrote: post #9

Something I've mulled about this acquisition is that it appears to be a form of succession planning by Larry Ellison for his kids David (Skydance) and Megan (Annapurna). Oracle was always an Ellison driven enterprise, but neither David nor Megan had much aptitude or interest in enterprise SaaS, and a newer generation of operators took the reigns at Oracle in the 2010s like Catz, Hurd, Scilia, Magouyrk, and even Kuria…

Seems more cynical far right media control. You can call that succession planning i suppose.

There are easier and less fraught methods to build a politically controlled media empire, such as Sinclar's methodological and quiet approach, or quietly creating a family office that purchases commanding voting stakes in media enterprises like Laurene Powell Jobs' Emerson Collective.

The Skydance-WBD acquisition was extremely messy because emotion was clearly involved.

Re: The worst acquisition in history, again

#22

Post by toomuchtodo » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 10:13 PM UTC

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #20

> With his new toy having a leverage ratio north of 6x, David Ellison has promised $6 billion in “synergies” within three years. (Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos put the figure closer to $16 billion, after examining WBD’s books. What is it that these CEOs think they are seeing, that everyone else is missing? I can believe they have inflated egos, but they’re not totally crazy, right? My impression is that Netflix is fair…

Layoffs as you consolidate operations between enterprises. See Capital One laying off thousands at Discover Financial after their acquisition.

Capital One to lay off more than 1,100 in latest cuts at Discover Financial HQ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47270442 - March 2026

Re: The worst acquisition in history, again

#23

Post by monkeydreams » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 10:14 PM UTC

On top of this Ellison is likely to have to sell off the dried husk of Cerner in order to fuel his circular AI transactions with NVidia.

Re: The worst acquisition in history, again

#24

Post by readthenotes1 » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 10:14 PM UTC

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #20

> With his new toy having a leverage ratio north of 6x, David Ellison has promised $6 billion in “synergies” within three years. (Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos put the figure closer to $16 billion, after examining WBD’s books. What is it that these CEOs think they are seeing, that everyone else is missing? I can believe they have inflated egos, but they’re not totally crazy, right? My impression is that Netflix is fair…

There is a large history of companies with too much money (or access to borrowing) using it to buy up shiny objects. Whether it is CEO pride, greed, anger, or envy, it does not seem to matter.

Re: The worst acquisition in history, again

#25

Post by raw_anon_1111 » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 10:15 PM UTC

readthenotes1 wrote: post #24

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #20

> With his new toy having a leverage ratio north of 6x, David Ellison has promised $6 billion in “synergies” within three years. (Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos put the figure closer to $16 billion, after examining WBD’s books. What is it that these CEOs think they are seeing, that everyone else is missing? I can believe they have inflated egos, but they’re not totally crazy, right? My impression is that Netflix is fair…

There is a large history of companies with too much money (or access to borrowing) using it to buy up shiny objects. Whether it is CEO pride, greed, anger, or envy, it does not seem to matter.

See sports teams.

Re: The worst acquisition in history, again

#26

Post by cyanydeez » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 10:15 PM UTC

rgbrgb wrote: post #8

bdangubic wrote: post #5

amazing that people still write articles like this and get away with it… everyone knows why this purchase was made and this mate is discussing things even my 12-year old would not bring up. X purchase maybe was understandable discussion but in 2026 writing article like this is borderline “criminal”

> everyone knows why this purchase was made you should say what you're talking about because I for one have no idea.

Its a cynical media control strategy to prevent taxes on the rich.

Re: The worst acquisition in history, again

#27

Post by raw_anon_1111 » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 10:17 PM UTC

arthurjj wrote: post #17

lotsofpulp wrote: post #7

Why is Netflix in the "Big Tech" categorization in the "value in market cap" graphic? I do not see how Netflix's primary business is any different than the businesses in the "Hollywood" categorization that also pay to make media and then sell it. Apple and Amazon can be in a different category because making and selling media is an ancillary part of their business. Alphabet does not make or curate any media, it just…

Netflix pays like a Big Tech company, is valued like a Big Tech company and was part of FAANG. 10 years ago the streaming tech they had was fairly high tech, even if it's now pretty standard. So they're considered Big Tech for historical reason

There was no world that Netflix should have been part of FANG (notice the missing A as original conceived by Cramer). At the time it was coined, Apple was already the most valuable company. But was left out as was Microsoft

Re: The worst acquisition in history, again

#28

Post by lotsofpulp » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 10:18 PM UTC

Forgeties79 wrote: post #11

lotsofpulp wrote: post #7

Why is Netflix in the "Big Tech" categorization in the "value in market cap" graphic? I do not see how Netflix's primary business is any different than the businesses in the "Hollywood" categorization that also pay to make media and then sell it. Apple and Amazon can be in a different category because making and selling media is an ancillary part of their business. Alphabet does not make or curate any media, it just…

My guess is because Netflix gets money from subscriptions, which is a very different revenue model from traditional Hollywood. But again, completely a guess

I am under the impression traditional Hollywood also got much of its money from subscriptions, it just happened to pass through a middleman known as the cable or satellite TV company. Hence the constant threats of not being able to watch so and so channel due to contract dispute of "carriage fees" or whatever they called the amount per subscriber that a cable/satellite TV company paid Warner Bros/Disney/etc.

Re: The worst acquisition in history, again

#29

Post by ViktorRay » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 10:19 PM UTC

cyanydeez wrote: post #26

rgbrgb wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> everyone knows why this purchase was made you should say what you're talking about because I for one have no idea.

Its a cynical media control strategy to prevent taxes on the rich.

This doesn’t make sense. Surely paying taxes would be cheaper than buying Warner Bros?

Re: The worst acquisition in history, again

#30

Post by afavour » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 10:21 PM UTC

rgbrgb wrote: post #8

bdangubic wrote: post #5

amazing that people still write articles like this and get away with it… everyone knows why this purchase was made and this mate is discussing things even my 12-year old would not bring up. X purchase maybe was understandable discussion but in 2026 writing article like this is borderline “criminal”

> everyone knows why this purchase was made you should say what you're talking about because I for one have no idea.

I assume OP is talking about an ideological motive to take over the media industry and pivot it in a rightward direction. That’s certainly what happened with CBS News, I think it’s fair to speculate about CNN too.

No idea why OP alluded to it rather than just said it though.