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

571–580 of 1001 posts

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#571

Post by MangoToupe »

throwaway20222 wrote: post #445
taeric wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This particular one could be ok for them? A major cost for Netflix in the modern era is licensing contracts that never adjusted to the streaming world. As such, consumers may actually get access to some backlog of WB stuff that is otherwise not worth offering?

My guess is you are right for some properties that WB owns outright, but legacy IP that has rights shared, especially pre-streaming rights will still have a lot of barriers/untangling to do. I think Netflix is the most well run media company today by a mile, but also on the spectrum of quality/art -vs- straight money/tech domination they fall into the latter category, and they are the among the least friendly to crea…

Netflix really struggles to make quality content. If we could somehow divorce the studios from the platforms, that would be ideal. But that ship sailed a long time ago.

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#572

Post by nemomarx »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #400
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 think you're right, but I've always been a bit skeptical of that vision -- it implicitly relies on the assumption that "THE streaming service" will choose to make as much content available as technically and legally possible; they're imagining something like "Spotify but for movies and TV shows". But I was always worried about "Apple's App Store but for movies and TV shows": one company with ultimate gatekeeper sta…

I think ideally you'd have 2-3 streaming services that all have all the content without exclusives? (So the spotify of movies and tv, the tidal of movies and tv, the bandcamp of movies and tv...)

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#573

Post by themerone »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #400
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 think you're right, but I've always been a bit skeptical of that vision -- it implicitly relies on the assumption that "THE streaming service" will choose to make as much content available as technically and legally possible; they're imagining something like "Spotify but for movies and TV shows". But I was always worried about "Apple's App Store but for movies and TV shows": one company with ultimate gatekeeper sta…

HBO owns Westworld and stopped streaming it to avoid paying residuals.

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#574

Post by BurningFrog »

phartenfeller wrote: post #52

I don't like this. Netflix rarely creates excellent content; instead, it frequently produces mediocre or worse content. Will the same happen for Warner? Are cinemas now second behind streaming? Edit: I agree Netflix has good Originals. But most are from the early days when they favored quality over quantity. It is sad to see that they reversed that. They have much funding power and should give it to great art that re…

The cinemas not already dead are dying.

Cinemas were a way to share the cost of technology to show high quality movies among hundreds of people.

Most people now has that tech at home, so there is no need for cinemas anymore.

I went to my local cinema a few times before it closed last year. There were never more than 3 spectators.

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#575

Post by smelendez »

throwaway7783 wrote: post #555
thayne wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This should really be the end goal. We are worse off than cable right now with all these streaming services and worse , overlapping content.

It depends on what you watch and how much you watch.

Cable in its heyday was expensive, even for a low tier package with CNN, TNT, MTV, Nickelodeon and other non-premium channels. Most people did not have premium channels like HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Starz, etc. Even Disney was a paid add-on in the early 90s. Adding or removing those channels at the minimum meant calling customer service and in certain eras of cable technology could even mean waiting on a tech visit to provision physical descrambling equipment. And obviously TV was linear, not on-demand.

If you watch a series or movie here and there, and aren't a big TV viewer, the streaming era is much, much cheaper with greater choice. You can often even access what you want to watch through a free trial, a single-month subscription, or a free service like Tubi or Pluto. Movie rental options are much better, more convenient, and cheaper (often even before adjusting for inflation) than Blockbuster, and you have access to much better information before you pull the trigger on renting a movie you haven't heard of before.

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#576

Post by ch4s3 »

phartenfeller wrote: post #52

I don't like this. Netflix rarely creates excellent content; instead, it frequently produces mediocre or worse content. Will the same happen for Warner? Are cinemas now second behind streaming? Edit: I agree Netflix has good Originals. But most are from the early days when they favored quality over quantity. It is sad to see that they reversed that. They have much funding power and should give it to great art that re…

> Netflix rarely creates excellent content; instead, it frequently produces mediocre or worse content.

I'm really concerned about them ruining the Magic Mike franchise.

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#577

Post by gspencley »

jasode wrote: post #386
yojo wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix was also still in the “grow users at all cost” phase. They have since moved to “grow revenue at all costs.” Everyone likes a service when it’s subsidized by VC dollars. Until they inevitably start turning the screws.

>Everyone likes a service when it’s subsidized by VC dollars. Netflix went public in 2002. It was +8 years later that the streaming-only service was launched in 2010. The digital streaming wasn't "subsidized by VC". Netflix had more content from everybody back then because the other studios licensed their content for cheap prices to Netflix . But those studios then realized that Netflix was growing rapidly on the bac…

You're not wrong, but that doesn't mean they weren't still in "growth" phase.

Their pricing, and their doubling down on account sharing policies over the last few years have shown that they are no longer in a growth phase.

I cancelled my Netflix account a few months ago because I had gotten the "You're not accessing this from your typical location" blocker. Even though I was trying to watch from my permanent residence and I was the account owner / payee.

The reason that happened was that my wife and I own two properties. We are happily married, not separated, but we just like our space... especially with two adult daughters who still live at home with one of their significant others also living in the house.

We are a single family "unit" but have two locations. Furthermore, my wife has sleeping issues and was using Netflix at night in order to fall asleep. To have to get me to check my email for an access code, was a total deal breaker since I would be fast asleep. So that cut her off from her typical usage of Netflix.

And the reason Netflix thought that I was accessing the service from a different location was that I hardly ever watched it. Every time I'd pull it up, I would spend more time scrolling for something to watch than actually watching anything.. and typically I'd just give up and go watch a 30m YouTube video instead.

So I was paying more, receiving less ... mostly had the account purely for my wife and daughters who watched it the most ... and then the final deal breaker was logistical barriers preventing me from being able to use what I'm paying for.

Fuck Netflix.

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#578

Post by jquery »

ynx wrote: post #492
ryandrake wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not attacking you in particular, but I've always hated how we talk about "licensing restrictions" as if they're some kind of vague law of nature, like gravity. Oh, Studio X can't do Y... Because Licensing. "Licenses" are entirely conjured up by humans, and if there was an actual desire by the people who make decisions to change something, those people would find a way to make the "licensing restrictions" disappear. R…

Speaking as someone who once worked at a company where these were real issues that came up - it's very often the case that intermediate parties in the contracts have dissolved. Renegotiating the contracts would require lengthy and expensive processes of discovering the proper parties to actually negotiate with in the first place. Although the contracts that were already executed can be relied upon, it truly is a can…

That’s why I strongly believe there needs to be term limits on these kinds of contracts. Copyright is supposed to benefit the consumer, after all.

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#579

Post by cactus2093 »

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…

This is how it worked a decade+ ago, when there was still alpha to be had on providing better streaming service. It was great and we got things like the Netflix Prize and all sorts of content ranking improvements, better CDN platforms, lower latency and less buffering, more content upgraded to HD and 4K. Plus some annoying but clearly effective practices like auto-play of trailers and unrelated shows.

Now these are all solved problems, so there is no benefit in trying to compete on making a better platform / service. The only thing left is competing on content.

> 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

This seems like splitting hairs, it's almost exactly what we do have. You can still buy and rent individual shows & movies from Apple and Amazon and other providers. Or you can subscribe to services. The only difference is there is no one big "subscription that includes everything", you need 10 different $15 subscriptions to get everything. Again, kind of splitting hairs though. The one big subscription would probably be the same price as everything combined anyway.

Re: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

#580

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

DharmaPolice wrote: post #563
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no “monopoly” on either content distribution or creation. Amazon and Apple are both trillion dollar companies that have streaming services. Then there is Disney, Comcast (Peacock), Paramount, STARZ (standalone company), and AMC

The legal definition of monopoly in some jurisdictions means anyone with a large enough of a market share able to influence pricing, etc in a market. A market share as low as 25% can be called a monopoly. Does HBO+Netflix have a 25% share of the streaming market? I've no idea, but possibly.

Market share matters little when most people have multiple streaming services they use simultaneously.

It’s not like Apple and Google where the majority of people either have an Android or iOS based phone.

YouTube I believe has more viewing hours than Netflix.

Post reply on HN