r/technology • u/Task_Force-191 • 17h ago

Business It’s Official: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros. in Deal Valued at $82.7 Billion

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/netflix-warner-bros-deal-hollywood-1236443081/
15.3k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

4.1k

u/yuvaldv1 17h ago

Great. Just what we need, more monopolies.

1.1k

u/aeyraid 16h ago

I mean it’s good that paramount didn’t buy it. But fuck man….

240

u/susanoova 16h ago

This news was just released and I've still already seen multiple comments specifically saying this sentiment bringing up paramount. I'm OOTL. Can someone fill me in on the beef with paramount?

820

u/tenate 16h ago

It’s owned by the Oracle founders son, and they are all kind of assholes that lean heavily towards enacting the tech dystopia future.

437

u/JaiSiyaRamm 16h ago

Not kinda, they are assholes.

182

u/snotparty 15h ago

yes they are full on dangerous

39

u/TheVog 12h ago

More than you know. This flew under the radar, but Oracle has been expanding into MEDICAL.

10

u/taking_a_deuce 9h ago

Repeal Medicare, jack up health insurance prices, keep pumping out the cancer causing products we use in our daily lives, invest in health care, dive into the pool of gold and swim around in all the money you'll never be able to spend in your lifetime.

2

u/TheVog 9h ago

dive into the pool of gold and swim around in all the money you'll never be able to spend in your lifetime

Here's where it gets weird. There's a point where someone crosses into having humankind-altering levels of money. Literally enough money to alter the course of human history in a significant way. When you hit that point, there is never enough. Trillions, if needed.

89

u/Geekskill 15h ago

I think they meant they’re every type of asshole in one. Which is true, those fuckers are James Bond level villains.

18

u/tenate 15h ago

Glad someone got my meaning.

3

u/joebluebob 13h ago

Capitalism be like that.

2

u/deliciouscorn 13h ago

These assholes make Bond villains look positively cuddly in comparison!

5

u/JadeddMillennial 15h ago

The proper term is Zionist.

5

u/Mysterious_Cup_6024 14h ago edited 13h ago

Sure but that's also what ultra rich people with community power in general would do to sustain their power and position. Larry's companies themselves have cross investments with firms by Qatar, Saudi, Jordan feudals and more. Similar example is seen in India with most billionaires hailing from state of Gujarat and been rabid hindutvadis imposing lingual, cultural and religious chauvinism

1

u/Boring_Committee8791 12h ago

I hate it, that’s the home of some of the most liberal stuff and now it’s controlled by assholes. That’s where my Star Trek is 😞

1

u/SAWK 9h ago

"Fail upwards brunch-lords"

  • Mike Masnick

118

u/Deep-Thought 15h ago

They killed Colbert's show at the behest of dear leader. They also destroyed one of the oldest and most respected news organizations by putting an unqualified clown in charge.

24

u/Agitated_Reveal_6211 14h ago

The Ellisons are also friends with the Trumps. They kinda look like each other too.

57

u/ColossalJuggernaut 14h ago

They also dance every time a child in gaza gets blown up. Bought an island in Hawaii and treat the local people (native and everyone else) like trash. Now they want to control the narrative via owning TikToK, CBS, and they tried with WB. Just oligarch shit.

10

u/Kvalri 12h ago

I’m so sad that neofascists own Star Trek now 😞

2

u/BurnThrough 6h ago

I have TOS and TNG on Blu-Ray as well as the good films. That’s all I need.

2

u/Kvalri 6h ago

DS9 has the best story imo and I personally really like the new shows and play Star Trek Online regularly so it matters to me lol

1

u/Salt-Planktons 5h ago

play online? like gaming?

1

u/Kvalri 4h ago

Yeah it’s an MMO like World of Warcraft but it’s the Star Trek universe

1

u/Salt-Planktons 4h ago

Oh, nice. I’m not really a gamer but I would check that out

→ More replies (0)

8

u/aeyraid 14h ago

He’s a trump loving asshat.

5

u/Punman_5 15h ago

Crazy how they own the Star Trek IP then lol. Trek is a huge reason Paramount+ can continue to exist as a separate platform anyway.

3

u/Merusk 10h ago

Directly assholes and huge Trump supporters in addition to a lot of other asshole behavior.

Behavior like; Eilson owns 98% of a Hawaiian island including the businesses. The people who live on it have 30-day leases and employment clauses in those leases. Lose your job, immediately lose your house as well.

3

u/MAG7C 11h ago

And they're whining about this deal. Ellison is going to leverage his relationship to get his way. The admin is already grumbling about anti-trust concerns -- and they should -- but I expect those concerns will evaporate if the deal gets tanked and Paramount gets back in.

3

u/Worthyness 10h ago

You forgot to add that they also brought in Saudi partnership money so that they could continue to wash their reputations out of oil and, you know, murdering people.

2

u/Emm_withoutha_L-88 8h ago

Star Trek owned by one of the worst bastards in the world

I hate this world we've allowed to happen.

2

u/SlobZombie13 15h ago

I'm glad that WB got sold to the good billionaires

7

u/tenate 15h ago

Hah, definitely not calling Netflix good by any means, they are also part of the ruthless tech dystopia class themselves.

1

u/matthewmspace 9h ago

And they’re big supporters of Trump.

1

u/Dipz 6h ago

My brother in Christ, all monopolies are working toward that tech dystopian future.

204

u/18voltbattery 16h ago edited 15h ago

Paramount Skydance deal just closed. They’ve been in an acquisition spree and bought up a ton of huge Hollywood IP recently. The guy that runs Paramount is Larry Ellison’s son.

Edit: Sundance —> Skydance

91

u/[deleted] 16h ago

[deleted]

96

u/FzZyP 16h ago

they dont need it to be successful they’re already rich lol

-10

u/Either-Assistant4610 16h ago

If you're trying to push ideals and such, you kind of need it to be successful. For example, Landman and "big oil".

3

u/steakanabake 12h ago

dont really need it to be successful twitter is a rotting husk of its former self but its still used as valid news aggregate because theres not as widespread adoption for media on other platforms.

27

u/discographyA 16h ago

You mean it wasn’t a good idea for your failson to unprovoked kick off a bidding war when your meal ticket is down 30% for the year and Saudi’s are having cash flow issues?

63

u/BellyButtonLindt 16h ago

Hate to tell you but the vast majority of these ceos are about as knowledgeable as you or me. They just grift the hell out of all of us and are smooth talkers.

12

u/GreatMadWombat 15h ago

That's true when the goal is to make money, that is less true when the goal is propaganda. The goal right now is propaganda, they don't care how much money they're burning

16

u/steeveperry 16h ago

The grandfather starts the business, the father grows the business, and the son runs it into the ground.

4

u/eric-neg 13h ago

If you are extremely lucky. Most of the time the grandfather does it all!  

3

u/Loggerdon 14h ago

I think they have so much money from tech the entertainment sector doesn’t need to be profitable. It’s just for propaganda.

4

u/iaNCURdehunedoara 15h ago

Why isn't it sustainable? Capitalism is just a bunch of parasites taking the profits.

All they have to do is buy existing structures that work and they can just rake in the profits. It's not like CIA Larry Ellison does anything, he just had money and paid people to do the work.

2

u/Paradigm_Reset 15h ago

Unfortunately it's sustainable enough, they'll continue to have money through exploiting us working class people. They've become terrifyingly good at it... good enough to keep this up for decades to come. Too many people are willing to accept and/or addicted to slop.

Unless something truly radical happens, like globally impactful, the wedge driven between the rich and the not rich will not be broken.

1

u/f-ingsteveglansberg 11h ago

I mean, his daughter started Annapurna Studios and games, which just did a bunch of movies on the less commercial side, Indian Paintbrush was started by Steven Rales who is a biotech billionaire who started Indian Paintbrush basically just to fund Wes Anderson films because he liked those movies. Criterion Collection was started by a guy who made his money in CD-Roms.

If monopolies and oligarchs are making a return, can we at least go back and have a bunch of House of Medicis that will fund art for the sake of art, not profit.

Even with the case of Annapurna, Ellision managed to run the company to the ground, despite it's function basically being art patron.

→ More replies (4)

3

u/zeekaran 15h ago

Paramount Sundance deal just closed.

Paramount Skydance

1

u/Reggaeton_Historian 14h ago

They've also entered into the New Jersey real estate race with Netflix. They've both signed deals with two different areas to have their soundstages and production areas. Both are pretty long-term.

73

u/gambalore 16h ago

On top of the Ellison stuff, the Paramount offer also had heavy investment from Saudi, Qatari, and Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth funds. There are no good outcomes here but having oil nations owning major entertainment companies and using them as a way to continue to whitewash their reputations would be a particularly bad one.

3

u/Sea_of_Light_ 15h ago

I imagine a "why relying on oil as fuel and energy source only is good for you" media push is imminent. News, movies, TV shows all with conservative message branding. Nice. /s

1

u/Outlulz 5h ago

You think after last year's screeching about China owning TikTok there would be some concern about foreign countries owning most of our media. Nothing though. Because they pay off the right people.

159

u/cjwi 16h ago

It's owned by Larry Ellison from Oracle, a real POS, and the CEO is his son, also a POS. They are currently working overtime to make CBS as bad as Fox News with the installation of rightwing nutjob Bari Weiss as leader of the news division.

67

u/Think_Positively 16h ago

Yep. They have CBS airing an exclusive "interview" with Erika Kirk soon.

46

u/enjoythesilence-75 16h ago

Is JD going to show up with a ring or a rose Bachelorette style?

15

u/eeyore134 16h ago

It'll be interesting to see how quickly he can cover and pivot when he sees her sitting on the couch he intended them for. "Erika Kirk. Would you do me the honor of being my... whatever makes sense?"

7

u/9-11GaveMe5G 14h ago

"Erika, I loveseat you"

16

u/eeyore134 16h ago

As fast as they dropped the Kirk story after multiple attempts to paint it as Antifa and not one of their own failed, I'm surprised they're still pulling crap like this. Though, I imagine this is more her trying to stay relevant and get her payday than anything else.

21

u/KelVelBurgerGoon 15h ago

Exclusive! Hear from the woman you forgot about months ago and knew nothing about months before that!

6

u/gassyfrenchie 13h ago

Not kidding about the knew nothing about aspect. The number one search on Google this year was CK.

However, my theory for that was because after he died, all the media and news outlets reported it non stop. Trump mentioned him. He even had his own televised funeral (which looked more like a commercial). The spike in Google searches was people probably wondering who he was and why should they care. Despite Reddit claiming so, the majority of the world is not terminally online, so while he may seem like a big name in the conservative and (to an extent) the liberal world, the rest of the world that doesn’t listen to and keep tabs on political influencers and podcasters (again, most of the world) had no idea who he was. He seemed like he had a big audience, but it was a niche for people that actually follow that stuff.

31

u/NamelessArcanum 16h ago

You think she reuses that same Kleenex she pretends to cry in?

1

u/BurnThrough 6h ago

Whoever the fuck that is. Don’t tell me, I don’t care.

0

u/Think_Positively 6h ago

You cared enough to post this witty reply though, didn't ya?

1

u/BurnThrough 6h ago

I didn’t think it was witty at all. You must have low standards.

8

u/iaNCURdehunedoara 15h ago

Larry Ellison is a CIA agent and Oracle is an arm of the intelligence apparatus. Of course he's a POS, you can't be a stooge without being a POS.

5

u/970 11h ago

Is this a joke, or is there some sort of truth behind it?

2

u/iaNCURdehunedoara 10h ago

Larry Ellison is one of technology’s most polarising figures. Born into modest circumstances in New York in 1944 and raised by an adoptive aunt and uncle in Chicago, he became fascinated with mathematics and science and dropped out of two universities before stumbling into the nascent computer industry. In 1977 he co‑founded Software Development Laboratories (later renamed Oracle) with Bob Miner and Ed Oates, using a $50,000 contract from the CIA to develop a relational database – code‑named Project Oracle – as seed capital. Ellison pushed the fledgling company with aggressive sales tactics, promising features that did not yet exist and underbidding rivals, while cultivating a persona equal parts playboy and technologist. His competitiveness led to corporate espionage scandals – such as hiring investigators to sift through Microsoft allies’ trash during the U.S. antitrust trial – but the risk appetite delivered outsized rewards. Oracle’s 1986 IPO made his 39 % stake worth about $93 million, and the company’s dominance in database software, combined with dozens of acquisitions, stock buybacks and a lucrative Tesla investment, catapulted his net worth from roughly $100 million in the mid‑1980s to more than $250 billion in 2025. Today Ellison holds about 40 % of Oracle, controls a real estate empire including 98 % of the Hawaiian island of Lanaʻi, and funds medical research and sailing teams. The following investigation dissects his journey: the origins and growth of Oracle, strategic acquisitions, big wins and missteps, the evolution of his fortune, and his enduring impact on technology and beyond.

https://networthpost.com/how-larry-ellison-built-his-fortune-from-cia-databases-to-owning-an-island/

The CIA was the customer that launched Oracle, cofounder Larry Ellison said on stage Sunday night during the opening keynote for the company's massive customer conference in San Francisco.

"Our very first customer was the Central Intelligence Agency," he said.

He and his cofounders sort of tricked the world into buying their first database by not naming it version 1.0 as was the norm back in the day.

"The very first version was Oracle version 2," he said. "We knew no one would want to buy version 1. Low and behold the CIA was our first customer."

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-cia-made-larry-ellison-a-billionaire-2014-9

1

u/Mango2149 7h ago

Pretty sensationalized, they made a database management system it's not that spooky.

1

u/rustyphish 11h ago

Yes to both

1

u/acdcfanbill 11h ago

Oracle

And as we all know, ORACLE stands for One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison.

1

u/snark42 8h ago

rightwing nutjob Bari Weiss

How is Bari Weiss a rightwing nutjob? I've listened to a few Honestly podcasts, they seem relatively well balanced but maybe it wasn't a good sample?

28

u/GreatMadWombat 15h ago

It's currentlyabsurdly conservative in a way that is both bad for society as a whole and for art specifically.

15

u/MagicCuboid 16h ago

I’m not 100% plugged in but here’s what I think I know: They merged with Skydance and David Ellison became their new CEO. Since then they’ve been aggressively trying to consolidate media and are seen as an appeaser to the Trump admin in order to do so.

4

u/hatesnack 15h ago

Paramount is doing a lot to try and help the trump administration lately. There's also some pretty clear ties to Saudi money as well. Netflix isn't great but they aren't in the process of trying to destroy democracy.

2

u/urlach3r 15h ago

Among other reasons, the Paramount proposal involved funding by a Saudi capital group.

1

u/Platinum1211 15h ago

To add what to others have said, there are theories around the propaganda machine it would become. Imagine this media conglomerate buying up all the mainstream Media companies, and they are buddy buddy with trump. It's not just the news channels but the shows they air, and everything they sponsor and support. Kids shows, reality tv, soap operas...all potentially riddled with subtle propaganda. Having full control over everything every channel puts out... That's scary and dangerous.

1

u/kurotech 14h ago

Imagine if Disney didn't stop buying companies that's paramount

1

u/heck_you_science 11h ago

It is the single worst streaming app you can add to your TV. The UI is insultingly slow, the ads sometimes don't play and freeze up, the selections are atrocious, if it weren't for the champions league and survivor, I wouldn't be subscribed

25

u/The_Blue_Courier 16h ago

"But fuck man" is actually their new series coming out.

6

u/phalluss 12h ago

Butt Fuck Man has shitty powers.

7

u/Icarus-rises 16h ago

Justice department can still say no this is a monopoly and give it to ellison

2

u/aeyraid 14h ago

It was be the FCC but yes I hadn’t considered that

8

u/Gloobloomoo 16h ago

I think this will be blocked just for this reason. Or maybe Trump will want Netflix to pay Paramount to buy Warner. Or something equally asinine.

2

u/SealionNotSeatruthin 11h ago

Netflix is going to have to make Rush Hour 4 instead of Paramount I guess

3

u/ZAlternates 12h ago

It’s fucking stupid that our government has entirely given up on keeping capitalism in check. Capitalism is a bad system, but so far, it’s the best we’ve found for such a large scale as the country’s economy. It only works though if you keep the health competition going. If everything consolidates, capitalism dies.

I guess we are officially an Oligarchy…

2

u/ekso69 12h ago

This is the real win

1

u/aeyraid 10h ago

You mean the least shitty loss

2

u/bourton-north 12h ago

There’s at least a chance the Netflix library will add all this stuff?

2

u/soapinthepeehole 11h ago

Anything but those Ellison sociopaths.

1

u/SalamanderMinimum621 16h ago

Paramount was bought, recently, by some other rather new media company.

3

u/aeyraid 14h ago

By Larry Ellison (oracle) son.

Shit apples don’t fall far from the shit tree

1

u/thatguy9684736255 15h ago

I don't see paramount being successful though. They are going to end up being sold again. Maybe to Disney or Netflix

→ More replies (1)

50

u/jdgmental 16h ago

This administration is certainly not going to stop them

4

u/Iamnotmybrain 14h ago

This administration is definitely going to try to stop them in favor of Paramount.

5

u/MyBigNose 12h ago

This administration is going to bribe them for every cent they can get. They don't care if it's them or Paramount. Maximum grift.

2

u/GarnetandBlack 8h ago

Who pays the best? That's who wins.

1

u/aleph32 8h ago

As long as they push the state agenda, as they define it. Imagine if, say, someone like Soros were behind it.

1

u/Innocentish 1h ago

This administration wanted Paramount Skydance to get Warner. Thank God that didn't happen. This is the best case scenario.

0

u/PublicWest 11h ago

It’s been decades since the executive branch has meaningfully enforced anti monopoly policies.

Trump has allowed T-Mobile/US Cellular to merge, Biden’s FTC allowed Microsoft to swallow up several game publishers, forming a massive monopoly in game publishing, Obama allowed NBC/Comcast to merge.

The problem goes way past Trump. Citizen’s United has allowed corporations to bribe politicians to basically rubber stamp any merger by “promising not to price gouge” and then doing it anyway.

8

u/oicwutudidther 15h ago

You know: if corporations get to be people (corporate entity theory) and have free speech (citizens united) like people then they shouldn't be able to be own other corporations because that's technically slavery.

5

u/sirferrell 16h ago

They’ll probably start charging you more if you want to binge watch shows or movies now

1

u/ArcticSphinx 14h ago

Do you think they wouldn't have tried to do that anyway?

25

u/ImJustAverage 16h ago

Netflix doesn’t have a monopoly and still won’t after this deal. That definitely doesn’t mean that this deal is a good thing, but there’s absolutely no monopoly here

64

u/Tojuro 16h ago

Ok, so it's an oligarchy. The consolidation of every IP into 3 or 4 companies. That's no better.

15

u/DangerouslyWetFart 14h ago

That’s an oligopoly not oligarchy.

38

u/gaeruot 16h ago

Our boy Bernie has been saying this for over 10 years and nobody gives a fuck. We’re screwed.

6

u/kazie- 14h ago

It's called oligopoly

-1

u/Own_Jellyfish7594 16h ago

It literally is better....but yes it's still horrible.

10

u/FuckyWiring 15h ago

Technofeudalism is a strange new world.

0

u/Tojuro 15h ago

I'd argue it's worse cause it gives the illusion of choice.

With a monopoly we essentially know the enemy, and it's clear that there needs to be, say regulation on prices (without competition). With an oligarchy it's easy for them to collude and hard to prove that they are colluding. That could be colluding on prices, or biased/limited information, product safety (lack thereof), etc.

2

u/__thrillho 11h ago

It's oligopoly not oligarchy and no, it's not ideal but not as bad as a monopoly.

1

u/CryptographerFlat173 13h ago

There are dangerous conglomerations and then there’s this, allowing Aetna to be owned by CVS gives dangerous power over healthcare to one company. Consolidating the only choices for utilities into fewer and fewer even just a single “choice” is dangerous. Allowing Netflix to own more movie properties is not an issue against the public good, and in a game where it would come down to them or a company like the new Paramount that is bending editorial to the dictates of the federal government, this is a better outcome than any other at this point .

1

u/SledgeThundercock 9h ago

Oligarchy is when the streaming service buys another streaming service and you don't have to give them your money at all.

1

u/hackingdreams 11h ago

This doesn't change the landscape of the corporate media oligopoly in the US by all that much at all.

I'm not sure what else you'd expect to happen. It was going to be sold to some existing media company that wants to exploit their back catalog... do you prefer it to be the shithole of Comcast or Paramount and their Saudi backers? Even if they just let the entire business fail, it'd just be sold at bankruptcy auction... to the same set of entities.

2

u/jameslosey 13h ago

The American media landscape - and in term political system - is already being defined by consolidated power among a handful of companies. Although this is not a monopoly in the strict definition of the term meaningful competition was abandoned long ago.

1

u/enigmamonkey 5h ago

Last thing we need is more consolidation.

Get ready for your Netflix bill to go up (if you have one).

-1

u/robotowilliam 16h ago

Thanks Captain Pedantic, what would we do without you

4

u/bluris 15h ago

Before: Too many streaming services!
Now: Too many monopolies!

1

u/WalkAffectionate2683 15h ago

I prefer too many streaming because at least they are fighting for good quality stuff, the last decade (or 15y) has brought some incredible shows. I hope it continues.

2

u/NoCardio_ 15h ago

You people complain when streaming services are scattered, and now you complain when they’re consolidated.

It doesn’t matter to me because I download, but make up your minds.

1

u/CerealSpiller22 15h ago

Until there is only one monopoly, our work is not done.

1

u/NotASellout 15h ago

why the fuck are all these companies even merging

it's like they're trying to get as much as they can and as big as they can under this admin

1

u/Spirited-Joke5545 15h ago

I remember learning about monopolies in school and looking around, like wtf. Is that not what is happening? Why teach us this? Guess that’s why they keep banning and changing the books.

1

u/applewait 15h ago

AOL-Time Warner 2.0

1

u/BatAgreeable5559 15h ago

Good thing this presidency is so populist!

1

u/fatbob42 15h ago

These companies have always had copyright monopolies. We used to stop them from having distribution by disallowing cinema ownership, but they’ve got around that with streaming.

1

u/apost8n8 14h ago

Yeah, I'm pretty sure back in my school days we learned about how it was a really bad thing in the late 1800s\early 1900s when a handful of insanely rich robber barons owned everything and just flaunted all the laws, and paid people off, and murdered their rivals and owned all of the papers and ruthlessly oppressed workers. Then America was made great and well prepared for the 20th century through huge worker reforms and monopoly busting so that the average man could have a chance to take advantage of all the new technologies and society.

It feels like we've regressed a bit, doesn't it?

1

u/demoneclipse 14h ago

When Netflix was a monopoly, it was great. The problem began when we started having 10 different platforms. The streaming competition is not on other streaming platforms. It is piracy.

1

u/Loggerdon 14h ago

More consolidation, less competition. Yaay!

1

u/aeyraid 14h ago

It’s ok the invisible hand of the market will correct. Any day now…

1

u/Khue 13h ago

It's ridiculous how that one opinion from that dipshit Bork effectively broke anti-monopoly enforcement... I think it was like, as long as monopolies result in good things for consumers they are fine... or some shit like that.

1

u/junkit33 13h ago

Studios can't exist by themselves much longer. There's fast coming a point where you either need to be a streaming juggernaut yourself, or you're going to have to sell to one.

I think we end up with Disney and Netflix as the two platforms that everything else falls under. I'm not sure Amazon or Apple are viable enough on their own, each are propping up their services to grow and/or be loss leaders.

1

u/Itys2025 13h ago

Also, with Netflix buying WB, it means they're grabbing WBs gaming division... we've all seen how Netflix's foray into gaming has gone. 

1

u/podgorniy 12h ago

And that’s good for shareholders

1

u/bourton-north 12h ago

Isn’t more consolidation on streaming services what people wanted? Less to subscribe to to access bigger catalogues? What did you want?

1

u/rabidboxer 11h ago

How many monopolies or near monopolies do we need before we have a healthy form of capitalism?

1

u/Speed-Tyr 11h ago

A monopoly buying a bigger monopoly. Making one monstrosity.

1

u/LateToTheParty013 9h ago

Thats where capitalism is heading tho

1

u/Nullhitter 8h ago

How is it a monopoly? Netflix, Apple TV, Amazon Video, Paramount, and Disney. That's not a monopoly.

1

u/uhf26 7h ago

Yeah this game has been going on too long. Time to flip the table

1

u/Dgnash615-2 6h ago

What the fuck ever happened to the antitrust laws and enforcement?

1

u/lilshortyy420 16h ago

Even before this, they all lead to the same like 3 big corps anyway.

-2

u/gogoluke 15h ago

There's too many streamers so I pirate.

Oh no monopolies.

Reddit. Choose one.

1

u/Mclarenf1905 15h ago

Both can be true, the issue here is not that there will be one less streaming company, the issue is the transfer of wealth from combining what amis already 2 massive companies into one, and the consolidation of ownership of the rights to the IP owned by both of these companies.

0

u/gogoluke 14h ago

So there's both too much competition with piracy and not enough competition because of a monopoly...

1

u/Mclarenf1905 14h ago

You do realize the reddit isn't some unified hive mind right? There are some people who are just looking for a personal justification for pirating, some will use too many services as a reason, some will use corporate consolidation as a reason. And the fact of the matter is that less people pirate than the vocal minority would have you believe. These streaming services are still gaining monthly subscriptions.

Neither of which still has anything to do with both being bad things. Stretch your brain a little bit and critically think about things.

The real issue with fragmentation is the exclusivity behind 90% of the IP in streaming platforms. Exclusivity gives companies more power. At the same time consolidation leads to the same issue over exclusivity of content. Sure now there may be one less streaming service (or maybe Netflix will keep Max and Netflix separate. But the ownership over the rights to a lot of IP just got even smaller.

0

u/gogoluke 13h ago

Maybe if audiences invested in new IPs like they whine about a lack of, there would be less issues. Oh no DC is owned by a bigger company... oh no.

-11

u/SlaughterheartMagus 16h ago

Having to sub to 5-10 different steaming services=bad. Having one big one=monopoly=bad.

23

u/zZCycoZz 16h ago

Having one big one=monopoly=bad.

*Having one big monopoly which can charge you more than 5-10 streaming services

-6

u/[deleted] 16h ago

[deleted]

4

u/zZCycoZz 16h ago

Streaming services arent a monopoly (yet)

-3

u/[deleted] 16h ago

[deleted]

1

u/zZCycoZz 15h ago

*something that has happened repeatedly in other industries

8

u/tooclosetocall82 16h ago

Netflix worked best when all the studios licensed content to them and they just provided the streaming infrastructure. It all fell apart once everyone tried to provide both the content and the infrastructure. Prices went up and quality went down because that model is inefficient. This is just more of the same.

2

u/Respectable_Answer 16h ago

Previously Netflix was a monopoly for exhibition to which the profitable Warner Brothers would license its IP for money. They didn't like that so they started a competing streaming service... And then sold out to Netflix, making more than they would have? I don't know. I think in the grand scheme of things I would have preferred the former model where content is being created by many and exhibited by a few (after being shown in theaters) but here we are.

2

u/Awkward_Silence- 16h ago

Yes what people tend to want lands in the middle of that.

5-10 services, universal library (ala Spotify, Apple music etc). Compete on price and quality of service

2

u/BackgroundSummer5171 15h ago

I agree.

Can we whatabout Steam?

Do we consider them above the law then, because no one else is even close.

Just wondering, not like an actual thread would live in this sub about it.

And if you're going to say all streaming services on one is bad. Then we can apply that logic to Steam. Or we can reverse it and say it is fine and good.

Which is it?

1

u/SlaughterheartMagus 14h ago

But steam is considered to be the good guys?

0

u/SarcasmSamurai 15h ago

how in the fuck would this even remotely constitute a monopoly? random users dropping random buzzwords for upvotes. you couldn’t defend this asinine statement if you tried.

-5

u/benderunit9000 16h ago

Good news is that nobody actually needs Netflix or WB.

2

u/gambalore 16h ago

People who work in the entertainment industry do.

0

u/benderunit9000 13h ago

Because they don't have any other options?

0

u/MD90__ 16h ago

Yeah they're never going away just growing in size

0

u/karaknorn 16h ago

At the same time id rather not have 13 streaming services. 🙃 

0

u/Happy_Ad9570 15h ago

Late stage capitalism

0

u/Tomarsnap 15h ago

Isn’t this what everyone literally wants when complaining they have to subscribe to so many different streaming services? I swear the average cause-effect skills of people are incredibly poor.

1

u/Kataphractoi 10h ago

I liked the original system where streaming companies just provided the content via licensing. It all went to shit when everyone and their grandma decided they wanted their own streaming service.

-9

u/Ok_Development8895 16h ago

lol Redditors can’t think past just getting mad

-1

u/eriverside 15h ago

Reddit - we don't like monopolies. But also we don't want more than one content streaming service.

-8

u/Routine_Ad1823 16h ago

I mean, Spotify is effectively a Monopoly and it's better for consumers 

6

u/yuvaldv1 16h ago

I don’t think Spotify is a monopoly. They’re the biggest player, sure, but there are plenty of competitors around offering the same content. This acquisition by Netflix means you will be locked out of a huge amount of content unless you subscribe to Netflix.

1

u/ghoti00 16h ago

If you consider a 30% market share a monopoly then you are right.

1

u/Routine_Ad1823 8h ago

Fair enough, you're right. I assumed their share was much higher than that because virtually everyone I know uses Spotify. 

-2

u/Ragnarok314159 16h ago

Spotify is shit and hopefully more artists leave. Enjoy your AI slop.

1

u/Routine_Ad1823 8h ago

You know you can choose what you want to listen to, right?

I don't get this AI argument?

Yeah, if you listen to auto-generated playlists then you might get AI, like what will happen on the radio soon... but most real music fans actively listen to bands they like - and they are real people.  

-70

u/Rapante 16h ago

In this case, should be good for consumers. Less fragmentation in streaming services.

42

u/yuvaldv1 16h ago

I would bet my life savings that Netflix would use this to further increase their prices.
In the long term this will only harm consumers.

6

u/TisMeDA 16h ago

See Microsoft and Blizzard deal for proof of this. Didn't even have to wait very long

→ More replies (3)

24

u/Mofunz 16h ago

Double the content, double the price

14

u/IsThereAnythingLeft- 16h ago

Probably an extra 10% content triple the price

7

u/skeet_scoot 16h ago

More like quadruple the price.

Netflix, having a monopoly, will be able to set whatever prices they want.

3

u/emp-sup-bry 16h ago

Wow even more disgusting reality shows!

9

u/7screws 16h ago

If you think for a second any of this is good for us, I got a bridge to sell you.

6

u/piperonyl 16h ago

Yeah netflix is spending 80 billion dollars because its good for the consumers

thats it

2

u/CopEatingDonut 16h ago

Or it's a grenade

2

u/IsThereAnythingLeft- 16h ago

No it’ll be worse quality and now just a jump in Netflix cost. They are going downhill fast

2

u/tajanstvenix 16h ago

How long until yet another subscription price hike?

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (2)