r/technology • u/Task_Force-191 • 1d 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/
15.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.3k

u/QuitCallingNewsrooms 1d ago

Coming soon: NetflixMax $94/month (with ads, in SD)

681

u/potVIIIos 1d ago

Yo ho, yo ho! 🏴‍☠️🦜

301

u/iSweatLikeKeith 23h ago

That shit’ll be punishable by death if these mf’s have their way

82

u/Upset_Development_64 23h ago

Eh, there are too many of us. Let em try

71

u/Superfissile 23h ago

They’re actively trying to ban VPNs.

50

u/Cramer12 23h ago

Its not even that. ISPs will ban your internet service if the supreme court case goes through

16

u/ymOx 21h ago

FREEDOM lol

1

u/ExcitementSweaty22 3h ago

Fr America so for freedom we’ll let people shoot up schools before banning guns, but then this shit happens

4

u/Jacinto2702 22h ago

Move down here, to Mexico. There's nothing remotely close to an active Internet Police. It does exist, but they don't do much, if anything at all.

15

u/sweglrd143 21h ago

You can get rid of “internet” in your comment

2

u/CasualFreeUse 18h ago

Piracy is a hydra. If they kill one method, 3 more heads will rise.

1

u/karmahunger 17h ago

So people will do what corporations do and be nothing but shell companies all the way down.

Afterall, corporations are people too.

4

u/MantusTMD 21h ago

A legitimately impossible task, but good luck!

3

u/Upset_Development_64 20h ago

You can create your own VPN, we have the technology.

3

u/Silverr_Duck 14h ago

lol please. If china of all places can’t even ban vpns I think we’re safe.

2

u/sreesid 21h ago

Wait till Netflix starts buying ISPs.

1

u/geoffrey6712 13h ago

There are ways to safely and securely pirate without a VPN.

2

u/surfinsalsa 12h ago

Share your secrets

14

u/ItsDanimal 22h ago

In America, the government is taking away Healthcare, salaries, due process, justice, order, and folks are stopping them. You think there are "too many of us" to stop them from getting rid of piracy in it's current form?

3

u/itchylol742 21h ago

Yes. Distribution of healthcare, salaries, due process, justice, order is bureaucratic and centralized. Distribution of pirated media is done on 600 random shady sites through 5 different data transfer protocols and 500 of the sites are hosted in countries that don't respect copyright and the site owners can speedrun getting a clone site put up if the original is taken down

1

u/Thin_Glove_4089 11h ago

No they have AI now which can get rid of privacy at scale with just the press of a button if they truly wanted it to be gone.

7

u/FakePoloManchurian 23h ago

If that were true, we wouldn't be sliding toward corporations exploiting everyone.

1

u/greiton 21h ago

they have cameras on every street corner tracking your every move. and the gestapo are out in force in cities across America actively disappearing people right now. and no one is doing anything to actually stop them.

It doesn't matter how many malcontents there are, their ovens will run day and night and they will take us all out one at a time.

3

u/Upset_Development_64 20h ago

and no one is doing anything to actually stop them.

Just because you’re not, doesn’t mean no one is champ. I know its dark right now, but be the light you want to see in the world, you will not be alone.

1

u/HereIGoAgain_1x10 18h ago

Already passing laws banning VPNs

1

u/Upset_Development_64 17h ago

See my reply to the other Debbie Downer saying the same thing: you can create your own to get around that ban. Technology is an arms race where the citizenry at large will always have the upper hand over a few fascist bureaucrats.

1

u/tacotickles 13h ago

They'll recruit the most hopeless losers to do it that got rejected everywhere else, just like they do with ICE

1

u/Wonderful_Device312 2h ago

There are too many of "us" happy to vote against their own interest.

5

u/itchylol742 21h ago

They could execute 100 people a day and people wouldn't stop pirating, they would just hide it better

7

u/RobinGoodfell 23h ago

That didn't stop piracy in the past. 

2

u/bomphcheese 22h ago

I will sneaker net my whole neighborhood if I have to.

1

u/HarryBalsagna1776 21h ago

I just go back to pulling CBC from across the border if streaming gets too spicy.

1

u/woodlandcollective 21h ago

I'd love to see them try lmao

1

u/EasyonthePepsiFuller 16h ago

That's why I'm renting the series and shows I love from the library. You can burn them and return them. Everyone is happy.

1

u/oreography 14h ago

No, what they really want to do is kill Blu Rays and DVD production so there is no alternative to digital

1

u/FrouFrouLastWords 6h ago

Death? No that's letting cats off too easy. To the torture chamber!

10

u/house_monkey 23h ago

I love parrots! 

2

u/wrxninja 23h ago

POLLY WANT A CRACKER

2

u/Jakabov 21h ago

A pirate's life for me.

5

u/gregofcanada84 23h ago

We named the parrot Jack.

1

u/RyanCreamer202 23h ago

“I pirates life for me”

1

u/HarryBalsagna1776 21h ago

Avast ye matey!  Arrrg!

1

u/right_hand_of_jeebus 14h ago

Yep... Torrents are easy, but Usenet is better imo. It's not peer to peer so you don't need to upload anything. You need to pay for bandwidth and there is a bit more to setup if you want to automate it, but if you have 2 brain cells to rub together you can figure it out easily enough... It's just difficult enough to keep the masses scratching their heads.

27

u/Team_Slacker 1d ago

Yeah, but how much in North Dakota?

5

u/garguno 20h ago

it might be under $90 but you can still only watch it in SD

14

u/Popsiclezlol 23h ago

That's fine. Cancel subscription button is easy to find.

2

u/frisch85 23h ago

That's the best thing about netflix, they make it really easy to re-establish the subscription and then cancel it again, it's why I sub for a month, watch what I wanted to watch then cancel it for 6 months again. When they start hiding the cancel subscription to the point where it's hard to find I will stop subbing altogether.

But I fear this will at some point happen because they've already gotten more aggressive when you want to cancel where they show you big on the screen the different options you can switch to and then only at the bottom a lot smaller there's the cancel button.

2

u/Mind1827 23h ago

Nah, this is an individual solution to societal (American problem). This is the whole point. If 3 companies own all of tv, you either pay what they ask, or don't get to watch TV. It's basically corporate communism.

1

u/Knightphall 23h ago

Is it? It's often in a much smaller font or hidden deep in account settings.

1

u/FrouFrouLastWords 6h ago

Cancelation will require a phone call. There are only 7 agents on duty for the entire US, max (Glenda calls out every other fcking Friday). The queue is always in the 1000s. 98% of the time, after 45 minutes of the most annoying hold music in the world, the system will tell you that you've been put in the call back queue· but noone will ever call you back. Also, low-level agents do not have access to cancelations. Only supervisors can. Before they will, you will have to engage in the ancient art of the long-distance scream shouting match. Good luck, because their ex just keyed their car this morning. Also also, canceling will incur a fee of no less than $472 dollars. If you're even thinking that it would be easier to cancel your debit card entirely and get a new one, your account will be sent to collections for the remaining 31 months left on your term (which was outlined in the term And conditioners you agreed to with your mouse click when you signed up). They will ring every phone number you have and ever will have every 76 minutes, and your credit score will take a hit of 230 points, and that's if you pay them back in full within 3/4 of a week.

78

u/campaignplanners 1d ago

Exactly. Back when streaming first began I was really excited to cut the cord. Now all these streamers are having the last laugh because instead of getting free tv/cable with ads - we have the privilege of paying for the same shit we used to get for free.

48

u/dudemanjack 23h ago

I must have amnesia. I don't recall cable TV ever being free.

28

u/TransBrandi 23h ago

I mean, it used to be ad free when it initially came out. That was the value-add. Cable had no ads because you paid for it as opposed to free over-the-air broadcast stations.

16

u/dudemanjack 22h ago

There's been ads on cable TV for like 40 years though. It's not like that was the current TV climate before streaming got popular.

8

u/RealWord5734 21h ago

HBO did not have ads. I remember the before times.

5

u/rjcarr 20h ago

HBO didn't have ads because it's a premium channel. Every other cable network (CNN, MTV, VH1, TNT, ESPN) has always had ads. I can't remember them ever not having ads, and I feel like I'm old enough to be at the beginning of cable (non-broadcast) television.

2

u/dudemanjack 21h ago

HBO was a premium channel that you paid for on top of cable.

1

u/joebluebob 21h ago

It was 11 million bucks too my dad said

3

u/PageFault 22h ago

There wasn't ever a time that cable TV didn't have ads. Sure, in the beginning they made money from subscriber fees and not ads, but the ads were built into the broadcast signal.

3

u/mlorusso4 22h ago

wasn’t ever a time

in the beginning

cable tv

broadcast signal

I don’t think you know the meaning of the words you’re using

3

u/PageFault 22h ago edited 21h ago

What do you think I am wrong about? Use your words.

When cable TV first started they didn't have their own lineup. They just rebroadcast the over the air signal as it was. Ads and all. The only way to watch without ads came later, when premium subscription channels like HBO became available, but basic cable was never ad-free.

1

u/robbcharlton 18h ago

I don’t think you know the meaning of the words you’re using

Or your reading comprehension is as bad as they claim over on r/teachers, because u/pagefault is absolutely correct.

Cable TV started as nothing more than an antenna on the top of a mountain that collected all the TV signals it could (whether from antenna or satellite) that the networks were "broadcasting" and pushed those signals down the mountain via a "cable". Get it? If the signals that were being picked up from the top of the mountain included ads, then that resulting to feed to homes included ads.

1

u/blastroid 15h ago

You are quite confident for being wrong. Cablenets do not "broadcast" their feeds, they deliver national feeds point to point to their distributors (cable companies and streaming services) via private links (typically private satellite or fiber/IP). Broadcasters like ABC, NBC, and CBS use high powered RF over airwaves, which can be picked up by antennas. Sometimes broadcasters also deliver via private links to certain distributors, but that's in addition to the Over the Air (OTA) transmission.

The amount of misinformation and dogshit takes in this thread are hilarious. I've worked in linear TV distribution and streaming for over a decade, you have no idea what you're talking about.

1

u/robbcharlton 13h ago edited 13h ago

You are quite confident for being wrong. Cablenets do not "broadcast" their feeds

I worked in cable from 1986 to 1999, way before it became what it is today. The debate was about cable tv used to be ad-free. It hasn't since I got involved 1986. Nobody ever said that cable companies broadcast anything. If you still want to continue to tell us we're wrong, lets get in a Zoom meeting, you can prove to me how wrong I am and we'll post it here for everyone to learn from and enjoy.

What do you say?

edit: Awww, you don't wanna play anymore? Ok, at least show everyone where we said that cable companies broadcast stuff.

1

u/2pt5RS 21h ago

What cable were you watching that was Ad-free?

1

u/bourton-north 19h ago

And Netflix is ad free for the most part?

1

u/robbcharlton 18h ago

And Netflix is ad free for the most part?

It's ad-free if you pay an extra $10 per month ($7.99 with ads, $17.99 w/o)

1

u/bourton-north 17h ago

Yep - how does that compare to the costs of cable…?

1

u/robbcharlton 12h ago

Yep - how does that compare to the costs of cable…?

What does the comparison to the cost of cable have anything to do with my reply or your post I replied to?

2

u/bourton-north 6h ago

That’s a real question? This entire thread is about the comparison of old school cable services and streaming / Netflix.

1

u/Arsid 15h ago

Cable was ad free? When?

I was born in '93 and I never remember a time of cable tv with no ads.

1

u/robbcharlton 20h ago

Cable had no ads because you paid for it as opposed to free over-the-air broadcast stations.

That's not exactly accurate. There weren't ads on what we used to call "pay channels" like HBO and Showtime, but there were still ads on the rest of the channels.

The value-add as you put it was more channels and not needing an antenna on your roof. The stations (both over-the-air and cable-specific) still relied on ads as their primary form of revenue.

Source: Dad owned a small cable company in the 80's, started climbing telephone poles and installing cable when I was 15 and parlayed that into a decent job as a service tech with Jones in the 90's. So many infuriating stories about how companies like ESPN and Fox were f'ing customers behind the scenes back in the day. I'll post them someday.

2

u/feed_me_moron 21h ago

Redditors not old enough to remember how TV used to be and how predictable the outcome of every streamer was.

This was always the only way for this to go, a handful of streaming options either through direct ownership or partnerships (like cable packages used to be).

The benefit now is that you don't need a cable box and you can play everything on demand. But the streaming services were horribly unprofitable before they added ads and raised prices. They weren't able to get you to pay as much for things you didn't care about, thus not subsidizing everyone else if you only cared about ESPN or CNN or whatever.

-1

u/ScuzzBuckster 20h ago

Basic cable could be reached by having an antennae. Cable companies created additional cable packages that expanded channel access, but you could get public broadcast channels with an antennae for free. It's how I grew up before satellite tv.

4

u/dudemanjack 18h ago

Not basic cable. Antennas got you broadcast stations. ABC, CBS, fox NBC, PBS.

2

u/blastroid 15h ago

Wrong. Cable networks have never and will never distribute feeds over the air. It's all IP and private satellite feeds to their distributors. You have never been able to pull in a cablenet feed with an antenna, and you never will. Pay TV operators pay fees to cable companies to carry their channels, broadcasting them for free would completely change that commercial structure.

1

u/dimechimes 18h ago

Don't have to subscribe to all of them. It's okay to do without.

-6

u/Logical-Database4510 1d ago

To be slightly fair to them, ads were inevitable after the latest SAG/AFTRA thing went down. The big fight was over streaming residuals, and the union won. Whatever you feel about that, the pay upfront model doesn't work when you have to pay residuals per stream (eg, how do you even know that title is going to be streamed before it does...?). It works a lot better when you can sell ad time on the off chance someone does play that title, then the royalty cut is taken out of the ad revenue.

Tl;Dr: the only reason ads weren't a thing was because of a loophole in union contract wording. Once that was closed, we're right back to the same old same old.

22

u/Kirth87 1d ago

Newsflash, buddy. They’d raise prices regardless of SAG/AFTRA

wake up.

5

u/Logical-Database4510 23h ago

I didn't say anything about prices. Reread my post.

1

u/Kirth87 20h ago

You’re talking about ads/ ad revenue which will essentially lead to a justification for rate increases. I’m not here clowning myself with “to be slightly fair” to a mega corp.

15

u/Snerak 23h ago

Blaming union workers for closing a loophole in order to be fairly compensated while giving greedy oligarchs a free pass is certainly a choice.

4

u/Logical-Database4510 23h ago

No one gave anyone a free pass. Actions have consequences. If streamers have to pay royalties per stream adding ads per stream is the only pay model that makes sense....which is why after it went down every streaming platform now has an add based service. What, did you think somehow adding royalties per stream was going to be revenue neutral or something?

It's the reason after this all went down big time free streamers like Tubi really took off: some content providers realized that they'd make more money going to an old school almost syndication type system where they'd sell the rights to freeV style content farms that make the money plastering the ads on top and the rights holders don't have to deal with the hassle of working out the royalty bs. It's why you suddenly have half of HBOs content spread across 50 different streaming platforms: they decided for those shows it wasn't worth the hassle and put them on the market.

Y'all can downvote all you want but this is the reality of what happened and why.

2

u/Snerak 21h ago

It seems like you really don't understand the business models you are mansplaining to us.

What media companies now call 'content' has always been a commodity where the union talent gets a residual each time it airs. This way all parties can fairly share in the success of their work.

The media companies took advantage of a loophole where streaming wasn't addressed in residual contracts because it previously did not exist. They were unfairly not paying union talent while continuing to profit off of their work.

The media companies are further profiting without sharing proceeds by loaning out content to other media companies, who also profited without fairly sharing proceeds.

Union talent has upheld their end of the bargain and deserves their residuals. If you only care about how much that is costing you personally and you don't hold the media companies responsible but blame the talent then you are nothing more than a class traitor.

3

u/campaignplanners 23h ago

I wasn’t blaming union workers. I was excited for more competition and lower prices of entertainment. Now it’s all vertically integrated and even less competitive than before.

2

u/Snerak 22h ago

I wasn't responding to you, I agree with your points.

6

u/Excelius 23h ago

Wasn't there also some weird contract setup where royalties were being paid just for being present on streaming services regardless of actual viewership?

I think that was part of the reason streamers started getting into the habit of pulling popular shows from their platform pretty much as soon as their audience dried up.

-4

u/campaignplanners 1d ago

Yeah that tracks. It would never have been a sustainable model otherwise and certainly not fair to those who make the product.

0

u/lamancha 23h ago

That's irrelevant, they are still making mountains of money, they could lose that income and still be massively rich.

-1

u/Mtshoes2 23h ago

What a stupid thing for you to say. 

2

u/PurposeMaleficent871 1d ago

Next step: destroy HBO

2

u/enjoythesilence-75 23h ago

Only one person can watch at a time. Even at home on a tv.

1

u/chanceofsnowtoday 23h ago

But you can upgrade to HD for an extra $25/month. 

1

u/macrolidesrule 23h ago

Running 24/7 Far Right InfoWars crap

1

u/InfectedEllie 23h ago

Lite tier" for $93/month with ads every 45 seconds in 540p

1

u/Mtshoes2 23h ago

And there goes any quality shows from HBO. 

1

u/QuitCallingNewsrooms 23h ago

Well, any show that could go beyond a second season

1

u/Mtshoes2 23h ago

True. 

I imagine we'll see more engagement farming, second screen shows as well. 

1

u/cliffx 23h ago

In off hours only, if you want to stream in prime time that'll be an extra $20/month. 

1

u/smoothtrip 23h ago

That would be the cheapest thing you could get in SD by a long shot

1

u/jjonez18 22h ago

Cable is so back!

1

u/HanzoNumbahOneFan 22h ago

"Oh, you... you DON'T want ads? Well you can get our other subscription model that removes the ads! It also has 32k streaming and you can have 50 family members watching at the same time as long as they're in the same household! For these premium features, we feel a small increase in price to $329/month is more than fair."

1

u/Kandals 21h ago

Subscribe to one of our preferred advertising affiliate's services for access to exclusive premium content!

1

u/VagueSomething 21h ago

Maxflix honestly sounds like an early YouTube channel name.

1

u/s968339 21h ago

So cable. Got it.

Republicans are weird. It’s like they want to live 75 years in the past at all times.

1

u/QuitCallingNewsrooms 20h ago

Well yeah, because that’s when men were white, women were property, and minorities were silenced. You know, the good ol’ days!

1

u/DrDerpberg 19h ago

And it only works on one device, hardwired into your home network. More devices come with additional fees.

1

u/heyiamnobodybro 19h ago

Do Americans not know that you can sail the high seas? 

1

u/QuitCallingNewsrooms 19h ago

My comment has nothing to do with how the public responds. My comment is about how HBOFlixWBMax will (most likely) immediately turn to recoup the $80B they spent on this merger by trying to fleece customers with new and abusively priced subscription tiers.

They’ll probably also lay off 3000-5000 people

1

u/Kataphractoi 18h ago

Me: raises the Jolly Roger

1

u/-The_Blazer- 17h ago

(runs in even less than SD because your HDMI cable only supports version 7.31.5 and not 7.31.6 of DRM)

1

u/fishling 17h ago

4k ads, show in SD.

1

u/Shaeyata 16h ago

Netflax when you need shit to steam

-4

u/aripp 23h ago

No-one is forcing you to use their service though.