Most active commenters
  • ekropotin(4)

←back to thread

Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros

(about.netflix.com)
1741 points meetpateltech | 13 comments | 05 Dec 25 12:21 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
afavour ◴[05 Dec 25 13:44 UTC] No.46161166[source]▶
Any consolidation like this seems like a negative for consumers. But at least it wasn’t bought by Larry Ellison, as was considered very likely (assuming this merger gets approved, in the current administration you never know).

From a Hacker News perspective, I wonder what this means for engineers working on HBO Max. Netflix says they’re keeping the company separate but surely you’d be looking to move them to Netflix backend infrastructure at the very least.

replies(39): >>46161208 #>>46161211 #>>46161233 #>>46161598 #>>46161709 #>>46161768 #>>46161918 #>>46161987 #>>46162033 #>>46162120 #>>46162122 #>>46162242 #>>46162259 #>>46162332 #>>46162337 #>>46162364 #>>46162517 #>>46162528 #>>46163100 #>>46163137 #>>46163249 #>>46163287 #>>46163475 #>>46164174 #>>46164714 #>>46164966 #>>46165146 #>>46165652 #>>46166144 #>>46167441 #>>46167818 #>>46168334 #>>46168910 #>>46169128 #>>46169882 #>>46170527 #>>46171224 #>>46174509 #>>46177199 #
meowface ◴[05 Dec 25 14:28 UTC] No.46161709[source]▶
Maybe there are licensing restrictions or other things that prevent it, but wouldn't it make more sense to combine HBO Max and Netflix into a single app? Or at least make all HBO Max content also available in Netflix (and then eventually sunset HBO Max). That would make a Netflix subscription a much more compelling purchase for a ton of people.
replies(9): >>46161811 #>>46161832 #>>46161855 #>>46162594 #>>46162733 #>>46162856 #>>46163562 #>>46164273 #>>46166523 #
1. ekropotin ◴[05 Dec 25 15:31 UTC] No.46162594[source]▶
That would be amazing if we could watch both Netflix and HBO Max content at the price of one subscription. At least for me, these two platforms covers 95% of my video content needs.
replies(4): >>46162609 #>>46162653 #>>46162877 #>>46167147 #
2. slenk ◴[05 Dec 25 15:32 UTC] No.46162609[source]▶
Yeah but there is 0 chance that the cost would remain similar to what it is now
3. jandrese ◴[05 Dec 25 15:35 UTC] No.46162653[source]▶
"The price of one subscription" being the price of Netflix plus the price of HBO. Streaming is turning back into cable where everything is trapped in one bill, no matter how expensive and uninteresting some part of that bill is.

Having Discovery's awful content push out quality HBO content was already a major blow.

replies(2): >>46163118 #>>46179140 #
4. oblio ◴[05 Dec 25 15:50 UTC] No.46162877[source]▶
> Netflix and HBO Max content at the price of one subscription

Yes, the price of one subscription. I think some cable packages in the US are $200 per month?

replies(1): >>46163075 #
5. ekropotin ◴[05 Dec 25 16:01 UTC] No.46163075[source]▶
The cable thing in US is something Im struggling to wrap my mind around. I can’t imagine someone deliberately paying so much money for such a bad content.

The only explanation I can think of is that most of the subscribers are elderly folks who signed up long time ago and didn’t bother to look into current bills.

Also maybe some ardent sport fans?

replies(3): >>46163342 #>>46163373 #>>46163392 #
6. ekropotin ◴[05 Dec 25 16:03 UTC] No.46163118[source]▶
Well, I guess one more significant price jump would be a sign to finally replace streaming with reading
7. chaboud ◴[05 Dec 25 16:16 UTC] No.46163342{3}[source]▶
Your last point is the stronger one. Live events, including sports, are a heavy driver of these subscriptions.

Another is broadband deployment. Choice is low in many parts of the country, and bundled service offerings are frequently priced near the "internet only" offerings to nudge customers into a "might as well" posture.

8. prirun ◴[05 Dec 25 16:18 UTC] No.46163373{3}[source]▶
Internet/TV bills can be negotiated, but it is usually something you have to do annually and most people, rightly so, hate it. The companies make it hard to do, so most people would rather pay an extra $5-10 rather than spending an hour or two on the phone. After 5-10 years, those fee bumps really add up.

The only way to keep Internet/TV costs low is to threaten to cancel or switch every year, and actually be willing to do it. For some that isn't an option because there is only 1 provider, and others I've talked to hate that idea because you have to learn a new channel lineup. It's amazing how much people will pay to not be slightly inconvenienced.

replies(1): >>46163463 #
9. jimbokun ◴[05 Dec 25 16:19 UTC] No.46163392{3}[source]▶
For me it's sports.
10. ekropotin ◴[05 Dec 25 16:24 UTC] No.46163463{4}[source]▶
The question is why to keep TV subscription at all? Is there some very unique content which is not available on digital?
replies(1): >>46164725 #
11. BigGreenJorts ◴[05 Dec 25 17:52 UTC] No.46164725{5}[source]▶
Live sports and public television was kind of the last bastion in my mind, but the former is piecemeal being acquired by streaming the platforms and the latter is largely being put on the internet for free.
12. PunchyHamster ◴[05 Dec 25 20:53 UTC] No.46167147[source]▶
well, you'd get it at price of twice of current subscription
13. jasomill ◴[07 Dec 25 04:28 UTC] No.46179140[source]▶
I imagine major HBO resellers / direct Netflix competitors Amazon and Hulu (Disney) will insist on HBO remaining an extra-cost option, assuming these relationships survive the merger at all.