zlacker

[return to "Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros"]
1. afavou+Jd[view] [source] 2025-12-05 13:44:09
>>meetpa+(OP)
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.

◧◩
2. meowfa+um[view] [source] 2025-12-05 14:28:30
>>afavou+Jd
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.
◧◩◪
3. ryandr+ZE[view] [source] 2025-12-05 15:48:49
>>meowfa+um
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. Reality is, the people making these decisions don't want to change things, at least not enough to go through the effort of changing and renegotiating the licenses. It's not "licensing restrictions" that is stopping them.

Same always comes up when we talk about why doesn't Company X open source their 20 year old video game software? Someone always chimes in to say "Well they don't because of 'licensing issues' with the source code." as if they were being stopped by a law of physics.

◧◩◪◨
4. jimbok+0N[view] [source] 2025-12-05 16:17:20
>>ryandr+ZE
> Reality is, the people making these decisions don't want to change things, at least not enough to go through the effort of changing and renegotiating the licenses.

Which is a perfectly sensible reason for a business decision.

> "Well they don't because of 'licensing issues' with the source code." as if they were being stopped by a law of physics.

So laws should just be ignored? Issues created by human social constructs are very real.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. roguec+dm1[view] [source] 2025-12-05 18:50:36
>>jimbok+0N
Disobeying unjust laws is a moral imperative. Working around laws that hurt society is good for society. Changing laws that aren't benefiting society is the sign of a functioning government.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. jimbok+QX1[view] [source] 2025-12-05 21:52:13
>>roguec+dm1
And I assume you are the final authority on which laws are unjust?
[go to top]