zlacker

>>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.

>>afavou+Jd
> 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.)

>>noneth+Rp
As a rule of thumb, consolidation is never good. There are exceptions where consolidated services can improve (eg arguably physical infrastructure, healthcare), but in general this will not benefit the consumer.

>>MangoT+HB
As a rule of thumb maybe, but in this case it might well.

>>philip+CF
How? This only means prices will go up.

>>MangoT+TU
But if you don't need to pay for two subs, and the cost of two apps and two lots of infra goes away, that could be good value.

>>philip+Aa1
We already know prices will go up considerably-- they always do after a merger, and you'll lose the option of subbing for one or the other only when they have something you want to watch. Most people are not keeping two subs going constantly and are just alternating when there's something worthwhile.