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. noneth+Rp[view] [source] 2025-12-05 14:43:08
>>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.)

◧◩◪
3. thayne+BO[view] [source] 2025-12-05 16:24:07
>>noneth+Rp
I want a separation between the streaming platform companies and the content making companies, so that the streaming companies can compete on making a better platform/service and the content companies compete on making better content.

I don't want one company that owns everything, I want several companies that are able to license whatever content they want. And ideally the customer can choose between a subscription that includes everything, and paying for content a la carte, or maybe subscriptions that focus on specific kinds of content (scifi/fantasy, stuff for kids, old movies, international, sports, etc.) regardless of what company made it.

◧◩◪◨
4. cactus+9X[view] [source] 2025-12-05 17:00:21
>>thayne+BO
This is how it worked a decade+ ago, when there was still alpha to be had on providing better streaming service. It was great and we got things like the Netflix Prize and all sorts of content ranking improvements, better CDN platforms, lower latency and less buffering, more content upgraded to HD and 4K. Plus some annoying but clearly effective practices like auto-play of trailers and unrelated shows.

Now these are all solved problems, so there is no benefit in trying to compete on making a better platform / service. The only thing left is competing on content.

> I want several companies that are able to license whatever content they want. And ideally the customer can choose between a subscription that includes everything, and paying for content a la carte, or maybe subscriptions that focus on specific kinds of content

This seems like splitting hairs, it's almost exactly what we do have. You can still buy and rent individual shows & movies from Apple and Amazon and other providers. Or you can subscribe to services. The only difference is there is no one big "subscription that includes everything", you need 10 different $15 subscriptions to get everything. Again, kind of splitting hairs though. The one big subscription would probably be the same price as everything combined anyway.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. j2kun+Ej1[view] [source] 2025-12-05 18:39:45
>>cactus+9X
It is worth noting that the Netflix Prize winner's solution was never meaningfully used, because Netflix pivoted from ranking content based on what you tell them you like to ranking content based on clicks and minutes watched.

To say that "we have solved ranking" because Netflix decided to measure shallow metrics and addiction is... specious at best. Instead the tech industry (in all media domains, not just streaming video) replaced improving platforms and services in meaningful ways with surveillance and revenue extraction.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. gizzlo+z52[view] [source] 2025-12-05 22:39:48
>>j2kun+Ej1
> ranking content based on clicks and minutes watched.

I suspect they just push what they want you to watch, like their own content. Seems that way to me at least, based on their quite shitty "recommendations"

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. dmurra+Vm2[view] [source] 2025-12-06 00:54:28
>>gizzlo+z52
Why do they care what you watch? I expect they pay a flat fee to license content (if not, how is that policed?) so the marginal cost to them is the same no matter what you watch.

I'd guess they push you to their content for the same reason they make that content in the first place: they believe you'll like it and keep watching it.

Ad placement is one wrinkle that would incentivize promoting their own content, but I don't get the impression that's big enough to make the difference at the margins.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. chucks+ex2[view] [source] 2025-12-06 02:38:20
>>dmurra+Vm2
If you mostly use Netflix to watch licensed content, you're more likely to cancel when all the licensed content is removed from the catalog.

If they successfully steer you towards Netflix produced content, you're less sensitive to what happens to the licensed content.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. fragme+JH2[view] [source] 2025-12-06 04:32:47
>>chucks+ex2
The story I heard about most Netflix content going for very long is that after two seasons a show's cast unionizes and they didn't want to pay up and they'd rather cancel shows, which seems awful penny-wise pound foolish of them.
[go to top]