all 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 7 points 11 months ago

I hope Netflix customers are ready to pay for this $59 billion debt.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    The first time, it's coincidence, I mean really Netflix gaming is obvious anyone could come up with the same timeframe. That one's free.

    The second time is suspicious. Maybe business degrees actually do have meaning beyond just hiring value? Maybe this actually was more informative than my in-person 4 year university standard STEM degree? I mean those are some strong market predictions, and I haven't discovered any new physics in the past 10 years...

    The third time around though, I'm feeling less like Nostradamus and more like which of these LLMs ate my paper, and who was these lazy fuck that copy/pasted it into their 10 year growth strategy presentation. Next step, if they stick to the plan, is to implement an employee exchange program that "helps their mostly isolated regional teams build connectivity and innovate with one another globally". It's the exact same strategy I came up with, using the exact same timeframes, executed in the exact same order I prescribed it.

    My bullshit online business degree capstone project was coming up with a business plan for a well known existing business to increase some component of their market share. I was assigned Netflix, and my idea was a 3 phase plan that started with gaming, then addressed their massive production overhead by first aggressively focusing on locking down Netflix contracted actors/writers/directors with a more long term plan building up a reusable physical studio location and costume/prop warehouse. Basically the same setup a legacy Hollywood studio like WB has.

    (Netflix released mobile/web games in Q4 2021 - My paper from May 2020 said this could be implemented as early as 2021. Netflix already has the infrastructure they just need partners, of which there are plenty of in the mobile gaming space)

    (Netflix aggressively contracted actors, writers, and directors from 2020 onwards and is why you see so many of the same people acting and writing in their original productions, to the point where a few short years later 'netflix style writing and cinematography' is now a recognized as its own thing.)

    (A big part of my paper was how long term plan could be accelerated with the purchase of a failing legacy entertainment giant such as MGM or Warner Bros. So many Hollywood studios were failing at the time for stupid financial decisions, but they still had the majority of their infrastructure and catalogue intact. This issue is invisible to Disney/Paramount/Universal/Etc. since they have their own services and studios; Disney obvious didn't read my paper because legacy media totally could've choked out tech-streaming with studio rental fees. Amazon bought MGM in 2022, so that only leaves WB as a viable target.)

  • source
  • 56 comments in c/movies@piefed.social view that post
    [–] 87 points 11 months ago (14 children)

    If Netflix has this much money then I feel less bad about pirating their content for years now.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 11 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    It typically costs more money to finance something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago*

    Only for normal people. If you are rich or a company like this you can leverage assets for a rate lower than the rate of return on your investments and come out ahead by financing over paying cash. Rich people don't pay cash for anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    Shareholders foot the bill, ultimately.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    Not the subscribers but the shareholders?

    I'll never understand economics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Well, in fact it's not that complicated - shareholders literally own the company - and this ownership results in both the right to decide what happens to the company and receiving dividends, which are supposed to come from the company's surplus funds. In reality it's not that straightforward, but that's the general idea. So if a company spends money, you can think of it as spending shareholders' money allocated in the company's assets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Well, in fact it's not that complicated

    In reality it's not that straightforward

    Well now I’m really fucking confused.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Sorry, I meant the whole idea is simple, but in reality capitalists exploit every single loophole to gain even more money, so there are laws against a lot of stuff - it would be that simple if people were trustworthy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    Originally shareholders received a part share in the total profitability of the company. A dividend was the main source of income from investing.

    It didn't take them long to figure out that buying and selling shares of a company to other investors was usually more profitable than dividends. Its a hell of a lot easier to lie about potential value of the company than it's current reality.

    So for the past 100+ years the market value of the shares are often separated from the reality of the company. The value of the shares only exists because people or automated programs are willing to pay the amount. This is how companies who are operating under a huge deficits have increasing stock prices.

    Since the value of the shares can be so easily manipulated, market manipulation is the normal way investors make money today. It also means that major stockholders don't give a fuck about long term value of the company, the employees, or the damage to society & the environment they cause. They only care about making quickest profits, then passing the dumpster fire they created onto somebody else.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 76 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    Get ready for Ultra Premium™️ subscription price hikes.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 55 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Someone has to pay for that acquisition, and it won't be the shareholders.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 52 points 11 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 19 points 11 months ago

    The various media owners to lease out their licenses to a small handful of competing services and for the streaming services to choose which material was worth the lease cost to stay competitive.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago

    Companies not to vertically integrate. Production studios should produce movies, and streaming platforms should provide a platform for people to access movies. If Spotify made its own music it would be absurd, right? Well, yeah.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 11 months ago

    That's bad, HBO won't make new quality show.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Netflix has 300 million subscribers. Buying WB for $80 Billions means every subscriber has to pay at least ~266$ for Netflix to break even. That's about $4.50 per month per subscriber if you spread it out over 5 years. Get ready for for some price hikes.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 11 months ago

    Price increase coming in 3… 2… 1…

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

    This is the best possible outcome out of a very shitty list. They haf to sell, Disney already owns too much, Jeff Bezos would monetize it in the worst possible ways, and Larry Ellison is the most evil billionaire in the US. Yes, much worse than Elon, Zuck, Bezos, etc.

    EDIT: Unfortunately Larry Ellison could still buy the global division which includes CNN. Netflix is only buying the studios and streaming. Still no idea what happens to DC Comics but I think it goes with global?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    ellison definitely wants control of CNN, he needs to turn it into a fox-lite.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    He's already doing that with CBS News, minus the "-lite." We are going to see full-on MAGA media propaganda on a national broadcast channel from now on, not just in the news, but in their programming.

    TV programming is already very conservative, with all their Copaganda. Now it's going to get much, much worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 11 months ago* (3 children)

    This is actually worse than even Paramount aquiring them.

    Both were shit, but this is hands down the worst possible outcome.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Is it? Paramount+Larry Ellison+the Saudis was not a particular great alternative either. I guess only time will tell, how this turns out.

    With Paramount I think there would have been the risk of WB remaining in a similar form, but being ideologically twisted.

    With Netflix or course there is a larger risk towards theatrical and physical releases as it goes against their primary business model. And the biggest threat to creativity is not ideology, but in a way the opposite. Lack thereof and instead focus on just metrics like short term viewership numbers.

    The best option out of the bad ones would have probably been something like Comcast. Or in my dreams wb would have just stayed independent, splitting of linear assets. They have a ton of debt, but imo eventually they'd have been strong enough to survive. Bur I guess sadly this wasn't the most lucrative path.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago*

    with NUTREK being so poorly made as it is, paramount/ellison might finally either try to astroturf it or shut down the franchise. isnt physical release where all the pirating is sourced from, or at least most of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago*

    "Netflix says the buy would give users more choice"

    In a world with real journalism the very next question would be how but we just spread the normalization and allow the little lies.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I thought Disney already did that

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    Shiver me timbers! Netflix is the last streaming service I've kept, because it (so far) hasn't started showing me ads. I REFUSE TO PAY FOR ADS! Also, when they jack up the price from this merger, I'm out.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago*

    @SubArcticTundra @TheImpressiveX You mean WaltNetSonify ? Not likely to happen visibly as they got to keep avoiding anti-trust laws and simulate diversity, just like in supermarket shelves. Oligopolies are better at that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    I can't wait for K-Pop Demon Hunters the ride at your nearest 6 flags..?

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    I was really hoping for HBO to be the ones to tackle a Stormlight Archive adaptation. I no longer do.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    Netflix is the new direct tv. Instead of 500 channels, your choice of content is splattered in one spot.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments