I remember years ago (12! apparently) when the Netflix CEO said "We want to become HBO faster than HBO can become us".
Even then, with all the success Netflix had, I don't think it was taken seriously. Of course, the big players were all going to get their streaming platforms going and crush the newcomer.
Then they spent tens of billions on garbage new content and overbuilt their walled little gardens fracturing the streaming concept into too many channels too quickly. On top of that, they destroyed their broadcast arms entirely with just dreck shows, DEI, oversaturated ads, and fake news.
All they ever really needed to do was give us an easy way to watch the overwhelming amount of back content already created while making reasonably budgeted and appealing new content, and they would have raked in the cash.
This will most likely put movie theaters at risk, of going out of business. Netflix doesn’t care about theaters at all. I hope The Trump Administration blocks the deal.
Another misstep I wanted to highlight is how streaming services shot themselves in the foot by limiting content.
The secret sauce for them is getting people to subscribe, but not actually watch programs on their services. Rake in the cash while not delivering a product, building out bandwidth, or paying residuals.
It's why something like, say Peacock, which has DECADES of programming to pull content, felt like it only had a few dozen shows and maybe a hundred movies at any given time. For me, it was so shallow of options that I cancelled and uninstalled their app in disgust BEFORE my free month even ran out.
But that's the way they wanted it. They would have had to pay to reach deep into their back catalogue, and why bother when the pay pigs are just going to subscribe anyway because we're A MAJOR NETWORK that people have been mindlessly watching for years.
Unfortunately, their secret sauce turned out to he a poison pill and they didn't realize it. Not enough people were going to shell out monthly subscriptions for so little to actually watch, big name or not. The reason Netflix was so successful so fast is because for a brief window of time, it had an overwhelmingly vast amount of content.
Sadly, I don't think we're ever getting back to that. Once only 2, or 3 at most, streamers remain, they won't have incentive to offer their deep catalogue without pressure from competition.
I don’t have Netflix and haven’t for at least 5 years. I have had HBO Max for several years only due to the service seeming to prioritize movies a little more than other streaming services. Netflix sucks though and if this deal goes through, I’m canceling HBO Max.
I remember years ago (12! apparently) when the Netflix CEO said "We want to become HBO faster than HBO can become us".
Even then, with all the success Netflix had, I don't think it was taken seriously. Of course, the big players were all going to get their streaming platforms going and crush the newcomer.
Then they spent tens of billions on garbage new content and overbuilt their walled little gardens fracturing the streaming concept into too many channels too quickly. On top of that, they destroyed their broadcast arms entirely with just dreck shows, DEI, oversaturated ads, and fake news.
All they ever really needed to do was give us an easy way to watch the overwhelming amount of back content already created while making reasonably budgeted and appealing new content, and they would have raked in the cash.
This just feels surreal.
$82.7B would buy you a LOT of new shows if you could budget appropriately. But instead they’d rather try to mine the same old stuff.
This will most likely put movie theaters at risk, of going out of business. Netflix doesn’t care about theaters at all. I hope The Trump Administration blocks the deal.
HBO doesn't make anything good anyways; so, it will just mean the same amount of woke slop as before.
Another misstep I wanted to highlight is how streaming services shot themselves in the foot by limiting content.
The secret sauce for them is getting people to subscribe, but not actually watch programs on their services. Rake in the cash while not delivering a product, building out bandwidth, or paying residuals.
It's why something like, say Peacock, which has DECADES of programming to pull content, felt like it only had a few dozen shows and maybe a hundred movies at any given time. For me, it was so shallow of options that I cancelled and uninstalled their app in disgust BEFORE my free month even ran out.
But that's the way they wanted it. They would have had to pay to reach deep into their back catalogue, and why bother when the pay pigs are just going to subscribe anyway because we're A MAJOR NETWORK that people have been mindlessly watching for years.
Unfortunately, their secret sauce turned out to he a poison pill and they didn't realize it. Not enough people were going to shell out monthly subscriptions for so little to actually watch, big name or not. The reason Netflix was so successful so fast is because for a brief window of time, it had an overwhelmingly vast amount of content.
Sadly, I don't think we're ever getting back to that. Once only 2, or 3 at most, streamers remain, they won't have incentive to offer their deep catalogue without pressure from competition.
I don’t have Netflix and haven’t for at least 5 years. I have had HBO Max for several years only due to the service seeming to prioritize movies a little more than other streaming services. Netflix sucks though and if this deal goes through, I’m canceling HBO Max.
This is not good news, competition is good for the customer, so besides the merger possibly creating a monopoly streaming service, Netflix is woke AF.
No synderverse then.
How sad.