Netflix to Buy Warner Bros. Discovery in Major Streaming Deal

[StoneJack]

The way I see it, theatrical releases are really fast becoming a thing of a past (oh, nice lyrics). So the value proposition of Warner and other great studios is falling quickly, while streaming is a future (and not cable). So yes, in future we will have just two streaming platforms - Netflix and Amazon, with Apple being a sort of exlusive club. This is basically identical to MS and Apple in computer OS, iOS and Android in mobile. Economies of scale, if you ask me and that was inevtable.

 

[turbineseaplane]

How is this legal lmao

The US is cooked

This shouldn't even be allowed, if things were operating correctly.

 

[chmania]

At least Apple is producing interesting content and taking chances.

It would be nice if Apple concentrated on its computing devices and operating systems. I'm dropping Apple TV after the free three months and won't be going back.

They probably all be $ 49.99 starting prices a month.

We are paying the equivalent of $4.95 per month for Netflix until July 2027 for 4K reception on four devices. That price cannot be changed until the end of the contract.

 

[Rychiar]

Hmmm... HBO became noticeable worse (both quality and value for money) when they merged with Discovery... not to mention the naming kerfuffle... so this is probably a good sign... unless they drag Netflix down to WBs level of incompetence...

And as long as the price increase for the combined service is less than (or at the most equal to) the sum of what I'm paying for Netflix and HBO now, then I'm not too concerned about this...

HBO had like one bad year a couple years ago the past year or two have been amazing

 

[turbineseaplane]

I'm dropping Apple TV after the free three months and won't be going back.

Don't worry, there are always endless offers to try it again.

I've somehow watched all of For All Mankind and never paid a cent for it.

 

[Fara82Light]

A spot of speculation, but this deal might help the UK Government get moving on deciding on the transition to streaming from linear TV. If it were to sell the BBC to Apple, then that might be the least worst outcome.

 

[mnsportsgeek]

Disney is releasing flop after flop and losing money hand over fist. They can't even keep their own house in order.

They are gonna have the highest grossing movie of the year. Probably the 2 highest.

 

[Gasu E.]

Sweet, WWE and AEW on the same app/subscription.

There's not the slightest chance they would roll HBO into your Netflix subscription. So why would they deconstruct HBO Max?

 

[nsengbush]

Goodbye TV app integration

 

[chmania]

Don't worry, there are always endless offers to try it again.

Yes, they do. Maybe, I'll have a go again.

 

[jimbobb24]

This shouldn't even be allowed, if things were operating correctly.

What should be allowed? WB goes bankrupt and sells its assets off? To who? Every property gets auctioned off separately and then Netflix and Amazon and Paramount bid for the assets. Or apple? Why shouldn't it be allowed? The streaming market has many players and this will create some real benefits for the back catalogues which have been neglected.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Agreed. Mark my words they will be shocked a few years from now that Netflix has a monopoly. Just like Meta. You all approved meta to purchase those companies!!! Then you act all surprised?

Paraphrasing yourself:

That is a load of bull!

Monopoly? Amazon exists. So does Disney. Not only that, as a media consumer, you aren’t even forced to watch videos over streaming streaming services.

It doesn't have a monopoly on app installs. Google Play store does App installs. This is the problem with making the market so narrow.

…just like Netflix doesn’t and won’t ever have a monopoly on movie distribution. DVD and Blu-ray discs do movie distribution. No need to make the market so narrow, just to claim Netflix would have a monopoly.

And always remember:
“It’s not illegal to be a monopoly”

 

[ProbablyDylan]

The consolidation of media marches on.

 

[deconstruct60]

I'm very surprised that Comcast didn't buy it. With all the WB properties in their theme parks, it made a lot of sense (especially with the Harry Potter franchise). I wonder how this is going to affect their licensing deals.

Comcast did bid. ( there was a two phase bidding contest between Comcast , Netflix, and Skydance/Paramont ). Comcast doesn’t have that kind of money . Secondly Comcast doesn’t own that WB stuff now and still use it. At the price Netflix paid it is highly doubtful they are going to turn away a major customer who writes large checks to them. As long as Netflix doesn’t increase the licensing fees crazy high , Comcast will just keep paying. Similar to the folks who license WB content to make toys .
( if the WB Licensing isn’t generating more ticket sales at the parks … dump it . It probably is paying for itself )


Comcast has a shrinking internet business. Problematic linear TV business have to finish dealing with. ( some cable channels and some website businesses spun out into Versant . Comcast has some same problems that WB Discovery has; Netflix deal contingent on WBD dumping their cable channels ) .

Substantial part of this deal is Netflix absorbing a large amount of debt that WBD has built up . Comcast has their own debt ‘drama’ building . They don’t need more .

 

[dlopan]

Has it been aprroved by the feds yet? If not I wouldn't bet any serious money on this buy out happening anytime soon.
There sure is a lot of panicky people here. Don't bet any thing on this until it's gone through the courts. I would hate to not have dvd/blu-rays

 

[Will Co]

A spot of speculation, but this deal might help the UK Government get moving on deciding on the transition to streaming from linear TV. If it were to sell the BBC to Apple, then that might be the least worst outcome.

Interesting. However, the UK Government doesn't own the BBC. The public does. It's an independent organisation, founded by Royal Charter, paid for by the public through a fee. It's regulated by the Government through a regulatory body, like all UK based broadcasters, but not owned by them. So they couldn't sell it as such. I guess the BBC could decide to sell itself, but I don't think even that could happen without laws being changed, because of the Charter....

I take your point though. As a UK citizen, something's gotta change at the BBC. And that's coming from someone who broadly supports its aims. Been a very long time since the BBC did any "inform, educate and entertain", at least as far as I'm concerned.

 

[nsengbush]

I’m shocked that Apple wasn’t interested in buying considering several of their shows and movies are produced by Warner Brothers, including Ted Lasso, and the F1 movie

 

[ProbablyDylan]

Has it been aprroved by the feds yet? If not I wouldn't bet any serious money on this buy out happening anytime soon.

They'll just promise to begone with "DEI" and it'll get waved through.

 

[Attirex]

Steve Jobs would've never done this.

 

[haydn!]

And so it begins, the inevitable age of streaming consolidation.

 

[deconstruct60]

.

Their combined market share in video streaming is like 36% or something in the U.S., and most probably less elsewhere. Not much more than the 24% that you described as Apple being a “minor player”.

That is a bit of a squishy number. The streaming services are not all that exclusively used.


One , there is a market share by (usage: watch list or time ) One watch list metric is:

• Amazon Prime Video: 22%
• Netflix: 21%
• Max (formerly HBO Max): 13%
• Disney+: 12%
• Hulu: 11%
• Paramount+: 9%
• Apple TV+: 7%
• Peacock: 1%

Disney aggregates to 23% here . Max+Netflix is 34%

The Watch times numbers are likely substantially different. ( YouTube , Tubi , Pluto , etc would need to be included there also )


However , not taking into account how many are watching multiple sources. ( folks likely have watch lists on multiple platforms. Which have longer watch list doesn’t make it exclusive )

Second , if look for how many services people subscribe to then Average US household use about 4 streaming apps. If this means going from 4 to 3 that is a substantial change ( close to if had let ABC and NBC collapse into one back in the big 3 TV days ).


The problem here is bundling into larger blocks . If DoJ put a constraint on this that they had to offer a ‘slimmer and cheaper’ HBOmax service. Then less negative consumer impact. [ making people pay for stuff they increasingly don’t watch via huge bundling is the core “monopoly power” should be trying to limit here. Discovery streaming didn't completely disappear with WB acquisition . ]

Can plainly see the negative consumer impacts to bundling in the linear TV context where most providers there are finally working to chop the bundles up to control costs. ( want more sports? pay more or loose content )


P.S. if look at time spent watching ( one USA measure )

Top Streamers by Share (Mid-2025 Nielsen Data)

• YouTube: ~12.5% - 13.4% (Leading overall TV, not just subscription streaming)
• Netflix: ~7.5% - 8.2%
• Disney (incl. Hulu/ESPN+): ~4.8% - 5.0%
• Amazon Prime Video: ~3.5%
• The Roku Channel: ~2.5%
• Paramount: ~2.2%
• Tubi: ~2.2%
• Peacock: ~1.4%

So the court case would first be a battle of what is the market the share should be measured in. AppleAtV disappears if start looking at hours watched.

 

[deconstruct60]

The company that Blockbuster once had an opportunity to buy for 50 M.

Blockbuster management never could have guided this service to the current spot. More likely that would have been a bought and slowly kill.

 

[Elwe]

Ah...capitalism...so deeply flawed, and yet no other viable alternative exists...

I sense a pang of sarcasm. But truly, what is wrong with “capitalism” in this? This isn’t life-necessary medicine, or farming, or road maintenance, or teaching. It is all about producing and streaming entertainment content. One doesn’t need it by any stretch. They could double the prices; many people would still pay, and why is that at all bad? Not all content everywhere is raising its price for one, and there is always new free (meaning ad-supported and actual free) content being created all the time. Just look for it.

If the pang of sorrow is for the employees, I’m much more sympathetic. But these particular companies are still bloated from COVID-hiring times. Some of the content spending launched there is obscene, and has produced very bad (i.e., non-profitable, perhaps more social advocacy than anything else) programming. Time for all those efforts to figure out a way to profit or end; these aren’t non-profit art-houses.

I’m hoping that a large part of the work force in entertainment and tech realize that they need to change their careers. Whether it be civil infrastructure work (union halls are begging for young people to learn crafts), rural medical needs, firefighters, police academies, forest management . . . lots of things AI cannot do, can’t be done by leaders and companies only concerned about the next fiscal quarter, and which have a real impact in the real world. Maybe several of the third assistant directors on that really cool show will realize they can do more needed things in life, and earn a stable income elsewhere, too, so they can actually pay off those student loans they didn’t think twice about taking out. A lot of this physical work isn’t easy, but it is so very necessary. Particularly as the President and half the country seem quite intent on removing illegal immigrants from the country. And we as a society could probably spend less on Ozempic and its cousins if more people move around and strain more.

 

[frenchcamp49er]

And they will hike prices again surely to offset this purchase.

Dumped Netflix awhile back, haven’t missed it.

 

[kcwookie]

Nothing like a good guarantee that streaming prices are going to continue to go up. We cut the cable, so they replaced the cable of something even bigger and stronger. We’re gonna have to cut this cable too.