"In Trusts, They Are Gods"

[Judge]

So now Paramount is making a hostile bid to take control of HBO/Max away from NetFlix. In a legal environment involving regulatory approval that seems disinterested in preserving any anti-trust considerations on the part of us lame consumers.

Mergers/Acquisitions= higher prices for consumers who have no say in such matters.

Paramount makes $108.4 billion hostile bid for Warner Bros Discovery

 

[TBRS1]

They are gambling that antitrust laws will not be reestablished before they can profit.

I'm not sure that is a safe bet.

In the near future I suspect that there will be a period of time in which those who are currently profiteering will be under serious investigation by very angry peeps.

 

[Judge]

They are gambling that antitrust laws will not be reestablished before they can profit.

I'm not sure that is a safe bet.

In the near future I suspect that there will be a period of time in which those who are currently profiteering will be under serious investigation by very angry peeps.

Consider the mood of the six dominating Supreme Court justices who ultimately have the very last word in such matters. Then review the history of landmark decisions in the last quarter century and beyond that overwhelmingly favor private enterprise.

A history which doesn't lean towards the interests of the people, but firmly within the purview of commerce. A pattern in our nation's legal history at the highest level that has been ongoing for the last 150 years. Despite intermittent attempts by legislators to regulate such practices.

 

[WhitewaterWoman]

They are gambling that antitrust laws will not be reestablished before they can profit.

I'm not sure that is a safe bet.

In the near future I suspect that there will be a period of time in which those who are currently profiteering will be under serious investigation by very angry peeps.

I hope you’re right.

But the track we’re on now isn’t headed in that direction.

 

[Dagan]

If I'm one of the elites, the last thing I want is for one of the major studios to absorb another of the majors. We've seen Disney do it. Is it better? Is there better and/or more variance in content? I feel it's 50/50 at best. Disney owns all Star Wars content. Some of the shows have been decent. Some of the cartoons are okay. Two out of Five films haven't sucked, and there are 7 films in development right now. Yay. They have also absorbed 20th Century Fox, and they have at least done well with Predator and Alien franchise so far...but I am afraid they might ruin them both, still. Outside of those already established IP's, though, they haven't done so much besides Marvel stuff that they already had planned.

Paramount is basically the Taylor Sheridan network, but that guy is golden. He's been a godsend per new material / ideas / concepts, so that is very much appreciated. They own Showtime channel, too, and they've resurrected the Dexter series with amazing quality and caliber. I like everything they've been doing.

Amazon and Netflix have both held their own by taking chances on new ideas or even just long running novel series and making great shows with them. I like most of all they've been doing, but I feel like they don't wait long enough before cancelling some ideas half of the time. Amazon is basically MGM, as well...don't forget that. Netflix isn't just making a move that others haven't already pulled off.

Apple is still figuring it all out, me thinks. They are starting to hit on things more than misses, though. I feel like they are trying to absorb Sony, but that's going to take a lot to sort through because Sony is notorious for doing split-rights deals - most evident with their high profile rights deals with Marvel products.

 

[Judge]

The only dynamic I pay attention to is that supposedly the steady income derived through traditional advertising which seems to outpace revenue derived from subscriptions without direct advertising. Especially with subscribers who methodically cancel their subscriptions when their ten or so episodes of a particular show is concluded until the next season. Effectively pro-rating revenue for the industry as opposed to viewers who stick around and tolerate routine, conventional (and lucrative) commercial advertising.

Which makes it seem baffling with streaming services such as "Sci-Fi Classics Channel" which allows you a choice of watching their programming either with ads or to subscribe without them. The irony being that their so-called ads are nothing but the same one advertised every eight minutes. A proprietary 60-second advertisement advocating only one thing: to subscribe to their channel. How much revenue can such an advertising campaign like that bring in ?

Fine by me, as I simply put the sound on mute every eight minutes for sixty seconds. As much as I like their programming of classic 50s,60s and 70s science fiction movies my generation grew up with, I cannot justify the fee per month for a subscription. Back In the days when there were only three tv networks.

Reminding me of that saying, "The more things change, the more they stay the same".

 

[Neonatal RRT]

We've seen these cycles before... consolidation of entities into monopolies... people complain... then... they enforce the anti-trust laws and force them to break up. Years later, when everyone has forgotten their history... 20 years or so... then the cycle starts up again. Big fossil fuel, big pharma, big food industries, telecom, home computers, automotive,... all went through a similar process... with only a few companies making up 95% of the market share.

We will see it happen in the not-so-far future with all of these AI, robotics, and computer chip companies. SpaceX pretty much has a monopoly on launched cargo into space... that will continue for a while. Autonomous driving tech, air taxis, all in the queue to follow... eat up the competition, consolidate, and monopolize the market.