Warner/Discovery

[Buscemi]

I'm thinking this just a rumor, as Fox was rumored to be buying Time Warner last year (which of course didn't happen) while AT&T sold Starz to Lionsgate earlier this year (and AT&T got some stock in Lionsgate as part of the deal, which would likely create a conflict of interest as Time Warner owns HBO and Warner Bros. while Lionsgate also owns part of Epix).

And has Time Warner ever said they are for sale? They've have a pretty good 2016 with Batman v. Superman and Suicide Squad (and TV shows and merchandise are doing well also).

[spectre08]

It's not a rumor. Being reported by Bloomberg.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...-about-110-shr

Wall Street is taking it seriously

[Buscemi]

But Wall Street also took the Fox rumor seriously and look what happened there.

A lot of these merger talks are just that. Don't believe anything until the ink dries.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by Buscemi

But Wall Street also took the Fox rumor seriously and look what happened there.

A lot of these merger talks are just that. Don't believe anything until the ink dries.

Fox wasn't a rumor either though, they just weren't willing to pay what TimeWarner needed. AT&T is reportedly bidding 20% higher than TWX was trading for at the beginning of the day, which is TimeWarner would have to be nuts not to take. Fox offered $85/share, AT&T is offering $110/share

[78deluxe]

Originally Posted by Captain Flint

You know, I hear this a lot and honestly I don't really get why people hate them so much. I just bought a Macbook Air a couple years ago and it's the best, most reliable laptop I've ever owned. It hasn't slowed down a single bit since I bought it. Every PC I ever owned started to slow way the hell down just a couple months after purchase before eventually crashing after very light use. My iPhone 5s is also my very first smartphone and it's also been extremely reliable these past couple of years. I really don't see myself buying a phone from another company.

Yeah their stuff is expensive, but it's reliable as hell.

Apple is anti-physical media. How many optical drives do they sell in their computers? How many Bluray players + burners and software do they have under the Apple banner? If anyone would kill off optical media production, it is Apple.

Also they cost to reliability ratio for apple products is well below average.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by 78deluxe

Apple is anti-physical media. How many optical drives do they sell in their computers? How many Bluray players + burners and software do they have under the Apple banner? If anyone would kill off optical media production, it is Apple.

Also they cost to reliability ratio for apple products is well below average.

As long as people are buying physical media, they would be selling it if they owned a production company. and they're anti-physical media because no where would it be a part of their business. In the age of broadband, CD drives are pointless. Most computers have disk drives for installing software, not playing media. Who buys software on disk anymore?

as for your second point. Debatable.

My $1000 MacBook Air has lasted me 5 years, or about 3 years longer than any of the PC laptops I owned before they all went to shit.

[gkolb]

Originally Posted by 78deluxe

Apple is anti-physical media. How many optical drives do they sell in their computers? How many Bluray players + burners and software do they have under the Apple banner? If anyone would kill off optical media production, it is Apple.

Think I can agree with your logic here. Apple doesn't care spit about optical based data/ media. With their beautiful displays and powerful cpu's and video cards, they could play a bluray very nicely, but it hasn't happened. I doubt they would push UHD-BD, if they had a choice.

Me, I build my own pc's.

[spectre08]

I think some of you are vastly overestimating the number of people who watch movies on their desktop computers, or would be interested in carrying around physical media to watch on laptops.

[spectre08]

not a rumor anymore. It's been confirmed. It's happening, as long as the regulators don't step in and stop it. Hopefully they won't, because that would be stupid. Anti-trust regulations are intended to prevent monopolies that reduce competition, which wouldn't apply here. Unfortunately, populism and anti-big-business sentiment are rampant these days.

[AgentOrange]

I doubt this is GOOD for blu-rays. I mean I doubt ATT is going to encourage them to ramp up blu-ray production (in terms of doing more archive releaes, or UHD catalog releases, or whatever). Unfortunately, what could very well happen is further cutbacks. As Warner Bros and especially Warner Archive is now just an even tinier part of a much larger whole.

Best case is maybe status quo is maintained for awhile.

[ArrestedDevelopment]

Originally Posted by spectre08

not a rumor anymore. It's been confirmed. It's happening, as long as the regulators don't step in and stop it. Hopefully they won't, because that would be stupid. Anti-trust regulations are intended to prevent monopolies that reduce competition, which wouldn't apply here. Unfortunately, populism and anti-big-business sentiment are rampant these days.

Would this be benificial to the public?

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by ArrestedDevelopment

Would this be benificial to the public?

Could be. DirecTV will see lower costs from no longer having to pay licensing fees for TimeWarner owned channels like HBO, which translates into more flexibility in their pricing to consumers.

It also gives AT&T the ability to offer Warner Bros. movies and tv shows to their customers at a lower rate.

The biggest losers from this merger would be DirecTV's competitors, mainly Comcast and Spectrum. Who would have to find their own ways to lower costs to be competitive.

The only way that consumers could potentially but harmed by the merger is if AT&T made all of TimeWarner's channels and content exclusive to DirectTV, and then jacked up their prices. But that wouldn't make very good business sense, since they'd be losing out on a lot of licensing fees from their competitors.

Parts of this plan, what what is rumored to be AT&T's end game, would actually greatly increase market competition and benefit consumers. That would be AT&T's desire to roll out a streaming subscription service like Hulu or Netflix. DirecTV Online or something, I don't remember exactly what it's called, for cord-cutters.

As for why people think this will affect blu-rays, that's just paranoid nonsense. If there is demand for blu-rays, AT&T/TimeWarner will sell blu-rays.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by AgentOrange

I doubt this is GOOD for blu-rays. I mean I doubt ATT is going to encourage them to ramp up blu-ray production (in terms of doing more archive releaes, or UHD catalog releases, or whatever). Unfortunately, what could very well happen is further cutbacks. As Warner Bros and especially Warner Archive is now just an even tinier part of a much larger whole.

Best case is maybe status quo is maintained for awhile.

demand for blu-rays isn't driven by the suppliers. Whether AT&T ramps up production or cuts it will be entirely dictated by whether it is a profitable business or not, and if there is consumer demand for them.

[muffie1985]

I hope the Federal Trade Commission steps in and stops the deal for happening. This would create a monopoly. AT&T already owns DirecTV and they shouldn't be allowed to buy another entertainment company that is in competition with a company they already own.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by muffie1985

I hope the Federal Trade Commission steps in and stops the deal for happening. This would create a monopoly. AT&T already owns DirecTV and they shouldn't be allowed to buy another entertainment company that is in competition with a company they already own.

so....you didn't read a single post above you.

DirecTV is a distributor
TimeWarner is a producer

Not a monopoly.

[78deluxe]

Originally Posted by spectre08

As long as people are buying physical media, they would be selling it if they owned a production company. and they're anti-physical media because no where would it be a part of their business. In the age of broadband, CD drives are pointless. Most computers have disk drives for installing software, not playing media. Who buys software on disk anymore?

as for your second point. Debatable.

My $1000 MacBook Air has lasted me 5 years, or about 3 years longer than any of the PC laptops I owned before they all went to shit.

Not if they think they can dictate the market with iTunes purchases as they did with sub par music.

I have 3 dell laptops over 10 years old that still work fine. Have 4 Lenovos that are 7 years old. And my 7 year old custom built desktop machine still outperforms a modern Mac laptop for video production.

My brother ran network operation for a multi billion dollar company and oversaw thousands of computer purchases and upkeep. His data on reliability is far more substantial than your personal experience. Just my .02

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by spectre08

so....you didn't read a single post above you.

DirecTV is a distributor
TimeWarner is a producer

Not a monopoly.

Time Warner Cable is a distributor in many markets, so can not an argument be made that this merger is monopolistic? AT&T would have U-Verse, DirecTV, and Time Warner Cable, three very large content distributors.

I have been a cord cutter for over 2 years now myself. I am not up to date on the cable television landscape. I admit I am very suspicious about AT&T gobbling up more companies in any way being beneficial for consumers.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Time Warner Cable is a distributor in many markets, so can not an argument be made that this merger is monopolistic? AT&T would have U-Verse, DirecTV, and Time Warner Cable, three very large content distributors.

I have been a cord cutter for over 2 years now myself. I am not up to date on the cable television landscape. I admit I am very suspicious about AT&T gobbling up more companies in any way being beneficial for consumers.

Time Warner Cable has been owned by Spectrum since 2008, and has nothing to do with TimeWarner anymore, at all.

[AllOuttaBubbleGum]

Originally Posted by spectre08

The only way that consumers could potentially but harmed by the merger is if AT&T made all of TimeWarner's channels and content exclusive to DirectTV, and then jacked up their prices. But that wouldn't make very good business sense, since they'd be losing out on a lot of licensing fees from their competitors.

The first thing I worried about as a Dish customer was whether Dish would ultimately be able to hang onto HBO come re-negotiation time. If AT&T doesn't move to make it a DirectTV exclusive outright, Dish could be gouged mercilessly for an exorbitant markup in carriage fees.

[DJMcNiff]

Originally Posted by spectre08

Time Warner Cable has been owned by Spectrum since 2008, and has nothing to do with TimeWarner anymore, at all.

One correction, Spectrum didn't buy Time Warner Cable in 2008. In 2009 Time Warner Cable was spun off from Time Warner Inc. Time Warner Cable was an independent company until being purchased by Spectrum earlier this year.