Netflix Quietly a Huge Winner in Biden's Order Targeting Big Business (hollywoodreporter.com) 71
Netflix should welcome -- even celebrate -- the White House's efforts to promote competition. Why? Look closely. From a report: As just about everyone knows, the suits in Washington D.C. have it out for Big Tech these days. Listen to the cocktail conversations about antitrust reform. Or watch the marches into courtrooms where the main objective is to break 'em up. And now read the executive order being signed on Friday by President Joe Biden, determined to undercut these behemoths and shift power from corporate gatekeepers to American workers. Then again, one $235 billion company stands to benefit from Biden's move -- a tech giant that's convinced everyone it's not really a tech giant, the member of FAANG never invited to those grill sessions on Capitol Hill where lawmakers use tech executives as hamburger patties. Just how did Netflix get so lucky?
Netflix is far and away the leader in streaming these days. It's also the star that everyone in the entertainment business with a telescope has been watching with envy. The last few years have brought one nascent streaming service after another. Except to succeed, Hollywood studios have convinced themselves they need scale. And so, we see both vertical integration as well as horizontal consolidation. Now, through his executive order, Biden is directing federal agencies to get tougher on proposed mergers. Very solid and wise reasons exist for more vigorously blocking and even unwinding mergers. Nevertheless, one has to ask: What might be a side effect of putting up more formidable hurdles to large-scale transactions in the entertainment space? Arguably (and yes, these arguments are almost certain to be raised in future legal challenges to blocked mergers), Netflix's position as top dog becomes more entrenched. If the FTC takes Biden's tip and pulls back on Trump-era guidelines for vertical mergers, that could hurt Amazon's prospect for acquiring MGM and transforming its Prime service into Netflix's toughest competitor. (Not that FTC chair Lina Khan needs any more reasons to stick it to Amazon.) And if the DOJ begins scrutinizing proposed mergers for how they impact labor markets, that could hold ramifications for WarnerMedia-Discovery or any other future tie-up that could threaten Netflix's ability to win the streaming wars.
Netflix is far and away the leader in streaming these days. It's also the star that everyone in the entertainment business with a telescope has been watching with envy. The last few years have brought one nascent streaming service after another. Except to succeed, Hollywood studios have convinced themselves they need scale. And so, we see both vertical integration as well as horizontal consolidation. Now, through his executive order, Biden is directing federal agencies to get tougher on proposed mergers. Very solid and wise reasons exist for more vigorously blocking and even unwinding mergers. Nevertheless, one has to ask: What might be a side effect of putting up more formidable hurdles to large-scale transactions in the entertainment space? Arguably (and yes, these arguments are almost certain to be raised in future legal challenges to blocked mergers), Netflix's position as top dog becomes more entrenched. If the FTC takes Biden's tip and pulls back on Trump-era guidelines for vertical mergers, that could hurt Amazon's prospect for acquiring MGM and transforming its Prime service into Netflix's toughest competitor. (Not that FTC chair Lina Khan needs any more reasons to stick it to Amazon.) And if the DOJ begins scrutinizing proposed mergers for how they impact labor markets, that could hold ramifications for WarnerMedia-Discovery or any other future tie-up that could threaten Netflix's ability to win the streaming wars.
Re:Yep that is the point of big government. (Score:5, Insightful)
>Remove regulations and you unshackle companies, letting them actually compete and letting small companies naturally come to take over larger ossified ones.
Regulations are a tool to achieve policy. They can be used to entrench incumbents, but it can also be used to disrupt them and protect consumers. Thinking that all regulation is bad is one of the major problems in our free and democratic society. Things are so simplistic and treating them as such makes the voting public easy to manipulate.
Don't care much for large corps myself. (Score:1)
Regulations are a tool to achieve policy. They can be used to entrench incumbents, but it can also be used to disrupt them and protect consumers.
Except that is not the case; Regulations almost never help consumers, and pretty much always help big businesses....
Hey if you want to go all-in on support for giant corporations I guess I can kind of understand, I just can't get there myself as I prefer small businesses.
Re: (Score:3)
I just can't get there myself as I prefer small businesses
Well the "free market" doesn't produce that. That's the entire problem we're all having. Small business comes online, someone buys them out and nixes the product. Wunderlist, Astrid tasks, Sunrise Calendar, and literally thousands of more companies have been bought up by Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, Google, and Amazon only to have the product mothballed. We've done the regulation free way and all it has produced is even fewer small companies in tech. So I'm going to go with the current data in the industry
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Well the "free market" doesn't produce that.
The free market DOES produce small businesses, where on earth do you think they come from? The government? LOLOLOLOLOL.
Re: (Score:2)
I missed that lecture in biology class.
Re: (Score:1)
There is only incomplete "maturity" i.e. monopolism
EVERY business is seeking a monopoly
Re: (Score:3)
Well the "free market" doesn't produce that. That's the entire problem we're all having. Small business comes online, someone buys them out and nixes the product. Wunderlist, Astrid tasks, Sunrise Calendar, and literally thousands of more companies have been bought up by Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, Google, and Amazon only to have the product mothballed.
No doubt, many small companies are acquired. Often that's the exit strategy for the founders and initial investors.
But the free market doesn't produce disrupters? I think you're forgetting history. Google, Netflix, Facebook and Amazon used to be small upstart companies, competing against the Big Boys. All of them faced entrenched incumbents (Yahoo, AltaVista, Blockbuster, MySpace, Barnes and Noble, Borders, Walmart, Target, Sears) and had very little hope of surviving.
I want to make sure there are thousand
Re: (Score:3)
But the free market doesn't produce disrupters? I think you're forgetting history. Google, Netflix, Facebook and Amazon used to be small upstart companies, competing against the Big Boys. All of them faced entrenched incumbents (Yahoo, AltaVista, Blockbuster, MySpace, Barnes and Noble, Borders, Walmart, Target, Sears) and had very little hope of surviving.
The problem we arguably are seeing today is that businesses have learned their lessons from 20+ years ago. The Blockbuster of today would have bought Netflix. Yahoo would have bought Google in 2002. Google or Viacam or Yahoo or Microsoft would have been more aggressive in acquiring Facebook in 2006-07. The pendulum has swung strongly towards M&A today, to a point where it would have been very harmful to the industry 20 years ago if the same business climate existed.
Or at least that is my opinion. I don'
Re: (Score:2)
The problem we arguably are seeing today is that businesses have learned their lessons from 20+ years ago. The Blockbuster of today would have bought Netflix. Yahoo would have bought Google in 2002. Google or Viacam or Yahoo or Microsoft would have been more aggressive in acquiring Facebook in 2006-07. The pendulum has swung strongly towards M&A today, to a point where it would have been very harmful to the industry 20 years ago if the same business climate existed.
Fair enough. I'm not sure whether there's more M&A today versus 20 years ago. The '80s and '90s business news was filled with stories about corporate raiders and hostile acquisitions (c.f. the historical documentaries Wall Street and Pretty Woman). For that matter, way back in the 1890s, J. D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil were accused of crushing competition by simply buying them out. This is not a new issue. It's the same circus with different clowns.
That being said, I have no idea whether there are mo
Re: (Score:2)
Google, Netflix, Facebook and Amazon used to be small upstart companies
Bullshit. Google was injected initial capital upward of $2M at word go and that was with their version of ht://dig, they hadn't even really done much of anything outside of all the fun indexing and semantic web code that was flying around California during the late 90s. You will never see a small business loan underwritten for that without you parents knowing the bank or you're getting into an established franchise. Netflix was a second gen business that received funding from a previous sell, Netflix beg
Re: (Score:1)
Help big business
then stop electing Republicans who BRAG about ending regulations
Re: (Score:2)
Regulations are a tool to achieve policy. They can be used to entrench incumbents, but it can also be used to disrupt them and protect consumers.
And that's literally the trillion dollar question: is government regulation or free market regulation more likely to enhance the well being of consumers? It's an enormous topic with armies of Ph.D's studying it. We're not going to answer it here. There are definitely many knowledgeable researchers who assert that virtually all benefits of government regulation could be better achieved through free market action and that government regulation far more often benefits incumbent companies than it benefits consu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Regulations show up when there is a perceived need. Ie, all this antitrust oversight camea about because the free market was indeed broken and it was impossible for small companies to compete. Small companies will not take over larger ossified ones naturally, because the big boys will set their own game rules such that competition is unfair. For instance, price fixing; it's illegal now but in the past it was not and it's an easy way to block newcomers into the market. There are so many examples in histor
Re: (Score:1)
Never trust someone motivated by private gain to do what is best for all.
Good! [Re:Yep that is the point of big government] (Score:5, Insightful)
"If the FTC takes Biden's tip and pulls back on Trump-era guidelines for vertical mergers, that could hurt Amazon's prospect for acquiring MGM and transforming its Prime service into Netflix's toughest competitor."
Which would be good!
Amazon is a thousand-pound gorilla that grabs onto competing businesses and crushes them, with a goal of gaining a complete monopoly of everything. We do not want Amazon to vertically integrate to pursue their goal of owning the internet marketplace on everything!
--who wrote this op-ed complaining that anti-trust laws might work against Amazon? One guess: Amazon wrote it.
Re: (Score:2)
--who wrote this op-ed complaining that anti-trust laws might work against Amazon? One guess: Amazon wrote it.
You show total bias when you assume that no one can have an alternative opinion without being bought off
Re: (Score:3)
There is, of course, another possibility which brings to mind a quote that doesn't quite apply, but certainly gets the point across:
"Listen, if you didn't know you're bein' scammed, you're too fuckin' dumb to keep this job. If you did know, you were in on it. Either way, you're out." -R. DeNiro in Casino
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon is a thousand-pound gorilla that grabs onto competing businesses and crushes them
Did you even read TFA, or even the the fine headline?
The thousand pound gorilla here is Netflix. Amazon is trying to use acquisitions to compete and this executive order is holding them back. In effect, the order is saying "we're good with Netflix owning the streaming market".
I really wish people would have some consistency. Either you like big companies or you don't. If you don't, you have to advocate going after even the big companies you do like, like Netflix and Apple.
Personally, I like big companies be
Re: (Score:2)
Who's the gorilla?[Re:Good!] (Score:1)
Amazon is a thousand-pound gorilla that grabs onto competing businesses and crushes them
Did you even read TFA, or even the the fine headline? The thousand pound gorilla here is Netflix.
The thousand pound gorilla is Amazon, a company with 110 billion dollars of revenue last year. Netflix is barely a quarter of that.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you be more specific in terms of what "regulations" should be removed to "unshackle" them? De-regulation by itself is not a solution to anything and does not actually mean anything. There are good and bad regulations and we should be mindful to distinguish between the two.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
The phrase "big government" was coined by people who fail to understand the point of government.
Regulation done properly prevents big business from even forming in the first place. Any company that gets too big is a danger to democracy, and should be broken up before it grows further. Mergers of companies outside their own industries should be stopped, companies that have merged like that should be broken up. Content should only be produced by content production companies, should only be distributed by c
comcast should not own peacock or other content (Score:4, Insightful)
comcast should not own peacock or other content.
They should really just be an ISP / cable / dataline service.
The last thing we need is ISP only csn philly like content to happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Ban PACs.
I'd agree is you include union contributions as part of the ban
Set up a highly progressive personal income tax, tax all income above $10million/year at 100%
Million and billionaires are not making their money on anything touched by income tax.
Yahoo the history on your IBM OS about Blockbuster (Score:5, Insightful)
that could hurt Amazon's prospect for acquiring MGM and transforming its Prime service into Netflix's toughest competitor.
This is the whole reason big government exists (or at least grows so large to begin with) - large companies donate money to politicians, who in turn increase regulations that make it harder and harder to compete against the existing large businesses.
Every now and again a company breaks through from underneath, but that is more an accident than by design.
Your statement is counter to actual history.
Google broke through Yahoo and Alta Vista's dominance in Search.
Gmail broke through Hotmail and Yahoo's dominance in web mail.
Android broke though the iPhones dominance to be their main competitor
Tell anyone 20 years ago Apple would be the #1 laptop seller, no one would believe you
Microsoft broke through IBMs dominance to be the #1 OS
AMD is selling CPUs quite well despite Intel's abuses
Netflix took over Blockbuster's market
Amazon is now competing against everyone in retail as well as UPS/USPS/FedEx
If you told us Amazon would be the #1 hosting provider, 15 years ago no one would believe you
If you told us Microsoft would be the #2 Linux hosting provider, behind Amazon, 10 years ago, you'd get modded as a troll.
Still want to stand by your statement?
Re: (Score:3)
Android broke though the iPhones dominance to be their main competitor.
Except iPhones were never the "dominant". Sure they were the most hyped when iPhone was launched in 2007, but my memory was Nokia and Blackberry were the dominant players at the time.
Re:Yahoo the history on your IBM OS about Blockbus (Score:4, Interesting)
It appears that since 2009, IOS held the leading market share for mobile OS for a few months. Before and after that short period, it was Symban until May, 2012, when Android emerged as the dominant OS, with IOS a distant second. It doesn't look like Blackberry was ever dominant. I think you'd have to look a the period prior to the release of the first iPhone to see Nokia as a market leader. [Source] [dazeinfo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those numbers are shipments from manufacturers starting in 2007, not sales to end users starting in 2009. Apples, oranges.
Re: (Score:2)
Google was a plucky underdog search engine that was *slightly* late to the party and blew away the competition. It is an example of small company triumphing over larger, worse players, but not by much.
Gmail and Android are both examples of 'big giant tech company gaining share over other big giant tech company', not some 'come from small beginnings'.
Apple has been in the computer business just as long as all the big players. They still aren't #1. They had a rough patch but they weren't some new innovative c
Tech space has been better (Score:1)
Your list shows the tech space is better, but how did that Apple attempt to sell books to compete with Amazon work out...
And there never was an Apple dominance in phones to break through.
Most of these however are also examples of companies creating new markets, not breaking through competition. Netflix won over Blockbuster not through physical rental, but through online streaming being added. That was the killer blow.
Re: (Score:2)
Yahoo did not have a monopoly on search, having about a third of the market share in 2000 when Google was catching steam. And Yahoo was less than 10 years old when Google overtook them, so while they were both successful and hyped up they weren't some kind of old money incumbent.
Google was already a behemoth of a company when its gmail product supplanted hotmail and yahoo for email.
You should talk about how iPhone took over Nokia's dominant position in the 2000's. iPhones never had a dominant market share,
Re: (Score:2)
Google broke through Yahoo and Alta Vista's dominance in Search.
Google went out of their way to pair with browsers to get as many eyeballs on their engine. This is literally a point of the anti-trust investigations.
Gmail broke through Hotmail and Yahoo's dominance in web mail.
Gmail convinced everyone that turning over all your emails for Google to read and make searchable was a "good idea". I mean, okay, but I don't exactly call that a win.
Android broke though the iPhones dominance to be their main competitor
This is way more nuanced than you make it. Additionally, it's a duopoly, so I mean if I see a third and a fourth phone maker, I'll give it to you but this is absolutely not the underdog story
Re: (Score:2)
Your statement is counter to actual history.
Mark Perry likes to update this perspective [aei.org] every year or so. It points how must how much turmoil there is in the S&P 500 over time. You'd think these companies would be invulnerable titans and yet they get crushed on a regular basis.
Reading the list of S&P 500 companies from 1955 is kind of funny. Some of the names are hysterical. Brown Shoe? Fuller Brush? Collins Radio?
Re: (Score:2)
Remove regulations and you unshackle companies, letting them actually compete and letting small companies naturally come to take over larger ossified ones.
That relies on the premise that regulations only hurt small businesses. Some times they are in place to help small businesses. Also have you ever thought removing regulations would give large businesses more of an advantage?
Re: (Score:2)
Also have you ever thought removing regulations would give large businesses more of an advantage?
Thinking is hard. It's much easier to repeat what the talking heads on the Angry People's Network say.
Re: (Score:2)
Also have you ever thought removing regulations would give large businesses more of an advantage?
Which ones? Even most the ones that seem to help small business are designed to keep the status quo for large business and prevent small ones from ever getting large.
Re: (Score:3)
Remove regulations and you unshackle companies, letting them actually compete and letting small companies naturally come to take over larger ossified ones.
It's funny how the left feels like politicians are owned by corporations but then trust those politicians to create regulations that will hurt those same corporations and help small businesses.
Re: (Score:1)
It's funny how the left feels like politicians are owned by corporations but then trust those politicians to create regulations that will hurt those same corporations and help small businesses.
Who else is going to do it? What is this alternative that you imply exists?
Re: (Score:2)
The alternative is to pull government as far out of the equation as possible as SuperKendall suggested. Expecting corrupt and paid for politicians to create solutions to fix the system that keeps them rich and in power is naïve.
Re: (Score:1)
I remind you that under tRump, business actually WROTE the legislation passed by the Republicans to facilitate absolute control of markets
Re: (Score:1)
Headlines need to quietly get better (Score:3)
Netflix is light on mergers (Score:5, Interesting)
Reading this summary made me think about it and I could not recall Netflix making any major aquisitons in the last few years and checking it seems that is the case. I could find just 3 in the last few years:
Millarworld – For an undisclosed price (rumored between $30-100 million), Netflix bought the comic book company owned by creator Mark Millar. Millar is the creator behind films such as Kick Ass and Wanted. This week, his first project for Netflix will come to the streamer—Jupiter’s Legacy—though his (arguably) most anticipated title—The Magic Order—has been in limbo.
Storybots via Jibjab. Netflix wants to aggressively compete for kids programming, especially animated content. In 2019, Netflix purchased the Storybots brand from Jibjab, a maker of kids animated programming.
Production facilities in New Mexico. Netflix also spent $30 million to buy production facilities in New Mexico in 2018. Recently, they announced plans to spend $1 billion on expanding their facilities.
Netflix made a gamble years ago to focus on in-house made content and it seems like they have found success in that paired with certain licensing agreements and not simply gobbling up existing properties to leverage.
What I would like to see however from this in terms of media and streaming is enforced licensing, as in if a service wants to license content from an existing studio or service they should be able to at a fair price and maybe with certain conditions, similar to a patent where the ownership studio get exclusive rights for a couple years but after that if another company is willing to pay the cost the owner cannot deny and hoard that content forever. Example is if Netflix wants "Friends" again and is willing to pay the price for it Warner/HBO simply cannot keep it to themselves for all time. I think that would lessen the importance of having to acquire content through M&A's and allow smaller competitors to assemble competing services.
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix is also going down the pan because it's had no meaningful content for about a year other than maybe Army of the Dead which was mediocre at best.
Netflix has never really competed against Hollywood blockbuster movies, but they have kept up with a steady stream of decent movies (which has been their MO). Army of the Dead, Yes Day, I Care a Lot, and Finding 'Ohana were all good Netflix movies I have seen this year. Last year there was The Trial of the Chicago 7, Enola Holmes, The Old Guard, Eurovision, and Extraction (okay the last one is a stretch). And there were plenty of other movies which didn't interest me that at least were receiving 50+% on Rot
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix also has massive competitors, in the form of every large media company has created their own streaming service.
I think Disney can handle competing with Netflix without anti-trust help.
Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy. They're not building their business through M&A. They're building their business playing by the rules of the companies that are trying to compete against them using M&A. They're licensing content and creating their own. They haven't made any major acquisitions other than buying a theater or two to try and qualify for the Oscars. Love em or hate em, they're the posterchild of a tech business working "correctly" in the current environment, where there's dozens of major streaming services and each rightsholder is trying to create their own
Over Rated (Score:2)
Netflix is gradually dying (Score:4, Interesting)
Netflix is in the same place AOL was. Unless they get really lucky they're gonna be a hasbeen in 5-10 years as Disney continues to devour the world.
I suppose if Biden makes it harder for Disney to buy stuff it might help, but Disney already owns so much I don't think it matters.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with this sentiment, Netflix is at this point mostly coasting on momentum, and with their legacy catalog drying up by the day and only originals to lean on, they have a lot of challenges compared to all the companies going straight to the consumers instead of through netflix.
I don't think 'oh no, this *might* keep Netflix relevant longer than it should' is a reason to shy away from regulatory action here. We have cloud-connected devices being shut down due to M&A routinely, multi-platform softw
Stupid Article (Score:2)
Right in the summary, it mentions Netflix is dodging anti-trust WHILE talking about them trying to win the Streaming "Wars". Heavy tough COMPETITION is often characterized as a "war." What was the point of anti-trust regulation again?
Netflix was big because it was 1st (in a new market space it pioneered) now it is under siege on all fronts with the existing industry oligarchy trying to become monopolies and lock out any new upstarts (like Netflix) by noncompetitive practices like buying up ISPs then breaki
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix was big because they had a popular service mailing DVDs to people.
Now they're bleeding lots of cash and don't have anything most people want. They're popular primarily with licensed content that can easily go somewhere else.
The service that made them big is already gone, they folded it up because of competition by Redbox. They're big enough to get enough investment to attempt a second thing, but so far they're not making money at it.
They're not "dodging" anti-trust enforcement; they're simply not a
Disney is like 70s porn in the age of streaming (Score:3)
they haven't had a hit despite billions spent on content and they're bleeding cash like crazy. They need something on the level of Sopranos, Walking Dead or Game of Throwns or their investors will eventually eat them alive. Netflix is in the same place AOL was. Unless they get really lucky they're gonna be a hasbeen in 5-10 years as Disney continues to devour the world. I suppose if Biden makes it harder for Disney to buy stuff it might help, but Disney already owns so much I don't think it matters.
Disney is like the top DVD selling website in the age of streaming. You and I are thinking like the old people we are. The kids? They don't care much. YouTube has ruined the youth. Why wait through a 90 minute movie for some good scenes when someone only 10 years older than you can make a video that shows NOTHING BUT what you're interested in? It's like comparing a 70s porn with an attempt at a plot (think Debbie does Dallas, Devil in Mrs Jones or Deep Throat) to the streaming porn you find today, whi
In defense of those kids (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're in the middle of every large media company attempting to create their own subscription-based streaming service. So Netflix can't buy other major media company's products to stream.
We'll have to see how this sorts out. I don't expect Disney+ to give up, simply because their catalog is massive at this point that they're probably able to charge more than anyone. But people like Paramount and Peacock may decide licensing to Netflix is better than hosting their own streaming service.
Or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they haven't had a hit despite billions spent on content and they're bleeding cash like crazy. They need something on the level of Sopranos, Walking Dead or Game of Throwns or their investors will eventually eat them alive.
Netflix doesn't bleed cash, it's profitable [fool.com]. The company earned $2.7 billion [statista.com] last year.
Also, other than being the biggest - by virtue of pioneering the category - in a highly competitive market, I don't see them engaging in a lot of behavior that would cause concern. As a customer, I might even want less competition because the content is getting spread out across so many actors.
require live sports broadcast to be offered to cab (Score:2)
Maybe require live sports broadcast to be offered to cable / satellite providers
amazon prime video may have the NFL games but they must offer the live sports feeds to cable / satellite (and can't tie the moves / shows in to that)
Disney ESPN+ stuff can fall under the PPV access / Premium channel rules.
It's certainly unrelated to all the ties... (Score:2)
...between members of the former Obama-Biden administration, including the Obamas themselves [variety.com], and Netflix.
yup.
I'm sure the one thing has nothing to do with the other...
Of course, it's unlikely the Obama's and Bidens would ever chat about such things given how far away the Obamas live from the Bidens... that Obama retirement estate is, after all, a whopping two miles away [cnbc.com] from the White House...