Amazon completes its $8.5B acquisition of MGM(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Amazon completes its $8.5B acquisition of MGM
https://techcrunch.com/2022/03/17/amazon-completes-its-8-5-billion-acquisition-of-mgm/
138 comments
Hoping for some new Stargate now that Amazon has MGM!
I'm not sure where you go in the Stargate universe next though. Over the 10 seasons they defeated all the antagonists, demystified the Gate Builders (Ancients), and took some philosophical turns (destruction of the Asguard, Ascension, religious undertones with the Ori etc)
SG-1 was an epic show, but where would you take it next?
Universe was actually a good attempt to breakout of the Ancient Earth mythology and leave it all behind, but the last thing we want is another "Picard" or worse... ST:Discovery
SG-1 was an epic show, but where would you take it next?
Universe was actually a good attempt to breakout of the Ancient Earth mythology and leave it all behind, but the last thing we want is another "Picard" or worse... ST:Discovery
Definitely hard to extend the original canon/continuity!
Our heroes eventually become very overpowered, with ~12y of shows resolving millions of years of space opera backstory to our protagonists' benefit, as they defeat the parasites-on-good-ol'-humans in not one, not two, but three galaxies. (Or is it 4?)
But it's such a rich mythology that if rebooted, with all the old stuff as inspiration, updated for modern sensibilities, they could have new really-fertile Cinematic Universe.
RDM's BSG was 10x better than the original, & now JMS is doing his own updated reboot of Babylon 5.
Amazon should find a bunch of people with love for, & credibility regarding, the original & have them brainstorm a giant new set of multi-year arcs, cleanup of old weaknesses or outdated elements, homages & new spins on the original core elements, etc.
They could kick off another 2 decades of gradually-unfolding, but well-adapted for the 2020s/2030s, universe- & multiverse- & metaverse-spanning sci-fi.
If anyone from the relevant Amazon/MGM group is reading this: I have some ideas!
Our heroes eventually become very overpowered, with ~12y of shows resolving millions of years of space opera backstory to our protagonists' benefit, as they defeat the parasites-on-good-ol'-humans in not one, not two, but three galaxies. (Or is it 4?)
But it's such a rich mythology that if rebooted, with all the old stuff as inspiration, updated for modern sensibilities, they could have new really-fertile Cinematic Universe.
RDM's BSG was 10x better than the original, & now JMS is doing his own updated reboot of Babylon 5.
Amazon should find a bunch of people with love for, & credibility regarding, the original & have them brainstorm a giant new set of multi-year arcs, cleanup of old weaknesses or outdated elements, homages & new spins on the original core elements, etc.
They could kick off another 2 decades of gradually-unfolding, but well-adapted for the 2020s/2030s, universe- & multiverse- & metaverse-spanning sci-fi.
If anyone from the relevant Amazon/MGM group is reading this: I have some ideas!
My dream series is Make it so the gate, and galactic travel, and all alien high technology goes public. public disclosure fallowed by the immediate political ramification of all the governments of the world knowing about alien life and going to war with it in secret. weak governments would be toppled stronger ones would have regime changes. afterword the expansion and colonization of space and how that works out for different countries doing so differently along with how to the other inhabitant of the galaxy react when it goes from the 'those brave earth warriors that overthrew the oppressive false god of the goa'uld and saved us from forced conversion at gun point by the Ori" to "those bastard are now trying to colonized my planet." Plus the goa'uld never went away just are no longer the galaxy spanning power they were before. couldn't you see the likes of Baal taking over corporations in charge of colony projects. then there is Atlantis were things were it just kind of ended without any resolution to the goings on in Pegasus galaxy or what happens to the ori galaxy after their gods were all killed their priest lost power and the entire power structure that held their society together disappeared overnight leaving the most powerful space navy in the show with no one left in charge (might want to check up on them). then there is the asgaurd home galaxy (triangulum) that now is left without the asgaurd or replicator but what else was their they were in the habit of nurturing lesser species and they just handed earth the keys and told us to take of everything before they mass suicided again we might want to check on that. Oh and their are the Vanir (asgaurd splinter group form millennias ago ) we me in the last season of atlantis
Universe was something with an interesting storyline. I can imagine watching it more.
I also heard that a new show would introduce the Stargate to the public with plenty of though experiments they could play out.
Stargate Atlantis also had plenty of new ideas.
I hope that it will not feel like std were technology looses it's fun due to it being so advanced that it doesn't matter anymore.
I also heard that a new show would introduce the Stargate to the public with plenty of though experiments they could play out.
Stargate Atlantis also had plenty of new ideas.
I hope that it will not feel like std were technology looses it's fun due to it being so advanced that it doesn't matter anymore.
> "Picard" or worse... ST:Discovery
Glad I'm not the only that's fed up with overly emotional therapy TV shows.
Glad I'm not the only that's fed up with overly emotional therapy TV shows.
God, I can just see the cringe fest. Scene opens at a pond with a fishing rod cast over it. Enter Jack, bearded and old...cringe cringe...
Picard s1 wasn't like that.
S2 on the other hand is very weird right now.
Std is getting unwatchable :-(
And I'm not sure if I will look back in 10 years and feel cringe on how I perceive std right now or if it is way over the top and not fitting.
There are now a lot of scenes which lost all sense of urgency because they have a small happy circle...
S2 on the other hand is very weird right now.
Std is getting unwatchable :-(
And I'm not sure if I will look back in 10 years and feel cringe on how I perceive std right now or if it is way over the top and not fitting.
There are now a lot of scenes which lost all sense of urgency because they have a small happy circle...
ST:D was unwatchable from Season 1, Episode 2. It has almost nothing in common with the ST ethos except that it's set in space and some of the alien species and locales have the same names
I also think Picard was overly emotional right from the beginning.
These bastards just want to gut our favourite childhood TV memories
I also think Picard was overly emotional right from the beginning.
These bastards just want to gut our favourite childhood TV memories
Season 1 was OK, nothing great just ok. Season 2 I struggled through it. Season 3 I watched the first episode and decided there is better entertainment to spend my time on.
This comes from someone who watched and loved every previous startrek TV.
This comes from someone who watched and loved every previous startrek TV.
It's looking like Picard S02 is going to be some moral lesson for Picard and his crew and I'm hating what that could mean for the story. The CGI has been pretty good so far though...
> SG-1 was an epic show, but where would you take it next?
I'm being 50% sincere, but SG-2? (I know they were in the show sometimes, but hand-wave)
To me, the show was best with the Go'uld tie-ins with Ancient Earth mythology. Give me more of that, with that smooth, melodramatic pacing and I'm in.
I'm being 50% sincere, but SG-2? (I know they were in the show sometimes, but hand-wave)
To me, the show was best with the Go'uld tie-ins with Ancient Earth mythology. Give me more of that, with that smooth, melodramatic pacing and I'm in.
I miss shows that don't try to have big arc plots and huge setpieces that blow up the per-episode budget; but instead, are okay with being 24-episode seasons of comfy rubber-mask filmed-in-a-forest-in-Vancouver monster-of-the-week schlock. The 90s had so much of this: Stargate, X-Files, Buffy, etc. Why aren't we still making this? Do we just collectively feel like the world has "enough" of it?
Or, to put that another way: I don't need to go anywhere else in the Stargate universe. The place we started in is fine. I just want to watch a cast of hammy actors with excellent chemistry walk through a big puddle into novel science-fantasy situations.
Or, to put that another way: I don't need to go anywhere else in the Stargate universe. The place we started in is fine. I just want to watch a cast of hammy actors with excellent chemistry walk through a big puddle into novel science-fantasy situations.
We need a reboot with all the special effects possible today - for the newer generation. Folks could use the opportunity to tighten up some of the plot-lines too. And have public exposure of the gates - thanks to some whistleblower.
i liked "picard"! whats wrong with picard?
I vote for more Stargate! It is a franchise that has just be languishing for far too long.
I thought more Stargate was already announced. An SG-1 reunion.
I will say, they'll have to decide if they want it to be Stargate like showtime produced or like scifi did.
I will say, they'll have to decide if they want it to be Stargate like showtime produced or like scifi did.
There was a reading of an AI-generated script with 4 cast members, but I haven't heard anything (or been able to find anything) about an actual reunion.
Ah, I didn't realize that's what the reunion was. I never got a chance to see (or I guess hear) it. I just assumed it was on a random streaming service.
More SG1-type series, less Universe-ones...
I’d take either. I thought by S2 Universe was very promising after an unfocused S1. It died before its time.
The movie was always a favorite of mine, and I think Shanks did a servicable job after Spader (even though no one could replace Russell). I would love a reboot of SG1 that isn't shackled by the budget of a 1997 genre TV-show. The spin-offs got gradually further away from what I liked about the initial premise, even if I understand what others might like about them.
RDA is the superior O’Neill. Nothing can convince me otherwise.
For me Russell vs RDA is like comparing Gervais with Carrell. Their Office roles started in the same place, but had completely different evolutions.
Therefor I completely accept your opinion, and won't even attempt to convince you otherwise.
Therefor I completely accept your opinion, and won't even attempt to convince you otherwise.
RDA and Michael Shanks had insanely good chemistry. Both comedic and dramatic.
Atlantis felt like a fair continuation of SG-1, after SG-1 had been played out as far as they could take the plot. Different but similar.
I've always had a soft spot for ancient-tech-scifi a la Mass Effect/Expanse/Horizon/Raised By Wolves, and of course StarGate. In that regard Atlantis should be right up my alley as I like most fictional Atlantis-depictions.
What I disliked about SG:A wasn't the setup or the actors (which had fun chemistry), but the antagonists/wraiths that I found completely uninteresting, and the droning problem-of-the-week episodes, with too little focus on developing the backstory of the city/ship/base itself.
SG1 was definitely a show of the 90s TV show archetype too, but atleast evolved into higher stakes, borrowed tech, Asgardians, etc.
What I disliked about SG:A wasn't the setup or the actors (which had fun chemistry), but the antagonists/wraiths that I found completely uninteresting, and the droning problem-of-the-week episodes, with too little focus on developing the backstory of the city/ship/base itself.
SG1 was definitely a show of the 90s TV show archetype too, but atleast evolved into higher stakes, borrowed tech, Asgardians, etc.
Atlantis was too similar. It was the ST:Voyager of the SG universe (lowercase U).
SG:Universe was more like the ST:DS9
SG:Universe was more like the ST:DS9
IMHO, SG:U committed the twin sins of {unrelated teenage romance} + {idiot of the day causing plot crisis}. The previous series typically felt more coherent in terms of plot.
> idiot of the day causing plot crisis
I bailed after the second episode because of this. A character sacrificed himself by closing a door from the outside to stop an air leak, shortly after they discovered remote controlled flying robots. I figured if they were already making everyone into idiots to force conflict and crisis I was better off rewatching SG-1.
I bailed after the second episode because of this. A character sacrificed himself by closing a door from the outside to stop an air leak, shortly after they discovered remote controlled flying robots. I figured if they were already making everyone into idiots to force conflict and crisis I was better off rewatching SG-1.
Now I have a better understanding of why I liked SG:U better than SG:A. :)
thats not fair DS9 was good...
seriously though I got more a Battlestar Glactica vibe from it than ds9
i agree; universe was a little too bleak, which was trendy at the time. we need something campy and fun.
for the love of god upbeat scifi please. I can't take the dystopian themes anymore. I need escapism damnit.
This is my biggest concern with anybody (not just Amazon) trying to extend Stargate SG-1. I want more Stargate. Not a sudden dystopian nightmare, or dour bleak exploration of this or that, or gutting Stargate to write some other show wearing Stargate on the outside (e.g., "It's Game of Thrones, but Stargate!").
It's not even that those things are bad. I've watched and enjoyed some of them. It's just that I know where to get them and I've got enough of them right now.
It's not even that those things are bad. I've watched and enjoyed some of them. It's just that I know where to get them and I've got enough of them right now.
I would happyly watch a Stargate which connects to parallel universes to keep the fun and curios and action part alive.
It can then become a gateway for stories like sliders and less coherent. Similar to black mirror.
It can then become a gateway for stories like sliders and less coherent. Similar to black mirror.
This is the main reason I’ve been watching Star Trek TNG recently. If anyone could recommend some vaguely optimistic sci-fi books that would be amazing.
Babylon 5 is the most upbeat my suspension of disbelief allows for.
> LM: ...It is good to have friends, is it not, Mr. Garibaldi? Even if maybe only for a little while?
> MG: Even if only for a little while.
> LM: ...It is good to have friends, is it not, Mr. Garibaldi? Even if maybe only for a little while?
> MG: Even if only for a little while.
And no more time travel!
[deleted]
[deleted]
indeed
I'm sure it will be great given the history of Netflix and Amazon.
https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/QmYqh8z4hoFhJPko6TvjBEWQqGZ...
https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/QmYqh8z4hoFhJPko6TvjBEWQqGZ...
Rather hoping for a proper HD remaster of SG-1!
On the one hand, the original recordings & models might not be sufficient for a true 'remaster' from original sources.
But on the other, ML-driven upscaling has improved so much that a model trained specifically on the full series – so that it inherently "knows" what various characters/sets/props should look like, at higher-resolutions, from other closer-in shots – might offer acceptable results.
Definitely worth a research project from a tech-smart outfit like Amazon.
But on the other, ML-driven upscaling has improved so much that a model trained specifically on the full series – so that it inherently "knows" what various characters/sets/props should look like, at higher-resolutions, from other closer-in shots – might offer acceptable results.
Definitely worth a research project from a tech-smart outfit like Amazon.
I'm not expecting 4K, the originals are on film and never released in Blu-ray quality. AFAIK the existing Blu-ray release is just upscaled and cleaned version of the old DVD release. So I'm sure a new well made scan from original film stock would give us a fine enough HD option.
You would think that a motto like Ars Gratia Artis would automatically disqualify a company from being a culture fit for Amazon.
Eh, they lost credibility once the became a big-time profit-seeking movie-making (apologies for my lack of vocabulary) studio
A friend who worked there about a decade before they went bankrupt once told me Bond was the only thing keeping that studio alive.
>Bond was the only thing keeping that studio alive
Tom and Jerry was also pretty awesome. Does nobody watch that anymore?
Tom and Jerry was also pretty awesome. Does nobody watch that anymore?
Tom and Jerry ended production in 1967.
Didn't a Tom and Jerry movie just come out?
Rights are owned by Warners via Turner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_and_Jerry#Tom_and_Jerry's_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_and_Jerry#Tom_and_Jerry's_...
The Pink Panther series of movies ("live action", not animated) is among the most hilarious creation I have ever consumed.
I highly recommend them if you want to laugh hysterically.
(Note: I watched them a long time ago, and there is wee chance that I am remembering them differently.)
I am waiting for the Prime Video catalogue to include them!
I highly recommend them if you want to laugh hysterically.
(Note: I watched them a long time ago, and there is wee chance that I am remembering them differently.)
I am waiting for the Prime Video catalogue to include them!
So that would be 1924?
MGM was founded by the owner of a movie theater chain (Loew's) to make blockbuster movies.
MGM was founded by the owner of a movie theater chain (Loew's) to make blockbuster movies.
ah, it's not such a bad fit, just tweak it into: Profit for Profit's sake
"Lucrum pro lucri (causa)" in case anyone was wondering.
Art for profits sake?
You would think that Google wouldn't be Like That with "Don't be Evil" as their motto, yet
Didn't they explicitly (but quietly) get rid of it several years ago?
Edit: I think this [1] is what I was thinking about.
[1] https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-do...
Edit: I think this [1] is what I was thinking about.
[1] https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-do...
But what is evil, really? When financial success is equated with virtue, as is far too often the case nowadays (especially in the US), then "don't be evil" means "don't be poor" and they certainly try to abide by that.
> "But what is evil, really?"
- Tax avoidance
- Regional censorship (eg. China)
- Antitrust
- Less privacy
- Copyright issues
- Labor practices
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google
All of these documented concerns relate to making more profit, not improving a product for the consumer.
- Tax avoidance
- Regional censorship (eg. China)
- Antitrust
- Less privacy
- Copyright issues
- Labor practices
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google
All of these documented concerns relate to making more profit, not improving a product for the consumer.
Copyright is evil? Seems more like a preference thing…
Per my link above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google#Copyright_...
Definitely not. When Google was small and growing like crazy the engineers had enough leverage that Eric Schmidt realized that giving them freedom and power to keep them was the best way to grow the company.
As growth moved more into just showing more ads and making them more similar to search results, power moved away from engineers.
As growth moved more into just showing more ads and making them more similar to search results, power moved away from engineers.
Not sure why you say "definitely not" here when it's not clear we're disagreeing. How does the purported power shift you mention even relate to a rationalization that Google decision makers could have used at any time to convince themselves that they're still living the motto? Are you suggesting that "don't be evil" was only for engineers, not management? I can kinda-sorta see how your comment makes sense in that context, but it's still a bit orthogonal.
I'm saying definately not for "don't be evil" means "don't be poor".
Tim Ferriss asked Eric Schmidt about it when he interviewed Eric, and Eric said that one concrete example was adding location sharing in Google Maps. Engineers wanted a way for people to set up a fake location to hide their real location for their own privacy, because not giving basic privacy rights to people is evil.
First Eric thought that it's just a feature with too much extra work, but later the lawyers at Google realized that it also makes the legal part of data handling and protecting data from governments much simpler, because it makes that location not personally identifiable information.
So yes, it may be profitable for small companies not to be evil, but for engineers who said them over and over, it doesn't mean don't be poor, it has nothing to do with money for them.
Tim Ferriss asked Eric Schmidt about it when he interviewed Eric, and Eric said that one concrete example was adding location sharing in Google Maps. Engineers wanted a way for people to set up a fake location to hide their real location for their own privacy, because not giving basic privacy rights to people is evil.
First Eric thought that it's just a feature with too much extra work, but later the lawyers at Google realized that it also makes the legal part of data handling and protecting data from governments much simpler, because it makes that location not personally identifiable information.
So yes, it may be profitable for small companies not to be evil, but for engineers who said them over and over, it doesn't mean don't be poor, it has nothing to do with money for them.
Isn’t it a truism that exposure to reality, beauty and elegance as an engineer prejudices you towards good, while MBA types are trained in evil?
(Tongue in cheek)
(Tongue in cheek)
Does anti-trust just no longer exist as a concept? How big are we going to let companies get?
Why would Amazon buying MGM ever have been an antitrust issue?
I’d understand the concern if Amazon was buying Walmart or Ebay, but for MGM you’ll have to further explain your understanding of antitrust laws.
I’d understand the concern if Amazon was buying Walmart or Ebay, but for MGM you’ll have to further explain your understanding of antitrust laws.
Vertical integration is still anti-competitive in the general sense of making a market less efficient and reducing consumer agency (which is two ways of saying the same thing).
Ideally, a consumer would be able to choose all combinations of which shows they watch on which streaming services on which devices. But when electronics companies start buying up content producers and offering their own streaming services, you start running into situations where only certain streaming services offer certain content. That benefits the streaming services like Amazon here, but not consumers.
We should be particularly worried about this when it comes to media because media is one of the primary ways that culture propagates itself today. When you let a handful of trillion-dollar companies own the majority of stories that people listen to help build their understanding of the world, you put a ton of control in the hands of people who really shouldn't have it.
Ideally, a consumer would be able to choose all combinations of which shows they watch on which streaming services on which devices. But when electronics companies start buying up content producers and offering their own streaming services, you start running into situations where only certain streaming services offer certain content. That benefits the streaming services like Amazon here, but not consumers.
We should be particularly worried about this when it comes to media because media is one of the primary ways that culture propagates itself today. When you let a handful of trillion-dollar companies own the majority of stories that people listen to help build their understanding of the world, you put a ton of control in the hands of people who really shouldn't have it.
> Vertical integration is still anti-competitive in the general sense of making a market less efficient and reducing consumer agency (which is two ways of saying the same thing).
Okay, sure. But how does this relate to antitrust laws? The purpose was never to ban everything that might be even vaguely anticompetitive.
Okay, sure. But how does this relate to antitrust laws? The purpose was never to ban everything that might be even vaguely anticompetitive.
The Supreme Court in 1993 described the Sherman Act as:
The purpose of the Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself.
One of the authors of the Act says:
... [a person] who merely by superior skill and intelligence...got the whole business because nobody could do it as well as he could was not a monopolist...(but was if) it involved something like the use of means which made it impossible for other persons to engage in fair competition."
The Clayton Act directly says:
No person engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no person subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another person engaged also in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce, where in any line of commerce or in any activity affecting commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition...
A monopoly isn't required, simply a lessening of competition.
Amazon buying MGM means that MGM films are very unlikely to be available on other streaming services, which certainly lessens competition.
The purpose of the Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself.
One of the authors of the Act says:
... [a person] who merely by superior skill and intelligence...got the whole business because nobody could do it as well as he could was not a monopolist...(but was if) it involved something like the use of means which made it impossible for other persons to engage in fair competition."
The Clayton Act directly says:
No person engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no person subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another person engaged also in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce, where in any line of commerce or in any activity affecting commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition...
A monopoly isn't required, simply a lessening of competition.
Amazon buying MGM means that MGM films are very unlikely to be available on other streaming services, which certainly lessens competition.
> Amazon buying MGM means that MGM films are very unlikely to be available on other streaming services, which certainly lessens competition.
Not substantially, that’s the important detail.
Not substantially, that’s the important detail.
It would be a concern in a world that said it was illegal to own a streaming service and content. The government would have to force divestiture of all content libraries from all the conglomerates.
N + 1 for N at the time of evaluation.
It has to be particularly gregarious, or involve the EU, to get knocked down in this day and age.
It has to be particularly gregarious, or involve the EU, to get knocked down in this day and age.
Can tell the EU any company that operates in their market not to merge?
To my understanding, the EU can prevent the merger of the subsidiaries of the companies that are based out of the EU, which effectively craters multinational company merges.
That said, the EU apparently explicitly approve this particular merger. So that kind of invalidates the EU as an exception.
That said, the EU apparently explicitly approve this particular merger. So that kind of invalidates the EU as an exception.
Egregious?
Current anti-trust laws are a poor fit. Congress really needs a trust-busting 2.0 movement or they're always going to be able to weasle their way through the court system until they get lucky with some judge or outspend the opposition on lawyers.
Bring on the new Stargate!
After the crap that was Wheel of Time, they probably need it.
Note to self: a bunch of pretty 20-somethings can't save your script if the audience is given little reason to care about anyone on screen.
Netflix and Amazon keep trying to manufacture their own cash cow, Game-of-Thrones level show but refuse to invest both the money and (slightly more so) due diligence that HBO does.
Netflix and Amazon keep trying to manufacture their own cash cow, Game-of-Thrones level show but refuse to invest both the money and (slightly more so) due diligence that HBO does.
I actually be enjoyed watching "wheeel of time" with my kids. Family friendly fantasy shows are so rare.
Bosch was a really good one. Will recommend it. It is among all-time-bests, I will say.
Tales from The Loop was unique and dream-like. I liked it for being so original.
Wheel of Time bloopers made me feel like it was "manufactured TV". So, didn’t watch it.
I hated Amazon for killing Mozart in The Jungle.
Tales from The Loop was unique and dream-like. I liked it for being so original.
Wheel of Time bloopers made me feel like it was "manufactured TV". So, didn’t watch it.
I hated Amazon for killing Mozart in The Jungle.
Oo I just started reading the Bosch series, am excited to pick up the show when I'm done!
How do you find the books? Worth reading?
I've read the first couple and it's p good mystery literature. It's not "growth" reading, more like fun reading. I'm enjoying the 90s throwbacks too, without cellphones etc.
My wife has worked her way through most of the series and says it gets better.
My wife has worked her way through most of the series and says it gets better.
I find it interesting that Amazon is pursuing vertical integration while elsewhere in the media industry we see companies like AT&T doing the exact opposite.
It'll be interesting to see if, ten years from now, Amazon is any more successful. So far, it's not been clear that this kind of integration is, in fact, a net benefit for the acquirers, and it certainly doesn't benefit consumers.
It'll be interesting to see if, ten years from now, Amazon is any more successful. So far, it's not been clear that this kind of integration is, in fact, a net benefit for the acquirers, and it certainly doesn't benefit consumers.
To be fair, Amazon is integrating everything they can everywhere in the business forever. I think in Bezos’ mindset end game is one MegaAmazon owning entire planet. Like Universal Paperclips.
Sure, it's a modern conglomerate. That's nothing new. Conglomerates have been around for literally a hundred-plus years.
What's fascinating is that the traditional industrial conglomerate has been declining for decades now, with the most notable recent breakup being GE. Meanwhile, tech companies are going the other way:
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/11/23/1057446470/the...
I think it's a wide open question as to whether the conglomerate is, in fact, an economically efficient entity, or if in the long run, Amazon, too, will break up.
I'd argue the only reason modern tech conglomerates exist and succeed is because antitrust regulators have failed to recognize the impact they've had in destroying a competition.
As a result, these modern conglomerates aren't making money via the standard argument: increased efficiencies, market diversification, etc. Rather, they're profitable because they're leveraging their horizontal and vertical integration to monopolize whole industries.
If world governments return to a more forceful anti-trust regime, I suspect we'll find these tech conglomerates will die off just like their ancestor industrial conglomerates have been.
What's fascinating is that the traditional industrial conglomerate has been declining for decades now, with the most notable recent breakup being GE. Meanwhile, tech companies are going the other way:
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/11/23/1057446470/the...
I think it's a wide open question as to whether the conglomerate is, in fact, an economically efficient entity, or if in the long run, Amazon, too, will break up.
I'd argue the only reason modern tech conglomerates exist and succeed is because antitrust regulators have failed to recognize the impact they've had in destroying a competition.
As a result, these modern conglomerates aren't making money via the standard argument: increased efficiencies, market diversification, etc. Rather, they're profitable because they're leveraging their horizontal and vertical integration to monopolize whole industries.
If world governments return to a more forceful anti-trust regime, I suspect we'll find these tech conglomerates will die off just like their ancestor industrial conglomerates have been.
Americans maybe aren’t used to thinking in terms of conglomerates because there are only a handful of visible ones here but conglomerates are pretty common all over Asia where a single company has holding in a diverse number of industries (eg Samsung cars, Hyundai real estate etc). There are structural reasons for the existence of conglomerates outside of diversification and expansion into adjacent markets. I think your last statement is debatable (that it doesn’t benefit consumers). It really depends — we assume that conglomerate companies will bulldoze the competition with impunity because they’re cross subsidized but in real life this isn’t always true especially if one takes a global view instead of a domestic one.
Does that include the casinos?
No, these are entirely different entities:
https://investors.mgmresorts.com/investors/news-releases/pre...
https://investors.mgmresorts.com/investors/news-releases/pre...
thanks
The title is kind of misleading. I was all excited to find out what kind of vision Amazon had for a chain of hotels.
I wonder how a tech-enhanced Amazon Mandalay Bay would fare against the Black Hat crowd.
I wonder how a tech-enhanced Amazon Mandalay Bay would fare against the Black Hat crowd.
MGM is first and foremost a film studio. Metro, Goldwyn, and Meyer were film producers in the 1910s who merged to form MGM in 1924.
Kirk Kerkorian was a Vegas developer who bought MGM in 1969, and use its films to theme the MGM Grand hotel. (He also bought United Artists, founded by Charlie Chaplin and friends as a contemporary of Metro, Goldwyn, and Meyer.) Kirk sold the film studio to Ted Turner in 1986, spinning off the hotel-casino business as MGM Grand.
Kirk Kerkorian was a Vegas developer who bought MGM in 1969, and use its films to theme the MGM Grand hotel. (He also bought United Artists, founded by Charlie Chaplin and friends as a contemporary of Metro, Goldwyn, and Meyer.) Kirk sold the film studio to Ted Turner in 1986, spinning off the hotel-casino business as MGM Grand.
[deleted]
Amazon MGM streaming now available! chucks amazon prime video into the dumpster
Whelp, Netflix is now finally and completely screwed. Not that it isn't screwed already, but it's hanging in there by a thin thread.
Nah, Netflix will make another show where all the depth of their characters is solely which letter of the Alphabet gang they align with. This is Terry. Ze’s a bad ass cause ze’s non-binary-bi.
I'll echo I'd love to see a new stargate series. Maybe take off from where universe left us ?
Another team gates to the Destiny.
Another team gates to the Destiny.
Oh yeah that would be amazing. Stargate sort of like Sliders really enjoyed a huge universe of possibilities because they can literally go anywhere. Would love to see it revisited with Amazon's budget!
Wow, Sliders... that show was great until they replaced every single character
Also we learn from episode 1 that wormhole travel is better than sex ;)
Also we learn from episode 1 that wormhole travel is better than sex ;)
Even more concentration of (media) industry.
I'm pretty sure that Amazon bought MGM to prevent Bezos from being the next James Bond villain.
(Not him specifically, but a bald man described as an "Internet mogul" who is "the richest person on Earth" with "tentacles in every aspect of daily life", and is now "building his own private space program".)
(Not him specifically, but a bald man described as an "Internet mogul" who is "the richest person on Earth" with "tentacles in every aspect of daily life", and is now "building his own private space program".)
[deleted]
I don't think MGM has secured any of the distribution rights to Bond going forward, but I could be wrong - it's a pretty complicated area.
It'll be amazing to have all those old, great movies freely available on streaming. Half the reason I have HBO Go is for TCM, and I assume that will be moving to Prime soon.
The pre-1986 MGM library is owned by Warner Bros. via its purchase of Turner Entertainment, not MGM itself thanks to some interesting financial manoeuvres by Ted Turner in the mid-80s. So old MGM films are probably staying on TCM.
MGM does also hold other libraries like post-1952 United Artists films and Orion pictures films as well though.
MGM does also hold other libraries like post-1952 United Artists films and Orion pictures films as well though.
So Amazon does physical goods, has AWS, has digital goods like MGM and Prime.
It's literally eating the world. Everything will just be Amazon at some point.
It's literally eating the world. Everything will just be Amazon at some point.
> Everything will just be Amazon at some point.
It is almost there. When AWS has a blip most of the popular apps/products stop working, including my Roomba
It is almost there. When AWS has a blip most of the popular apps/products stop working, including my Roomba
For Roomba specifically, this is not true. It doesn’t stop working.
The app stops working yes but there’s a button on the machine you can press to start a job.
It’s the same deal with my Anova sous vide circulator, my Nest etc. Their apps requires cloud access yes. But all of them can function without it.
source: Roomba 675 / Anova / Nest owner.
The app stops working yes but there’s a button on the machine you can press to start a job.
It’s the same deal with my Anova sous vide circulator, my Nest etc. Their apps requires cloud access yes. But all of them can function without it.
source: Roomba 675 / Anova / Nest owner.
Why would your Roomba connect to anything? It's supposed to be an autonomous timed launch, so you don't even need to launch it.
That's just one way to use the Roomba, I don't think it's "supposed" to be anything. Most have an app that lets you press a button to start it, presumably that app and the base station all connect through AWS
If it's just a more convenient way to push a button on the Roomba (or avoid waiting for the timer) than the statement that a bunch of products stopped working was pretty misleading.
Well, except for the part of the world that's Disney...
If you've seen Wall-E, you might be able to imagine a world where Buy-n-Large is Amazon.
Does this mean Amazon owns Vegas now too?
It is so sad that the FTC and SEC have completely failed us in the 21st century. Shareholder value above all else.
Do you also feel the same way about the European Union antitrust commission? Because they unconditionally signed off on the deal as well.
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/amazon-wins-e...
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/amazon-wins-e...
Yes, but I don't live in the EU and they aren't funded by my taxes.
My point was that the EU commission has a much better reputation than the American one for actually caring about anticompetitive behavior, and even they said that Amazon can buy MGM unconditionally.
I'm not sure that's true. While they have been very good at using antitrust as a leverage for trade disputes... they have been more or less toothless against european conglomerates. They seem to care a lot less about the type of anti competitive behavior that (partly or fully) state owned corporations and large conglomerates would be more likely to indulge in.
>One complaint of industrial policy in European antitrust came from no less than the then President of the United States. President Obama suggested that some European antitrust enforcement targeting U.S. tech companies might be essentially an element of European industrial policy. President Obama explained in an interview with Kara Swisher: “We have owned the Internet. Our companies have created it, expanded it, perfected it, in ways [that inefficient European competitors] can’t compete [with]. And often- times what is portrayed as high-minded positions on issues sometimes is designed to carve out their commercial interests.”59
[...]
>They note that the European case law more readily accepts refusals to supply and refusals to deal than U.S. case law (although the duty is not broad). Something Gifford and Kudrle fail to mention, however, is that, importantly, in addition to the limits on the European case law, the Guidance Paper also shows deep reluctance to create blanket obligations for rivals. The context for refusals to deal is different in Europe where, unlike the United States, there is a history of state-owned enterprises. In what is per- haps still the leading economic policy book of European competition law, the most recent former chief economist of DG Competition, in his prior academic writing, also shows great reluctance to undertake an aggressive ap- proach with regard to refusals to deal.
Source: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...
The reason we hear more about their enforcement actions is because big tech is mostly American. The US also has a much less arbitrary and more transparent process, where the main focus is economical costs to the customer is the main concern. Not so much for for the black box that is the european DG. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, europe has no reason to want itself dominated by big American tech corporations. But I think some perspective is needed, and I think the paper I linked shows the pros and cons of both approaches pretty well.
>One complaint of industrial policy in European antitrust came from no less than the then President of the United States. President Obama suggested that some European antitrust enforcement targeting U.S. tech companies might be essentially an element of European industrial policy. President Obama explained in an interview with Kara Swisher: “We have owned the Internet. Our companies have created it, expanded it, perfected it, in ways [that inefficient European competitors] can’t compete [with]. And often- times what is portrayed as high-minded positions on issues sometimes is designed to carve out their commercial interests.”59
[...]
>They note that the European case law more readily accepts refusals to supply and refusals to deal than U.S. case law (although the duty is not broad). Something Gifford and Kudrle fail to mention, however, is that, importantly, in addition to the limits on the European case law, the Guidance Paper also shows deep reluctance to create blanket obligations for rivals. The context for refusals to deal is different in Europe where, unlike the United States, there is a history of state-owned enterprises. In what is per- haps still the leading economic policy book of European competition law, the most recent former chief economist of DG Competition, in his prior academic writing, also shows great reluctance to undertake an aggressive ap- proach with regard to refusals to deal.
Source: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...
The reason we hear more about their enforcement actions is because big tech is mostly American. The US also has a much less arbitrary and more transparent process, where the main focus is economical costs to the customer is the main concern. Not so much for for the black box that is the european DG. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, europe has no reason to want itself dominated by big American tech corporations. But I think some perspective is needed, and I think the paper I linked shows the pros and cons of both approaches pretty well.
How did they fail you?
By neutering consumer choice, neutering consumer protections, killing smaller business, making it hard for new companies to compete/innovate, etc.
And this has what to do with the MGM acquisition?
in the sense that some corporation is turning into the real world equivalent of the fictional Buy N Large from the movie Wall-E
I have no opinion on this matter, but I assume the parent implies that those agencies should not have approved this deal.
they created a american oligarchy thats as bad as the russian one
justify it how ever you want, same result
justify it how ever you want, same result
You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
My wife had to flee Russia at 14 because a rival oligarch decided to try and force her father to sign over his business. 3 employees of theirs, including her personal driver, were shot and killed as part of an intimidation campaign.
Really, fuck you. This doesn’t happen in America, there is no equivalency here.
My wife had to flee Russia at 14 because a rival oligarch decided to try and force her father to sign over his business. 3 employees of theirs, including her personal driver, were shot and killed as part of an intimidation campaign.
Really, fuck you. This doesn’t happen in America, there is no equivalency here.
Did they create the oligarchy or are they a teethless tiger because of it?