AT&T Sells HBO Max Parent Company WarnerMedia in $43 Billion Deal, Will Merge with Discovery, Inc.

[Tsing]

Image: AT&T



AT&T purchased WarnerMedia in 2018 for $85.4 billion to fuel its ambition of becoming a leading media giant. Now, just three years later, the telecommunications conglomerate has ditched those plans by selling HBO Max’s parent company in a deal worth $43 billion to Discovery, Inc. WarnerMedia and Discovery will combine to form a new, standalone company to better compete with streaming rivals such as Netflix and Disney+. The deal reportedly includes some parts of Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment.



Correcting part of this tweet:1) The sale includes some of Warner Bros. Interactive/Warner Bros. Games, but not all. 2) The sale does include DC Comics. Discovery, through the new venture, now effectively co-owns DC Comics with WB.3) Rooster Teeth is part of the sale, yes.— julia alexander (@loudmouthjulia)...

Continue reading...

 

[Burticus]

The wheels on the money bus go round and round

 

[Zarathustra]

I think it is funny to refer to Warner Media as "HBO Max parent" when they own all of HBO.

Why not just "HBO Parent?"

 

[Grimlakin]

I wonder what roosterteeth is worth now. Surprising what came from a machinema group.

 

[Brian_B]

I think it is funny to refer to Warner Media as "HBO Max parent" when they own all of HBO.

Why not just "HBO Parent?"

Because HBO Max is HBO's parent -- you can ~just~ get HBO and not all the Max content. As confusing and backwards as that is. If you subscribe via Amazon, for instance, you can see just HBO content through the Amazon app/portal... but not HBO Max. But your subscription there does allow you to use your Amazon account to sign into the HBO Max App to get all the additional Max Content - you just have to go through the Max app/portal to do it.

I don't know why... some of these things are just retarded and I'm sure it comes down to money somewhere.

 

[Paul_Johnson]

Man, the hair cuts telecom has been taking on their media investments is insane.

 

[Burticus]

Wow 40 BILLION lost in 3 years. You could probably solve homelessness for less than that.

 

[Zarathustra]

Wow 40 BILLION lost in 3 years. You could probably solve homelessness for less than that.

According the statistics I just googled (not sure about veracity of source, never heard of them before) there were an estimated 567,715 homeless people in the U.S. in 2019 (most recent data)

So, that is approximately $70,450 per homeless person.

It wouldn't solve all homelessness permanently, but it would certainly help!

 

[Paul_Johnson]

According the statistics I just googled (not sure about veracity of source, never heard of them before) there were an estimated 567,715 homeless people in the U.S. in 2019 (most recent data)

So, that is approximately $70,450 per homeless person.

It wouldn't solve all homelessness permanently, but it would certainly help!

That is more than I make!

 

[Zarathustra]

That is more than I make!

Yup. But the way I am thinking is this.

Let's say you provide rent for all homeless people on a temporary basis and a transition program for them to gain employment and make it on their own, which probably would require counseling, training and mental healthcare in many cases.

$70k may be enough to get the current crop through that process and on their way to making their own living, but homelessness is an ongoing problem. Even if you have no recitivism, which you almost definitely will, new people become homeless all the time.

A one time payment of $40B would certainly be a HUGE help and take a big bite out of the problem. All I am saying is it wouldn't solve all homelessness for all time.

 

[Stoly]

Apple alone could solve the homeless problem, bad thing they are in the business of making money not giving it away.

 

[Grimlakin]

One could argue that the top companies if they so chose could bolster the people of the US as an example... or for even LESS money and more incentives... bolster a much smaller less developed country.

The problem is greed.. Lets say that ATT or whomever took a 40 billion dollar loss to help the homeless. With education, facilities, the whole nine yards. What % of that investment would actually make it to helping the homeless? Do you cap the salary of those running said organization? Maybe the highest at 100k and the minimum at say 50k. (depending on cost of living of course.) And to help the millions of people we are postulating here how many employees would said organization need? What about facilities, infrastructure so they can do their job correctly. We're talking a long term investment here... 40 billion would be a good start, but you would need to maintain that and shift resources as the homeless problem became less critical in specific regions. We would need a recurring investment with sound guidelines to do this correctly.

Sadly our government COULD do this. They spend more on a failed DARPA project probably every year than it would cost to if not solve.. severely curtail the homeless problem in the US.

So the argument becomes. If the safety net is so good what's to keep people from taking advantage of it and quitting their jobs.

My answer is, if the safety net is so good that the JOB isn't worth while... that says more about the job or employer than it does the safety net.

Of course then we are getting dangerously close to a minimum income sort of scenario for a nation of people.

Would some inflation happen in this scenario? Of course it would. Would companies profit MORE with everyone being able to do more than sustain life? Again of course they would. And would that mean those that were in upper levels (minimally upper) see a good bump in income over time? Again... YEP.

I have always failed to see the issue with helping those that need it and providing for those that can't for mental, health, or other reasons. Will some abuse such a system... yep. Is that acceptable? If it's helping more than are abusing... then YES it is.

anyway this went off the rails here but it was a nice thought exercise.

 

[Burticus]

Yup. But the way I am thinking is this.

Let's say you provide rent for all homeless people on a temporary basis and a transition program for them to gain employment and make it on their own, which probably would require counseling, training and mental healthcare in many cases.

$70k may be enough to get the current crop through that process and on their way to making their own living, but homelessness is an ongoing problem. Even if you have no recitivism, which you almost definitely will, new people become homeless all the time.

A one time payment of $40B would certainly be a HUGE help and take a big bite out of the problem. All I am saying is it wouldn't solve all homelessness for all time.

Yep that $70k could provide apartment living for years, food subsidy, and rehab and job training opportunities. Most homeless don't want to be, and given half a chance I'm sure could turn their lives around and be productive members of society. There will always be those that refuse help or need serious mental/drug assistance. But 70k helps there too.

But does it happen? NOPE. Just another tax writeoff for corpos.

 

[Nanobot]

According the statistics I just googled (not sure about veracity of source, never heard of them before) there were an estimated 567,715 homeless people in the U.S. in 2019 (most recent data)

So, that is approximately $70,450 per homeless person.

It wouldn't solve all homelessness permanently, but it would certainly help!

Reminds me of this, which I just saw the other day. Happy scrolling.

 

[Burticus]

Sadly our government COULD do this. They spend more on a failed DARPA project probably every year than it would cost to if not solve.. severely curtail the homeless problem in the US.

...

My answer is, if the safety net is so good that the JOB isn't worth while... that says more about the job or employer than it does the safety net.

Going off the rails too! hang on

My thoughts exactly. Billions in military spending to bounce rocks in Afghanistan. Billions wasted on MIC projects like F35 etc. But money for real people, American citizens? A good % of which are veterans? OMG no way, this is America!

But politics being what they are... unlikely. All Gov can do is shove out stimulus checks which are pennies on the $ for what really needs to be fixed.

I think it will take a team of uber rich citizens to tackle this problem instead of gov. Bezos or his ex could do it. They talk about philanthropy but what real problems right here at home? I cannot wrap my head around it. If I woke up tomorrow and had a billion bucks in my checking account, I would totally drop a ton of that on homelessness, education, drug services, food pantries etc

 

[Brian_B]

Imagine how much money is being spent right now on the Gates divorce - just to make sure two people who will be rediculously rich afterwards are "fairly compensated" to their rediculous level of rich after they split.

Same thing with the Bezos divorce.

Not knocking divorces or those folks - just imagine the money that goes into splitting a massive fortune like that, so you can have two insanely rich people rather than one rich couple. The amount of money to ensure that two fabulously rich people are... still fabulously rich after they split?

I don't fault those people, or companies really, for not giving away their money. You can do a lot of good when you have some capitol without necessarily just liquidating your wealth and handing it out.

But I do think we should be setting a minimum standard of living - no one should go hungry, no one should be without clothing, no one should be without shelter, no one should go without a basic education, and no one should go without basic and emergency health care.

That stuff costs, I realize - I'm happy to may my share of what it takes, up to a point. Will some people sit happily in public-provided housing and do nothing? Sure, but I don't envy their life living there. I just want to make sure everyone has the basics needed to live, and has the opportunity to pull themselves up if they chose to make something better of themselves. Those that chose to do nothing will get exactly what they deserve - the ability to live life, the opportunity to do better if they want it, but no requirement to do so and no requirement to take what is offered -- if you want to go hermit it up in a shack in the mountains and live off the land and accept nothing from assistance programs, I am 100% behind your right to do that as well.

I pay a lot in taxes already (I live in CA). I do resent those that make more than me, who pay less than me, and complain that they pay too much for it already... I am somewhat torn though... I don't really feel it's the governments sole responsibility to provide all of that, and a lot of my tax dollars go to wasted projects (thank you High Speed Rail) that I don't get an option to opt out of. Years past, the Churches provided a good deal of that, funded via voluntary donations and such. So I don't necessarily think that mandatory taxes should be the sole contribution to this, nor that everyone should be required to pay into everything. But I don't see any organization (religious or otherwise) that is really in a position to do so right now, or at least one that hasn't been rife with abuse or fraud in the recent past. And I do think a progressive tax scale is proper, even if that does mean the bottom majority of people pay little or nothing into it.

No good answers really. Just a lot of opinions...