HBO Max/Discovery+ Merger

Actually HBO MAX has more is because they been out longer, I posted this about Discovery+ a month ago-


While HBO MAX in 2021 only gained 2 million, Discovery went from 0 to 22 million in 2021and the other reason they are ahead is because of regular HBO, they count those numbers as MAX subs.


Regular HBO subs pay the same amount ($15/mo) and get access to the larger app as part of their subscription, so of course they're counted as HBO Max subs. HBO had about 35 million subs before the launch of HBO Max in May 2020. They got to 47 million US subs (74 million global) by the end of last year.

As for Discovery+ subs, how many of them get it for free with their Verizon service? A whole lot, I suspect.
 
I just wonder what this means for people like me with $50/yr for D+, for crime & paranormal.

I like HBO Max for stand-up & old classic shows but not enough to jump on at $9.99.

When I checked the D+ website this week, it didn't appear that they're still offering annual subscriptions. I believe that by one year from now (if not less), D+ will no longer exist and its content will be part of HBO Max (or whatever it's rebranded to by that point).

When is your annual subscription up on D+?
 
Right now I have Discovery+ as an addon to Prime mostly for access to all the Animal Planet content for the wife. If they force a combo and up the price I'm gone.
Then I guess you'll be gone. Because at some point in the coming months, the only way you'll be able to get that Discovery content (without a subscription to a cable channel package that includes it) will be to pay the higher price for an HBO Max subscription.
 
When I checked the D+ website this week, it didn't appear that they're still offering annual subscriptions. I believe that by one year from now (if not less), D+ will no longer exist and its content will be part of HBO Max (or whatever it's rebranded to by that point).

When is your annual subscription up on D+?
Sept 2022.
 
Regular HBO subs pay the same amount ($15/mo) and get access to the larger app as part of their subscription, so of course they're counted as HBO Max subs. HBO had about 35 million subs before the launch of HBO Max in May 2020. They got to 47 million US subs (74 million global) by the end of last year.

As for Discovery+ subs, how many of them get it for free with their Verizon service? A whole lot, I suspect.
They may get it for free but Discovery still gets paid by Verizon, a discounted rate of course.
 
Right now I have Discovery+ as an addon to Prime mostly for access to all the Animal Planet content for the wife. If they force a combo and up the price I'm gone. Every time a free weekend of HBO is offered I scan thru the whole schedule and never ever find a single thing worth recording so I have zero interest in HBO. Honestly, a merger between HBO Max and D+ makes no sense to me from their viewpoint or mine but that's just me.
With the exception if Game Of Thrones, I was never interested in HBO either. Now I love HBOMax due to it having a lot of non-HBO content. From DC to anime to Dr Who to South Park to some of their Max Originals, it has become my favorite streaming service.
 
With the exception if Game Of Thrones, I was never interested in HBO either. Now I love HBOMax due to it having a lot of non-HBO content. From DC to anime to Dr Who to South Park to some of their Max Originals, it has become my favorite streaming service.

This is exactly why they will drop "HBO" from the name of the service. At this point, it's just misleading, as there are a lot of consumers like you (especially those under age 30) who don't really care for (or aren't that familiar with) HBO's brand of content but who *would* like a lot of the other stuff in HBO Max. And as I've said before, the HBO content only constitutes maybe 25% of the overall HBO Max library at this point. And once all, or most of, the even larger Discovery+ library goes in, HBO might only account for around 10% of the total.

Ampere Analysis stated a year ago that if you combined the libraries of HBO Max and Discovery+, you'd have more content than either Netflix or the Hulu/Disney+ combo. It would rank second only to Prime Video in terms of number of unique content titles. The Max is going to be pretty massive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: reddice
I'm really annoyed about this. Discovery+ is the most-used streaming service in my household and is a great deal, and I don't have HBO Max as it's too expensive and has essentially nothing of interest on it. This looks like a massive price hike for no benefit.

- Trip
 
I think maybe this will be the real test for cord cutters. Cord cutting has been driven by the desire to get away from over-priced forced bundling and now these myopic services are right back at it trying to once again force bundling on the consumer. It'll be interesting to see what the consumer reaction will be. I looked over the content on HBO Max and there isn't a single teensy weensy thing I'm interested in so if the bundling happens and they jump the price, as I said before, I'm gone. I have no intention of getting back into that whirlpool. The nice thing with streaming is you can cancel at the click of a button, no fees, no equipment to return, no penalties, just bu-bye. :wave
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheKrell
Well, admittedly, if your household *only* cares about the Discovery stuff and none of the varied content in HBO Max, then yeah, this merger will suck for you.

But OTOH, I think it's hyperbole to say that this is "just forcing us back to the big bad cable bundle". Because how much does a typical cable bundle cost, with locals and the usual array of popular basic channels, including all those owned by Discovery (e.g. HGTV, Food, TLC, etc)? The cheapest one going is YouTube TV at $65.

If, as I expect, you'll be able to get The Max (HBO Max + Discovery+) with ads for about $10/mo or ad-free for $15/mo, that's still a far cry from $65/mo. And it's also significantly less than Philo, a skinny cable bundle that includes the Discovery nets and costs $25/mo.

Them's your choices. You don't have to like them. But it's still a far better set of options than the pre-streaming days when it was the whole bundle or just your locals.
 
Well, admittedly, if your household *only* cares about the Discovery stuff and none of the varied content in HBO Max, then yeah, this merger will suck for you.

But OTOH, I think it's hyperbole to say that this is "just forcing us back to the big bad cable bundle". Because how much does a typical cable bundle cost, with locals and the usual array of popular basic channels, including all those owned by Discovery (e.g. HGTV, Food, TLC, etc)? The cheapest one going is YouTube TV at $65.

If, as I expect, you'll be able to get The Max (HBO Max + Discovery+) with ads for about $10/mo or ad-free for $15/mo, that's still a far cry from $65/mo. And it's also significantly less than Philo, a skinny cable bundle that includes the Discovery nets and costs $25/mo.

Them's your choices. You don't have to like them. But it's still a far better set of options than the pre-streaming days when it was the whole bundle or just your locals.
Ah but that's how it begins. You say it's not so bad now but then they merge another, and then maybe another and before you know it you're right back where you started. Every climb up the ladder begins with a first step.
 
Ah but that's how it begins. You say it's not so bad now but then they merge another, and then maybe another and before you know it you're right back where you started. Every climb up the ladder begins with a first step.
There's only so much concentration that the government will allow among media giants. Industry observers and leaders consistently refer to there being maybe 6 major global players in video when the dust settles. They will likely be:
  • Netflix
  • Amazon (caveat: Should anti-trust action end up busting up this company so that their video service is severed from retail, it's certainly plausible that Prime Video would cease to exist, with its content library auctioned off to others. But otherwise, this giant is here to stay.)
  • Apple
  • Google (YouTube)
  • Disney
  • Warner Bros. Discovery
  • possibly one other traditional Hollywood titan
There will be no M&A among the top 4 I've listed above -- e.g. Apple will never buy Netflix -- except for the possible (though unlikely) scenario that Amazon is broken up, rendering their Prime Video service economically infeasible.

It's possible IMO that we'll end up with not 6, but 7 major global players. Who would be the 7th? Most likely a merged Universal Paramount, which would combine Peacock, Paramount+, Showtime, BET+ and Noggin to form a global super-streamer. (Yes, they'd have to sell off either CBS or NBC, most likely to WBD.)

Another possibility is that we see WBD acquire or merge with either Universal or Paramount, with the other acquired by someone else, if the feds allow it. For example, if WBD merged with Universal (which is a tie-up that had reportedly been explored by Warner in the past), perhaps Disney would acquire Paramount and then spin off ESPN plus either ABC or CBS into an independent US-only broadcast and cable business, similar to what Fox became after selling most of their assets to Disney a few years ago. (Fox is now just the Fox network, Fox News, FS1, FS2, and Big 10 Network, with no major film/TV studio.) Or, alternatively, instead of Disney buying Paramount, we might see Paramount ending up alone, as it is now, prompting it to exit the global streaming game and instead license their content to one or more of the remaining giants (like Sony does). Another option would be that Paramount gets split up and purchased by multiple parties, with one piece going here and another going there. If any of these scenarios pan out, we'll end up with just 6 global media powers.

One other note: while I've included Google in this list, it's solely on the basis of their ad-supported YouTube, which obviously offers a different sort of video content than the others. I don't see Google ever playing the role of a traditional studio, creating a lot of professional-quality movies, series, live sports, news, etc. They may still dabble in that stuff a bit, but YouTube will always mainly be about user-uploaded amateur content and sample clips from professional media sources.

So, not counting YouTube, I think we'll end up with our video entertainment content split among 5 or 6 big players who will always have to compete against each other and struggle against consumer churn. And that's good for us consumers. It gives us a fair amount of choice and helps keep subscription prices in check. We're not going back to the days of the cable bundle, which was basically: "Here's a big group of channels and here's an even bigger group of channels. Pick one."
 
Fox is still owned by Murdock.
Fox Networks ( Fox News, Fox, National Fox Sports ) are owned by Murdock, 20 (21) Century Fox is owned by Disney, so the majority of content ( for a small example-Simpsons, Family Guy, the 911 shows ) is allowed to be on Disney owned streaming services.

Disney also bought the FX’s channels ( why most shows are on Hulu before and at the same time), Nat Geographic ( Disney+).

 
  • Like
Reactions: NashGuy and ncted
And Fox Business News reports that sales of the CNN+ service are “lackluster” and that It too might be merged into HBO Max as soon as May.

This is a bundle. While there are some shows on HBO Max that are fine, most end up on TBS or TNT eventually; there is literally nothing on CNN that I have any interest in and very little on Discovery. Just very lightweight educational programming that is, more often than not, superficial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KAB