Amazon mulling MGM acquisition to boost media footprint

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in General Discussion
Amazon is reportedly in talks to acquire MGM, a move that could vastly expand the retail giant's entertainment footprint.

Credit: MGM
Credit: MGM


Although a source confirmed the discussions were being held to The Information, few other details were available. The current status of the talks is murky, and it's possible that no deal will result from them.

MGM has a library of major film franchises like James Bond, and also owns the Epix cable channel. The company makes popular TV shows such as "The Handmaid's Tale," "Fargo," and "Shark Tank."

News of the deal comes amid a new wave of potential consolidation in the entertainment industry. Earlier on Monday, reports indicated that AT&T was planning on breaking off its WarnerMedia arm and merging it with Discovery.

Word of the talks between MGM and Amazon come just a few days after Amazon said that Jeff Blackburn would return to the retail giant. Blackburn previously oversaw Amazon's entertainment efforts, and would lead a new global media group, according to The Information.

Stay on top of all Apple news right from your HomePod. Say, "Hey, Siri, play AppleInsider," and you'll get latest AppleInsider Podcast. Or ask your HomePod mini for "AppleInsider Daily" instead and you'll hear a fast update direct from our news team. And, if you're interested in Apple-centric home automation, say "Hey, Siri, play HomeKit Insider," and you'll be listening to our newest specialized podcast in moments.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 21
    jccjcc Posts: 326member
    Not sure why Apple doesn’t just buy it. They need the assets.
    elijahgBeatszeus423entropysbyronl
  • Reply 2 of 21
    KuyangkohKuyangkoh Posts: 838member
    Attention all monopoly Lawyers……Amazon is getting large, time to break them up, hahahaha
    Beatszeus423watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 21
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,759member
    AppleTV+ would be so much more attractive if it had something like MGM's back catalog.
    entropysbyronl
  • Reply 4 of 21
    cg27cg27 Posts: 213member
    The Kubrick films alone would be worth it.
    Beatsrotateleftbyte
  • Reply 5 of 21
    neillwdneillwd Posts: 45member
    I guess that leaves Lionsgate or Sony Pictures for Apple. Although, Discovery has part of Lionsgate. Or Walt Disney Pictures. They are all vulnerable. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 21
    CarmBCarmB Posts: 80member
    elijahg said:
    AppleTV+ would be so much more attractive if it had something like MGM's back catalog.
    I disagree. It would make it more expensive and as such less attractive. Already own a bunch of MGM titles. Don’t want to pay for access to more, just to get access to Apple’s original content. Apple TV + will be just fine provided Apple is able to ramp up production and doesn’t increase the price tag.
    BeatsRayz2016watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 21
    XedXed Posts: 2,543member
    jcc said:
    Not sure why Apple doesn’t just buy it. They need the assets.
    elijahg said:
    AppleTV+ would be so much more attractive if it had something like MGM's back catalog.
    cg27 said:
    The Kubrick films alone would be worth it.
    I understand the desire to want Apple to simply buy up every old catalog so they have a plethora of content to offer, but that's a short-term solution and would muddy the waters of what they've been trying to accomplish. Frankly, the only way they cold've come out on top is if they had bought Disney because it's old catalogs that people love it's Disney + Pixar + Marvel + Star Wars + Nat Geo that will make them the dominate force for old catalogs sprinkled with new content in terms of revenue.

    In 5 years I expect the Apple TV+ will grown to the point that no one else is able to compete with the amount of original, quality content. Instead of saying "I hear that The Handmaid's Tale is a great series but it's weird that it's made by Hulu" you'll be saying "of course [new series on Apple TV+] is well reviewed, it's on Apple TV+." On Apple TV+ it's already the norm*, but an excellent series or movie on other services is an exception because you have to include all the other content they've bought to pad their library.

    I expect that they'll be getting the top writers, producers, and actors to be on Apple TV+ because that's where the highest likelihood of Oscars and Emmys will be.

    * https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/04/13/apple-tv-has-the-highest-rated-content-of-all-streaming-platforms
    edited May 2021 Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 21
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,571member
    elijahg said:
    AppleTV+ would be so much more attractive if it had something like MGM's back catalog.
    I presume you mean as a free inclusion to the base price, because you can already get (if you are in the USA, which I'm not) Paramount's back catalog for a low additional price inside the Apple TV app.
    byronl
  • Reply 9 of 21
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    If Apple bought a catalog it should NOT be part of Apple TV+. This would taint the allure and innovation Apple TV brings. Original content and Apple technology(Think Spacial Audio and upcoming tech).

    Here’s an idea I had for Nintendo years ago, Apple should definitely buy a catalog. Except share it. With Nintendo I thought it would be a good idea to buy Capcom and keep the library on other platforms but add exclusive features to the Nintendo version of the game. This way Nintendo makes money off different platforms.

    Now with Apple, say they buy MGM. They could license the entire catalog to Netflix. Now AppleTV+ is still a platform of original creativity while Apple makes money from their biggest competitor on the side. Not to brag but this is GENIUS.

    Another option is to buy a catalog(s) and make them available as a separate service. Call it “Apple Cinema” or something and charge $4.99/month or included with Apple One. This again, will not taint AppleTV+.
  • Reply 10 of 21
    rotateleftbyterotateleftbyte Posts: 1,630member
    Kuyangkoh said:
    Attention all monopoly Lawyers……Amazon is getting large, time to break them up, hahahaha
    Bezos will be singing 'Cry me a river' from the back of his new mega-yacht. Then he'll break into 'I rule the world' (the word 'when' will have been banned)

    Apple should IMHO buy MGM if nothing more than to poke Bezos in the eye with a sharp stick.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 21
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    Yay. More consolidation. Because that’s always great for ... well, no one except the 1%.
    DAalseth
  • Reply 12 of 21
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    From their approach so far one can only assume that Apple take a lot of pride in their oiriginal content and their high quality average.  I don't think Apple are ever going to buy old content libraries.

    Quantity is the Amazon and Netflix game, and Apple isn't playing.
    mike1watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 21
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,322moderator
    jcc said:
    Not sure why Apple doesn’t just buy it. They need the assets.
    Given that their movie projects cost around $50-100m each, they would be weighing up whether purchasing around 100-200x exclusive new movies like Greyhound and Killers of the Flower Moon would be a better investment than 4000 old movies.

    They have enough free capital for both and they'll only be able to get about 10 new and good exclusive movies per year so they both have their upsides.

    There must be a significant portion of the MGM catalog on streaming services already so they'd have to pull those movies from other services to attract new subscribers and then they'd lose the licensing revenue from other platforms. If it gains them 20 million subscribers, that's $100m/month extra revenue and would take 7.5 years to break even on the $9b investment.

    It would add a lot of value to the Apple TV service but it's a high price to recoup for a low cost streaming service so I can understand why they'd be hesitant to make this kind of investment.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 21
    KBuffettKBuffett Posts: 95member
    Xed said:
    jcc said:
    Not sure why Apple doesn’t just buy it. They need the assets.
    elijahg said:
    AppleTV+ would be so much more attractive if it had something like MGM's back catalog.
    cg27 said:
    The Kubrick films alone would be worth it.
    I understand the desire to want Apple to simply buy up every old catalog so they have a plethora of content to offer, but that's a short-term solution and would muddy the waters of what they've been trying to accomplish. Frankly, the only way they cold've come out on top is if they had bought Disney because it's old catalogs that people love it's Disney + Pixar + Marvel + Star Wars + Nat Geo that will make them the dominate force for old catalogs sprinkled with new content in terms of revenue.

    In 5 years I expect the Apple TV+ will grown to the point that no one else is able to compete with the amount of original, quality content. Instead of saying "I hear that The Handmaid's Tale is a great series but it's weird that it's made by Hulu" you'll be saying "of course [new series on Apple TV+] is well reviewed, it's on Apple TV+." On Apple TV+ it's already the norm*, but an excellent series or movie on other services is an exception because you have to include all the other content they've bought to pad their library.

    I expect that they'll be getting the top writers, producers, and actors to be on Apple TV+ because that's where the highest likelihood of Oscars and Emmys will be.

    * https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/04/13/apple-tv-has-the-highest-rated-content-of-all-streaming-platforms


    Netflix and Amazon have more original content than Apple, and are adding to it at a faster rate than Apple. Also, I think they’ve lost their way (again) with this Prince Harry and Me-gain content.
    elijahg
  • Reply 15 of 21
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,166member
    Bond. James Bond.
    bikerdude
  • Reply 16 of 21
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,783member
    Kuyangkoh said:
    Attention all monopoly Lawyers……Amazon is getting large, time to break them up, hahahaha
    Ah there's the rub, the word "monopoly" only applies to Apple. 
    Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 21
    WgkruegerWgkrueger Posts: 352member
    Elon Musk should buy MGM so he could have movie night for the Mars colonists. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 21
    CarmBCarmB Posts: 80member
    KBuffett said:
    Xed said:
    jcc said:
    Not sure why Apple doesn’t just buy it. They need the assets.
    elijahg said:
    AppleTV+ would be so much more attractive if it had something like MGM's back catalog.
    cg27 said:
    The Kubrick films alone would be worth it.
    I understand the desire to want Apple to simply buy up every old catalog so they have a plethora of content to offer, but that's a short-term solution and would muddy the waters of what they've been trying to accomplish. Frankly, the only way they cold've come out on top is if they had bought Disney because it's old catalogs that people love it's Disney + Pixar + Marvel + Star Wars + Nat Geo that will make them the dominate force for old catalogs sprinkled with new content in terms of revenue.

    In 5 years I expect the Apple TV+ will grown to the point that no one else is able to compete with the amount of original, quality content. Instead of saying "I hear that The Handmaid's Tale is a great series but it's weird that it's made by Hulu" you'll be saying "of course [new series on Apple TV+] is well reviewed, it's on Apple TV+." On Apple TV+ it's already the norm*, but an excellent series or movie on other services is an exception because you have to include all the other content they've bought to pad their library.

    I expect that they'll be getting the top writers, producers, and actors to be on Apple TV+ because that's where the highest likelihood of Oscars and Emmys will be.

    * https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/04/13/apple-tv-has-the-highest-rated-content-of-all-streaming-platforms


    Netflix and Amazon have more original content than Apple, and are adding to it at a faster rate than Apple. Also, I think they’ve lost their way (again) with this Prince Harry and Me-gain content.
    Apple charges a lot less per month than either Netflix or Amazon. Here in Canada, Amazon is a great deal for what you get but Netflix is the only streaming service that forces you to pay a big premium to get the latest formats like Dolby Vision, 4K, etc. Quite simply, I want Apple to keep it simple. Charge for the original content, charge fairly, and it’s all good. 
    Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 21
    mike1mike1 Posts: 3,283member
    jcc said:
    Not sure why Apple doesn’t just buy it. They need the assets.
    Nope. A back catalog of old movies that will not generate continuous viewing will add no value to the service.
    C'mon, how many people are itching to re-watch some of the old movies more than maybe once. The only real catalog with legs is Disney's. Kids watching the same movies over and over and over again combined with the Star Wars and Marvel catalogs driving new material. It's a perfect formula. After that it's just a fight for good original programming and recent movie releases.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 21
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    mike1 said:
    jcc said:
    Not sure why Apple doesn’t just buy it. They need the assets.
    Nope. A back catalog of old movies that will not generate continuous viewing will add no value to the service.
    C'mon, how many people are itching to re-watch some of the old movies more than maybe once. The only real catalog with legs is Disney's. Kids watching the same movies over and over and over again combined with the Star Wars and Marvel catalogs driving new material. It's a perfect formula. After that it's just a fight for good original programming and recent movie releases.

    Why do people use this “it will work for everyone else but Apple” logic??

    You’re telling me no one will watch new James Bond movies if Apple buys them? People will only watch Rocky movies if they’re streamed in Disney?

    And like I said, Apple could buy them and keep the content on other platforms. So Apple generates money from everyone.
    elijahg
Sign In or Register to comment.