Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajmurmann | Hacker News Reader

I share the same reaction. I can think of many examples in which a company that made something I cared about got acquired and the product got ruined. Pretty much the only counter example I can come up with right now are Disney's acquisitions of Marvel and Star Wars.

View on HN

That’s a decent counterexample, although in my opinion Disney didn’t look at all out of touch with consumers just before their 2009 acquisition of Marvel or their 2012 acquisition of Lucasfilm (Star Wars and Indiana Jones). Oh, and don’t forget Disney’s 2006 acquisition of Pixar, who has continued to do quite well commercially, critically, and in my humble opinion.

My gut reaction would have been far worse if a brand with very negative consumer connotations (like Comcast) had acquired Marvel or Lucasfilm or Pixar. Let’s be real, DreamWorks hasn’t made anything as wonderful as How to Train Your Dragon since their 2016 acquisition by NBCUniversal (owned by Comcast). ;)

How to Train Your Dragon was released in 2010. They haven't made anything as good since then, but it feels unfair to blame that on a 2016 acquisition.

Of course, it hasn’t been long enough to conclude much about that one, given the long production time of major motion pictures.

To be honest DreamWorks had been stuck in the sequel mud for some time before it's aqcuisition.

IMO, Dreamworks always seemed like Burger King to Pixar's McDonalds. They made some good films, but they always seemed a little more "gimmicky" (not quite the word I'm looking for, but it'll have to do) compared to Pixar's best films.

Pixar have made 18 films. Dreamworks Animation have made about 35 films, over roughly the same time.

I like most of the films from both of them. There's a lot of just terrible content for children, and these companies generally avoid that.

Of Pixar's 18 films Cars 2, Cars 3, Finding Dory, Monsters University, Toy Story 2, and Toy Story 3 are sequels. (6 sequels out of 18 films.)

The 2000s were definitely Pixar's golden age. They made great films before then (e.g. Toy Story), and they've made great films since then (e.g. Inside Out), but the 2000s were an incredible run of very original stories executed impeccably.

Interestingly, of the Toy Story series, Toy Story 3[1] is considered by many to be the best of them (and one of the best Pixar movies overall as well). Sequels can be done well, even if they often aren't.

1: Just thinking about the ending now is making me tear up a little. I think the older you are, the more aspects of your life it will likely relate to.

It may not be perfect, but Trollhunters on Netflix is “okay” at the least. My five year old likes it and it doesn’t make me constantly cringe like their recent movies so I’d say they still have hope yet.

I think Amazon has done a fairly good job with Twitch. Adding features and such. Maybe it’s because there really isn’t another big competitor to twitch right now so nobody jumped ship when it was acquired.

That could be. Why has YouTube not showed up as a Twitch competitor?

They could be, but a) YouTube hasn't been doing much to market its live streaming services to Twitch's audience, and b) Twitch does a way, WAY better job of allowing streamers to make money than YT does. YT has been demonetizing videos at the drop of a hat, much to many creators' frustration, without providing any tools for creators to make alternative revenue, including locking down the ability to link to Patreon unless you already have a very established channel.

Compare that to Twich, which has multiple ways to support streamers right in-app and available to even pretty low-viewership streamers.

Good points. I don’t have a good idea of how Twitch streamers make money now, but my impression is that it’s mostly through subscriptions (through Twitch) and donations (not through Twitch). Even back 5 years ago streamers talked about how most of their audience (being tech-savvy) used Adblock, and I suspect that situation hasn’t gotten any better. Is Twitch making most of its money from cuts of subscriptions?

They take a bit of a cut when people buy “bits” too (twitch local donations).

Youtube is rolling out a twitch-style subscription payment system to all channels, starting with gaming channels first.

I don't know what's taking so long, but it's coming. Also, YT Red viewers still give money to demonetized but still partenered videos.

YT Red still isn't available in most countrys.

On the other hand, Amazon's acquisition of Comixology has been awful, as the first thing they did was go out of their way to make it harder for you to buy comics on an Android device.

Lots of counter examples with products that greatly improved post acquisition:

- Google / YouTube

- Facebook / IG

- Facebook / WhatsApp

- Tencent / Riot Games

- Tencent / Supercell

- Amazon / Twitch

I don't think the HN community would agree with the Facebook / Whatsapp acquisition.

Going from a payable service at exceptional value, to what is now which is a free service at the cost of your meta data collection and Facebooks general business practice, have not been a positive benefit to WhatsApp viabilty or presence.

Google / Android

That's not a lot compared to the ones that did not go well.

I think it's fair to assume it's "not a lot" because they weren't attempting to create an exhaustive list of mutually beneficial mergers and acquisitions.

Improved? In ways directly beneficial to their customers? I think those companies have been able to make a lot of money, but they haven't improved in any way that I care about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com