And apple tv side, but first, netflix trying to get on time warner cable, they are nice right now?
Probably.
But not as much because comcast is necessarily taken the idea as much as the various different parts of the regulatory process needs to go forward in this deal and it is likely any sort of big move like that that time warner cable would have done on its own is probably halted.
That has to do with time warner cable's management decision as much as comcast.
That said, no doubt these two companies have had different strategies when it comes to netflix or apple tv or other products that potentially could compete with the cable products.
The main difference is that time warner cable has been very willing to be open to the idea of other companies coming in and melding with their product.
In other words, if apple tv wants to study user interface for time warner customers, time warner says we are fine with that because they are better at that.
Comcast has been a little bit more closed.
They are a little bit more wary about letting the intruders into the gates.
So we will see how it progresses.
Jon, tell us from the side of netflix and apple tv how much trust do they have of comcast and time warner cable?
If you think about the broadcasters themselves, the ones cutting the deals with the likes of netflix, they get paid a lot of money from comcast so they have to be respectful of that.
But a lot are skeptical that all of the people who watch those various shows will continue through cable.
That is why they are developing their own apps.
It is almost like a hedge.
They will go as far as they can without frustrating the cable company.
And then, of course, disney did this landmark eel with the netflix where much of the feature movie content, when it is out of the theaters it will not be available through the cable world first but available through netflix.
They have a vested interest in seeing services like netflix continued -- to get big, almost a validation of the kind of deals they are cutting.
That is where things get complicated.
It doesn't sound like it can become desk, located.
-- it doesn't sound good can become, located.
Is this an issue for regulators at all?
When looking at this, if they start to think that innovation for television might get stunted by doing the merger.
And other words, if comcast gets so big i buying time warner cable, it may feel like we have all these customers right now and we can do our own thing and basically shut out competitors like apple tv trying to innovate or other companies that could potentially use the structure of comcast wiring, in other words, the pipes, to innovate.
If comcast says we don't want anything to do with you, we have our own structure, we will stop innovation -- if that is a concern for regulators it could be an issue.
But i highly doubt it will be because comcast knows that.
Being very straightforward and say, look, we're not going to curb this.
We are very open to partnerships.
I imagine the language gets out there in the regulatory process and will not be an issue.
Jon, out of raynaud, it was less than a week out -- out of reno, less than a week out since it was announced.
They have been very cautious on their comments so far.
As we said earlier, they get paid so much from the likes of comcast that ruffling too many feathers would be a dangerous thing.
What i would say on top of what alex is saying, apple has a lot of goodwill.
In a world where generally it is assumed that we don't really like the cable companies, a lot of people or a lot of consumers like apple.
That is why we sort have -- sort of have been beating the drum about whether they would move in the living room in a bigger way with a product.
That is one of the big factors for apple to continue to go down the path, it is just the tricky part has been to figure out all the rights deals.
Not only partner with time warner cable.
When these shows show up anywhere and everywhere it gets legally complicated.
Alex, you wrote this great story about where does this leave charter communications, which is now become small and is looking smaller.
Possibly may be partnering with cox communications?
But cox came out with a state and -- a statement saying we will not comment on rumors but we will be clear that cox is still not for sale.
Do you believe this?
I do.
A few months ago i reported chartered and -- charter and can't bring talks.
Cox is not for sale but they may be willing to acquire.
The idea is that cox what technically acquire charter and then have to find out who will run the company.
It will be similar to a t-mobile and sprint merge.
It is not clear he will run that -- who will run that company but sprint would be the acquirer.
Cox may acquire charter if something would be done but it is potentially possible charter management can run the company because tom rutledge is such a known operator.
It is just speculation at this point.
But cox -- look at time warner cable and look that comcast did do a partnership with time warner cable.
Time warner cable was very open saying we may be for sale at the right place -- at the right price.
I was speaking with one of the bankers involved in this deal, and he was saying that what kind of turned the tide in many ways for brian roberts was that john malone and their team came in and kind of complicated the situation.
They made the deal seem so complicated for shareholders.
Whereas it was very simple and very easy, an alliance between comcast and time warner cable.
That is what he said kind of turned the tide for ryan roberts 18, i think that it's a much easier deal to deal with.
One, it is an all stock deal.
Here's a price, here is all stocks.
The charter bid was both stock and cash.
Time warner cable wanted a collar on the back.
It got complicated.
The second point is that cable is a collegial industry, not competitive, because all of these companies don't compete with each other.
There he simple in a way that comcast and time warner cable, who have done a lot of working together over the years, will come to a friendly agreement instead of a hostile bid where a smaller company was buying a larger company and all of a sudden there are words being thrown back and forth.
What i heard, brian was a little uncomfortable with that, especially since he had such a good relationship with the time warner cable ceo.
The other thing pointed out to me by the person who was part of the deal was that this is a classic activist shareholder type move, except for the fact that john malone walked away from this deal with nothing.
He was saying if carl icahn had done this deal, he would have at least made money.
A lot of questions about what was going on.
Why didn't john malone and tom rutledge managed to at least make money for their shareholders?
We would have to hear from them.
It is a great question.
Other advisors have brought it up.
I do want to say one thing, though, which is, even though brian went like this to be some sort of a friendly deal, there is no doubt -- once this to be some sort of friendly deal, there is no doubt he was talking with charter and at least handed totally onboard with the idea of a hostile bid and partnership, so i don't want to make it like brian roberts comes off as above the fray.
He was definitely involved.
The question therefore would be, he decided eventually that he could get more of what he wanted by doing an all stock deal and by doing it friendly.
He comes away looking better in
via apple - Google News http://ift.tt/1eRqWpq
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment