
Amazon in Running to Acquire Landmark Movie Chain - rchaudhary
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-16/amazon-is-said-to-be-in-running-to-acquire-landmark-movie-chain
======
everdev
Why is Amazon expanding into brick and mortar with Whole Foods and now
Landmark? Have they really saturated and squeezed all they can out of digital?

I like Apple's strategy better of sitting on piles of cash until they know
what to do with it.

~~~
megaremote
> I like Apple's strategy better of sitting on piles of cash until they know
> what to do with it.

This is exactly the wrong strategy. Money is nothing compared to investing in
business'.

~~~
everdev
I'm sure they have it invested in bonds or some minimal appreciating
investment to fight inflation.

Many businesses have headed south by expanding into less profitable or
unfamiliar business segments.

~~~
mcintyre1994
They own their own asset management company, which last year managed $268bn:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braeburn_Capital](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braeburn_Capital)

Investopedia says the largest hedge fund in the world last year had $122bn
under management: [https://www.investopedia.com/news/what-are-biggest-hedge-
fun...](https://www.investopedia.com/news/what-are-biggest-hedge-funds-world/)

I'm guessing they exclude Apple because it's private and outside investors
can't invest in it, but Apple's is twice as big as the biggest public one.

~~~
jjeaff
Apple's wealth is staggering, but I take solace in the fact that the wealth is
spread out quite a bit with the largest individual shareholder only having
around a million shared.

The largest institutional shareholders are Berkshire Hathaway and vanguard,
which are also owned by lots of investors and have minority stakes.

I worry a bit more about large companies with individuals who have outsized
control (like Amazon or Facebook).

------
clay_the_ripper
Man, it really seems like amazon is just going to be everything at some point.
In, say, 20 years will some meaningful percentage of all the money I spend
somehow funnel through amazon? Kind of seems that way.

~~~
rococode
You wake up in the morning. "Alexa, make me a coffee." As you settle into your
Amazon Auto - self-driving, of course - with a warm cup of Prime Espresso,
your car's HUD lights up with a reminder. "Don't forget, your monthly
electricity bill is due in 3 days! Thank you for being a customer! Echo
Energy". Agh, more bills to pay. Luckily, you've been able to refinance your
loans through your local BoA (Bank of Amazon) branch so you have more than
enough to cover your living costs.

To be honest though, I personally wouldn't mind Amazon controlling more
aspects of my life for now at least, however threatening to various liberties
that might be. My overall experiences with their customer service have been
stellar, which is much more than I can say for some of the other monopolistic
companies I have to deal with.

~~~
voltagex_
You're lucky - Amazon actually give a shit about the US.

They launched in Australia (the newspapers were predicting the end of retail).
They have what, 30% of products available here? Then they launched Prime -
except they obviously haven't hired anyone who has used Australia Post before.
You can't expect a Prime 2 day delivery if you use standard Post.

All this, and they thought restricting access to the US version was a good
idea.

Amazon Australia: death by 1000 paper cuts.

When eBay looks like a better option, you've really screwed up.

~~~
ClassyJacket
>You can't expect a Prime 2 day delivery if you use standard Post.

You can't even get Express Post items in 2 days about half the time, even tho
they "Guarantee next business day delivery"

~~~
ryanchoi
Not sure if this applies to this scenario, but tricky wording related to 1 day
delivery landed amzn in hot water in the UK. In this case, they meant one day
after dispatch, not one day from order placement.

[https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/business-45183887](https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/business-45183887)

------
benatkin
I hope they can collaborate with Netflix on this, much like they're
collaborating with Microsoft on a bridge between Siri and Cortana. I'd like to
see Black Mirror on the big screen.

~~~
leot
Netflix is an Amazon Prime video competitor.

~~~
vinay427
I think that was their point, as they mentioned a collaboration between Siri
and Cortana, two largely competing products.

~~~
benatkin
Yep. It's an example of collaboration in the face of fierce competition. BTW I
meant Alexa and Cortana. Oops.

------
vm
Amazon is buying urban, high end locations. First Whole Foods, now Landmark.
Clearly shows which customers they see as high value.

~~~
shostack
Not to mention if they own the real estate that has value both as an asset in
addition to being a foothold into meat space.

------
jsoc815
1) This would be a solid purchase. Hell, I've often thought about buying
Landmark myself. (But alas, slightly short on funds @ present)

2) This would address a problem that Netflix had/has w/awards (your 'film'
isn't because it didn't premiere (exclusively) in theatres and _contract
negotiations_ , e.g. 'Crazy Rich Asians'.[1]

While I am no longer gung-ho on Amazon due to some personal customer
experiences, I can't say that this isn't a smart move; it is.

[1] [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/crazy-rich-
asians...](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/crazy-rich-asians-story-
behind-rom-com-1130965)

------
colechristensen
Some of my favorite theaters are landmark and I would be very disappointed if
they get bought out by a FAANG type.

I think we need a Paramount decree for studios/streaming.

~~~
crazygringo
Why do you prefer Landmark to continue to be owned by Mark Cuban instead of
Jeff Bezos?

It's not like it's a mom & pop operation... I'm sure MBA types are running it
either way, so what's the difference?

~~~
jacquesc
Landmark has made good choices so far, and play some of the best films you
can't find anywhere else. I'm also worried that Amazon will decide that it's
more profitable to just have em switch to playing comic book movies nonstop
like every other theater.

~~~
crazygringo
I don't think there's any reason to worry... indie films are Landmark's entire
(seemingly successful) business model, their theaters are located exactly
where people who want to watch those movies live, and Amazon is producing
award-winning independent films like Manchester by the Sea.

Turning Landmark into an AMC clone would make about as much sense as
converting Whole Foods into Walmart-type stores. Which is to say, basically
zero business sense.

------
niceperson
In five years, people will be able to watch amazon content on large screens
whenever they wish and manybe amazon will air new episodes on a large screen
after you verify that you are a prime subscriber or something. I see poeple
living in thessse theatres.

Brilliant.

------
phnofive
Is this contingent on the Paramount decree being overturned, or would it
simply require some special approval?

------
sxp62000
Ha! If this happens, they'll probably end up doing MoviePass better than
MoviePass.

------
jameslk
I wonder how this might affect MoviePass' long term plan of strong arming
theaters

~~~
sokoloff
I think MoviePass is already probably more worried about short-term survival
than their long-term movie ticket world domination aspirations.

------
jimnotgym
Presumably not under the Trump administration, but you would have thought that
each of these steps that Amazon takes into connected areas is a step closer to
an anti-trust investigation?

~~~
bonesss
By definition any kind of merger or aquisition is gonna get you closer to an
anti-trust investigation.

That said: anti-trust is all about monopoly and abuse of monopoly power.
Expanding into connected markets is desirable, abusing monopoly to hamper
competition while doing so is illegal. Amazon is not a monopoly
[[https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-stock-price-not-a-
mon...](https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-stock-price-not-a-
monopoly-2017-8?r=US&IR=T&IR=T)], and isn't expanding anywhere they'd become
one easily.

That said, again: even if there is a marginal monopoly in their sprawling
Empire, and they abuse it, and an investigation is carried out, and
prosecution is recommended... Amazon has more money than god. Expect a half-
decade long trial with multiple appeals and unsatisfying judments that are
easily covered out of their cash-on-hand. Remember the DOJ v Microsoft? I
can't even see us getting halfway to that kind of action (as lame as that
judgment was... MS should have been split in three).

~~~
jimnotgym
>Amazon is not a monopoly

That article just describes Amazon as not a monopoly in retail as a whole in
the U.S.

The issues here are that Amazon's film business includes them being studio,
streamer, retailer and now maybe cinema owner. They also manufacture player
hardware which you may need to access their service.

I wanted to watch an Amazon series, but their app wasn't available on my
streaming box (and I doubt any technical justfication for this), so I had to
buy an Amazon Fire stick, but that was OK because I could use it to watch
YouTube as well. Except once Amazon had me, they removed the Google devices
from Amazon, and Google retaliated by removing YouTube from fire. This starts
to feel a lot like anti-competive behaviour. It reminds me of
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Patents_Compa...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Patents_Company)
In certain sectors of retail Amazon certainly do have much higher market share
than the cited article suggests, like computer equipment for instance,
although I don't have figures to hand.

My biggest concern is around the Amazon marketplace. By controlling the
marketplace and being a seller into the marketplace Amazon can monitor an
independents sales on a per-product basis. And once they see you doing well
selling widget x, they can get widget x built in China and sell it directly
and for less, thereby squeezing you out of the market. For lots of smaller
distributers Amazon is their biggest channel.

So when you say Amazon is not a Monopoly, that is an opinion and one I
disagree with.

------
shanghaiaway
This is not going to happen. Film producers are not allowed to own
distribution. This goes back to the early decades of Hollywood.

~~~
jasongill
"Not allowed" by whom? Industry practice? At this point with the modern
distracted, over-stimulated consumer, I would assume that these sorts of
gentlemen's agreements are headed out the window

Also there are multiple examples of production companies owning their
distributors which predate Netflix - think Disney and Buena Vista

~~~
shanghaiaway
Not allowed by the Supreme Court.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_system](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_system)

~~~
adventured
That's an incorrect conclusion you're drawing. That ruling doesn't apply an
inherent legal barrier to Amazon's situation with Landmark at all. It does not
ban movie production companies from owning distribution. An anti-trust review
for a given context would be required to determine whether a combination is in
violation of anti-trust laws. The Supreme Court in the Paramount case found
that particular scheme was in violation, that is all.

------
danjoc
The newspaper made some sense in a newsvertising sort of way, the grocery
store chain was a stretch, but a movie chain is just hubris. "I'm good at
computer stuff, so I'm good at everything!" Things haven't been going so well
at the grocery either, have they?

[https://www.businessinsider.com/whole-foods-employees-
reveal...](https://www.businessinsider.com/whole-foods-employees-reveal-why-
stores-are-facing-a-crisis-of-food-shortages-2018-1)

I only expect things to get worse. Oddly enough, this story really is
beginning to sound a lot like manna,

[http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm](http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm)

~~~
gumby
The newspaper, like Blue Origin, is a private investment of Bezo's and not
part of Amazon.

