Friends is leaving Netflix for AT&T's new streaming service

Shawn Knight

Posts: 15,255   +192
Staff member
Recap: AT&T set the ball in motion a few years back with its acquisition of Time Warner. The process was met with some resistance but eventually, the colossal merger was pushed through.

WarnerMedia, the mass media and entertainment conglomerate operated by AT&T, has named its upcoming direct-to-consumer streaming media service and revealed some of the exclusives it plans to carry.

HBO Max will offer content for everyone, ranging from families with young children to adults of all ages. It’ll be anchored by HBO programming and the “best-of-the-best” from WarnerMedia’s extensive vault of brands and libraries as well as new and existing exclusives.


At launch, all 236 episodes of Friends will be available exclusively on HBO Max. Fan-favorite Friends is currently available on Netflix but will be departing the streaming giant early next year. Other classics heading to WarnerMedia’s new platform include all episodes of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Pretty Little Liars.

New Warner Bros.’ produced dramas for The CW including the DC Entertainment series Batwoman and Katy Keene (a spinoff of Riverdale) will also be featured, as will at least two romantic comedies from Reese Witherspoon and four flicks from producer Greg Berlanti.

HBO Max is scheduled to launch in the spring of 2020 with more than 10,000 hours of content. Pricing and compatible platforms haven’t yet been revealed.

Permalink to story.

 
Online services killed cable and finally gave customers what they want... now 2019, Online services splinter until they cost 500% more than cable combined, worse than cable, customers lose again.
 
Lol, I have access to the DVD of every season if I wanted to watch it again.
And if I did want to stream it, I'm sure I could find a more convenient way of doing so...
 
Seriously they are using that show to promote their new service? A show that ended forever ago and that every real fan has seen 100 times over? Yeah I don't see it drawing it customers. People will just find it elsewhere and keep Netflix. I honestly never watched Friends on Netflix because that show is stale to me. I don't think Netflix needs to worry about that.

I think Netflix and Disney are the ones that will take over. Other than those two, you'll have Hulu as a distant third. The only way Netflix will die is if they start running those ads they've been thinking about. That will be the last draw for them. Then and only then will they die.
 
Lol, I have access to the DVD of every season if I wanted to watch it again.
And if I did want to stream it, I'm sure I could find a more convenient way of doing so...
In the US, at least, everyone's local public library probably has the series on disc or can get it through an inter-library loan. Cheapest legal way possible to view it, IMO.
Maybe I'm on the minority here but why do people care so much about "Friends"?! There are plenty of new good shows.
Personally, I am with you. I have never seen it, and I have absolutely no interest in seeing it.

As I see this announcement, it is a good thing. Netflix spent $100M on the series - now that $100M is free to be used elsewhere.

Online services killed cable and finally gave customers what they want... now 2019, Online services splinter until they cost 500% more than cable combined, worse than cable, customers lose again.
Personally, I don't think this is the likely case. I cut the cord about four-years ago now, and I have survived :laughing: on OTA, Netflix, and commercial Hulu. Those three already have way more than I can ever watch so becoming a subscriber to some other service (or services) has a diminishing value.

Whatever content is exclusive to any streaming service usually always gets released on disk, and I do not mind waiting for it. Heck, I've become so tired of going to theaters because the modern theater experience is crap, at least, IMO, that I wait for movies to come out on disk, then go to my local library where each movie will cost at the most $0.50 for me to reserve it if it is not a holding of the local library branch.

An example of a series I am interested in that is exclusive to CBS All Access is Star Trek: Discovery. The first season is out on disk and my local library has it (again at maybe $0.50 to borrow) so I do not even see a reason to pay CBS All Access $4.00 for a month to binge the series.

I really think these streaming services are trying to latch on to the fad. I bet at least some of these services are in for enlightenment in that I do not think these services will end up being as profitable as they want them to be.

I also think that many, if not most, cord cutters will have no desire to subscribe to more than a few, at most, streaming services, and I, for one, certainly will not subscribe to so many services that I would end up paying what I was paying before I cut the cord. I am paying less than 1/4 the monthly cost of what I was before, and I still have so much content that I cannot possibly watch it all.
 
Lol, I have access to the DVD of every season if I wanted to watch it again.
And if I did want to stream it, I'm sure I could find a more convenient way of doing so...
In the US, at least, everyone's local public library probably has the series on disc or can get it through an inter-library loan. Cheapest legal way possible to view it, IMO.
Maybe I'm on the minority here but why do people care so much about "Friends"?! There are plenty of new good shows.
Personally, I am with you. I have never seen it, and I have absolutely no interest in seeing it.

As I see this announcement, it is a good thing. Netflix spent $100M on the series - now that $100M is free to be used elsewhere.

Online services killed cable and finally gave customers what they want... now 2019, Online services splinter until they cost 500% more than cable combined, worse than cable, customers lose again.
Personally, I don't think this is the likely case. I cut the cord about four-years ago now, and I have survived :laughing: on OTA, Netflix, and commercial Hulu. Those three already have way more than I can ever watch so becoming a subscriber to some other service (or services) has a diminishing value.

Whatever content is exclusive to any streaming service usually always gets released on disk, and I do not mind waiting for it. Heck, I've become so tired of going to theaters because the modern theater experience is crap, at least, IMO, that I wait for movies to come out on disk, then go to my local library where each movie will cost at the most $0.50 for me to reserve it if it is not a holding of the local library branch.

An example of a series I am interested in that is exclusive to CBS All Access is Star Trek: Discovery. The first season is out on disk and my local library has it (again at maybe $0.50 to borrow) so I do not even see a reason to pay CBS All Access $4.00 for a month to binge the series.

I really think these streaming services are trying to latch on to the fad. I bet at least some of these services are in for enlightenment in that I do not think these services will end up being as profitable as they want them to be.

I also think that many, if not most, cord cutters will have no desire to subscribe to more than a few, at most, streaming services, and I, for one, certainly will not subscribe to so many services that I would end up paying what I was paying before I cut the cord. I am paying less than 1/4 the monthly cost of what I was before, and I still have so much content that I cannot possibly watch it all.

Your library charges you to borrow things?
 
Your library charges you to borrow things?
Only if my neighborhood branch has to get it from another branch. If it is in the neighborhood branch's collection, then no, there is no charge. There would also be no charge if I were to go to the branch that has what I want. But still, $0.50 is nothing - contrast that to Redbox at $1.50 per day for DVD and $2.00 per day for BR.
 
Back