Ben Thompson at Stratechery yesterday:

It’s important to note that the President does not have final say in the matter: President Trump directed the DOJ to oppose AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner, but the DOJ lost in federal court, much to AT&T’s detriment. Indeed, the irony of mergers and regulatory review is that the success of the latter is often inversely correlated to the wisdom of the former: the AT&T deal for Time Warner never made much sense, which is directly related to why it (correctly) was approved. It would have been economically destructive for AT&T to, say, limit Time Warner content to its networks, so suing over that theoretical possibility was ultimately unsuccessful.

Thompson also makes clear that Paramount itself couldn’t possibly launch a credible bid for Warner Bros.:

Paramount’s bid, it should be noted, was for the entire Warner Bros. Discovery business, including the TV and cable networks that will be split off next year; Netflix is only buying the Warner Bros. part. Puck reported that the stub Netflix is leaving behind is being valued at $5/share, which would mean that Netflix outbid Paramount.

And, it should be noted, that Paramount money wouldn’t be from the actual business, which is valued at a mere $14 billion; new owner David Ellison is the son of Oracle founder Larry Ellison, who is worth $275 billion. Netflix, meanwhile, is worth $425 billion and generated $9 billion in cash flow over the last year. Absent family money this wouldn’t be anywhere close to a fair fight.

It’s not illegal or even sketchy for an acquisition to be backed by family money from an entirely separate source (in the Ellisons’ case, Oracle), but it certainly makes more business sense for Netflix to make this acquisition than Paramount. There’s a strong argument that David Ellison doesn’t really know what the fuck he’s doing in the media racket; no one would argue that Netflix doesn’t know exactly what they’re doing.

The Wall Street Journal yesterday:

Paramount launched a $77.9 billion hostile takeover offer for Warner Bros. Discovery Monday, taking its case for acquiring the storied entertainment company directly to shareholders just days after Warner agreed to a deal with Netflix.

Paramount, run by David Ellison, is arguing that its all-cash $30-a-share offer for all of Warner, owner of networks such as CNN, TBS and HGTV as well as the HBO Max streaming service, is a better deal for shareholders and more likely to pass regulatory muster.

“We’re really here to finish what we started,” Ellison said on CNBC Monday morning.

The “more likely to pass regulatory muster” bit is a euphemism for the Ellisons (David, and the real player here, his $250+-billion-dollar-net-worth father Larry) being on the inside of the Trump administration oligarchy. It’s so transparent that Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner is part of the hostile bid, along with sovereign wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar.

That said, while the Executive Branch is influential in such regulatory approvals, it’s not completely under their control. The U.S. court system, while under duress from this administration, remains independent, and with admittedly notable exceptions, remains largely on the up-and-up.

And CNN’s Brian Stelter reports that Netflix was prepared for this:

“Today’s move was entirely expected,” Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos said on stage at a UBS conference just now, waving off Paramount’s hostile play for WBD. “We have a deal done, and we are incredibly happy with the deal... We’re super confident we’re going to get it across.”

CNBC:

Apple chip leader Johny Srouji addressed rumors of his impending exit in a memo to staff on Monday, saying he doesn’t plan on leaving the company anytime soon. “I love my team, and I love my job at Apple, and I don’t plan on leaving anytime soon,” he wrote.

Bloomberg reported on Saturday that Srouji had told CEO Tim Cook that he was considering leaving, citing people with knowledge of the matter.

It wasn’t rumors, plural. It was one report, on Saturday, from Mark Gurman at Bloomberg, and Srouji just called bullshit on it.

What a colossal fuck-up for Gurman and Bloomberg. There’s no possible scenario where Srouji was threatening to leave Apple for a competitor on Saturday and telling his staff (in a memo meant to leak to the press) “I love my job at Apple, and I don’t plan on leaving anytime soon” Monday morning.

The most gracious interpretation for Gurman and Bloomberg is that Srouji had expressed this to Cook, at some point in the recent past, and Cook addressed whatever it took to keep Srouji on board. But even in that scenario, they ran a story Saturday that was wrong at the time it was published.

The more likely scenario is the one suggested by Neil Cybart:

If someone wanted to sow seeds of doubt among Apple employees in an effort to help their own poaching efforts, there are at least three publications who would have no problem offering an anonymous microphone to that person.

I.e., the source for this story about Srouji being unhappy at Apple and considering leaving for a competitor was aligned with one of those competitors, and Gurman and his editors at Bloomberg said “Sure, we’ll print that.” Meta, of course, is the competitor that comes to mind.

It speaks to Gurman’s personal and Bloomberg’s institutional influence that Srouji and Apple saw the need to shoot the bogus narrative down in public like this. I can’t remember the last time an Apple executive saw the need to send an intended-to-leak memo like this to shoot down one bogus story. After last week, though, this one couldn’t be ignored.

Great coffee changes the day. Since 2005, our family-owned roastery has taken the slow and careful approach, sourcing small-lot coffees, roasting in small batches and shipping every bag fresh. Award-winning coffee delivered to your home or office.

Holiday gifts? Fresh coffee is a gift that never misses, easy to give, even better to receive.

DF readers get 20% off with code DF.

Fresh beans shipped nationwide.

Give better coffee this season.

Juli Clover, writing at MacRumors (regarding a report at Reuters):

Apple could ultimately have to pay up to an estimated 637 million euros to address the damage suffered by 14 million iPhone and iPad users in the Netherlands.

That’s about €45/user.

The lawsuit dates back to 2022, when two Dutch consumer foundations (Right to Consumer Justice and App Store Claims) accused Apple of abusing its dominant market position and charging developers excessive fees. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Dutch iPhone and iPad users, and it claimed that Apple’s 30 percent commission inflated prices for apps and in-app purchases.

I’m curious what these consumer foundations would consider a “fair” (and thus legal) commission rate.

This all comes back to the argument that Apple’s App Store commission inflates prices. A recent Apple-funded (and Apple-promoted) study suggests this is not true — that with lower commissions mandated by the DMA, prices paid by consumers stayed the same and the difference went to the developers. That’s good if you’re a developer, but it’s not the argument being made by these consumer advocate groups.

That said, I pointed out just the other day that Tiimo, a to-do app that Apple just named as the iPhone app of the year in the 2025 App Awards, charges about 20 percent less for subscriptions on its website compared to its in-app subscriptions. An Apple-funded, Apple-promoted study showing that the App Store’s commissions don’t raise prices ought to be taken with a few grains of salt.

Apple argued that the Dutch court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because the EU App Store is run from Ireland, and therefore the claims should be litigated in Ireland. Apple said that if the Dutch court was able to hear the case, it could lead to fragmentation with multiple similar cases across the EU, plus it argued that customers in the Netherlands could have downloaded apps while in other EU member states.

I know Apple wants this litigated in Ireland because the Irish government sees Apple as an ally, not an adversary, but it does seem contrary to the idea of a single market if a company doing business in the EU is subject to different antitrust laws from each of the EU’s 27 member states.