Podcast Summary: Behind the Numbers: an EMARKETER Podcast

Episode: What If? Prime Cost Less, OpenAI Bought Apple (or Vice Versa), and the Netflix–WBD Deal Never Happens
Date: December 19, 2025
Host/Panel: Marcus (Host), Susie David Kane (VP of Content, Retail Desk Lead), Nate Elliott (Principal AI Analyst), Paul Van (VP of Content)

Overview:

This playful, “Shark Tank”-themed episode revolves around highly specific but highly unlikely predictions for 2026 in the digital media and tech world. Featuring three key scenarios—Amazon Prime’s pricing, OpenAI’s ambitions with Apple, and the Netflix–Warner Brothers Discovery merger—the team pitches bold ideas and evaluates their likelihood and business logic, debating the broader market and consumer dynamics at play.

Key Discussion Points & Predictions

1. Amazon Cuts Prime Membership Cost (Susie’s Prediction)

Timestamp: 05:30 – 16:10

Pitch Summary:

Susie predicts that, contrary to widespread expectations of a price hike, Amazon will make a modest, token reduction to its Prime subscription cost in 2026 to combat churn, reinforce customer value, and respond to competitive pressure (notably from Walmart+).

Supporting Arguments:

• Shrinking Prime Membership:
  • “Amazon prime membership, it's not even at a standstill. It's going down…54% in June 2025, down from 62.2% in 2022 and 68% in 2023.” (B, 06:40)
• Walmart+ Competitive Pressure:
  • Walmart+ is growing and comes in at just under $100 annually vs. Amazon’s $139 (B, 07:15)
• Prime’s Value Proposition:
  • “Prime is a flywheel…so much more than free shipping and streaming movies.” (B, 05:58)
  • Anticipates perception is as important as actual value.
• Cost Structure:
  • Automation improvements mean Amazon can absorb a small token cut (B, 08:00)

Panel Reaction:

• Paul: Appreciates the contrarian take but doubts Bezos's willingness to cut prices: "…it's just the law of physics. And I don't see it in Jeff Bezos's DNA to do any kind of price cut." (D, 09:16)
• Nate: Points out Prime’s value is uneven; suggests if the price drops, Prime may cut services:
  • “Most people don't want most of that stuff…” (C, 12:20)
  • “Yeah, I could see it going down five bucks or ten bucks…people would lose more value than the five or ten bucks that goes down.” (C, 13:10)
• Marcus: Notes Amazon’s household penetration is flat, arguing they “have to do something, especially if they want to add households.” (A, 11:12)
• Final Votes: The team “half invests,” agreeing it’s plausible but difficult due to Amazon's historical pricing behavior.

Notable Quotes:

• “Perception is reality, right? …given the price of so many things going up, it just, it's a feel good moment more than anything else.” — Susie (B, 14:05)
• “Retention is what the unlock is for Amazon prime right now, and they can't afford to lose more people.” — Susie (B, 10:53)

2. OpenAI Tries (and Fails) to Buy Apple (Nate’s Prediction)

Timestamp: 16:17 – 26:10

Pitch Summary:

Nate predicts OpenAI will attempt (but fail) to buy Apple, driven by OpenAI’s need for pervasive distribution, device expertise, and brand relevance—elements Apple provides better than Microsoft. Rapid OpenAI valuation growth and bold leadership ambitions are cited as enablers.

Supporting Arguments:

• OpenAI Wants Distribution/Hardware:
  • “Google had access to both distribution and integrations that OpenAI doesn’t…Apple could offer that distribution…” (C, 17:09)
• Valuation Trajectory:
  • “Every six months, their investors say you’re now worth twice what you were at this point in time…” (C, 17:47)
  • Predicts OpenAI valuation to top $3 trillion by end of 2026.
• Ego & Appetite for Scale:
  • “If there’s one thing we know about Altman, it’s that his ego is limitless and his appetite for growth and importance is also limitless.” (C, 18:29)

Panel Reaction:

• Susie: Skeptical OpenAI can reach the necessary valuation fast enough for such an acquisition.
  • "I think there comes a point where…the bigger you are, the harder it is to grow so fast.” (B, 19:18)
• Paul: Warns of market corrections, compares to dot-com bubble valuations:
  • “I think some of those valuations are based on vapor…we're kind of like reliving the dot com crash.” (D, 21:28)
• Reverse Scenario Discussed:
  • Could Apple try to buy OpenAI instead?
  • “It could…if the market starts to turn to where OpenAI doesn't suddenly look like an entity…then maybe it does make sense for Apple to swoop in…” (D, 22:45)
• Microsoft’s Stake: Major obstacle for any Apple acquisition attempt.
  • “Microsoft owns 27% of OpenAI…don't think Microsoft has any interest in selling OpenAI to Apple.” (C, 24:30)
• Final Votes:
  • Team is “half in”, see the ambition as possible but the execution as unworkable, especially in the stated timeframe.

Notable Quotes:

• “Sam Altman’s appetite is very often bigger than his stomach.” — Nate (C, 20:40)
• “This puts together two companies with core competencies that together will be a formidable force, but separately, like, neither has quite achieved what they can do as a duo.” — Paul (D, 21:48)

3. Netflix–Warner Brothers Discovery Merger Will Not Be Settled in 2026 (Paul’s Prediction)

Timestamp: 26:38 – 35:13

Pitch Summary:

Paul forecasts that the much-discussed Netflix acquisition of Warner Brothers Discovery (WBD) will not close in 2026 due to regulatory scrutiny, competitive complications (with Paramount also bidding), government involvement, and the possibility of additional bidders complicating the process.

Supporting Arguments:

• Multiple Bidders & Regulatory Complexity:
  • Hostile and multiple bids ensure “a lot of litigation before the deal even gets approved by the boards and goes before regulators.” (D, 27:42)
  • Government intervention “further complicated by the fact that the administration has inserted itself in the process.” (D, 27:09)
• Business Fragmentation & Uncertainty:
  • WBD’s structure (spinning off assets like CNN) adds complexity and potential buyer hesitation (B, 29:01)
  • Even with a deal, market fragmentation persists; Netflix cannot become a monopoly given Disney, Amazon, Apple, YouTube/TikTok, etc. (D, 32:10)
• Media Landscape:
  • “All of the media companies that…own legacy, traditional TV networks, are trying to spin them off and will continue to spin them off…streaming universe…will still be fragmented.” (D, 32:37)

Panel Reaction:

• Susie: Predicts deal may not happen at all, citing CNN as a “little big thing” nobody wants (B, 29:01)
• Nate: Agrees it will be protracted and complicated, almost a sure bet for delays (C, 30:49)
• Marcus: Notes Paul’s prediction may not be “unlikely” but credits the specificity and timeliness; ultimately gives Paul the “win” in this episode for being the most correct and realistic.
• Final Votes:
  • Paul receives majority “yes” (and wins the round).

Notable Quotes:

• “So I think whatever happens with these two, we're still going to be in a world where there's going to be a ton of fragmentation. There's not going to be a clear leader because it's not going to be easy to compare apples to apples across all of these companies.” — Paul (D, 32:45)
• “I don't see a world in which Netflix becomes like a monopolistic entity in premium video streaming because it has added HBO to its portfolio.” — Paul (D, 33:15)

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• Joking about Prediction Points:

  • “How much do you like? 0.63 of a point.” — Nate (C, 16:03)
  • “Technically we can't [give half points]. But Susie is so infamous that she gets to make up the rules.” (D, 15:50)

• On Software Subscriptions & Psychological Pricing:

  • “There are all these apps that help you understand all the recurring payments. So if you add something for free, again it goes back to that perceived value.” (B, 14:33)

• On Industry Rivalries:

  • “[The idea of Apple buying OpenAI] brings me back to the Mac vs Windows battles of the 90s and 2000s. Suddenly Apple and Microsoft going at it again.” — Paul (D, 25:11)

Key Timestamps for Segments

• Intro & Setup: 00:48 – 05:09
• Susie’s Amazon Prime Pitch & Debate: 05:09 – 16:10
• Nate’s OpenAI/Apple Pitch & Debate: 16:17 – 26:10
• Paul’s Netflix–WBD Pitch & Debate: 26:38 – 35:13

Tone and Style

• Conversational, witty, and slightly irreverent: The group banters with each other, pokes fun at industry tropes, and keeps the tone lively despite the wonky details.
• Fact-driven with market/statistical insights, but not heavy: Stats support arguments, but focus remains on strategic speculation.
• Clear host direction: Marcus guides the discussion, keeps time, and mediates the “investment decisions.”

Conclusion

This “What If?” episode offers engaging thought experiments about the industry’s future, underpinned by up-to-the-minute metrics, healthy skepticism, and a sense that even the most outlandish predictions have a kernel of possible reality given today’s tech/media volatility. While the ideas are speculative, the strategic thinking and dynamic interplay between guests offer actionable context for marketers, advertisers, and anyone keen to understand digital's next big moves.