What If? Prime Cost Less, OpenAI Bought Apple (or Vice Versa), and the Netflix–WBD Deal Never Happens | Behind the Numbers

Summary

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.

Transcript

[A]

Take your brand to new heights with inflight advertising powered by Viasat ads. High engagement formats, targeted delivery and self service tracking. All three make it very simple. Reach millions of travelers across leading airlines in a premium captive environment. Join their journey with viasat ads. Hey gang. It's Friday, December 19th. Suzy, Nate, Paul and listeners welcome in behind the Numbers E marketing video podcast made possible by Viasat ads. I'm Marcus. Joining me for today's episode, we have three people, two of them New York based folks. VP of content, head of our retail desk and host of our reimagined retail show is the infamous Susie David Kane.

[B]

Thank you for having me.

[A]

Welcome to the show.

[B]

This is one of my favorite episodes.

[A]

Okay, there's more. Good.

[B]

You know I'm not good at instructions. Come on. How many years have we known each other?

[A]

I told you we shouldn't have. Stuart insisted you join the episode.

[B]

It's because I have the best predictions.

[A]

Okay. We also have with U.S. principal AI analyst Nate Elliott.

[C]

Tally Hill. Marcus.

[A]

Oh, good, Then it's not going to get better. I know. Then up in the great state of Maine, VP of Content, Paul Van.

[D]

Happy to be here, but wondering how I can become infamous like Susie. Oh, what do I need to do.

[A]

What she's already started doing, which is.

[B]

Try to follow the rules?

[A]

Sure.

[B]

I'm a good rule follower.

[A]

Okay.

[D]

I definitely can't do that. So sorry I won't be infamous.

[A]

Good, good. This has already gone off the rails. Today's fact. Let's get to that. So a Boeing 747's wingspan is almost twice as long as the distance traveled by the Wright Brothers First Flight, which is just 12 seconds. Nothing.

[C]

Okay, so that means the wingspan is 24 seconds.

[A]

24. It would have taken them 24 seconds. Yeah. A Boeing 7. That's what you took away from this. A Boeing 747. Wingspan is 24 seconds is another way to look at this. Yeah, this isn't a shot of the Wright brothers. It's still impressive. Okay, Wilbur, it is.

[D]

And two rights don't make a wrong, so.

[C]

Oh man.

[B]

I'm always canvassing for. For guests on my show. So just remember.

[A]

You really want these two on.

[B]

Well, that's. I kind of thought I did, but now I'm not so sure.

[C]

Susie, I think he was asking me.

[A]

So the reason I bring this up and I say it's impressive is because the farthest that humans have traveled from Earth is 250,000 miles, which is 400 kilometers for people overseas. Set in 1970 by the crew of Apollo 13, we've not. We've not traveled further than 50 years ago. It's like a hundred times around the Earth, basically. So the first flight was 12 seconds, a tiny distance, like 100 meters or whatever, and then now we travel 250,000 miles around the Earth.

[C]

Have we gotten more efficient since that Apollo launch? Why haven't we gone that far?

[A]

Just maybe we're like, there's nothing out there. Let's just stay home. Maybe it's a microcosm of life. I feel like everyone. We stay home more. We order in. Maybe that's just what NASA decided.

[C]

NASA knew the pandemic was coming 50 years ago and prepared for it.

[A]

Get doordash.

[B]

They're also sending stars. So it could be that they're spending their time and energy in different ways. And by stars, I mean Katy Perry, for example, who is all over the news in Canada because she's dating.

[A]

Oh, famous people into space.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Yeah, Good. Anyway, in today's episode, we make some very specific but highly unlikely. It's awful. If you're still listening. Thank you. God knows how you made it this far. We'll make some very specific but highly unlikely predictions for 2026. Shark tank sty. Okay, here's how this episode works for the one listener still tuned in. Susie's first. She gets 60 seconds to pitch a very specific but highly unlikely prediction that she thinks will come true in 2026. It's highly unlikely because it's so specific. Then me, Nate, Paul, and everyone listening will decide. We become the panel. We decide if we're going to invest in or believe in this prediction. So we are the sharks, and then Nate goes next, and so on and so forth. Let's do it. Suzy, what do you have for us?

[B]

I am so excited about my prediction. And like, every time I come up with one, it is so specific and maybe improbable, but still worth a shot.

[A]

So everyone, remember when I just said say the. Just say. Remember when I said just say the prediction?

[B]

I can't. It's very hard. Very, very hard. Yes.

[A]

All right.

[B]

Okay. So here's my prediction. Ready? Everyone, especially the street, is expecting that Amazon will increase the cost of prime, but I actually think that they'll make a small token reduction instead. It won't be a dramatic cut, but I do think that they will make a slightly smaller adjustment down so that the consumers can feel heard. They will feel like they're combating Churn, and they will be able to reinforce this idea of their program having so much value. Because don't forget Amazon prime is a flywheel mechanism. It's so much more than free shipping and streaming movies. But they can't afford to lose people. And everyone is cord cutting right now in lots of different sort of membership recurring revenue ways. So I think they're gonna go against the grain and they're gonna cut again a token small amount. And there are three pillars to my theory which I don't think 60 second allows for them. But the consumer is fragile. So that's one, there's this whole idea around cost cutting. Two, Amazon has a flywheel that relies on Amazon prime and it needs to make sure that that's working. However, Amazon prime membership, it's not even at a standstill. It's going down this year to last year in the data we have. So it was 54% of US adults 18 to 65 pay for Amazon prime in June 2025 and that's down. It was 62.2percent in 2022 and 68 in 2023. So it's gone up and then it's come back down again. So they need to combat that. And Walmart plus is growing. It's the only one of the subscription services that's growing and it's only at just under $100 annually versus Amazon prime which is 139 and the third leg of the this sort of prediction. And the meat of it is Amazon has invested so much money in automation that that their E commerce business now is margin positive. And so I think that they can do this little token move and absorb it and not really kill their margin.

[A]

So 139 currently that was changed back in April 2022. So it's been the same price for a while. It started February 2005 is when this came out. It started 79 bucks a year and was that for basically a decade. Then they bumped it up from 80 to 100. It was there for a few couple of years and then over the pandemic it went from 100 to 120 and then 2022 from 120 to 140. So you think it's going to go down close to Walmart +100.

[B]

So I think they won't go down to the $98. There's something very strategic about $98, but Amazon prime is so much more. So it's kind of, I don't want to call it smoke and mirrors, but it's around perception and making sure that people understand that there's value in what they're delivering. Which is way more than the $139 annually when you take all the different services together. But like many other subscription, whether it's CTV or otherwise, there is this idea around. You have to go in low to get market penetration and then you can start charging more. I was going to use a loaded word, gouging people. And even in Amazon Prime's word world, it's not gouging. I mean, they are literally g. More. More away than the 139 annual fee. But I think the world is so fragile right now when it comes to the consumer wallet and their mindset that even. And I'm not saying a big break, I'm just saying like a couple of dollars and maybe they'll do a tiered pricing. People are already upset about having to pay for a little bit extra if they don't want to have Amazon prime with ads. You have to pay a little bit more if you want to have Whole Foods delivery. So they're going to figure out a way to have like a more basic sort of annual fee fee that will feel like. I've heard you. I know you're under price pressures. We don't want you to leave us. And I think the risk of not doing something, even though admittedly they haven't been raising their prices, that's not different than a Netflix or any other sort of streaming service where they all start low and undercut the market, try and showcase their value so that they can then increase prices as often as they need to.

[A]

Mm. Paul, Nate, what do you think?

[D]

Well, I'm intrigued by the counterintuitiveness of the idea. And I will say, you know, Apple just eliminated the upcharge for the MLS package. So now if you're an Apple TV subscriber, you get access to MLS, which previously had cost like 80 bucks a year to watch. Marcus, I know you'll appreciate this. World cup winner Lionel Messi and others. So there's like maybe a little bit of foreshadowing of streaming services realizing that they've gone off the deep end with nothing but price increases. But on the other hand, it's just the law of physics. And I don't see it in Jeff Bezos's DNA to. To do any kind of price cut. I mean, on the next space flight, not only does he have to go farther than, you know, whatever distance it was to the moon, but he's going to have to take Justin Trudeau and Katy Perry with him. So that's going to cost a lot more. So I don't Know, Paul, you know what?

[B]

Me too. I thought a little bit about that. And would Bezos be interested in sort of cutting a break? And the truth is that I think not giving people a break is not gonna work for them. Churn is worse. Retention is what the unlock is for Amazon prime right now, and they can't afford to lose more people.

[A]

Yeah, that makes sense to me. It feels like they've got to do something, especially if they want to add households. So we've been tracking Amazon prime households. What's the numbers here? In 2016, it was about a third of American households. 2019, about half this year. 2025, it was about three quarters to 75%. But go out four years and we think it's going to go from 75% of American households having prime to 77%. So it's basically flat. Maybe that goes down if price pressure starts to catch up with folks. I could see it as giving Prime a second wind. Absolutely. Nate, what do you think?

[C]

I could see Amazon potentially cutting people a break on the prime subscription, but I have to imagine they would also reduce what they offer as part of that package. I mean, Marcus, you talked about the amount of money having gone up over the last 10 or 15 years since they launched prime, but they have taken away services as well. I mean, adding a delivery charge to Whole Foods deliveries, putting in ads, unless you want to pay more, all of this is a further reduction in value beyond just the price going up. And Susie, you make the point that people get a lot more value than $139. But that's only if you want all the stuff that's in that package. And most people don't want most of that stuff. They want the delivery and they want the movies and TV shows. And people aren't using Amazon Music. People aren't using the other stuff that they claim as value as part of that package. So, you know, it's easy to reduce the price or give something away for free when it's, you know, when you're including things that people, people don't really want. That's, let's be honest, that's why Apple was able to give away MLS plus as part of their package. Now, I love soccer. I've been a season ticket holder for two different Major League Soccer clubs in my life. But I also know that 80 bucks a year for MLS content was always going to be a hard sell. And likewise, if Amazon wants to drop that price, they're going to have to pull out some of the things that they claim is Value that maybe people aren't really using. And yeah, I could see it going down five bucks or ten bucks potentially, but I think people would lose more value than the five or ten bucks that goes down.

[B]

Well. And I agree, perception is reality, right? And they are definitely offering more things, but there are three main things people are using and it's really about savings, convenience and entertainment. Basically Amazon prime, but I was talking about a token and I think it wouldn't even be like on a monthly basis. It might not even be calculated. Right. It might just be if you do the annual because now they've locked you in, you have $5. I'm really talking about token.

[C]

Yeah, I mean if they do that, I don't see them running ads on every Amazon delivery truck in America about how the price of prime has gone down. But I also think that people are smart enough to know that if it's gone down 12 cents then that's not actually helping.

[A]

Yeah, wonder if they add something and that's the, the extra value that they're giving folks. They're saying we know things are tough and we're going to add this for free, you know, into, into the same, into the package for the same price.

[C]

Suzy would know this better than me, but haven't they kind of thrown every single thing they have into prime except for ad free and mobile delivery?

[B]

Well, and I think the idea is more like people are feeling so much pressure and now 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. It's not quite the same as the dollar in your pocket. And so I know it's only 12 cents, I didn't do the math, but let's go with 12 cents a day. Not a really big deal. But I think given the price of so many things going up, it just, it's a feel good moment more than anything else.

[D]

One thing I could see them doing because they're already starting to do it is so sometimes if you order something on Amazon and you bundle it or you don't do like the fastest shipping, they will give you a credit like a movie rental. So maybe they would do something like that because that's actually something that's not rolled into Prime. Like yes, prime gives you access to Amazon prime. But if you're watching a movie, almost always there's like a rental fee for the movie. So maybe they give you like, you know, two credit rentals during the course of a year to two rental credits for the Course of years or something where they're kind of throwing you a bone.

[A]

Yeah, I'm half in. Same half. All right, Nate, Full point or half a point?

[C]

I didn't know we could do half points.

[A]

Susie invented it.

[B]

I invented it. Yep.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

Technically we can't. But Susie. Susie is so infamous that she gets to make up the rules.

[B]

That's right. But you can also give a point and a half.

[C]

Three of a point.

[A]

Yeah. Have to.

[B]

You could do a point and a half.

[A]

That's fine. You don't have to do a point and a half. What was that, Nate? Sorry.

[C]

How much do you like? 0.63 of a point.

[A]

No.

[C]

Okay, I'll do half a point.

[D]

All right.

[A]

One and a half for Suzy. For her, Amazon will reduce its prime membership cost in 2026. Prediction. We move on. Nate, what you got for us?

[C]

All right. I think that by this time next year, OpenAI will have tried and failed to buy Apple. Okay. I think you guys are probably thinking of two objections right now. One is, why would they try to buy Apple when they should try to buy Microsoft? After all, they've been working with Microsoft for almost a decade. Microsoft owns 27% of their stock, and they owe Microsoft almost $300 billion in Azure license fees over the next few years. But the reality is, Microsoft doesn't have the stuff that OpenAI covets. When OpenAI declared this code red in the wake of Gemini 3, it wasn't just that Gemini 3 was perhaps a better model than ChatGPT 5.1. It was also that usage was growing. And the reason usage was growing was because Google had access to both distribution and integrations that OpenAI doesn't have access to. And Apple could offer that distribution and those integrations more readily than Microsoft could. You can't get the number one mobile OS in the world because Google already has that. But Apple has the number two mobile OS in the world and number one in the US you can't get the number one browser in the world. Google's got that. But Apple has the number two browser in the world. They have incredibly large number of users on their email services, on their cloud services, and perhaps most importantly, they have both design and device manufacturing expertise, and they have cool and street credibility that Microsoft can offer and OpenAI would want to go for. I think your second objection is how can they buy a company that's worth three or four times as much as they are? But if you look at the increase in the valuations on OpenAI's investments over the last couple of years. They're doubling in value about every six months. Every six months, their investors say you're now worth twice what you were at this point in time. Based on that math, they're worth about three quarters of a trillion dollars. And by this time next year they'll be worth more than $3 trillion. If they follow that same trajectory, which is about the same size as Apple, a little bit less. About the same size as Microsoft too, also a little bit less. So either on their own or with a partner like Nvidia, I could see them making a play for Apple. And 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. And I think they'll make a play.

[A]

I like this because they've shown efforts to do something in the hardware space before they bought former Apple design lead Jony I've's AI device startup IO back in May of last of this year, 2025 for about 6 to 7 billion dollars. And now Mr. I've is the head of design for both companies. So they've shown interest in figuring out the hardware piece. Suzy Paul, what do you think?

[B]

So you kind of addressed it, but I'm not convinced about the dollar valuation. I've been seeing OpenAI at 500 billion. And while I understand that they're growing and you're saying twofold in short amounts of time, I think there comes a point where if you think about Apple or Google or any of the ones that have passed the trillion dollar mark, it's incremental. That growth is so little by little, the bigger you are, the harder it is to grow so fast. So I don't see that OpenAI will grow that fast into in a year ever, but in a year for sure. So it's just around how they would purchase it. That makes it a little bit harder for me to grasp.

[C]

Yeah, so that 500 billion number was more than three months ago now. And they took investment in September. In March of this year there were 300 billion. In October of last year it was 157 billion. And in February of that same year it was 80 billion. So they are doubling about every five or six or seven months as we're all about five or six or seven months apart, those rounds of investments. And the investors have been happy to keep that number growing. Nvidia is their biggest Investor and also OpenAI is one of Nvidia's biggest customers. It's in their mutual interest to keep those numbers going up and up and up. And I think the investors will be pretty happy with the idea that we can keep doubling this at least a couple more times. But you're right. I mean, they would need some help, whether it's from a bank to do a leveraged buyout or from a partner like Nvidia to make up the difference and have more money than Apple's worth. But again, Sam Altman's appetite is very often bigger than his stomach.

[D]

I mean, I agree with. The part that I think there's no dispute about is that they will fail as to whether they actually make a bid. I kind of have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, if that valuation trajectory goes where you're saying it can go, Nate, then Yes, I think OpenAI would be in a financial position to actually make a serious bid. But getting to that valuation assumes that there's no kind of like market correction, AI bubble, whatever you want to call it, some kind of pullback. And I think there's already a sense that, like, you know, I think some of those valuations are based on vapor. I mean, we're kind of like reliving the, you know, the dot com crash.

[C]

Don't give up the ghost.

[D]

But the part that we haven't talked about yet, but I think is really important is that back to Susie, your point about perception being reality. Apple is perceived as having fumbled AI, basically. I don't know that I necessarily agree with that. But in terms of rallying investors around a potential buyout of Apple, I think one of the cases that OpenAI can make is that, you know, 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.

[A]

Yeah. So let me throw this at you guys, because, Paul, this is something that you were saying. I don't know if you were half serious or 5% serious. 90%. But you. When Nate pitched his prediction that OpenAI would try but failed to buy Apple, you said, well, maybe yours will be Apple will try to buy OpenAI and fail as well. Any thoughts on that, anyone? In terms of, like, could the reverse happen?

[D]

It could, for the reason I just mentioned about Apple trying to shore up its AI credentials. So nothing's out of the realm of possibilities. And again, if the market starts to turn to where OpenAI doesn't suddenly look like an entity that's going to be able to continue to grow its valuation by huge multiples every quarter, then, yeah, then maybe it does make sense for Apple to SWOOP in and basically make a bid for them. So yeah, I mean I was kind of like riffing off of Nate's prediction and I wasn't going to make it my own prediction, but it was my natural response to what if.

[B]

I do think that there is some sort of positive momentum that it's a private company so that the deal can happen in sort of like that shroud of untransparency transparency that could help the two come together. And I think the biggest fact that Nate talked about, which we have not talked about yet, is how Google is so much bigger and better than Apple and there is that rivalry as we all know. So this could potentially be sail wind in both company sales. Right. And the fact that one is gigantic and public might be sort of the Achilles heel in the process. But I do think that it could happen. I just don't know that it would happen so quickly. I don't think they can ramp up that much money so fast like you were saying on their own.

[D]

Yeah. Nate, as you were talking and comparing Apple to Google, I'm thinking, well, if Sam Altman's ego has no bounds, then why wouldn't he just make a play for Google?

[C]

Right? That's fair. I think it is actually too big in any point in time. But no, it's a fair point. And you know, Marcus, your point about Apple maybe trying to buy OpenAI would make more financial sense that Apple is much bigger right now, has more revenues, actually has profits a lot of the time and is already public. I think it's challenging both because of Altman's ego, but also because remember, Microsoft owns 27% of OpenAI. There's only 73% left in terms of what's available and shares in that company for Apple to try to pick up. Because I don't think Microsoft has any interest in selling OpenAI to Apple.

[D]

That idea though brought me back to the Mac vs Windows battles of the 90s and 2000s. Suddenly Apple and Microsoft going at it again.

[B]

Well, I'm glad I'm on the right side of that equation as the only IBM computer on the and the only Galaxy Phone.

[A]

Just saying we have you on in spite of it, John. You know how happy John would be the whole production team. We never had you on again, Susie, because of your computer choices. No offense, IBM, but it makes production.

[B]

Come to the office to record basically.

[A]

So we could circle. We could circumvent the disaster. I'm half in, Nate.

[C]

If I get a vote then I give myself a full point.

[A]

No, what am I Talking about. Sorry, Susie.

[B]

Me too.

[D]

Half.

[A]

Everyone's half in. Okay.

[C]

This is gonna be a three way tie today, isn't it?

[B]

I love ties.

[D]

It's up to you guys if it's.

[A]

A three way tie.

[C]

I think it might be up to you.

[D]

Might be a two way tie. Spoiler.

[A]

We'll see. If we do have a tie, then I will obviously make the right decision.

[B]

Then I lose.

[A]

Or maybe we can get Stuart, who runs the team to weigh in on what he thinks, but IBM, just really quickly, I love your machines. I'm just saying everyone else has a different type of machine and so it makes it tricky. Suzy. All right, Paul, you're up.

[D]

All right. My prediction is that the Warner Brothers Discovery acquisition won't be settled in 2026. And my rationale for that is that there are forces at play that are just going to drag it out. Right. So if Netflix were the only party bidding for this company, the regulatory scrutiny was already going to be intense on its own merits and then further complicated by the fact that the administration has inserted itself in the process. So it means that Netflix would have already faced long odds of getting a thumbs up from the FTC after many months of review. But when you throw Paramount into the mix and the fact that it's a hostile bid, things get even more complicated. So now you have a party that's clearly favored by the administration, but not necessarily by the Warner board and certainly not by Netflix. And it's worth noting that hostile bids don't have a great track record of succeeding. So the fact that you have these two parties now in the running really opens the possibility for a lot of litigation before the deal even gets approved by the boards and goes before regulators. And it also is possible now with, you know, with basically being like a spitting contest between two companies that other bidders are going to smell blood in the water and get into the fight themselves, which again, would just prolong the process. So I think the how it ends could be the subject of a different predictions episode. But when it ends, I think is not going to be, yeah, maybe early next year. Whenever we do the next one, I'd be ready to stick my neck out and say how it's going to end. But as far as when it's going to end, I think we're still going to be talking about this as we bring in 2027.

[A]

Yeah, they've got a lot to sort out. The deal. It has to close after Warner Brothers Discovery completes this planned separation of the streaming and the studio business from its TV networks that was planned for Q3, 20, 26, and they did. To be fair to them, Warner Brothers, sorry, Warner Discovery and Netflix did say they're expecting the deal to close in the next 12 to 18 months. So, Paul, you're saying it's likely to be towards the tail end of that range? Yeah. Susie, what do you think?

[B]

So I feel like it's not going to go through. And I think it'll get.

[A]

It'll get next year. At all.

[B]

At all. And I think in the way it's being presented now, because I think that, and we've talked about this before, like when you have a company and you split it into multiple sort of splinters, and then what happens to those little guys? And nobody wants to buy them. So the big companies, like, wait a second, I don't know what I'm going to do with this little thing. And CNN is like that little big thing and nobody knows what to do with cnn. And so I just don't know if the board is okay with the way Netflix is thinking about it. And then you add the complications around what you are saying, Paul, with the, the government getting involved and the bidding match and the. I don't know that expression, but the spitting match is how I'm calling it, then it becomes just so complicated that I think they'll just pull out.

[C]

Sorry, I'm just picturing that, all of that.

[B]

Right. Not good choice of words. Perhaps I'm just the third language people replicating. Oh, my God. Did you. Did you just say something?

[A]

I've got you. I got you.

[C]

So I, I think you're all forgetting that Netflix could just make Bari Weiss the editor in chief of the whole thing. And it would go through tomorrow, at least, you know, get government approval tomorrow. Yeah, I mean, I think, Paul, I think you're 100% right. I'm not sure how, how to vote on it, though, because it doesn't seem like a highly unlikely. Oh, it seems. Sorry, it seems pretty specific. But also, even if there weren't competitive bids, it seems likely this might not have closed in 2026. I think the competition and the government intervention just basically guarantee that that likelihood will play out. But, yeah, I mean, I have no notes on the, on what you said on the prediction. I agree wholeheartedly that this is going to play out over a very long period of time.

[D]

I always conveniently overlook the. Not the highly unlikely part. And I just basically make a prediction that I, you know, I think that.

[B]

He believes will happen. Yeah, literally. Meanwhile, one of the predictions I did was that Amazon was going to buy Kia, but I have really good reasoning for it. Let's be honest.

[A]

My.

[B]

Yeah, or Roblox is going to buy amc. Like, I go all out on these, Nate, so I understand where you're coming from.

[D]

That's why you're infamous. Susie.

[A]

Paul, real quick. I mean, we've not had a chance because we've ran out of episodes for the year to really talk about this deal separate to if the deal goes through or not. I mean, what's kind of your take on the deal in terms of the winners and losers and how much of an impact this could have?

[D]

I don't think Netflix ends up buying Warner Brothers Discovery, so now I'm like, teasing my next prediction. So. But I don't know if it's going to be Paramount either. So, you know, I think we're going to be in a situation where it's going to be really messy. Right. All of the media companies that. That own legacy, traditional TV networks, are trying to spin them off and will continue to spin them off. That's like a whole separate thing. But the streaming universe. You know, one of the things that Netflix has been advancing as an argument is that it doesn't compete with just. Just in. In premium streaming. Right. It competes with YouTube and TikTok. I think there's some truth to that. I think there's also. I also see the counter argument. 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. So, you know, I think so, in other words, 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. Obviously, it's going to be bigger, more subscribers, but you're still going to have Disney, you're still gonna have Amazon and Apple, and you're still gonna have YouTube, which I think is a competitor on some level. You're still gonna have TikTok, you're gonna have Meta, you're gonna have other companies that are trying to vie for the connected TV audience. So, yeah, so I think it's gonna be complicated.

[A]

YouTube's number one in terms of listening time across all these platforms. Nielsen. So, yeah, absolutely.

[D]

A conventional viewing time. Yeah.

[B]

Also feels like there's probably a lot of overlap between HBO subscribers and Netflix.

[D]

Yeah, yeah. There's some for sure. Yeah.

[A]

What do we think, Nate?

[C]

Well, Marcus, how do I. How do I vote on something that is definitely going to happen and not unlikely at all?

[A]

You have to say, unfortunately, you have.

[B]

To say, welcome, Nate. I hope you get to come to all the episodes.

[C]

This is how, this is how Paula gets a three.

[A]

Yeah, pretty much.

[C]

All right, Paul, you got a point. Congratulations.

[A]

All right. Susie just needs, I mean, point was the.

[B]

It is the prediction that it's never gonna happen or it's gonna happen. It's just not gonna happen. This in 2020.

[D]

Not gonna happen in 2026.

[B]

Oh. So I think I'm half. Because I actually don't think it's going to ever happen. And I think they'll get the answer that faster than I think they're gonna get the answer to that. It's not gonna happen in 26. I don't think it's gonna drag out to 27 to hear that they can't buy it.

[A]

Okay. All right, so if I give nothing, it's a three way tie. But I won't, of course, because Paul's never wrong. Paul, you get four point from me. I am. I think you're spot. You know what, I'll go half a point. I'll go half a point because I could see them really aggressively trying to make this. This happen. And maybe some things change to get them, you know, under the wire December 27th of 2026. But I'll go half a point, which still means you win. Congratulations to Paul.

[C]

I mean, if I'd given him half a point, it'd be a three way tie.

[A]

But that's why you guys go first.

[C]

You overlook the fact that Paul's my boss.

[D]

I was just gonna say don't let that play into your decision.

[B]

No, it's okay.

[D]

Unless you want to get a raise next year.

[C]

That's right, raise a promotion.

[D]

Give me a point.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

These are fantastic predictions. Regardless, Amazon will reduce its prime membership cost in 2026 point and a half out of three. OpenAI will try but fail to buy Apple. Maybe the reverse happens point and a half from Nate. And then Warner Brothers Discovery acquisition by Netflix won't be settled before the end of 2026. That gets a full two. Congratulations to Paul.

[D]

Thank you, investors.

[A]

Yeah, that's all we've got for. For today's episode. Thank you so much to all of my guests. Thank you. First to Susie.

[B]

Thanks for having me.

[A]

And to Nate.

[C]

Thank you.

[A]

And to today's winner, Paul.

[D]

Thank you. And happy New Year, everybody.

[A]

Yes, indeed. And huge thank you to the whole production crew, to everyone for listening in to behind the Numbers new marketer video podcast made possible by viasat ads. Tune in Monday for our last behind the Numbers episode of the year, happiest of weekends.