• TikTok and Instagram are reportedly working on apps designed for television viewing. The move follows the success of YouTube’s TV app. At present, however, neither social network is reportedly courting a partnership with broadcasters.

While streaming services are seeing more customer churn lately due to escalating prices, two of the biggest names in social media are reportedly planning to throw their hats in the ring and launch television-streaming offerings.

TikTok and Instagram are both looking to follow the path YouTube charted with its YouTube TV service, which currently has an estimated 9.4 million subscribers. The two social-media companies are reportedly building apps that are designed for TV viewing.

The services, which were first reported by The Information, won’t be quite the same as what YouTube offers, however. Meta’s entry in the field would reportedly be populated with Reels. As yet, no other deals with broadcasters have been signed.

TikTok, however, is said to have spent the past six months working on the best way to approach the app, which seems to be with higher production-value videos. (TikTok previously had a TV app in 2021, but didn’t promote it heavily and it was pulled earlier this year.)

While there has been no official comment from either Meta or TikTok about the reported apps, TikTok’s Global Head of Product Operations and Solutions, David Kaufman, told Cannes Lions attendees last week that “the living room is definitely a new frontier for us that we’re taking very seriously.”

Beyond the capital earned from those subscription fees, YouTube’s streaming TV service has kept eyes on the app, increasing viewership of native short videos.

“These social networks are seeing how well YouTube has done in the living room and how they’ve really cemented themselves as one of the top streamers,” eMarketer analyst Minda Smiley said on a recent episode of the Behind the Numbers podcast. “I’m surprised it took this long.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

• The TV business has been contracting for years, which is why media companies are trying to sell off their cable networks.
• But David and Larry Ellison think there's long-term value in Paramount and its TV business, says analyst Rich Greenfield.
• Greenfield also weighs in on new streaming launches from ESPN and Fox.

The TV business is not slowing down this summer: Any day now, David and Larry Ellison will finally buy Paramount, with its collection of once-storied TV networks like CBS and MTV. A few weeks later, ESPN and Fox — the last two big TV players that haven't launched their own streamers — will launch their own streamers.

But on the other hand, the TV business has been slowing down for a decade: Every quarter, more cable TV subscribers cut the cord, or never sign up for a cord in the first place. The people who own cable TV networks don't seem to have any plan to deal with the issue, other than trying to sell their cable TV networks.

Lightshed analyst Rich Greenfield has been chronicling the industry's massive, internet-driven change for years. I caught up with him on my Channels podcast to talk through the particular challenges — and perhaps some opportunities — facing TV right now. Here's an edited excerpt of our chat.

Peter Kafka: When the music business collapsed back in the Napster era, it happened basically overnight. But TV has hung on for much longer, even though consumer behavior changed pretty significantly over the last decade.

Is there something specific about the TV industry that's allowed these guys to move in slow motion?

Rich Greenfield: There's very few businesses where you can raise the price on a product that consumers are using less and less every day.

The brilliance of the cable TV business model was the big fat bundle. It's a pretty incredible business to put all of these channels together, even if people don't want most of them.

It had everything you wanted and no alternatives, which is very different than where we are today.

One of my soapboxes is when I hear people saying they wish we could go back to the cable days. And I keep saying, that was terrible. You guys forget. Everyone hated that.

I think consumers are pretty adept at managing their services, and I don't hear a lot of complaints. Sometimes it's like, "Where is this game?" Or "How do I find this thing?" It can be a little confusing.

But think about your cellphone. You've had one for quite a while now. Managing the apps and deleting something if you're not using it and adding something —these are all pretty easy functions.

We don't give consumers enough credit. They're pretty adept at figuring out cheaper solutions and ways to manage.

I want to ask you about a few specific companies. The Paramount deal is finally going to close. What do you think the new owners — David Ellison and his father, Larry Ellison — will do once they have control? Will it change overnight, or is this a slow-rolling thing?

It will certainly change.

The juxtaposition is sort of amazing. [Paramount, under current owner Shari Redstone, is a] financially strapped company, with challenged financial ownership.

And you're moving to an ownership team that is one of the wealthiest families on planet Earth.

David Ellison is probably going to be running this company for 30, 40 years. He obviously has a passion for entertainment. He's moving to a much bigger stage.

But this is still a financially struggling company. He can't fix the trends of what consumer behavior is changing. What he can do is invest and really build.

And you saw the "South Park" deal they just cut, where they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars to move the show [exclusively] to Paramount+. I think it's a small sign of the post-merger strategy, which is that David Ellison is not just doing this to cut costs and squeeze more juice out of this existing company. His goal is to build something significant with a very long-term perspective, which is going to require a lot of investment.

What does that look like? Is the new Paramount just a film studio and a streaming service and CBS — and Ellison sells off everything that's not those things?

I think initially they'll say they need the cash flow from cable and will use that cash flow to reinvest.

I would be shocked if you didn't see more sports on CBS. I think they will be a contender for UFC rights. You've seen David Ellison multiple times in the past year sitting in the front row, cage side with Ari Emanuel [CEO of TKO Group, which owns UFC], and with [UFC CEO] Dana White.

And Donald Trump.

I don't disagree there on politics. But I also think he likes the content. I think he's going to spend a lot of money.

He understands the tech North Star — whether we're talking about TikTok, Meta, Netflix, or Spotify — it's all about time spent. I think David gets that Paramount+ needs a heck of a lot more time spent. The only way you're gonna get there is a better product and more content.

Let's move to Disney. Sometime in the next few weeks, before college football and the NFL starts, ESPN will finally be something you can buy as a stand-alone streaming service. If they rolled this out in 2015, we would have said it's a really big deal. Is it a big deal in 2025?

At $30 a month, I don't think this is a huge deal. My guess is it gives them flexibility to start packaging this with other services. They can probably get some subscribers. Not a lot. It's probably low to mid-single-digit millions. Not millions and millions.

Remember, they're giving the new service to everybody who already subscribed to [pay TV]. So 65 million-plus ESPN subscribers are going to get this new ESPN app at no additional cost.

So who is the audience for this? You're not subscribing to the big bundle. You're a pretty passionate sports fan. You're willing to spend $30 a month for sports. My guess is it's just a small number.

It actually makes sense to do it. But I don't think, at the end of the day, it is a huge needle-mover. What's going to matter to Disney stock is their theme park business and their cruise ship business. Those being better than expected — because of the state of the economy and what's happened with tariffs not being as problematic as feared a few months ago — is far more important to Disney than what happens with the ESPN streaming rollout.

We're also close to the launch of Fox's own streamer, Fox One. The main assets there are Fox Sports — which is really the NFL — and Fox News. Do you think Fox thinks this is primarily a product for people who want to watch football, or do you think it's primarily for Fox News fans?

I think this is a pretty limited offering for a sports fan.

So does that lead you to believe that Fox thinks this is really a Fox News product?

I think you'll see more uptake from Fox News viewers.

In the old days, you would have said that Fox News has a very old audience. And the idea that its audience is going to stream it doesn't make sense. But maybe that's not true in 2025?

Streaming's become pretty normalized. When you look at how many subscribers Netflix now has, I don't think streaming is some elitist thing. I think it's pretty normalized.

I think the part you may be missing is that the Fox News audience is also widening out.

And as you make it available to people on streaming, you may pick up some younger people. Maybe it's more interesting during election years. It creates flexibility. And I don't think there's a whole lot of downside.

All the basic cable networks are in freefall. Everyone who owns them is trying to sell them — either directly to another buyer or, in the case of Comcast's Versant, trying to bundle it up as a publicly traded stock. Who is a buyer for cable networks?

I don't think there are enough people talking about this topic. So many of the investors I deal with, or even industry executives I talk to, think you're going to see Paramount do a deal with Warner Bros. Or maybe you'll see Versant merge with some of the Paramount cable networks.

But let's just step back. I think David Ellison and Larry Ellison have a much bigger plan than aggregating more linear cable networks. I would be surprised if that was the strategy. I think there's a much bigger plan that the Ellison family is probably thinking about that goes well beyond just aggregating more legacy media assets.

WarnerMedia merged with Discovery, which hasn't created value. CBS and Viacom became Paramount, and that hasn't created value. Disney bought most of Fox's cable networks, and that hasn't created value. Putting legacy assets together that are in secular decline doesn't work. Maybe it might've been worse [without those deals].

But that's not compelling for a buyer.

It's a reason to be a seller. As a buyer, there's lots of things you could buy and lots of places you could go. The idea that buying more of these assets so that you have more costs to cut doesn't seem really compelling.

Another reason you are skeptical about big media consolidation is politics. You think that either antitrust politics, or Donald Trump's personal politics, make that unlikely. The only media mogul he wasn't complaining about was Rupert Murdoch, and now he's suing Murdoch.

Is there a world where anyone sells or buys a meaningful media asset while Donald Trump is president?

I think it's going to be challenging.

• South Park targeted President Donald Trump and Paramount in its 27^th season premiere. The show lampooned Trump for his eagerness to sue and the network for its quick settlements and cancellation of The Late Show. It also included a deepfake video that showed a nude Trump.

Any fans who were concerned that Matt Stone and Trey Parker’s $1.5 billion deal with Paramount would dull the duo’s satirical edge got a quick and decisive answer on Wednesday’s season premiere of South Park. The show, which often addresses topical issues, skewered President Trump and its network parent Paramount in one of its most blistering episodes in years.

“Sermon on the Mount” had everything from Trump in bed with Satan (replacing Saddam Hussein, the ruler of hell’s former lover) to a parody of 60 Minutes to a mention of the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s The Late Show. Satan asked Trump about the “Epstein list.” And there was even a deepfake video of Trump walking through the desert, stripping off his suit and eventually wandering around fully nude. There’s more—much more—but we won’t get into it here, since families visit this website. Best to just see it for yourself.

The episode’s official plot was about the return of Jesus, who enrolled in South Park’s schools. That led to the coverage by 60 Minutes, with the hosts nervously making comments about Trump such as “the president, who is a great man … [who] is probably watching.” Parents in the fictional town protest to Trump they didn’t want Jesus in schools, which leads to Trump threatening to sue them for $5 billion.  (Trump also threatens to sue Satan at one point.)

“I didn’t want to come back and be in the school, but I had to because it was part of a lawsuit and the agreement with Paramount,” Jesus tells the town. “You guys saw what happened to CBS? Well, guess who owns CBS? Paramount. You really want to end up like Colbert? You guys got to stop being stupid… He also has the power to sue and take bribes and he can do anything to anyone. It’s the f*****g president, dude… South Park is over.”

The town eventually settles with Trump for $3.5 million, but is also required to create “pro-Trump messaging,” which leads to the deepfake film.

All of this comes hours after Paramount agreed to pay the production company owned by Stone and Parker $1.5 billion for the global streaming rights for the next five years. HBO Max previously held the streaming rights to the show. That high dollar amount caught people’s attention since Paramount handed it out so soon after cancelling The Late Show and ending its association with host Stephen Colbert, calling its move “purely a financial decision.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

With so many options available today, choosing the best streaming services can feel overwhelming. Whether you’re into blockbuster movies, reality TV, documentaries or just want access to news channels, there’s a platform tailored to your tastes and budget. From premium subscriptions like Disney Plus, Netflix and Max to free streaming options like Tubi or Pluto TV, there’s something for everyone.

If you’re looking to cut the cord completely, you might also want to explore live TV options that offer cable-like channels without the hassle. We’ve also put together a separate guide to the best live TV streaming services if you’re after a full channel lineup that includes sports, local stations and breaking news. In this buying guide, though, we’re focusing on the top on-demand streaming services worth subscribing to right now — whether you’re binging shows solo or setting up family-friendly entertainment for the weekend.

Best streaming services for 2025

Key Points

• The market may be entering a period of subpar performance for growth stocks.

• Safer, income-oriented holdings may be on the verge of a market-beating phase.

• This may be a good time to invest in companies that are more off the beaten path.

• 10 stocks we like better than Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF ›

Want to beat the market? Most investors do. It's just easier said than done. Indeed, the risk and effort needed just to attempt to outperform the market can easily result in your underperforming it. That's why plenty of investors are content to merely match the stock market over the long term by buying and holding index funds.

Every now and then though, it makes sense to rethink the strategy of simply investing in the market as a whole or owning its obvious leading names. This may be one of these times.

Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Continue »

That was the key takeaway from a recent interview with The Motley Fool's co-founder and CEO Tom Gardner. "If you're looking for good returns over the next three to five years that beat the market," he said, "I think you need to look where others aren't looking right now." And he's right.

The question is, what does this mean in practical, actionable terms for the average investor? To answer that, it's helpful to first look three to five years back in time, and then, look back a bit further.

Not the long-term norm

As it is in life, the one constant in investing is change. The way things are now isn't the way they were in the past, nor is it the way they'll be in the foreseeable future. One only has to look back over the past few years to see it.

The so-called "Magnificent Seven" stocks (and their close peers) that have performed so brilliantly since 2020? They weren't exactly superstars in the years prior. Apple was hit-and-miss between 2012 and 2016, for instance, against a backdrop of slowing iPhone sales. Nvidia shares, which soared in the mid-2010s, were wrecked in 2018 when the crypto-mining craze cooled off. Meta Platforms (then Facebook) and Tesla performed equally inconsistently during the half-decade leading up to 2020, even if for different reasons.

But all of these powerhouses happened to benefit from a confluence of events: the explosion of artificial intelligence, rising interest in electric vehicles, and even demand driven by the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. And due in part to their size, the raw strength of those few companies set the bullish tone for the rest of the market.

AAPL data by YCharts.

That upward push wasn't particularly healthy or sustainable, however. Indeed, it has arguably been unhealthy, by virtue of the lack of overall contribution to it by a broader group of stocks.

For perspective, the S&P 500's seven biggest names today account for roughly one-third of its total value. Most of "the market's" bullishness in recent years was propelled by the aforementioned Nvidia and Meta, along with Microsoft and Amazon -- their far-above-average gains had an exaggerated impact on the S&P 500's performance specifically because they make up such large portions of the cap-weighted index.

To further clarify this, while some of these megacap stocks may now be back to record highs thanks to their big recovery from April's lows, fewer than a tenth of the S&P 500's constituents are actually in record-high territory. Nearly half of the index's tickers are still in the red for the year, in fact.

In short, the S&P 550 -- our most common proxy for the market -- has performed well for a while now thanks almost entirely to the gains of a handful of growth stocks in an environment that firmly favored them. That sort of cyclical dynamic can't be expected to last forever.

Here comes the cyclical shift

So now what?

Broadly speaking, some of the key conditions that tend to move growth stocks out of favor are already in place. Interest rates are higher and the economy has shifted to a slower-growing -- even if stable -- scenario. It's worth adding that the mania for artificial intelligence is finally settling down, with no obvious new trends on the horizon to stoke unchecked bullishness. Previous manias like electric vehicles and renewable energy aren't apt to be renewed either.

Ergo, without anything new or exciting enough to make investors ignore companies' lack of profits or outrageous valuations, Gardner believes "you need to look for dividend payers, more value-oriented investing," which rewards basic attributes like predictability and profitability. Something as simple as the Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF (NYSEMKT: SCHD) or the Vanguard Value ETF (NYSEMKT: VTV) would fit the bill.

Image source: Getty Images.

Picking stocks that are likely to be among the best performers for the next three to five years doesn't necessarily need to be a black-and-white, value-versus-growth affair, however.

"There are hundreds of good stocks to buy right now and own for the next five years, but they're probably not the most well-known [or] actively followed," said Gardner. "It's probably where people aren't looking. It's probably small caps. It's probably under-followed names."

Translation: Focus less on the now-struggling Magnificent Seven and FAANG components that have been considered must-have holdings for most of the past five years, and instead focus on the stocks of companies that are thriving even without the limelight.

Such businesses perhaps to consider now range from utility giant NextEra Energy to online bank SoFi Technologies to supermarket chain operator Kroger to beverage and snack powerhouse PepsiCo (which at its current share price is yielding 4.2%). These are relatively boring companies, but there's nothing boring about beating the market.

Take your time, but do embrace the change

So should this be an all-or-nothing strategic shift in your portfolio? No. Gardner is not suggesting any investor should simply upheave all of their familiar growth names and replace them with value stocks or dividend payers. Some growth stocks will perform well for the foreseeable future even if most large-cap growth stocks don't. Every prospective stock pick should still ultimately be made on a case-by-case basis based predominantly on the company's particular merits and prospects.

Investors should now be embracing a new philosophical mindset, though. Much of what has worked well in recent years -- like latching onto the market's biggest companies as they got bigger thanks to the advent of AI -- isn't apt to work as well going forward. Value stocks, dividend payers, and the more obscure stories may be better positioned to perform from here. Be sure to adjust your portfolio accordingly.

Should you invest $1,000 in Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF right now?

Before you buy stock in Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF, consider this:

The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.

Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $687,764!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $980,723!*

Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 1,048% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 179% for the S&P 500. Don’t miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor.

See the 10 stocks »

*Stock Advisor returns as of July 7, 2025

Randi Zuckerberg, a former director of market development and spokeswoman for Facebook and sister to Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. James Brumley has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon, Apple, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, NextEra Energy, Nvidia, Tesla, and Vanguard Index Funds-Vanguard Value ETF. The Motley Fool recommends Kroger and recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

• Elan Bibas, a contestant on "Love Island USA," asked his brother, Tal, to run his Instagram while he's on TV.
• In an interview with Business Insider, Tal tells us how his brother was recruited for the show and "is not doing this for the clout."
• Tal has been posting content from Elan's account and fielding business inquiries.

Elan Bibas entered the "Love Island USA" villa with a disadvantage: He was added late, as part of a group of hunks sent to stir things up. But he also has an advantage: his younger brother, Tal, who's running his social media while Elan's on the show.

I talked to Tal about his experience running Elan's social accounts and the business opportunities that have presented themselves since his brother's time on the huge summer hit for Peacock. (It was the No. 2 most watched original streaming show during its first two weeks, Nielsen said.)

Contestants on the show — and if you haven't watched, I must recommend it as great summer fun! — compete to find love, or share part of the $100,000 prize with their partner.

Appearing on the show can also be a big business opportunity.

Fan favorites from past seasons have gone on to success as influencers with lucrative brand deals or other entertainment appearances. Cast members from last season will reunite for a new show, "Beyond the Villa," starting later this month.

As my colleague Callie Ahlgrim observed, the spectre of social media looms large: "The islanders seem hyper-aware of their role as entertainers and competitors, much too preoccupied with how they're being perceived by an invisible audience to be truly honest and vulnerable with each other."

Contestants have to give up their phones during their time on the show, which airs five nights a week in near real-time, so some of them have entrusted family or friends to run their social media accounts for that time. Cierra Ortega, an early fan favorite, has her friend MJ Hedderman running her Instagram, who's been delighting fans with her funny perspective and long captions.

Business Insider talked to Tal Bibas, 22, who lives in London and has been posting to his older brother Elan's Instagram and TikTok accounts. Elan, 24, grew up in the suburbs of Toronto and now lives in Miami and works in tech.

So far, Tal's strategy for managing his brother's Instagram has seemed to work. Elan's followers have gone up from about 3,000 to 63,000 since he first appeared on the show a week and a half ago.

This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Were you surprised when Elan told you that he was going to be a contestant on "Love Island?"

One hundred percent. I think it was a shock to us all. Elan's a very smart guy — it's hard to see that on TV, but he's almost like a nerd. He's always been a super academic guy and always top-of-his-class. He got out of university, did computer science and engineering and entrepreneurship, came out with a job at a consultancy, a tech consultancy, helping them code and advise. He was doing really well with that. I think he hit a ceiling in Toronto and was really craving to move to a new city. Obviously, Miami comes with the beautiful weather, so that's what moved him there.

In the past few years, he's just got this virus to want to do these crazy ultramarathons and running. He formed a community of people in Miami doing that kind of stuff, and a lot of them are content creators within the health and wellness niche. He found that that was quite cool, and he's like, You know what? Wow, maybe I should start doing this a bit.

So shortly before he got approached to be on the show, he started doing a bit of content around health and wellness, running, self-improvement — things along those lines. I wouldn't say he had any viral posts or anything like that. Then he honestly just got DMed by a casting director, and that's kind of how this whole thing happened.

So the casting team reached out to him. He didn't apply to be on the show?

Exactly.

Oh, that's interesting. I didn't realize that's how the casting works. In terms of his day job, obviously, it's hard to take a month or two off to go shoot a reality show. What's the status of his job?

His work seemed to be quite fine with it. They basically said, "You can definitely take on this opportunity, but take all paid time off first, and then everything after that would be unpaid leave."

Knowing your brother, what's your reaction to what's happening on the show?

At first, when I saw him on, I was excited, but I had that weird feeling where it's just like, "Oh my God, you never know how the public's going to perceive someone on TV."

Honestly, I was quite surprised by how comfortable he seemed. I thought maybe he would sound a bit different or move in a different way. Right now, the way he's acting inside the villa is the exact same way he acts in real life.

Cast members build big social followings during the show, which can lead to all sorts of lucrative opportunities. When Elan asked you to manage his socials, was that something very much at the top of your mind?

I think Elan is not doing this for the clout or fame. Honestly, that's the last thing on his mind. He loves saying "yes" to opportunities. For him, it's all about going through this, living through this experience, and just having this bucket-list, once-in-a-lifetime experience to be able to say he did this thing. And through that, to form connections, build relationships, and meet a lot of cool people.

Elan basically said, "Here's my login details. Do your best to keep things positive and have fun with it. Mostly just let it ride and just see how it goes."

I guess I have my own strategy for how I want to manage his Instagram. I don't think he knows exactly that. I definitely see this as not just a business opportunity, but a way to help my brother out. I want to do the most I can to post good content, engage with the audience, and leave him in the best spot for when he comes out to have that seamless transaction of "OK, guys, he's back." And it's kind of that exact brand and audience that he's known for.

I was studying a lot of the old contestants and seeing what their experiences were via their social presence, and so I was learning quite a lot from just looking at that.

I do have a background also in digital marketing and social media. I worked as an intern at a big influencer-marketing agency in Toronto, so I kind of understand the nuances of how the industry works — I just never thought it would be my brother. It's been an interesting learning curve.

Have you been approached by brands or business opportunities for him? How are you fielding these incoming things?

I made a separate email account for him for his social accounts. There's a lot of random stuff coming in there. Going through it and figuring out what's legit and what's not takes time. I want to make this process as seamless as possible for Elan so that when he comes out I can say, "Look, I was taking care of everything when you were gone. This is what happened. We've got these brands, these people approaching you for these opportunities," and just go through it with him and see what is the priority right now, what makes the most sense. I wouldn't say there's a long list of brands, but there are talent agencies that want to represent him.

• Would you like to own CNN, TNT, and the Discovery Channel?
• Warner Bros. Discovery owns them now — but wants to get rid of them.
• WBD's move follows a similar one Comcast announced a few months ago. Because while cable TV networks still make money, they're a business in permanent decline.

No one wants to own cable networks anymore.

Would you like to buy some?

That is the pitch that Warner Bros. Discovery is making to Wall Street now that it has announced it's splitting itself into two companies: One will own Warners' movie and television studio and the HBO Max streaming service; the other — which it's calling its "global networks" unit — will own a bunch of cable TV networks including CNN, TNT, Discovery and the Food Network.

If that sounds familiar, it's for two reasons:

WBD has been contemplating this for a long time.

Last summer, it floated the same idea but didn't go forward with it. In December, it all but said it was going to do this, after all, by splitting itself up internally. Now it's doing it for real.

Comcast is doing the same thing.

Last October, Comcast said it would bundle almost all of its cable channels into a separate company (which it's calling Versant, for some reason) and hang onto its movie and TV studio and its Peacock streaming service.

Like Comcast, WBD insists that no, really, it's splitting off its cable TV networks so they can grow and thrive on their own, and you'd be lucky to buy a piece of them.

"The global networks business is a real business," WBD CEO David Zaslav said on the company's investor call Monday morning.

That is definitely true, since those cable networks continue to generate profits. It's also something you don't normally feel compelled to say when you're selling something people want to buy.

Because the big picture here is that both WBD and Comcast have concluded what investors — and people who watch things on TV — have concluded long ago: The cable TV business is a shrinking business, as more and more people cut the cord or simply never sign up for one. And the people who continue to watch cable TV are getting older and smaller in number.

The WBD split will generate all kinds of questions to ponder. Some of them are technical: How will WBD's $35 billion in debt be split up between the companies? How will the split companies approach future distribution deals with the likes of Comcast and Charter? How quickly could Comcast and WBD combine their two cable groups into one bigger cable group? Will the split help WBD's stock (it's up Monday — but note that Comcast also spiked when it announced its deal last fall, and has fallen some 20% since)?

Some questions the WBD split can generate may also matter to people who don't care about corporate finance. Such as: What does this mean for the future of CNN — the news channel that's struggling to find a lane in a loud and crowded media environment, but whose brand still has lots of potential value?

But the big takeaway is the obvious takeaway: The people who run the biggest collections of cable TV channels in the country would like someone else to own them. Because every quarter, the number of people who watch those channels and pay for those channels gets smaller.

Like I said late last year: These are garage sales. Maybe someone will want to own shrinking businesses that still throw off lots of cash (paging private equity). But the people who have them now think they'd be better off without them. Buyer beware.

Every time I write an article about the escalating advertising and tracking on today's TVs, someone brings up Apple TV boxes. Among smart TVs, streaming sticks, and other streaming devices, Apple TVs are largely viewed as a safe haven.

"Just disconnect your TV from the Internet and use an Apple TV box."

That's the common guidance you'll hear from Ars readers for those seeking the joys of streaming without giving up too much privacy. Based on our research and the experts we've consulted, that advice is pretty solid, as Apple TVs offer significantly more privacy than other streaming hardware providers.

Read full article

Comments

• Netflix's "Sirens" centers on two sisters and an alluring billionaire.
• The five-episode series takes place over the course of Labor Day weekend at a ritzy seaside estate.
• "Sirens" is classified as a limited series, and Netflix hasn't announced plans for another season.

Warning: Major spoilers ahead for "Sirens."

Netflix's new dark comedy "Sirens" is so addictive, it may leave fans calling out for more.

"Sirens" takes place over Labor Day weekend on a lavish island called Port Haven, where aspiring lawyer Simone DeWitt (Milly Alcock) is working as a live-in assistant to the enigmatic and alluring billionaire Michaela Kell (Julianne Moore). Simone's life among the upper class is disrupted by the arrival of her older sister, Devon (Meghann Fahy), who treks from Buffalo to the town in order to reconnect with Simone and get help taking care of their ailing dad, Bruce (Bill Camp).

The five-episode series is adapted from Molly Smith Metzler's play Elemeno Pea, which she wrote while attending the Juilliard School. She serves as the showrunner.

During its premiere week, "Sirens" debuted in the No. 1 spot on Netflix's English TV list and amassed 16.7 million views in four days.

Although "Sirens" ends by tying up the main characters' storylines, some questions remain, leaving fans wondering if this is the last they've seen of everyone.

Here's what happens to every major character, and a rundown of whether "Sirens" could be back for season two.

The 'Sirens' ending swaps the fates of Simone and Michaela

At the end of episode four, after Simone rejects his proposal, a drunken Ethan (Glenn Howerton) calls her a monster, blames her for his problems, and trips and falls from the estate's cliff. Ethan doesn't die, though. In the finale, he wakes up in the hospital high on meds with both his legs, an arm, and a couple of ribs broken, though he's expected to make a full recovery.

Michaela then fires Simone after learning that her husband, Peter (Kevin Bacon), and Simone kissed. Even though it was a momentary lapse in judgment from Peter that Simone didn't instigate, Michaela feels that Simone can't be trusted anymore and has become a threat to her marriage.

Devon chooses to return to Buffalo with her dad to continue being his caretaker, rather than spend a month on a yacht with Morgan (Trevor Salter), one of the locals she hooked up with. But Simone refuses to join them, because she's unable to forgive her dad for neglecting her as a child, since his actions led to her ending up in foster care.

Simone runs back to the Cliff House with no plan, just desperate not to return to Buffalo. In doing so, she bumps into Peter, who proclaims his love for her.

Mid-gala, Peter ends his 13-year marriage to Michaela and starts a relationship with Simone, who he believes will bring "love and light" into his life (and maybe even another child).

Simone then morphs into Michaela 2.0, adopting her cultlike mannerisms and embracing her new position of power at the estate. She and Devon have an emotional goodbye, knowing that they're embarking on completely different paths.

On the ferry ride out of Port Haven, Devon runs into Michaela, who's been ousted from Cliff House and has no idea where she's headed.

Devon apologizes for accusing Michaela of being a murderer and a cult leader, and Michaela accepts her apology and encourages Devon to cash the $10,000 check she gave her at the start of the series so she can fund a better life for herself in Buffalo.

The series concludes with Simone, wearing an elegant light-blue gown that Michaela got her for the gala, standing at the cliff, staring at the vista during sunset with the hint of a smile.

Will 'Sirens' return for season two?

The short answer: probably not.

"Sirens" is categorized and promoted as a Netflix limited series. That said, a second season isn't entirely unlikely.

"Adolescence" skyrocketed in popularity since its debut in March and is currently Netflix's third most-watched English-language show of all time, behind season one of "Wednesday" and season four of "Stranger Things." Although it was labeled as a limited series, Brad Pitt's production company, Plan B Entertainment, is reportedly interested in some form of a second season of "Adolescence" after the first season's success.

Considering how well "Sirens" has performed on the streamer since its release, it wouldn't be surprising if the series didn't end up being limited after all. But for now, Netflix hasn't announced any further plans.

Fahy told Variety that the show reaches a natural conclusion, but she could imagine a continuation.

"I, for one, would love to know what happens to Michaela, where she goes," she said. "So I think it's definitely within the realm of possibility. We didn't talk about it on set, but I would love to do more."

Metzler, for her part, told Glamour that questions about a second season mean that fans are invested in the characters.

"I wrote the play 15 years ago," she said. "I've been thinking about them this whole time. I could write them until the day I die. I'd never say never, but could I do them justice in another season? I'd have to think about it."

"The fact that so many people are asking is really encouraging," she added.

All episodes of "Sirens" are now streaming on Netflix.

• Miranda McWhorter joins season two of Hulu's "The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives."
• Miranda and her then-husband, Chase McWhorter, were involved in the 2022 "soft swinging" scandal.
• Miranda appears on the show to clarify her role in the scandal and reconnect with MomTok.

One of the original MomTok members is entering the fray in season two of "The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives."

Hulu's reality TV show about eight Mormon mom influencers debuted in September 2024 and quickly became the most-watched unscripted season premiere on the streamer that year.

The concept for the show had its roots on TikTok, where influencer Taylor Frankie Paul confessed in 2022 that she and her then-husband, Tate Paul, were divorcing after "soft swinging" within their friend group got messy.

Most of the "Mormon Wives" cast members denied being involved in the viral scandal, but another key player was missing from the reality TV series: Miranda McWhorter, 26, Taylor's former best friend.

After sitting out season one, Miranda is ready to clear the air in season two, now streaming on Hulu.

"Taylor's a very vocal person and everybody has heard her side of the scandal. But I'm finally here to tell mine," Miranda says in the season two premiere.

Here's everything to know about her.

Miranda McWhorter shares 2 kids with her ex-husband, Chase McWhorter

Miranda and Chase met after she graduated from high school. They married in 2017 and welcomed their first child, a son named Brooks Wesley McWhorter, two years later. Their second child, a daughter named Cohen Roo McWhorter, was born in 2021.

Miranda and Chase revealed in 2024 that they had divorced after seven years of marriage.

In August of that year, during an appearance on Josie Van Dyke's podcast, "Weekly Trash," Miranda said that her and Chase's reasons for splitting stemmed from issues that arose prior to the swinging scandal.

"That might have not helped for sure, but it definitely did not play a part in the decision-making process," she said.

Chase, for his part, told Us Weekly that they got married "a little prematurely" but continue to be cordial coparents.

Miranda and Chase initially denied their involvement in the 'soft swinging' scandal

Chase eventually detailed his connection to the incident two years after the scandal, during his 2024 interview with Us Weekly.

Chase said that the parties where swinging took place began during COVID-19. He said that couples they were friends with would hang out, "get trashed on alcohol," and play games like spin the bottle.

Chase said that he and Miranda participated in some of the games, but "it was never predetermined that we were going to be doing, like, swinging."

"That's what we always thought was a little bit misrepresented in Taylor's story, as she presents it," he said.

Miranda and Taylor hash out what constitutes 'swinging' in season 2

Miranda's unexpected appearance at an influencer event that the start of the season surprises Taylor and the other women because she left MomTok after the scandal exploded.

Now single and at a different point in her life, Miranda says she hopes to repair her friendships and perhaps rejoin MomTok. But her version of the scandal contradicts Taylor's claims, leading to confusion. Plus, some of the women suspect Miranda may want to rejoin the group to take advantage of the lucrative brand deals that come with MomTok fame.

"The height of what I was ever involved in was playing spin the bottle and kissing other people," Miranda tells them. "And so it was very jarring for me for Taylor to come out and say everyone was hooking up with everyone, because that was simply not the case at all."

"No one had sex ever, period." Miranda says, adding, "I will go to my grave."

In episode two, Miranda says that she lied about not being part of the swinging controversy because she wasn't ready to own up to her actions.

In the following episode, Miranda and Taylor discuss the specifics of what actually occurred in a one-on-one conversation.

While Miranda insists that she only went as far as kissing other people, Taylor says in the confessional that it was more complicated than that.

According to Taylor, they participated in other things too, like the couples having sex in the same bed at the same time. Other times, she said they were blindfolded and tried to guess which husband they were kissing. Taylor also recalls a night when she and Miranda got so drunk that they made out while people filmed it.

In a confessional, Miranda says that a lot of embarrassing things happened, and she felt out of control and wronged when Taylor spoke out on TikTok.

"I wish that I would have come out with what really happened rather than denying everything," Miranda says. "That probably did make her feel worse and look worse, and that wasn't my intention. It was very much, 'I'm terrified and I have a reputation as a Mormon to uphold.' And I regret that."

Miranda seems to be on friendly terms with the MomTokers

Nowadays, Miranda's social media presence includes sponsored content and videos about single life.

In the lead-up to the season two premiere, she's has been posting videos that include some of the MomTokers. Members of the group have also been commenting on her TikTok videos.

In April, MomToker and fellow cast member Layla Taylor joined Miranda and her friends at the country music festival Stagecoach. That month, Miranda also posted a TikTok featuring Taylor, Layla, Mayci Neeley, Mikayla Matthews, and Jessi Ngatikaura.

In response to a video Miranda posted about having fears about being a single mom, Taylor commented, "Right there with you mama."

Most recently, Miranda posted a TikTok with Taylor, making fun of her "bestie" for outing her for being a "swinger."

"i love that i can self deprecate over this now actually lmao @Taylor Paul #momtok #slomw #secretlives," she captioned the video.

All 10 episodes of season two of "The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives" are now streaming on Hulu.

• Rian Johnson's "Poker Face" returns for season 2 on Peacock with Natasha Lyonne solving mysteries.
• Johnson explained to Business Insider how he recruits a star-studded guest cast each season.
• Johnson plans to take on an original movie after the release of Netflix's "Wake Up Dead Man."

When it comes to murder, Rian Johnson knows what elements make up the perfect crime.

The writer-director has spent the last six years immersed in the whodunit genre, surrounding Daniel Craig's Southern dandy detective Benoit Blanc with a cast of quirky suspects in two "Knives Out" movies (a third is out this fall), and refining the procedural format for streaming with Peacock's "Poker Face" starring Natasha Lyonne.

"The murder mystery genre has served me well," Johnson told Business Insider with a giggle in the days leading up to the season two premiere of "Poker Face" on Thursday.

The series, which stars Lyonne as Charlie Cale, a mystery-solving former casino worker on the run from the mob, uses the case-of-the-week format to feature all manner of zany scenarios acted out by a star-studded cast of guest stars. This season, Charlie must do everything from work as an extra on a B-movie set at a mortuary run by Giancarlo Esposito to find the killer among quadruplets all played by Cynthia Erivo.

The series' familiar procedural format helps keep the show grounded, so Johnson can encourage the "Poker Face" writers to come up with outlandish scenarios for each episode.

"To me, having a show like this, it would be sad if you just cranked out a version of the same thing every time," Johnson said. "It's an engine to drive batshit crazy ideas that you might not get made otherwise. That, to me, is the fun part."

Johnson knows the value in keeping things creatively interesting. That's why he plans to take a break from the whodunit genre and start a new project after his latest "Knives Out " installment "Wake Up Dead Man" hits Netflix this fall.

"It's a completely different thing," Johnson told BI of his next idea. (And no, it's not a return to "Star Wars.") "It's a little scary, but in a fun way."

Below, Business Insider spoke with Johnson about turning crazy ideas into "Poker Face" episodes, casting actors via a group chat, and why he hopes "Wake Up Dead Man" gets played in as many movie theaters as possible — despite Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos' calling movie theaters "outdated."

Business Insider: Each "Poker Face" episode this season feels like a mini movie. While watching, I wondered if there's an archivist on the show who has encyclopedic knowledge of everything that's happened, simply just to make sure not to repeat a bit or the way someone was murdered.

Rian Johnson: Yeah, it's me [laughs]. In terms of what we've done in the previous season, I mean, if you talk to someone who has done "Law and Order" where they are on their 89th season and 300 episodes, they would laugh at us. But we have some of the writers' room assistants do research. So that is one element of it.

What does a proposed "Poker Face" story need for you to consider it for an episode?

We definitely have a blue sky day where people just pitch, "What about a baseball episode?" and others, and that's really fun because you also get to know the writers in the room, because everyone is pitching their own pet ideas. And then the reality is you pick a horse at some point and say, "Okay, let's develop this thing," and then the real work happens, which is hashing out the show and the structure.

Charlie is not a cop; it's not her job to do these things. By necessity, you have to find a way in for her with every episode. And that means you have to develop a relationship, you have to have an emotional investment. With "Poker Face," it's something that you actually really need to make the episode tick. So finding ways to do that every week without it feeling like it's repeating itself, finding different relationship dynamics, finding different ways in — the connection Charlie has with the killer or the person killed — that ends up being one of the biggest challenges of the writing. 

A perfect example is the first episode of season two, which you directed. In it, Charlie meets Cynthia Erivo's character while working at an apple orchard. Was that something not used in the last season?

No, the orchard setting was fresh. I think part of it came from we were shooting in New York, and we were like, "What's around there? Oh, an apple orchard. That will be ideal!" But that's also a fun element of it. It harkens back to the "Columbo" thing or more "Quantum Leap," every episode zooming into a microcosm fishbowl of a world. Episode 1 came from the notion of all these false starts. We could have had a "Poker Face" episode set in a haunted house hayride or a parking garage, but those pesky gunmen keep chasing Charlie.

Are you personally involved in selecting the guest stars?

Yeah. The casting process for the main guest stars is a text thread with me, Natasha, Tony Tost, the showrunner, and our casting directors. Sometimes it's just me and Natasha bouncing back and forth ideas of friends that we want to text. So it's a very fun, personal, and chaotic process because we're casting the show week to week. 

So it's a lot of figuring out if schedules are going to fit.

But there's also an element that's also, "I was out the other night at dinner and I ran into so and so. Do you think they'd want to be in this episode that starts shooting on Monday?" There's a bit of a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants element to it, which is fun and terrifying. It's amazing to get to the end of the season after that process and look back and see the roster that we've gotten. 

Has an actor you've gone out to for the show ever declined because they're holding out for a role in a "Knives Out" movie?

[Laughs] Not to my knowledge. If that has happened, they have not given that reason to me. But also being in one doesn't preclude you from being in the other. And these are very different processes casting both. We cast as we're shooting with "Poker Face." And we started shooting that halfway into the "Wake Up Dead Man" shoot. 

So someone you cast in a "Knives Out" movie could show up in a "Poker Face" episode, and vice versa?

Absolutely. Most of the people in this season I would cast in a heartbeat in a "Knives Out" movie. 

After "Wake Up Dead Man," have you thought about what you'll do next?

Actually, I have a whole movie in my head that I just have to write, which makes it sound easy, but it won't be. I'm hoping to take the summer and dig into that. It is not a Benoit Blanc movie, it's not a murder mystery, it's a very different genre. It's an original. So, I'm hoping to dive into that.

So, not taking a trip back to a galaxy far, far away?

Not for this next one. 

Recently, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos spoke at the Time100 Summit and said this of the state of theatrical releases: "Folks grew up thinking, 'I want to make movies on a gigantic screen, and have strangers watch them, and play in the theater for two months, and people cry, and sold-out shows.' It just doesn't happen anymore. It's an outdated concept." Do you agree with him?

Obviously I don't, because I love movies. I love going to see movies. But, also, I have a feeling talking to Ted, it would be a different thing than one quote taken and kind of tossed at me in this context. So I don't want to phrase this as I'm having a proxy discussion with Ted right here.

But, I will say, disconnected from that, I think theatrical is not going anywhere. With the success of Ryan [Coogler]'s movie, "Sinners," and the "Minecraft" movie, I think we've seen if you put a movie people want to see in the theaters, they are going to show up for it. That experience of being in a full house and having that experience is so important. It's something that I love and I want more of in the world. 

I'm sure you've had discussions with Ted yourself about theatrical within the Netflix bubble. Daniel Craig has gone on record saying it saddened him how "Glass Onion" was released in so few theaters. Do you hope "Wake Up Dead Man" will be shown on more screens?

We'll see. We're going to push for all we can get. I want this in as many theaters for as long as possible. I love Ted, I love working with Netflix. They have been absolutely wonderful partners. We're going to push for everything we can get in terms of theatrical with it because I want as many people as possible to see it in that form. 

This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

The first three episodes of "Poker Face" are now streaming on Peacock, with new episodes dropping weekly on Thursdays.

• "You" star Charlotte Ritchie, who plays Kate Lockwood, spoke to BI about the fifth and final season.
• Ritchie reacted to Kate's fate and said she was "on the fence" about what should happen to her.
• The actor also gave her opinion on how Joe's story ends.

Warning: Major spoilers ahead for season five of Netflix's "You."

The final chapter of Netflix's hit series "You" has arrived, and star Charlotte Ritchie is (mostly) thrilled that her character, Kate Lockwood, made it out alive.

The fifth season of "You," released on Thursday, picks up three years after Joe Goldberg (Penn Badgley) and Kate move back to his hometown of New York City at the end of season four. Everything is going well for the now-married power couple, but Joe's dark side can only be suppressed for so long, and once it reemerges and reinvigorates him, their relationship becomes fraught.

Ritchie told Business Insider that Kate has known all along that this is who Joe is — she's just been in denial about it. This season is "a real lesson in accepting the reality of your situation," Ritchie said.

When Kate finally sees clearly, she decides that the only way to stop Joe is to kill him.

"She is genuinely afraid of him and what he can do," Ritchie explained. "I think she just sees how this man consistently gets away with everything, and she's like, 'He has to not exist anymore for us to be safe. There's no system in the world that could keep him from us.'"

Kate recruits Joe's season three love interest Marienne Bellamy (Tati Gabrielle) and season four character Nadia (Amy-Leigh Hickman) to help her. This is one way the final season weaves together loose ends from the series and provides closure for other fan-favorite characters.

"What I love about this series is that they really lean into the genre. They really lean into the history of the show," Ritchie said. "I think it does the whole narrative justice."

In one dramatic moment in the penultimate episode, after getting into a physical altercation, Kate and Joe end up on the floor of Mooney's basement as the bookstore goes up in flames.

Resigned and more truthful than ever and thinking they've both reached their end, Joe admits that he killed Kate's dad and murdered Love. Relieved, Kate reveals that she secretly recorded Joe's confession and will be sending it to the authorities.

"You got me," Joe says. "You can die happy."

It's a scene that, like many in the show, finds the humor in unconventional moments.

"I love that that's in there, just Kate and Joe both quite dryly commenting on how absurd it is and how sad that they're both going to die," Ritchie said. "I just think it's a great scene. I think it's really well written."

Neither Kate nor Joe dies in that moment, and Ritchie has complicated feelings about her character escaping the fire.

"I was so happy because I've grown to really love this character, and I found it was so fun to get to be right in the midst of getting him," Ritchie said. "But I also felt like if there's ever a poetic justice in death, there was some justice in Kate going down with him."

"I really don't believe in people dying because they've done bad things, but in the world of the justice of this show, there's such a redemptive element to Kate's demise that it would've been OK," she added.

With Joe locked up for life in the finale, Ritchie said she's happy that Henry has a consistent and stable parent. But still, Kate's not innocent.

"She's done some pretty dastardly things and she's got herself into scrapes and been responsible for a lot of people's downfalls," Ritche said. "So yeah, I was on the fence as to what should happen to her, but I was obviously really pleased that she comes through."

"You" co-showrunners Michael Foley and Justin W. Lo previously told BI that they are prepared for fans to have varying reactions to Joe's fate in the finale and their choice to put him behind bars. Ritchie, too, is still grappling with that conclusion.

"I feel so mixed about it," she said.

After multiple seasons of seeing Joe do terrible, gruesome things, she's not sure what ending could adequately bookend his story.

"There is no fate that matches a life like that," Ritchie said. "But I do feel like the isolation is a good punishment for him. The thing is, I just don't get any sense that he's going to reflect or grow. It's not going to be a formative or spiritual experience for him. Broadly, it isn't for people. As far as I can tell, solitary confinement just seems to wear people down, except for some kind of amazing exceptions."

Case in point: in the final scene, Joe reads a creepy fan letter and says that maybe the problem isn't him — perhaps it's society.

"I do find the letter-writing thing quite an interesting twist, and his ability to turn it back onto his admirers and these women who have been asking to be involved with him," Ritchie said. "He'll never accept responsibility."

As the press tour for season five winds down, Ritchie already misses the cast and crew, including her frequent scene partner Badgley.

"I love Penn," Ritchie said. "I think he's such a decent and thoughtful and committed actor. He's such a lovely friend. He's very funny. And he commits to that role in a way that means that when you are working with him, you can do the same."

After seeing Kate go from closed-off and cold to blossoming in the final season, Ritchie is going to miss exploring more sides of her.

"And I'll miss the outrageous scenarios that are constant. Like, the nonstop drama, the daily, different high-octane situations where people are constantly about to extort somebody or about to kill somebody," she said. "That kind of level of high drama, I'll miss."

Season five of "You" is now streaming on Netflix.

Multiple studies and investigations have found that about half of American households watch TV and movies with subtitles on, but only a relatively small portion of those include someone with a hearing disability. That's because of the trouble many people have understanding dialogue in modern viewing situations, and Netflix has now introduced a subtitles option to help.

The closed captioning we've all been using for years includes not only the words the people on-screen are saying, but additional information needed by the hard of hearing, including character names, music cues ("dramatic music intensifies") and sound effects ("loud explosion").

For those who just wanted to make sure they didn't miss a word here and there, the frequent descriptions of sound effects and music could be distracting. This new format omits those extras, just including the spoken words and nothing else—even in the same language as the spoken dialogue.

Read full article

Comments