The reason I think it's evidence for a glaring issue with Peacock is that do you really think that AT&T would spin off/sell off HBO Max in this way if it was working (i.e. if HBO Max had taken off like Disney+ had)?
HBO Max had a huge quarter for net adds. 2.7 million is higher than Netflix ever hit in the US after it went past 40 million with a higher ARPU too. You can get rid of a thriving asset if it doesn't fit with your current strategy or if you have more pressing investment concerns (not saying Warners under T was thriving, just saying HBO Max had things going for it). That's what people weirdly ignore with AT&T - they're fundamentally a
phone company, not a media company, and with 5g and massive debt there just isn't enough dollars in the coffers for Fiber, Mobility, HBO Max and their massive, massive dividend.
Comcast is not in this position. Their wireless service rides off of Verizon and requires relatively small capital expenditures since they're not nationwide. Cable is established with plenty of room to grow broadband. 5G (unreliable) and Fiber (expensive) are not existential competitors the way T-Mobile is to AT&T. Sure there's a DOCSIS update and the potential for Biden funding competition but overall, it's very different situation-wise, and that gives Comcast time.
Sky's position in Europe is strong, but I really do think you need a global service well situation in all 3 of Americas/Europe/Asia to work into the future. Amazon, Netflix, and Disney+ have all 3 and have content paths mapped out in all 3.
I see what you're saying, but in practice, Asia is tough as nails to crack. Netflix is barely staying afloat in India. I think people have outsized perceptions of how strong certain brands actually are overseas (besides Disney).
Discovery/Warners is not gonna affect Sky very much anyway until 2024, and possibly even further given how eager Discovery was to sign deals with Sky.
That having been said,
The problem for Comcast is that it hasn't really committed to streaming; yes they made Peacock, but Peacock is sorta just there as mostly an add on for Comcast cable subscribers at the moment.
I actually agree with you here to a certain extent. While I think people focus way too much on Netflix's volume and catching Netflix and how much Netflix is spending, there are some concerns about Comcast's streaming strategy. They articulated a brand strategy relying on unscripted, broad-based content, news, sports, and latino content from Telemundo. That's good and cheap and targets areas that no one else seems willing to capitalize on, but there still needs to be some focus. Letting go of NHL was a bad look, as were rumors of a Universal Film streamer.
I think Jon Landsgraf said it well. You
can curate. Consumers pay for curation. FX and HBO have strong brands precisely because of that curation. That doesn't mean rotating out movies that define your service, but it does mean that Netflix's strategy of a firehose of content might not be the best. And the best part about curation is that if you do it well, it can be cheap.