Warner Bros. Discovery splits: Cable, streaming services to be divided; decision to be finalised by 2026
The restructuring will create two distinct entities: Streaming & Studios and Global Networks.
The Streaming & Studios will house Warner Bros. Television, Warner Bros. Motion Picture Group, DC Studios, HBO, HBO Max, and their extensive film and television libraries.
Global Networks will comprise CNN, TNT Sports in the US, Discovery Channel, a range of major free-to-air European broadcasters, and digital brands such as Discovery+ and Bleacher Report.
Following the announcement on Monday, shares of Warner Bros. Discovery surged more than 9% in pre-market trading.
Warner Bros. chief executive David Zaslav will be leading the Streaming & Studios company, while the firm's current chief financial officer, Gunnar Wiedenfels, will take the reins at Global Networks.
Both officials will continue in their present roles until the split is finalised.
'By operating as two distinct and optimized companies in the future, we are empowering these iconic brands with the sharper focus and strategic flexibility they need to compete most effectively in today's evolving media landscape," Zaslav said in a statement, quoted by AP.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Nuova CUPRA Formentor e-HYBRID
CUPRA
Configura Auto
Undo
'This evolution isn't a departure from our strategy — to deploy Max globally, optimize our global networks and return our Studios to industry leadership — it's about unlocking the full potential of two strong businesses,' Zaslav said in an internal memo, cited by CNN.
'Each has a distinct focus, a clear mission, and the scale to succeed on its own terms.'
The decision to break up Warner Bros. Discovery comes just three years after the much-celebrated merger of Discovery and the former Time Warner. The announcement was widely anticipated, as the company has spent the past six months reshaping itself in preparation for a split.
The company said the separation is expected to be completed by the middle of next year, after receiving approval from the Warner Bros. Discovery board.
Stay informed with the latest
business
news, updates on
bank holidays
and
public holidays
.
AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Alaskan winds, India and the Trump-Putin summit
The 'Alaska Moment' between United States President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on August 15, 2025 will translate to other objectives for Ukraine as Mr. Trump engages with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders, leading up to a possible trilateral summit in a quest for the end of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. For New Delhi, however, the Alaska Summit did not yield the clear-cut outcomes many had hoped for before the meeting between the leaders of two of India's closest friends. Nor did it help the peculiar sense of vulnerability that Indian diplomacy faced, of having so much at stake in a meeting while having so little agency in its results. Broadly, the Narendra Modi government had hoped that a U.S.-Russia rapprochement would take off some of the pressure from the U.S. India has felt over its ties with Russia. However, while there was a visible warmth in the Trump-Putin exchanges, this did not result in a less chilling tone that Mr. Trump has had towards India. He has been taking India to task on a number of issues. More specifically, hopes rose that the Alaska meeting would result in a rollback of the U.S.'s planned 25% secondary sanctions on India for buying Russian oil; the resumption of India-U.S. trade talks that Mr. Trump has held up over the Russia oil issue; and a subsequent revision of the 25% reciprocal tariffs already in place. In a severely-worded piece in the Financial Times ('India's oil lobby is funding Putin's war machine — that has to stop'), Peter Navarro, who is Mr. Trump's Senior Counselor on Trade and Manufacturing, virtually dashed such hopes, making it clear that the double tariffs were a 'two-pronged policy' by the U.S. to 'hit India where it hurts', for both the Russian imports and for its curbs on market access. No change in India policies Nor was there any indicator that Mr. Trump would let up on the other pain point: his counter-narrative to the Modi government's account of Operation Sindoor (May 7-10) and how the ceasefire was achieved. Not only did Mr. Trump repeat that he has mediated the India-Pakistan ceasefire, using trade as a leverage to corral both sides, but he now adds that a nuclear conflict would have followed as both sides were 'shooting down airplanes', a version at considerable odds from that of the Modi government, which has thus far conceded that it had no losses in the conflict. Thus, the first takeaway from the Summit must be this: while Mr. Trump's re-engagement and bonhomie with Mr. Putin may help Moscow, it does not mean a revision of his policies toward India. In any case, the rationale behind the secondary sanctions on India is dubious, and more about power games than about punishing Russia. The U.S. has itself increased its trade with Russia since Mr. Trump came to power and China imports of Russian oil have been consistently larger than India's. Hitting India with sanctions while feting the Russian President and ignoring China's actions seems to indicate that the reasons for the U.S.'s actions lie elsewhere. Many have suggested that Mr. Trump has acted out of pique — upset that Mr. Modi ignored his claims to have mediated with the Pakistanis. Reports suggested that Mr. Modi also rebuffed U.S. moves for him to sit down with the Pakistani leadership in Riyadh or in Washington, and that the Modi-Trump call on June 17 was extremely acrimonious and awkward as a result. Mr. Trump's more obvious focus appears to be recognition for his peace-making efforts, and a possible Nobel Peace Prize, and the Modi government has already missed the bus to give him the credit for the Operation Sindoor ceasefire that Mr. Trump so clearly wants. New Delhi must decide whether it wishes to jump through hoops for Washington, or whether it would be more sensible to step back and allow the Trump administration to do its worst before assessing a response and turn its energies to other parts of the world. There may be avenues to shore up India's options on trade relationships with Mr. Modi's upcoming visits to Japan and then to China for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation meet, a possible visit to the U.S. for the United Nations General Assembly, and then South Africa for the G-20 summit. There is also Mr. Putin's visit to India soon. The bellwether event for India-U.S. ties will be the upcoming Quad Summit (India, U.S., Japan, Australia) that India is due to host later this year. It is still unclear whether Mr. Trump will visit India, especially if no India-U.S. trade deal is done by then, and whether the Indian government will be in any mood to roll out the red carpet. Returning to substance The second takeaway should be a lesson in not allowing 'Summitry' to overtake India's broader interests. For more than a decade, the 'Modi mantra' of foreign policy has been about personal magic and chemistry, of dealing one-to-one with leaders of other countries, as his imprimatur on bilateral ties. As a result, visits abroad have been judged by the number of joint public appearances, handshakes and embraces as well as special honours and awards that are given to the Prime Minister, rather than the actual agreements and concessions between them. With China, however, the 18 one-on-one meetings between Mr. Modi and China's President Xi Jinping between 2014-19 did not generate the requisite understanding to foresee Chinese People's Liberation Army's transgressions along the Line of Actual Control and the Galwan clashes. With the U.S., too, Mr. Modi's close engagements during the Trump 1.0 tenure (the 'Howdy Modi' rally in Texas in 2019 and the 'Namaste Trump' rally in Gujarat in 2020), as well as his early visit to Washington under the Trump 2.0 administration in February 2025 should have given the two leaders enough of an understanding of the other. Given the shocks that have followed, it may be time to turn back the focus to substance over style. But that substance becomes more difficult to seek in Trumpian times, given that most foreign policy decisions are being taken by Mr. Trump himself and a small ring around him in the White House, with few appointments being made on the desks that deal with India in the National Security Council or the State Department. In the 'good times' Delhi and Washington have worked well, even without a U.S. Ambassador in place in India. But at present, it is clear that a senior envoy with a keen knowledge of India as well as the U.S. President's ear are necessary to navigate the turbulence in ties. Maintain a political balance The third lesson of the past few months is that India must reclaim bipartisanship in diplomatic relations, and build and maintain ties on both sides of the political spectrum, regardless of which party is in power. In the U.S., the Democratic party establishment was unhappy about the Trump-Modi rallies because they were held just months before the U.S. presidential election in 2020, and India had to spend some time, subsequently, repairing ties with the Joe Biden administration. Four years later, this annoyed Mr. Trump, the Republican contender, especially as he felt the contrast between the close personal bonhomie while he was in power and the fact that the Mr. Modi and his envoys did not spend time with him when he was out of power, including during the three times Mr. Modi travelled to the U.S., in 2021, 2023 and 2024, to hold talks with Mr. Biden. Closer home, this bipartisanship has been proven to trip up India's ties in the neighbouring countries as well — Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and the Maldives. Fourth, Mr. Trump's penalties on India's import of oil, after the U.S. allowed, even actively encouraged the purchases before, show how fickle the global power can be and how futile it is for India to forego its principles in order to please a particular regime. India's time-honoured principle of only acceding to UN-mandated sanctions was broken in 2018 when the government bowed to Mr. Trump's threats of sanctions against Iranian oil, and then Venezuelan oil, possibly emboldening him to demand the same against the use of Russian oil this time. By accepting such unreasonable orders, India does not just risk economic losses in foregoing cheaper oil. It also becomes complicit in the U.S.'s foreign policy objectives that do not necessarily align with India's national interests. Conversely, when India resists such moves, it wins the support of others in the Global South. And while they object, western powers grudgingly accept India's strategic autonomy in these matters. Finally, New Delhi must consider measures and countermeasures to deal with U.S. actions that hurt India's interests acutely — like the reciprocal and penalty tariffs that will make Indian goods far less competitive than those of its exporting rivals, curbs on U.S. manufacturing in India, or the remittance taxes on Indians working in the U.S. Getting back India's agency will require a firmer stance — one that is not buffeted by the winds in Alaska, at a summit meeting thousands of kilometres away from India. suhasini.h@
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Brutal CEO cut 80% of workers who rejected AI - 2 years later he says he would do it again
When most leaders cautiously tested AI, Eric Vaughan, the CEO of IgniteTech, took a gamble that shocked the tech world. The IgniteTech CEO replaced nearly 80% of his staff in a bold move to make artificial intelligence the company's foundation. His decision, controversial yet transformative, shows the brutal reality of adapting to disruption. Vaughan's story shows that businesses must change their culture, not just their technology, to thrive in the AI era. In early 2023, IgniteTech CEO Eric Vaughan faced one of his toughest decisions. Convinced that artificial intelligence was not just a tool but an existential shift for every business, he dismantled his company's traditional structure. ALSO READ: Orca attack mystery: What really happened to marine trainer Jessica Radcliffe Why did IgniteTech face resistance to AI? Live Events When Vaughan first pushed the company to use AI, he spent a lot of money on training. Mondays turned into "AI Mondays," which were only for learning new skills, trying out new tools, and starting pilot projects. IgniteTech paid for employees to take AI-related courses and even brought in outside experts to help with adoption, as per a report by Fortune. However, resistance emerged rapidly. It was surprising that the most pushback came from technical employees, not sales or marketing. A lot of people were doubtful about what AI could do, focusing on what it couldn't do instead of what it could do. Some people openly refused to take part, while others worked against the projects. Vaughan said that the resistance was so strong that it was almost sabotage. His experience is backed up by research. According to a 2025 report on enterprise AI adoption, one in three workers said they were against or even sabotaging AI projects, usually because they were afraid of losing their jobs or were frustrated with tools that weren't fully developed, as per a report by Fortune. ALSO READ: Apple iPhone 17 Air and Pro get surprise release date change — here's the new timeline How did Vaughan rebuild the company? Vaughan came to the conclusion that believing in AI was not up for debate. Instead of making his current employees change, he started hiring new people who shared his vision. He called these new hires "AI innovation specialists." This change affected every department, including sales and finance, as per a report by Fortune. Thibault Bridel-Bertomeu, IgniteTech's new chief AI officer, was a key hire. Vaughan reorganized the company so that every division reported to AI after he joined. This centralization stopped things from being done twice and made it easier for people to work together, which is a common problem when companies use AI. The change was expensive, disruptive, and emotionally draining, but Vaughan says it had to said, "It was harder to change minds than to add skills,' as per a report by Fortune. What can other companies learn from this? Even though it hurt, IgniteTech got a lot of benefits. By the end of 2024, it had released two AI solutions that were still in the patent process. One of them was Eloquens AI, an email automation platform. Revenue remained in the nine-figure range, with profit margins near 75% Ebitda. During the chaos, the company even made a big purchase. ALSO READ: Alien Attack in November? Harvard scientists warn mysterious space object could be advanced technology Vaughan's story teaches us a crucial lesson: using AI is as much about culture as it is about technology. While companies like Ikea focus on augmenting workers instead of replacing them, Vaughan chose radical restructuring to ensure alignment. Both methods show how hard it is for businesses to find a balance between trust and innovation. FAQs Why did Eric Vaughan fire so many people at IgniteTech? He thought that people who didn't want to use AI would hurt the company's future, so he decided to rebuild with people who shared his vision. What happened after IgniteTech changed its AI? The company introduced new AI products, set up a central AI division, and made more money, even though the change was hard.
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Zelenskyy arrives at White House for critical talks with Trump, European leaders on war with Russia
AP Trump welcomed Zelenskyy Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has arrived at the White House for talks with President Donald Trump and key European leaders as the U.S. leader presses for a quick end to the brutal Russia-Ukraine war. Monday's hastily assembled meeting comes after Trump met on Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin and has said that the onus is now on Zelenskyy to agree to concessions that he said could end the war. Zelenskyy signaled he's open to having a trilateral meeting with Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine war. Trump is to hold one-on-one talks with Zelenskyy. The two are then scheduled to gather with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni, Finnish President Alexander Stubb and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. The European leaders were left out of Trump's summit with Putin last Friday, and they want to safeguard Ukraine and the continent from any widening aggression from Moscow. Many arrived at the White House with the explicit goal of protecting Ukraine's interests - a rare show of diplomatic force. By coming as a group, they hope to avoid debacles like Zelenskyy's February meeting in the Oval Office, where Trump chastised him for not showing enough gratitude for U.S. military aid. Trump and Zelenskyy were due to meet in the Oval Office before European leaders join them in the East Room for talks. The meetings are also a test of America's relationship with its closest allies after the European Union and United Kingdom accepted Trump's tariff hikes partly because they wanted his support on Ukraine. "We understand that we shouldn't expect Putin to voluntarily abandon aggression and new attempts at conquest," Zelenskyy said in an X posting before arriving at the White House. "That is why pressure must work, and it must be joint pressure - from the United States and Europe, and from everyone in the world who respects the right to life and the international order." Ahead of the meeting, however, Trump suggested that Ukraine could not regain Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014, setting off an armed conflict that led to its broader 2022 invasion. "President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight," Trump wrote Sunday night on social media. "Remember how it started. No getting back Obama given Crimea (12 years ago, without a shot being fired!), and NO GOING INTO NATO BY UKRAINE. Some things never change!!!" Zelenskyy appeared to respond with his own post late Sunday, saying, "We all share a strong desire to end this war quickly and reliably." He said that "peace must be lasting," not as it was after Russia seized Crimea and part of the Donbas in eastern Ukraine eight years ago, and "Putin simply used it as a springboard for a new attack." Trump's sitdown in Alaska with Putin yielded the possible contours for stopping the war in Ukraine, though it was unclear whether the terms discussed would ultimately be acceptable to Zelenskyy or Putin. Zelenskyy said in a social media post he met with Trump's special envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, on Monday ahead of his scheduled talks with Trump to discuss the battlefield situation and the shared "strong diplomatic capabilities" of the U.S., Ukraine and Europe. He also held talks with European leaders at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington. European heavyweights in Washington European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni, Finnish President Alexander Stubb and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte arrived at the White House ahead of Zelenskyy's arrival. On the table for discussion are possible NATO-like security guarantees that Ukraine would need for any peace with Russia to be durable. Putin opposes Ukraine joining NATO outright, yet Trump's team claims the Russian leader is open to allies agreeing to defend Ukraine if it comes under attack. "Clearly there are no easy solutions when talking about ending a war and building peace," Meloni told reporters. "We have to explore all possible solutions to guarantee peace, to guarantee justice, and to guarantee security for our countries." The European leaders are aiming to keep the focus during the White House talks on finding a sustainable peace and believe forging a temporary ceasefire is not off the table, according to a European official. The official, who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the leaders are also looking to keep pressure on Russia to end the fighting and want to get more concrete assurances from the U.S. about security guarantees for Ukraine as part of any deal. Trump briefed Zelenskyy and European allies shortly after the Putin meeting. Details from the discussions emerged in a scattershot way that seemed to rankle the U.S. president, who had chosen not to outline any terms when appearing afterward with Putin. Ahead of Monday's White House meetings, Trump took to social media to say that even if Russia said, "We give up, we concede, we surrender" the news media and Democrats "would say that this was a bad and humiliating day for Donald J. Trump." He separately lashed out at the Wall Street Journal and other outlets "who truly don't have a clue, tell me everything that I am doing wrong on the Russia/Ukraine MESS." Following the Alaska summit, Trump declared that a ceasefire was not necessary for peace talks to proceed, a sudden shift to a position favored by Putin. 'A very big move' European officials confirmed that Trump told them Putin is still seeking control of the entire Donbas region, even though Ukraine controls a meaningful share of it. Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, said the U.S. and its allies could offer Ukraine a NATO-like commitment to defend the country if it came under attack as the possible security guarantee, with details to be worked out. Monday's meeting will likely be very tough for Zelenskyy, an official close to the ongoing talks said. That official spoke on condition of anonymity to speak openly about thinking within Ukraine and between allies. Zelenskyy needs to prevent a scenario in which he gets blamed for blocking peace talks by rejecting Putin's maximalist demand on the Donbas, the official said. It is a demand Zelenskyy has said many times he will never accept because it is unconstitutional and could create a launching pad for future Russian attacks. If confronted with pressure to accept Putin's demands, Zelenskyy would likely have to revert to a skill he has demonstrated time and again: diplomatic tact. The Ukrainian leadership is seeking a trilateral meeting with Zelenskyy, Trump and Putin to discuss sensitive matters, including territorial issues. Trump's ambition to end the war After enduring a public tirade by Trump and Vice President JD Vance in February, Zelenskyy worked to repair relations with the U.S. Constant diplomatic communication and a 15-minute meeting at the Vatican in April on the sidelines of Pope Francis' funeral helped turn the tide. Trump appeared at the time to be swayed by Zelenskyy's conditions for peace. But Trump says he cares primarily about ending the war, an ambition that led him after his meeting with Putin to discard the need for a ceasefire. European allies also have worked with Trump, reaching a deal in July for NATO allies to buy weapons from the U.S. for Ukraine. Russian forces continued to pound Ukraine with missiles and drones. A Russian drone strike on Kharkiv, Ukraine's second largest city, killed seven civilians late Sunday. Putin spoke with the leaders of India, Brazil and South Africa Monday to discuss his meeting with Trump in Alaska, the Kremlin said. He also spoke with leaders in Central Asia and the president of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, it said.
