Cinema has been accusing Netflix and Amazon of suffocating it for years. Now it has new saviors: Netflix and Amazon

In Las Vegas, before thousands of theater owners, the head of Amazon MGM Studios promised that at least 15 of its films a year would reach theaters. He did so days after Netflix, which has been avoiding cinemas for years, announced that it will respect traditional exhibition windows for Warner Bros. films, thus building new bridges of understanding with its former enemies, traditional cinemas. Coincidence or highly studied public relations move? 15 a year doesn’t hurt. Mike Hopkins, director of Prime Video and Amazon MGM Studios, He was very direct with the exhibitors: “While some competitors have entered and exited the theatrical waters, for us this is neither a test nor an experiment. Our commitment to release at least 15 films each year in your theaters is underway.” The theater owners responded with a standing ovation. Amazon backs this promise with figures: they have been announcing for some time an investment of $1 billion annually in movies for theaters. The ‘Hail Mary’ gift. Immediately afterwards, Ryan Gosling spoke. The actor and producer of ‘Salvation Project’the science fiction film that has been dominating the global box office for weeks, thanked the exhibitors for their decisive role in the film’s success. He later said that the production, which has accumulated more than $525 million at the global box office, was going to extend its exhibition window, delaying its arrival on digital platforms. A true gift of good will for a sector that appreciates any oxygen cylinder. In the other corner. On the other hand we have Netflix. In April 2025, his co-CEO Ted Sarandos described going to the movies as “an outdated concept”. Obviously, given the platform’s trend-setting power, the statement did not sit particularly well with exhibitors. Months later, when Netflix announced its intention to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery for around 80,000 million dollars, the alarm became something more concrete: the main studio committed to the exhibition passed into the hands of the platform most hostile to traditional cinema. Collect cable. Sarandos partially retreated in January 2026 in an interview: “When this deal closes, we will have a phenomenal theatrical distribution engine that generates billions of dollars of theatrical revenue that we do not want to put at risk. We will manage that business as it is today, with 45-day windows.” He clarified his comment about “outdated” cinema: he was referring to locations without access to theaters, not to the experience itself. Internally, suspicions did not subside: according to the CEO of the Cinemark chainNetflix intended to approach a window of only 17 days. Cinemas are improving. The point is that a slight improvement is detected in the situation of cinemas. According to Comscorethe US box office accumulated from the beginning of this year until April 12 reached $2.26 billion, 23% above the same period of the previous year and the best figure since 2019. Ticket sales grew by 16%, reaching 154 million viewers. This improvement has been echoed among production companies: Universal, which during the pandemic reduced its windows to 17 days, has already announced that will extend its guaranteed minimum to 45 days since January 2027. In this context, MGM’s congratulations and Netflix’s change in philosophy make sense. Reasons for suspicion. The rooms, however, have reasons to be reticent. David Zaslav, CEO of Warner, promised three years ago 20 films a year from Warner Bros. for rooms. He never kept his promise. But we may be seeing the winds of change blowing. The box office in slight but clear improvement, the expansion of windows and the regulatory pressure They are creating a panorama in which it is more profitable for platforms to be allies of cinemas than enemies. Although the rooms know that they have to make sure before burying the hatchet. In Xataka | Spotify killed the record and the industry pivoted to concerts. Netflix killed cinema and the industry was left with a “space crisis”

More and more people are accusing Spotify of artificially inflating their listeners. There is no way to check the numbers.

The doubts about the listening figures that Spotify handles They have always been there, but they have increased in recent times, when the possibility has been put on the table that some of their most listened to artists are actually the result of bot farms. At the moment there is nothing firm on the table, but we do have something indisputable: between this and the artists fleeing in a pack Spotify is going through one of the biggest reputational crises in its history. The demand. In early November 2025, rapper RBX, Snoop Dogg’s cousin, filed a class-action lawsuit against Spotify in California that has opened an uncomfortable debate for the music industry. streaming. According to the court document, between January 2022 and September 2025 an unspecified but “substantial” amount of the almost 37 billion views accumulated by Drake on the platform they would have been generated by botsautomated accounts (who listen to Drake 23 hours a day, something implausible) and traffic from, for example, Türkiye, masked with a VPN. Drake is not to blame. The Canadian artist not listed as accused (the lawsuit points exclusively to Spotify), but it appears to be an indirect beneficiary of this ecosystem where supervision is, to put it mildly, very relaxed. What is relevant is not whether Drake knew about these anomalies or not, but rather an issue that, if revealed as true, would reach the level of structural embezzlement: transparency about listening on Spotify is practically zero. How Spotify (doesn’t) work. The main problem with Spotify’s system lies in the opacity that surrounds its systems to detect fraud. The company has never publicly explained the exact thresholds that trigger its alarms, nor the criteria that distinguish an organic spike in activity from artificial manipulation. This lack of transparency generates detailed situations in this article: while emerging artists see their income blocked by a few thousand reproductions considered suspicious, statistical anomalies of colossal dimensions can persist for years. A lot of fraud. An analysis held in France in 2023 estimated that between 1% and 3% of all streams in the country were fraudulent. If these percentages were extrapolated globally, the losses would exceed $510 million. But Beatdapp, a company specialized in detecting fraud in streaming, dramatically raised that estimate in 2024: at least 10% of all reproductions would be artificial, which implies annual losses of between 2,000 and 3,000 million dollars. Other cases. These demands are not born in a vacuum. During 2024 and 2025, several cases have confirmed that the manipulation of streams and opaque commercial influence are common problems at Spotify. For example, in 2025, the Turkish Competition Authority opened a formal investigation against Spotify for alleged anti-competitive practices. The trigger was allegations from several top Turkish artists that certain performers were getting disproportionate visibility in exchange for direct payments to Spotify editors, all combined with the use of bots to artificially inflate national chart positions. Spotify has launched an internal investigation in what is the first case of editorial corruption reported by relevant artists. On the other hand, in September 2024, a 52-year-old musician living in North Carolina was accused of artificial inflation of streams through AI. Specifically, up to $10 million in fraudulent royalties through hundreds of thousands of songs created with AI that it played with up to 10,000 bot accounts. Smith strategically dispersed the fake wiretaps among tens of thousands of topics to prevent any of them from accumulating suspicious numbers. Spotify admits the fraud operated for years undetected. Header | Amber on Flickr / Alexander Shatov in Unsplash

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.