Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can Netflix Survive in the New World It Created?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–158 of 158 posts

Re: Can Netflix Survive in the New World It Created?

#151

Post by dexterdog »

ergothus wrote: post #123
dexterdog wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Netflix was just a distributor then and not a creator. The biggest problem in this is middle men. People want to pay the creators for their work, but there are layers upon layers of middle men that end up getting a far larger slice of the overall pie than the people who actually create the stuff. With the technology we have and systems similar to (but more open than) Netflix, we should be able to have a proper co…

Perhaps, but I can also see the middleman as a value add. When I paid Netflix and could see most anything, it was great, though a few things I couldn't see. Now I pay Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, pay for devices (e.g. Roku) to access them, have to hop accounts, and STILL can't see everything. Heck, Netflix's library has gotten less reliable. ("Want to see Groundhog day? let's see if it's currently in or out of catalog"). M…

My point is middle men should make a cut in line with typical commissions (like 15%) so that the financial transaction is largely between the creator and the consumer. Netflix may be close to this model while virtually nobody else in the industry is.

Re: Can Netflix Survive in the New World It Created?

#152

Post by talmand »

aianus wrote: post #105
talmand wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A positive work environment and satisfaction is not just about compensation. Working with other high-performers is good, I agree, except the company policy is that high-performers can be shown the door at any moment due to various changes outside the control of that high-performer. That's not a good work environment.

That's a critique that may or may not apply to a given implementation of this idea. However, if the people being fired are treated with respect, severance, good references and if there's a general consensus amongst those remaining that the individuals were, in fact, low performers, I imagine there would be high morale.

If the definition of low performer is "really nice, hard-working people", then I suppose you have a point. But it would still suck to be hard-working and be let go because the company failed to provide you proper tasks to be considered a high performer. If you give a high performer nothing to do, or something outside their expertise, are they still a high performer?

Re: Can Netflix Survive in the New World It Created?

#153

Post by gentleteblor »

Animats wrote: post #80
gentleteblor wrote: post #65

The most interesting thing (to me) in this piece, is how many pivots Netflix made/is still making. Many of those moves were very much unsafe/risky (which is why the networks didn't make em themselves)...brave for what was already an established company then.

That's a good point. They're desperately trying to outmaneuver the cable companies. So far, they're doing OK, but not great. While Netflix is big, Netflix is not very profitable. Netflix is becoming more like a cable company, with a limited menu. Total access to a huge back catalog has been cut back. Netflix, though, doesn't own the pipe. Owning the pipe for TV is so profitable that AT&T more or less gives away voice…

True. It's going to be interesting to watch things play out. The portion of the article about consumers not wanting to subscribe to too many streaming services rings true to me. I think a lot of the newer (cable) network streaming services might die off in the next few years if they don't become one of the dominant few. If Netflix is on top of this (dominant) heap it should give them a lot of leverage when it comes to content costs which might lead to higher profits etc etc.

Re: Can Netflix Survive in the New World It Created?

#154

Post by tomjen3 »

vertex-four wrote: post #89
distances wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's perhaps one way. Or assigning the employee no tasks at all, just an empty room with a desk and chair, and a requirement to be there during normal working hours. No sane person takes that for a longer time. Companies do have longish probation periods (say, 6-9 months) before the contract is final. Within this period either party can cancel the employment at will, with no notice period. This is meant to be the t…

> Or assigning the employee no tasks at all, just an empty room with a desk and chair, and a requirement to be there during normal working hours. Note that this is legally Constructive Dismissal and is likely to wind you up in front of a tribunal.

How? They are still getting paid.

Re: Can Netflix Survive in the New World It Created?

#155

Post by vertex-four »

tomjen3 wrote: post #154
vertex-four wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or assigning the employee no tasks at all, just an empty room with a desk and chair, and a requirement to be there during normal working hours. Note that this is legally Constructive Dismissal and is likely to wind you up in front of a tribunal.

How? They are still getting paid.

Removing an employee's duties with negative effect to the employee with the intention of causing them to quit is constructive dismissal in at least the UK, and likely the rest of Europe as much of it has better labour laws than us.

Demoting someone is generally OK provided that you have good reason and can provide reasonable evidence that the intention wasn't to cause the employee to leave. It's unlikely that you'd have any good evidence that sticking someone in a room with no duties is something your company actually wants to continue paying the person for.

Re: Can Netflix Survive in the New World It Created?

#157

Post by sevensor »

update wrote: post #143
sevensor wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Think you're indispensable? Do they know that? Indispensable employees are a sign of organizational failure. They indicate a weak point in the organization -- if that person gets hit by a bus, or walks off the job, or is on vacation during a crisis, we're all in trouble. And if an employee becomes indispensable on purpose, that person is a problem and should be let go before the situation gets worse. Where I used t…

> Indispensable employees are a sign of organizational failure. They indicate a weak point in the organization Contention for fun: "Hands are indispensable, thus, they indicate a weak point in the organization."

I think that's a bit of a nonsequitur, to be honest. People who brought up executives as a counterexample made a much better case, as well as those who pointed out that small organizations often do have individual contributors whose absence would wreck the business.

Re: Can Netflix Survive in the New World It Created?

#158

Post by smhenderson »

distances wrote: post #69
smhenderson wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, agreed. I think the article mentioned price hikes scaring off casual watchers and this almost happened with me but before I decided to cancel I took a deeper dive into the available content and found a lot I had ignored for a while (both NF original and licensed content). So now I'm in this pattern where I find a few things I want to try, like enough of it to keep me happy for a month or two and then slowly run…

Offtopic, but since you liked River, I'd suggest you to try Happy Valley too (if it's available at your location). It's also serious English crime drama, with some seriously good acting performances.

Thanks, I'll give it a look.
Post reply on HN