Imo Netflix is much worst in that regard. At least in this case, you can hope to won a capital attrition war and become the really big player. But for Netflix, it's literally a never ending spring in a hamster wheel. You have users that can almost instantly leave your platform if you don't have interesting content, so you need to perpetually use whatever money subscriptions generate to produce even more content, even more quickly as you get more users with varied tastes. If you slack on content, you get less subscription money.
Considering that a large part of the culture defining movies/franchises/series IP is also not owned by Netflix, they can't really hope to just end up outcompeting everyone else down the line. Think about it: food delivery is pretty generic, you don't really see the difference apart from cost. So if let's say Uber manages to bring down costs, outrun the current big competitors, and use that dominant position to keep prices lower than future newcomers, odds are customers will just keep using Uber.
But in Netflix's case, people will still want disney movies or HBO series. That means there's no real hope for a profitable market dominating position down the line, so they will need to perpetually produce a very expensive product just to pay off the cost of other expensive product. If Netflix starts to lose subscribers, it still has very fixed costs (content acquisition & debt service for already made content) whereas Uber or Doordash have most of their operational costs directly tied to demand. No orders only means loss of revenue, but no additional losses.
Netflix just seems like a very weird and very... risky investment and much more so than the already very shaky business of food delivery. But I always assume the markets see something I don't, so maybe I'm totally wrong!