Netflix is not a tech company (2019) • Hacker News Board

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#121

Post by teawrecks » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 4:57 PM UTC

filmgirlcw wrote: post #78

TeMPOraL wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> purely based on a superior and novel tech experience for its users. I don't think this is accurate - the main value proposition of Netflix seems to have always been "streaming site with lots of mainstream content, that is also legal ". I.e. it's the streaming deals they've made that mattered, not delivery tech or their web player.

No. For the first decade plus of its existence, Netflix was a DVD by mail rental service and there, its technology was a key differentiator. You paid a subscription depending on how many DVDs you wanted to have out at a time, Netflix mailed them to you in red envelopes, and you mailed them back in the same envelope. The ingenious part was that there was a website where you entered in all of the DVDs you wanted and Ne…

Then all companies are tech companies. They all aim to come up with a product that's better than the last, and they almost never use old tech to do it.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#122

Post by tester756 » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 4:57 PM UTC

In my opinion Netflix is tech company, but is not part of FAAMG.

The reasoning is that the rest of FAAMG does shitton of "other" kind of CS oriented tech (OSes, Databases, Compilers, Heavy ML research) and stuff

They're way too big

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#123

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 4:57 PM UTC

hyperpallium2 wrote: post #120

Areading314 wrote: post #3

We should stop thinking in terms of "tech companies" and think of them in terms of "companies that use tech with a high degree of success". Ultimately any company that makes money is not a tech company because pure technology on its own does not make a business. Also, with the right incentives and management it is possible, although hard, for legacy companies to start using tech better to compete.

A 'tech company' is that is internally built of software, so it is (theoretically) as easy to evolve as software - which is not that easy, except compared with anything else. So, amazon, stripe, airbnb, uber, reddit, github etc. Perhaps a bit like when companies started to be built around the new-fangled telephone instead of telegrams and dictated letters. More responsive and free-form. This does not guarantee a stro…

> A 'tech company' is that is internally built of software,

Aside from weird blockchain entities, this doesn't exist. Companies may use software, but they are made of people.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#124

Post by cblconfederate » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 4:58 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #42

This is utterly ridiculous. I think it's generally understood that, in the 21st century, a "tech company" is a company that uses tech as the principal competitive advantage to replace traditional "non-21st-century-tech" incumbents. Obviously, Netflix used streaming, collaborative filtering recommendations, and a massive CDN to replace cable TV subscriptions. If that's not a perfect example of a tech company, I don't…

> streaming, collaborative filtering recommendations, and a massive CDN

Did they develop any of these technologies?

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#125

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 4:59 PM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #5

> The tech has to be good - but, it’s still all about the TV. If Netflix was only showing reruns of Frasier and Ally McBeal no-one would have signed up I think this is always a bit of a silly argument. If Netflix was showing everything, but the tech was terrible, no one would've signed up. You need both.

[deleted]

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#126

Post by bloak » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 4:59 PM UTC

As I understand it, the category "tech" was invented by stock traders. The applicable definition of "tech" company is a company whose share price movements correlate with the share price movements of other "tech" companies, which in turn tends to depend on how stock traders view the company, so the definition is circular in at least two ways. But it's probably still a useful concept. For stock traders.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#127

Post by aynyc » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

I have a much simpler definition.

1. If a company sees its technology capability as a profit center, then it's a tech company.

2. If it sees technology as a cost center, then it's not a tech company.

It's a bit of over-simplification, but it usually works for me and people I speak with.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#128

Post by plandis » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

ajford wrote: post #52

soneca wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. The HBOGO app used to have pretty poor tech. It would logout with no reason, forget where I was in the show, sometimes freeze requiring to close and open the app multiple times, have problems with Chromecast. Still, I wanted to see GoT

I mean, I have Paramount, Hulu, and HBO subscriptions, but I'm far more likely to fly the black flag and watch it from my Plex server instead of their apps due to how painful those apps are to use. If I was a little less honest, it would be easy to skip paying the subscription entirely. I generally use their apps now to find and try new shows, then download them to Plex once I know I like a show (so I'm not burning b…

This is fair but is your average person setting up plex servers? My guess is no.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#129

Post by jbay808 » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

filmgirlcw wrote: post #78

TeMPOraL wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> purely based on a superior and novel tech experience for its users. I don't think this is accurate - the main value proposition of Netflix seems to have always been "streaming site with lots of mainstream content, that is also legal ". I.e. it's the streaming deals they've made that mattered, not delivery tech or their web player.

No. For the first decade plus of its existence, Netflix was a DVD by mail rental service and there, its technology was a key differentiator. You paid a subscription depending on how many DVDs you wanted to have out at a time, Netflix mailed them to you in red envelopes, and you mailed them back in the same envelope. The ingenious part was that there was a website where you entered in all of the DVDs you wanted and Ne…

My local library has had the same service for about equally long. The only difference is that instead of ordering them to my house, I order them to the nearest branch and then I walk in and pick it up whenever I feel like it. Then I drop them off a couple weeks later. No need to mess with envelopes and shipping. And it's free!

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#130

Post by eslaught » Tue, Sep 07, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

paxys wrote: post #6

While you can make that argument today, Netflix as a company is 24 years old. It got to its current position not by spending $15B/yr on original content (which it can afford to do now) but purely based on a superior and novel tech experience for its users. Of course eventually all discussions of this nature devolve into the intricate definition of "tech company", and in the absence of one that is agreed upon, bringin…

Perhaps Netflix has shifted. In the beginning, I think you could have made a good argument that technology was their moat, but I don't think you can say so today.

Today, their best attempt at a moat is content, and it's a poor one at best since they can only make so much original content and it's not as if they can do so in a way that is inaccessible to other services.