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

Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

ben-evans.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 324 posts

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#291

Post by [deleted] »

burntoutfire wrote: post #255
munk-a wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Dell really a tech company though? Does selling computing hardware really count as tech these days since Apple would definitely end up being a tech company under that definition - even with all the other revenue streams it has I think being one of the largest manufacturers of computing hardware would automatically qualify them. I personally consider "tech companies" to be companies with tech I find interesting to…

Apple is not manufacturing any computers, only designing and marketing them. Foxconn et all is manufacturing the Apple-branded computers.

[deleted]

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#292

Post by iratewizard »

cletus wrote: post #148

Here's the framework I use: "tech companies" are those where tech still plays a significant factor in the growth of the company such that it's important to an executive level. Example: Google is still a tech company. As much as some might view search as "solved" (just like it was when Google was founded I might add), search continues to get better. Tech still plays a significant role in the actual core business (ie a…

>search continues to get better.

You lost me there. Even before Google started putting their thumb on the scale for its Machiavellian goals, search had gone way down hill. It is now at the point that I've got a better chance of finding something by randomly browsing the internet than through a dozen targeted searches. Unless what I'm looking for is associated with a multi billion dollar media company's content farm.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#293

Post by grecy »

cletus wrote: post #148

Here's the framework I use: "tech companies" are those where tech still plays a significant factor in the growth of the company such that it's important to an executive level. Example: Google is still a tech company. As much as some might view search as "solved" (just like it was when Google was founded I might add), search continues to get better. Tech still plays a significant role in the actual core business (ie a…

> I once again return to the Steve Jobs take on why Xerox failed [1]

Thanks, I had not seen that before.

I worked for a telco that has the largest operating area of any telco in the world, and was also a monopoly with the highest internet prices in the world.

Steve saying that product people (& Tech people) were not seen to improve the company, and that only sales and marketing did is absolutely spot on. I didn't see that at the time, and now in hindsight it's obvious. It also makes perfect sense why the former VP of Marketing is now the CEO (of a telco!), and not the VP of IT or Network.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#294

Post by didibus »

Wouldn't a tech company simply be a company who values technology as a differentiatior and therefore invests in building tech in-house?

If so, I feel like Netflix qualifies. For them not to be a tech company anymore, they'd need to pivot to only producing TV and Films, with outsourcing or licensing their work to a company that builds the technology to host and deliver the content to users on their behalf.

I'm not sure Netflix would be doing as well if they pivoted to that.

By having in-house technology teams that you invest in, it also means that the company is acquiring engineering and scientist talent, potentially acquiring tech patents, as well as building technological means that in-theory they could pivot to resell the tech or license it to others if they wanted, making tech not just something they invest in and use as a differentiatior, but making it an actual product or service they sell, this is what Amazon did for example.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#295

Post by hamburgerwah »

I really don't understand how Netflix is not 100% a SaaS tech company. To say they aren't in the way the article describes is to say that no SaaS companies are tech companies which is an obvious fallacy. They have dabbled in making original content but it's far from their core business.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#296

Post by timoth3y »

alberth wrote: post #258
cletus wrote: post #148

Here's the framework I use: "tech companies" are those where tech still plays a significant factor in the growth of the company such that it's important to an executive level. Example: Google is still a tech company. As much as some might view search as "solved" (just like it was when Google was founded I might add), search continues to get better. Tech still plays a significant role in the actual core business (ie a…

Is Telsa then a "tech company" by your definition? What about Jet.com (pre-Walmart acquisition) that pioneered cheaper shipping / savings by informing users to by substitute products from the data distribution center.

> Put another way: battery tech is Tesla's core business

It absolutely is not. Almost all Tesla's battery IP rests on Panasonic IP. Panasonic has been a leader in this space for 40+ years.

That's why when Tesla "open-sourced" all their battery patents in 2014 it was seen as mostly a PR move. It didn't really affect the industry because Tesla's IP in this area just isn't that valuable.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#297

Post by musingsole »

asdff wrote: post #185
musingsole wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It didn't matter what their UX or uptime was or how smooth their video codecs, they didn't have enough content I wanted to watch. Netflix has developed a novel data system (as evidenced by papermill) that is likely responsible for countless decisions that manifested the content which brought you back. I don't know first hand but I suspect data is integrated into their everyday processes in ways most companies can't…

This is a little bit hyperbole don't you think? I think companies with means these days just invest in this sort of technology because that's what you do in business now. Target is a department store but I wouldn't be surprised to learn they are hiring pure machine learning researchers too and doing remarkable things with data as well, same goes for any large company. 60 years ago you had large companies operating co…

Is Coca-Cola a sugary drinks company, a logistics company, or a technology company producing hardware, software, chemical engineering processes and countless other disciplines to enable international scale methods and logistics employed in delivering various liquids and other goods all over the globe?

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#298

Post by stereoradonc »

This is a flawed argument; Netflix is a tech company that dabbles in TV shows (and films). It has the best recommendation engine (and not a commodity) and nothing else comes closer. There is a possibility that it may merely switch to "cloud-generated" characters with multiple plotlines in the same series and its gaming ambitions must be understood in this light. If you use traditional metrics to understand the company, it wouldn't make sense. Why is the company losing more money than it earns from subscriptions? The amount of granular data it has on films (and increasingly on the people's choices) will make it easier to predict the choices users will make. Hollywood's movies rely on "gut-feeling and formulaic approach" to film making. Netflix will replace it with data. Or is it that Ben-Evans missed the initial hype around Netflix and couldn't invest? Its easier to take pot-shots on the blog and call it a commodity. Bandersnatch was an initial experiment. There's more to come with "immersive filmmaking" and "story-telling".

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#299

Post by websap »

cletus wrote: post #178
jerf wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's solved by Netflix. Doesn't mean it's solved by anyone else, though there are also quite a few other companies that have it "solved" for their level of usage, even if they couldn't flip the switch tomorrow to become Netflix. "Solved" also doesn't mean there aren't people maintaining it or working on it or getting woken up at night by pages to keep it going. It just means, they've got a handle on it and when the N…

Exactly this. It doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. Others have pointed to UI issues, for example. It just means the state of the tech probably isn't the top of mind for the C-team and the board.

Nope, there are 2 parts of this problem: 1. What do customers perceive. 2. What does it cost to run this software for Netflix - Companies are continuously trying to improve this while maintaining or improving 1.

Being done, is not what a tech company ever thinks of. Look at all the innovation coming out of Netflix as OSS products and blog posts.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#300

Post by websap »

tapoxi wrote: post #160
websap wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> serving several thousand VODs and that problem is solved You're kidding right? You think this problem is solved? Try using HBO. A tech company is any company that understands it can leverage technology effectively to run a more efficient organization. They treat tech as the way to solve problems rather than throwing people at the problem.

Could you clarify? I subscribe to HBO Max and it works fine.

HBO Max, continuous crashes, recommendation algorithm, massive latency even above the fold, I've learned the failure modes and I know how to fix this.

This in on a modern Roku TV, released 8 months ago. 0 problems like this from Netflix.

Post reply on HN