81–90 of 491 posts
> We have to have an Adam Project and a Bridgerton every month Decade+ subscriber: I'm never watching those shows. If they have to advertise or talk up their programming, it's not going to be worth the time to see how terrible it is. On the other hand, I'll have 3 people mention a new season of Ozark before I've noticed it's been released.... Actually, that was more true of the second season than the recent ones. So,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not stupid consumers that's people not rightly giving a f what nonsense licensing setups requested by ip owners and enforced by a government monopoly on force. The consumer just wanted to watch the media, which is fair because they probably just spent 8 hours at some nonsense unnecessary job and would like to switch off... again. No vote no power.
Stupid is probably the wrong word here; "clueless"? I personally think consumers are on the verge of reinventing TV channels, with each streaming service acting like a channel. Consumers, who liked that Netflix had so much content in one place, are slowly pushing time to go backward.
Netflix really had a value proposition a few years ago before all the other players came in. A good selection of rotating movies and shows, sharing accounts with a good model (# of simultaneously running screens). This was way better than cable TV and more convenient than torrent. Now it’s mostly quite mediocre content across services that easily cost $100+ a month, so we’re back to the old cable days in terms of cos…
>The consumers just aren’t complete idiots. The consumers kinda are the idiots here. They know what they like, but they have no idea why the content is getting worse. Why shows are being pulled. Companies that had their content on Netflix realized they were facing an existential crisis. Ever played Settlers of Catan and find out another player had 9/10 victory points? Everyone does everything in their power to not tr…
In the end, Netflix is a company that used to be great and kinda made some of the most genius ideas to fight the Goliath but was undone by a single dude leading a team making poor choices on what content to make. 3 Adam Sandler movies for half a billion dollars? I’m assuming this is as big or a bigger blunder than Zillow, and was powered by stupid data science ideas as well, probably.
>Its stock price collapsed by more than 35 percent Wednesday, erasing more than $50 billion in value in a single day. For people who want to be able to tax unrealized gains like stock, what is the plan for these kinds of events? Would stockholders receive a credit from the IRS when the valuation dips?
I don't understand why this is so often presented as such a difficult to understand concept. People pay property taxes every year on assets that change in value without selling (ie unrealized gains). Nobody seems perplexed by that. But can't seem to figure out how it works for stocks. Regardless of if you agree or disagree with doing it (which I'm not pushing for or against here), it's not a complex concept.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure why you put Tesla in the list. They still grow substantially, just added two new large factories (Germany, Texas) and about to build another one (Indonesia).
Because they are a luxury car maker, a crowded sector. Tesla, to grow into its market cap, has to outsell the top automakers put together. They need something at the Toyota Corolla price point to do that.
They have no real business justification to expand to cheaper models until they have enough spare capacity.
Building factories and the required battery supply chains isn't fast or easy. Model 2 and 1 will come eventually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The holders would pay less in taxes when the valuation drops, why would they get a credit? Also, the only people who would be subject to those taxes are already extraordinarily wealthy, so who cares?
> The holders would pay less in taxes when the valuation drops, why would they get a credit? Perhaps you're not familiar with some of the proposals to tax unrealized gains or what this means. This means there have been serious proposals from so-called serious people to tax individuals when a stock they're holding goes up, even if they don't sell that. So somebody is making a point that nobody has made a serious propo…
Second, the proposal isn’t to tax on price changes, its taxing the value of the asset at a given point in time. If the value goes down, the tax collected goes down. This is also how property taxes work - it’s a percentage of the assessed value. If the assessed value drops, you pay less in taxes.
So the problem with media conglomerates (including big studios) is they want predictable returns. More specifically, they want a formula. Let me introduce you to Save the Cat [1]. This book has become so influential that you can read this book and then watch pretty much any movie and you'll be able to tick off everything in the movie to this structure. It's why studios love sequels and franchises. They have a built-i…
I kinda wonder how long movies will continue make economic sense, at all. What we call movies are 1h30 or more of continuous contents, and in this day and age this becomes an increasingly long time to be stuck in one place doing one thing. If it’s a full hobby, like pottery or bordering why not, but for “casual” people I feel the proposition is less and less attractive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they are a luxury car maker, a crowded sector. Tesla, to grow into its market cap, has to outsell the top automakers put together. They need something at the Toyota Corolla price point to do that.
Tesla is still a long way from covering demand, even with their current expensive models and with zero advertising on top. They have no real business justification to expand to cheaper models until they have enough spare capacity. Building factories and the required battery supply chains isn't fast or easy. Model 2 and 1 will come eventually.