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

Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

vulture.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 491 posts

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#461

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

JMS2021 wrote: post #309
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that’s more extreme on Netflix than other channels? White Lotus on HBO touched every woke topic in existence and was enjoyable. It’s the content that matters not how it leans.

Enjoyable is subjective. White Lotus was terrible in my opinion. Not sure why you are arguing? People have stated that's the reason they have quit, and yet you are somehow suggesting that we are wrong? Or because another service does it? Accept that some people are tired and bored of having unrealistic plots and characters that are only there to "tick boxes". But sure, recasting the queen of England as a black woman…

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people has no strong position in the "culture war" and just watch whatever they enjoy. I'm sure some people will leave a service over "wokeness" but I would be surprised if that number was significant.

As for White Lotus: you might not enjoy it, but are you representative? Me and my wife enjoyed it very much. Rotten Tomatoes has it at 88% and IMDB at 7.6. I'm not sure if "terrible" is an appropriate word for that score.

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#462

Post by techie128 »

chii wrote: post #169
ramraj07 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it is a valid point, Id argue that Netflix could have survived this - they had billions of dollars to create original content, and then they did create it, but some how screwed it all up. There’s at best 1 or 2 good show and no good movie Netflix has made in years. And anything half decent they cancel mercilessly without giving it a chance. This is not just in the US. The comparison of original content quality…

> they had billions of dollars to create original content they had the wrong idea that original content is their strong point. It's not. It's disney's strong point. Netflix should've used their dominant position to lobby for new rules to the game - prevent exclusivity of content! They should've lobbied gov't to mandate that studio productions of content be permanently untied to a streaming service, and be available t…

> Netflix should've used their dominant position to lobby for new rules to the game - prevent exclusivity of content!

Countries like India already have protections like these in place. They haven't regulated the streaming space yet. However, the other channels are very well regulated and content cannot be tied to the delivery channel. This means consumers win at the end of the day and competition is preserved. Content can be acquired by competitors _without_ consolidation.

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#463

Post by FunnyBadger »

All organizations mature into "fat, dumb and happy" which ultimately seals the doom of 95% of them.

Even companies that were wonderful to work for (e.g. Hewlett-Packard when Bill & Dave were alive) have shriveled to irrelevance and horror. It happens.

It's what's convinced me that leadership is all their is to prevent this - the 5% of organizations that thrive longer all have charismatic and ethical leadership that is focused on the mission being done "correctly". Every time.

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#464

Post by FunnyBadger »

harha wrote: post #28

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…

[flagged]

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#465

Post by bdavisx »

oxfordmale wrote: post #407

One of my Netflix bad habits is fast forwarding through predictable scenes. A lot of their series appear to be padded out to make up a series instead of a long feature film, and as a result I find myself fast forwarding through at least 50% of a series. Time wise I am watching it all, however, engagement is self evidently lowrr

But that's not unique to Netflix - I can remember thinking how much better '24' would have been w/o all the filler crap - but then they wouldn't have been able to make a "real time" TV show (well, they could have, but they didn't). Also I tried watching the reboot of "Kung Fu" a few weeks ago - wow, there's more Asian family drama filler than there is actual "Kung Fu". It seems like the filler stuff is everywhere now.

But then again, back in the day of network tv shows when they did ~26 episodes per season, there were entire episodes that felt like fillers.

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#466

Post by seoaeu »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #334
seoaeu wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your “so-called serious people” swipe doesn’t exactly convey that you are making a good faith effort to understand these proposals… Also, there no reason a middle class investor would have to sell all their stock to pay taxes. If the value of your portfolio doubled , you’d only have to sell between 7.5% and 10% of your holdings to cover the taxes (at the current capital gains tax rates).

And dilute your percentage in the process. That sounds incredibly stupid for any founder.

Obviously startup founders would prefer to get rich without paying taxes. That doesn’t mean the rest of society should let them.

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#467

Post by tomnipotent »

dragontamer wrote: post #193
tomnipotent wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does it make sense, from an accounting point of view Yes, that's the entire point of accounting. They use ASC 920 and 926 accounting standards, so that anyone familiar with GAAP can understand what they're looking at. > Disney+ or Disney loses 90% of their value in the 1st year, so Disney's accounting will only be paying for "Turning Red" this year and next year. Disney+ also amortizes, and expects 80% over four ye…

> Yes, that's the entire point of accounting. They use ASC 920 and 926 accounting standards, so that anyone familiar with GAAP can understand what they're looking at. Things like depreciation curves are not standardized. It may all be GAAP, but there's a huge difference in how Disney's Coco was depreciated vs how Netflix's Bright depreciated in their respective accounting books. The question is whether the 18-month s…

> Things like depreciation curves are not standardized

Nothing was depreciated, because we're dealing with intangible assets. And yes, depreciation and amortization schedules are absolutely standardized. I literally included TWO standards in my last response that Netflix & Disney+ use.

> huge difference in how Disney's Coco was depreciated vs how Netflix's Bright

Yes, because Coco was part of Disney and not Disney+.

> The question is whether the 18-month schedule for Coco makes more sense

Yes, it makes sense for a theatrical release. "Bright" and "Turning Red" were created for streaming, and it makes sense that their amortization schedules cover the years that this IP will be helping the companies generate revenues as those titles continue to be viewed by subscribers.

If you were to take all the views for "Bright" and aggregate it by year, I imagine the distribution from year 1 to 5 looks very similar to Netflix's amortization schedule. Funny that, almost like the SEC approved it or something.

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#468

Post by cato_the_elder »

Izkata wrote: post #447
cato_the_elder wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not. While it's true that that suspending their service in Russia costed them 700,000 subscribers, Netflix is projecting that they will lose 2,000,000 users this quarter. [1] [1]: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/20...

Yes it is. GP is talking solely about what's already happened: -200,000 after having cut off 700,000 from Russia, which is a net gain of 500,000 outside of Russia.

But the projection has nothing to do with cutting off Russians. At least not directly.

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#469

Post by yottabyte47 »

ghaff wrote: post #346
scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #198

“Content is King” We all know this, Netflix knows this. And yet for some reason for years they have been aiming for quantity and not quality. Money is not enough in this department and baseball metaphors don’t do justice illustrating just how hard it is to put together a team that has that special thing going on. Some would argue it’s impossible - teams like the one behind Better Call Saul are just extremely rare and…

Nobody knows how to reliably create "quality"--the definition of which will vary by person. Take a dozen of the top quality series on Netflix or streaming services generally and I'll probably be meh on at least half of them. Add to that the fact that for many, TV, whether streaming or otherwise, is essentially background and they'll immediately cancel your service if all they have is a relative handful of prestige mu…

Pixar? Sure their track record isn't 100%, but I'd say they know how to create quality, even if they don't always fully succeed at it.

Re: Netflix’s bad habits have caught up with it

#470

Post by drewrv »

daenz wrote: post #163
BoiledCabbage wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

FWIW, the idea of paying taxes on a fluctuating property valuation has never sat right with me either. So you could say that I am perplexed by that. If I'm on some kind of fixed income, suddenly I might not be able to afford the taxes on the house that I bought 20 years ago and need to sell it? It's bizarre.

I don't know what state you're in, but many states have senior citizen exemptions, or low income exemptions.
Post reply on HN