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

Netflix's New Chapter

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 314 posts

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#111

Post by [deleted] »

zamadatix wrote: post #11
no_wizard wrote: post #7

I'm gonna attempt to break this down: - Netflix has 5-6 Billion USD free cash flow, and because they got what debt they do have under favorable terms, they are positioned to retain most of that free cash flow - Disney, Comcast (Peacock), CBS/Viacom and other media corporations are saddled with debt, and are all losing money on their own independent streaming businesses. Likely untenable in their shareholder model - T…

What I don't understand is how e.g. Disney+ is losing so much money. It's Disney's content, has an enormous userbase, and somehow is bleeding billions?

[deleted]

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#114

Post by jessaustin »

xrd wrote: post #9

The first time I've seen a well written critique of activist investors like Carl Icahn. He certainly scuttled any chance that Blockbuster had of succeeding. He's often right about small details when it comes to traditional companies and where to cut costs (as are many activist investors), but this story reads like he sabotaged Blockbuster when it had an actual substantial and viable chance to compete. I had not heard…

FTFA:

Netflix would go on to offer to buy Blockbuster Online; Antioco turned the company down, assuming he could get a better price once Netflix’s growth turned upside down. Carl Icahn, though, who owned a major chunk of Blockbuster and had long feuded with Antioco, finally convinced him to resign that very same quarter; Antioco’s replacement took money away from Total Access and funneled it back to the stores, and Netflix escaped (Hastings would later tell Shane Evangelist, the head of Blockbuster Online, that Blockbuster had Netflix in checkmate). Blockbuster went bankrupt two years later.

OK, it was probably a mistake to cut back on "Total Access", but that takes on a deckchair character considering the whole firm was bankrupt in two years! That isn't a convincing support for previous management. ISTM the best decision for shareholders would have been to take the Netflix deal?

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#115

Post by snickerbockers »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #112
rvz wrote: post #20

I can only see Microsoft acquiring Netflix on the horizon at this point.

> can only see Microsoft acquiring Netflix This makes no sense. Microsoft licensing e.g. the Halo franchise to Netflix for serialization is a solid pitch.

they already did that with paramount+

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#116

Post by deepzn »

Even if Netflix is profitable, and makes money on streaming. Considering it's market cap of $160B with today's rise of ~6% and compared to others like Disney at $192B, and AT&T at $140B, and Viacom at $14B. It seems Netflix is viewed at some tech premium that existed in the early part of the decade. Considering now almost every competitor has their own streaming service, there isn't any tech advantage. Maybe a data advantage in that they know what works and what doesn't, but a lot of that is also public knowledge kind of. But, this seems overvalued right now. In my opinion, Netflix got 2 things right: 1) Streaming model with hits. (Becoming HBO) 2) Streaming internationally. (Where hits in one region can become global hits like Squid Game)

And now they are trying to "Become TV" with all the wide spectrum of content that Cable TV offers. This means continuing spend, while competition will exist. And basically involves revenue growth in the form of advertising, which is the traditional model of TV. They are not going to grow revenue as fast in terms of subscribers because they are almost completely penetrated in the US, and international subscribers will have lower revenues associated with cheaper offerings. In other words, they really don't have a special lever of growth ahead that distinguishes them from the competition. And Amazon and Apple are continuing to spend money, and hire talent in their offerings.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#117

Post by msluyter »

darth_avocado wrote: post #21
zamadatix wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand is how e.g. Disney+ is losing so much money. It's Disney's content, has an enormous userbase, and somehow is bleeding billions?

> It’s Disney’s content That is partly the problem. You spend hundreds of millions to make blockbuster movies and then release it on Disney+ in a few months for free (or sometimes directly). That costs money. Add to that over reliance on only Disney content creates two problems: 1. You can’t have enough new content every month, subscribers therefore don’t keep the subscription year round. 2. You have to pay money to…

"1. You can’t have enough new content every month, subscribers therefore don’t keep the subscription year round."

For our household, this is true of all streaming services. We rotate them, or subscribe for short stretches. For example, I got Paramount+ for a couple of months, watched all of the Star Trek content, and then cancelled. Amazon Prime is the exception (because free(-ish) shipping.)

I wonder to what extent the big streaming services are aware of this phenomenon and how they hope to mitigate it.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#118

Post by ghaff »

aidenn0 wrote: post #95
Volundr wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TBH this more or less describes the problem at least for me. I'm like 3 Star Wars series behind. Catching up at this point feels more like a chore than entertainment. Forget Marvel.

That's always been an issue with shared universes. I remember trying to follow X-Men in the 90s. You couldn't just read X-men, you had to read Gambit, Wolverine, &c.

Or even just a TV series you didn't watch at the time. For a traditional 1 hour drama on TV, that could be 7 seasons times 20 hours per year even absent any spinoffs. I'm unlikely to catch up on 140 hours of past content.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#119

Post by parrellel »

viciousvoxel wrote: post #37
no_wizard wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the content of HBO Max: Its been very hit or miss for me with HBO Max originals. HBO (they do brand them differently) originals are still stellar, for the most part. If the new Velma show is any indicator of what HBO Max wants to do as run of the mill content though, I'm wondering how long it'll hold up as a premium streaming service. Warner didn't even unlock their entire backlog of Looney Toons cartoons on their…

FWIW my understanding is that WB withholding the Looney Tunes backlog is entirely due to the fact that there's a lot of problematic (e.g. racist, sexist) material in there that they're understandably worried about. I completely agree with you otherwise.

This would hold more water if they weren't also trying to vault or bury a bunch of their other animated content, and sell off their back catalog for easy money.

Re: Netflix's New Chapter

#120

Post by deepzn »

ghaff wrote: post #49
thiago_fm wrote: post #16

Something I don't understand is why Disney and others need to have their own streaming service. Why Netflix can't sit down with Disney and merge the two streaming services. Disney is amazing at making content, so is Netflix at the moment. They could take a look at the present, their market cap, debt and so on and structure a solution that would: 1. Make Netflix the best streaming service with the best content, also b…

That makes an assumption. - That Netflix has a infrastructure competitive advantage. That probably used to be true with microservices, chaos monkey, and all that. But while a big streaming platform isn't something a couple engineers throw together in a weekend, it's a pretty well understood problem. It's content that attracts subscribers. And that content doesn't really have economies of scale. Having twice as much g…

In regards to content scaling, that seems right on the face of it. But, Netflix had been pushing the idea of "Amortization of Content" in that content once created has an extremely long lifecycle, and essentially a long tail. As people will always watch older content. And a lot of times people would miss it, and things start trending later on. However, quality of content matters. If you're spending money on poor quality content. People won't watch it once, let alone multiple times across time. I feel that's what Netflix had been doing lately. And lost their competitive edge, as competitors increased the quality of their shows.
Post reply on HN