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

21–30 of 324 posts

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#21

Post by Buttons840 »

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.

I was thinking the same, but you said it better.

How many "non-tech companies" are non-tech companies simply because they're too disfunctional to use technology effectively? Think of your bank with its shitty password rules, only offering 2FA using SMS, and no useful APIs; that's a non-tech company. They either aren't aware of their lackluster technology, or are unable to organize themselves well enough to improve it.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#23

Post by SkipperCat »

wcunning wrote: post #11
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.

How would you compare GM and Tesla using this framework? They're both very tech dependent given the impact of the chip shortage and electric car manufacture, but one is certainly more "novel." I'm honestly not sure where I would come out, but I think it's a good point of comparison for the framework as a result.

Both of them are tech companies. One in battery and AI/ML self driving software, the other in supply chain management.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#24

Post by travoc »

ses1984 wrote: post #8
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.

The tech isn’t just content delivery. It’s also extracting useful information out of their customers’ habits so they know what to license, what to renew, how much to pay for it, etc.

Is that what’s happening? Because it seems like they’re still funding an awful lot of flops to find a couple of successes.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#26

Post by phkahler »

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.

>> Ultimately any company that makes money is not a tech company because pure technology on its own does not make a business.

What is Microsoft then? What is Apple?

Google I can accept as some kind of service provider and advertising company that uses a lot of tech. Amazon as well.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#27

Post by saalweachter »

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…

Eh, as a user Netflix original content is a large part of why I still have a subscription.

I used Netflix back when it was mailing me DVDs, and loved the online streaming back in the halcyon days when it seemed like they had everything.

Then came the dark days when content owners began pulling their IP from Netflix and scattering it all over the internet behind a dozen different options that offered them more money or control, and Netflix was a barren wasteland without anything that caught my eye; my queue was a variety of B-tier series that I tried a few episodes of and gave up on.

So I canceled my subscription, for several years. 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.

Then I came back for the original content -- I forget which series first made me sign back up; House of Cards? -- and while I watch licensed content on Netflix from time to time, at least half of what I watch is produced by Netflix.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#29

Post by travisjungroth »

> Coming back to TV, there’s an irony here in the fact that the tech industry has spent decades wanting to get into the living room, get into TV, break up the cable bundle and move TV from scheduled linear to on-demand, and yet now that it’s happening, it’s happening in the TV industry, not the tech industry.

I don’t see the irony. This seems to be a circular definition of “TV industry”. The technological breakthroughs (cable, satellite, streaming, mobile) that completely change TV don’t count as “tech industry”. Silicon Valley startups Netflix and Apple somehow don’t count, neither does Amazon, and YouTube doesn’t even get mentioned.

I also have an issue with the implied definition of “commodity”. I think a commodity needs fungibility and availability. So storage is now a commodity, but large scale streaming is not. You can’t order a Netflix scale infrastructure on the market.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#30

Post by Crosseye_Jack »

> The box was good, the UI was good, the truck-rolls were good, and the customer service and experience were good.

What UI? Back when Sky launched the box would show you the channel number you where tuned to via LEDS over the channel selection buttons and/or via a simple OSD like you would get on any other TV with a OSD displaying channel numbers.

The best UI you got was went something wasn't "working" (be it because you didn't have the auth or because something went wrong) and the OSD told you it couldn't decrypt a channel / to insert your viewing card.

It wasn't until the launch of digital I would say it gained an UI.

Granted the truck rolls and the customer service was decent from what I recall. I don't recall any major issues. (and the UI on the digital boxes wasn't bad when it came out and have been added to since, no idea what the Q boxes are like as I cord cut a fair few years ago.).

Post reply on HN