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

Netflix is now worth more than $100B

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 321 posts

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#251

Post by kgwgk »

telchar wrote: post #148
lobster_johnson wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, as long as the current streaming services' back catalog of available movies and TV shows is so ridiculously meagre, BitTorrent will do pretty well, I suspect. I wonder who's going to supply that back catalog. Both Apple and Amazon have a fairly lackluster collection. For the real good stuff, there's FilmStruck (which has a small but revolving portion of the Criterion Collection), MUBI and Fandor. B…

This right here is extremely frustrating to me. There is approximately zero marginal cost to distribute that back-catalog, but they just keep it locked away. I think Amazon does the best job of the legal sources I have seen, though I find it hard to stomach paying $4 to watch a movie made before my parents were born.

If you don’t want to pay a few dollars to watch a movie and the parent comment finds ridiculous to subscribe to yet another provider, what incentive do they have to make their catalogs available?

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#252

Post by logicallee »

logicallee wrote: post #181
anilshanbhag wrote: post #19

The entire stock market feels like its in a bubble. Netflix stock gained more than 25% in the past one month. Their free cash flow (FCF) has been negative every single quarter and will be for many quarters to come. Stocks trade based on discounted cash flow(DCF). Netflix however produces no material return for investors and still majority of the analysts keep putting higher and higher price targets, its like they are…

>Stocks trade based on discounted cash flow(DCF) You forgot the part where quantum mechanics higgs boson yada yada long story short efficient market.

People didn't understand my comment. Parent had written "Stocks trade based on discounted cash flow(DCF): while giving ample evidence to the contrary. So they should have bolstered their absurd claim with reference to another magical fact, the efficient market. Which ensures stocks trade at DCF.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#253

Post by lmb »

vitorgrs wrote: post #248
mschuster91 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> N different services still come out cheaper than cable. For the US which is used to pay triple digit sums a month for basic TV yes, but for Europeans? No way. For Germans, for example, it's the (mandatory) public-broadcast fee of 18€/month/household and maybe 20-30€ if you really really want pay TV (add another 30-40€ for the premium sports but these can be streamed all over the net). So basically the delta between…

Always found that interesting in Europe. In Brazil, you don't pay for "public-broadcast" (as we call here, open TV). But could you tell me more about private channels on public TV?

In Germany you have to get a TV License for every household that owns a TV. That money is used to fund public broadcasters like ARD, WDR, etc. Now, you can watch the privately funded TV stations from the same TV ofc, but they don't receive money from the Govt. Instead they are funded by ads, etc.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#254

Post by m12k »

philipov wrote: post #235
losteric wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a strong believer in using minimal but sufficient regulations and taxes to shape market growth. There are some absolutely unnecessary regulations, like the loopholes Tesla has to go through to sell cars because traditional dealerships don't want to lose money, or unfair taxes against green energy - protectionism must die. There are also outdated but reasonable regulations, like Seattle's density regulations. Our…

The main problem with regulation is that it's too easy to capture by various corporate lobbies. Propose a good plan, and see it get shredded and repurposed to serve those it's supposed to regulate. Congress is cheep, and campaign committees wield the purse strings to keep their members in check on policy issues, so the election system doesn't respond efficiently to abuses. We won't be able to get good regulation unti…

Regulatory capture only really happens when your democratic system has broken down anyway, at which point you have bigger issues than regulation. Which the US absolutely does.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#255

Post by vlovich123 »

jjeaff wrote: post #232
vlovich123 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I started a X business that only sells widget Y for bitcoins. You shuffle all the coins through intermediary wallets that use small payments. The current transaction fee is $20 but regardless of what it is you just scale how much you transfer based on that. Also, if you set up many dummy coinbase accounts, you can use GDAX to exchange it for fiat without fees so you really just need to funnel it into a lot of coinbas…

Might as well turn yourself in to the FBI. Creating tons of coinbase accounts is no easy task. You have to validate the accounts with multiple forms of ID and this pattern would eventually be found out and get flagged big time. Then, you need different bank accounts for every single coinbase account you create and those require multiple forms of ID as well as valid SSN numbers which will be checked. If you are referr…

How many people do you think crime syndicates employ? Also, maybe coinbase has changed its policies but when I signed up I just needed a bank account #. Also, if you don't intend to transfer to/from fiat, Coinbase doesn't need any ID AFAICT. So you transfer your several thousand bitcoin from your private wallet into the coinbase accounts you control. You then use coinbase's free exchange to send those coins to your laundered wallet that is set up for a legitimate cut-out business with all the right paperwork & whatnot for converting it to USD.

You do this so that each individual account can make small purchases over a long time horizon so it looks valid. Looking at coinbase's site, you only need a bank account if you're using fiat currencies. You'd probably also want to make it harder to detect all your laundering accounts by having them make purchases to other "legitimate" accounts too (e.g overstock) Obviously I'm not a criminal mastermind so this plan could very well fail, but I find it hard to believe that a digital cash currency couldn't be used to effectively launder money considering laundering is most effective for all-cash businesses (combined with good accountants/bankers like illegal organization employ these days to avoid all these problems).

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#256

Post by dobecker »

lmb wrote: post #253
vitorgrs wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always found that interesting in Europe. In Brazil, you don't pay for "public-broadcast" (as we call here, open TV). But could you tell me more about private channels on public TV?

In Germany you have to get a TV License for every household that owns a TV. That money is used to fund public broadcasters like ARD, WDR, etc. Now, you can watch the privately funded TV stations from the same TV ofc, but they don't receive money from the Govt. Instead they are funded by ads, etc.

This is outdated. It doesnt matter if you have a TV at all, every household has to pay

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#257

Post by crdoconnor »

philipov wrote: post #235
losteric wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a strong believer in using minimal but sufficient regulations and taxes to shape market growth. There are some absolutely unnecessary regulations, like the loopholes Tesla has to go through to sell cars because traditional dealerships don't want to lose money, or unfair taxes against green energy - protectionism must die. There are also outdated but reasonable regulations, like Seattle's density regulations. Our…

The main problem with regulation is that it's too easy to capture by various corporate lobbies. Propose a good plan, and see it get shredded and repurposed to serve those it's supposed to regulate. Congress is cheep, and campaign committees wield the purse strings to keep their members in check on policy issues, so the election system doesn't respond efficiently to abuses. We won't be able to get good regulation unti…

>The main problem with regulation is that it's too easy to capture by various corporate lobbies.

This is like saying "the main problem with laws is..."

In fact, this false dichotomy between "more regulation" and "less regulation" is mainly an artefact of corporate lobby groups (plenty of examples in their propaganda of this).

It dumbs down the issue to a childlike level and lets them play two political blocs who might have fundamentally similar interests off against one another depending upon what particular legislation they want introduced or repealed.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#258

Post by Tasboo »

textor wrote: post #244
losteric wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To what degree does income inequality, consumer debt, and rapidly rising barriers of entry to high-income fields contribute slowing GDP growth? Is there research and evidence on the subject? I'm just an engineer with basic financial survival skills... but blind intuition suggests fixing those problems is necessary for a sustainable growing economy. "Trickle-down" theory and growing inequality drains economic activity…

Not trying to invalidate your larger argument, but it's worth noting that there is no such thing as "trickle-down theory" https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/04/sorry-but-trickle-down... . Never was, never will be. It's a strawman through and through, originating in mockery, amounting to nothing more than "screw the poor" slogan that no self-interested economist could have endorsed. Its only purpose is to ridicule the…

You cited an article that basically says 'Trickle down doesn't exist, plebs. But hey, trickle down totally works! Here's why!'. What he describes is the policies that people refer to when they say Trickle Down.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#259

Post by Freak_NL »

vitorgrs wrote: post #248
mschuster91 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> N different services still come out cheaper than cable. For the US which is used to pay triple digit sums a month for basic TV yes, but for Europeans? No way. For Germans, for example, it's the (mandatory) public-broadcast fee of 18€/month/household and maybe 20-30€ if you really really want pay TV (add another 30-40€ for the premium sports but these can be streamed all over the net). So basically the delta between…

Always found that interesting in Europe. In Brazil, you don't pay for "public-broadcast" (as we call here, open TV). But could you tell me more about private channels on public TV?

> In Brazil, you don't pay for "public-broadcast" […]

Are you sure the public broadcasters (e.g., EBC) aren't financed by tax-payer money? In the Netherlands there is no separate fee for public broadcasting, but we all pay for our public, free-to-air television and radio via taxes.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#260

Post by bsbechtel »

JamesBarney wrote: post #238
yters wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw a graph showing the bailout doubled the number of existing dollars.

But that doesn't mean it lost half it's value. If I printed an extra 100 trillion dollars and launched it into space that wouldn't affect the value of the dollar. And the same thing was true during the bailout. 99% of that money was never spent so it didn't have any affect on the economy.

My original point was that that money entered the system via large investment banks, whom use it to invest in publicly traded securities. Most of that money doesn't make it to circulation, it just inflates the price of those assets instead of all goods in the wider economy.
Post reply on HN