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

31–40 of 324 posts

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#31

Post by SkipperCat »

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.

What about companies that use tech to make tech and that people buy to incorporate into their tech? GitLab, Atlassian, 1Password and others. No physical products, just tech for your tech so you can make more tech.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#32

Post by 1123581321 »

hardwaregeek wrote: post #9
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.

I'd disagree considering there's more than a few streaming platforms with sub-par tech. Hulu is quite buggy, as is HBO Max. Criterion Channel is literally just Vimeo and didn't even have working closed captioning until recently.

Hulu is technically quite good and Criterion is a failing service (< 100k subs)--but regardless, technical evaluations need to be made relative to missing would-be subscribers and expectations relative to library size, market size, brand value and marketing budget.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#33

Post by gitfan86 »

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.

Tesla is an engineering based company. GM is a MBA based company.

It isn't that Tesla has no MBAs on staff or the GM has no engineers on staff. But a culture that leverages engineering culture can iterate and reinvent itself and include new technologies faster than one who is focused on management metrics.

I'm not saying that MBAs are bad, there are plenty of companies that went way to heavy on hiring engineers and went bankrupt before their business plan was viable.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#35

Post by lmkg »

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…

I was going to say something similar. It's inarguable that they were a tech company, when they pioneered streaming delivery for existing video content. Their tech platform was their primary differentiator to competitors for a number of years.

Whether they are currently a tech company is a bit fuzzier. Certainly they new have content as an additional differentiator, and the margin of their tech advantage has narrowed.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#36

Post by browningstreet »

Buttons840 wrote: post #21
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…

Banks are run by the bankers and the tech team is typically very second fiddle. I work in fin tech.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#37

Post by MattGaiser »

Buttons840 wrote: post #21
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…

Or just have customers who mostly can't grasp authenticators. A friend worked for a company that implemented 2FA with the authenticator app. They removed it in a day as it ground the company to a halt.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#38

Post by Ekaros »

vmception wrote: post #2

If you can provide a service to an additional subscriber at near zero overhead costs, near zero dollar sales and onboarding process, then you’re a tech company the only reason additional industry specific questions exist is because they have so many simultaneous users that theyve reached theoretical maximums on their near-free resources when other industries reach the same place, if at all ever possible, then we can…

Yeah, when adding new customers is near marginal cost you are tech company. This ofc does fail some like Tesla at far end, but also Apple and Amazon.

So tech is bit murky, but Netflix with Google and Facebook should clearly qualify.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#39

Post by TeMPOraL »

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…

> purely based on a superior and novel tech experience for its users.

I don't think this is accurate - the main value proposition of Netflix seems to have always been "streaming site with lots of mainstream content, that is also legal". I.e. it's the streaming deals they've made that mattered, not delivery tech or their web player.

Re: Netflix is not a tech company (2019)

#40

Post by thedougd »

Buttons840 wrote: post #21
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…

I also tend to think the distinction is related to compartmentalizing all technical activities into an IT suborganization. A tech company performs all these activities as a matter of the regular course of business, within the lines of business organizations. A bank would have a dedicated IT organization, a few layers of 'governance' and human orchestrators to slow down your builders, and you get all the dysfunction you describe.
Post reply on HN