15 ms·

Can Netflix Survive in the New World It Created?

194 points by yarapavan 10y ago

yarapavan 10y ago
Spoiler: It's a long read! > Does this still holds? Is there any other organization in dissimilar industry where this works? McCord also convinced Hastings that he should ask himself a few times a year whether he would hire the same person in the same job if it opened up that day. If the answer was no, Netflix would write a larger check and let the employee go. “If you are going to insist on high performance,” McCord says, “then you have to get rid of the notion of retention. You’ll have to fire some really nice, hard-working people. But you have to do it with dignity. “I held the hands of people weeping, saying, ‘I want to be here forever,’ ” McCord says. “I would tell them, ‘Nothing lasts forever.’ I would say to Reed, ‘I love them, too, but it is our job to be sure that we always have the right people.’ ” > Ironically, in 2011 Hastings decided to re-evaluate everyone in the executive ranks, using the litmus test McCord taught him: Would he hire them again today? One of the people this led him to push out was McCord.
- kefka 10y ago
  And this precisely is why we Millenials have no qualms about leaving a job. They have no problem divorcing us because of some vapid "performance" metric. How do they quantify understanding how to get things done in that org? I know with my job, I'm learning how the institution hinders growth, except through certain channels. That meta-knowledge is absolutely essential... yet seemingly ignored.
  - mercer 10y ago
    Instinctively and ideologically I mostly oppose the idea of this lack of loyalty toward employees. At the same time, for some reason it bothers me less the way it is presented to work within Netflix. I'm not sure why, though. Maybe it's to do with the fact that there are plenty of jobs in tech right now and Netflix apparently pays very well, enough for a future employee to accept that disadvantage. Partly it's also because of the transparency of it all. Another thing is that it can benefit the employee too, long term. I've worked in many different companies and there were always a bunch of 'holders-on' who held everyone back and didn't even seem happy themselves. I often thought they and the team would be much better off if they found work somewhere else where either they'd feel challenged to develop themselves further, or where their current skills were good enough. I still would not choose to run a company that way myself, but provided that 'performance' is measured in a somewhat accurate way, provided that the compensation offsets this risk, provided that there is honesty about it all, and provided that there are alternative jobs one can find afterwards, well, then I'd at least be curious to see if it works in practice. (and decreasing 'institutional knowledge' is one very big advantage, in my opinion.)
    - koralatov 10y ago
      > Partly it's also because of the transparency of it all. What's transparent about it? The process is totally opaque -- some executive evaluates whether they feel you're meeting their standards, which may or may not be obvious, and then decides to let you go if they feel you aren't. I don't think it could be any less transparent.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        That they fire people rather arbitrarily is being written about in a national publication. So someone applying for a job has a good chance of understanding it going into the process. That's a pretty high degree of transparency about how they do things.
        koralatov 10y ago
        That's not really what we're talking about when we're talking about 'transparency' her. Just because it's known that something happens doesn't mean it happens in a transparent fashion. Transparency of process is important, too, and required before you can really call something 'transparent'. As it stands, the person making the decision could be doing so for totally arbitrary reasons. It doesn't appear that there's an established process or criteria in place beyond "I don't feel like I'd hire X now" -- the rationale "Because Executive Y says so" is not transparent in the slightest.
        Programmatic 10y ago
        I think the part that is transparent is that you're not going to build your career and retire at Netflix, you know it's a stint. It may be arbitrary and capricious otherwise, but you know that in advance and can decide if it's worth it. I would not mind being in such an environment for a stint, myself.
        mindcrime 10y ago
        I think the part that is transparent is that you're not going to build your career and retire at Netflix, you know it's a stint. But anybody who has been paying attention has known that any job is "just a stint" since at least the 90's, if not the 80's. A big part of the Re-engineering[1] push of the 90's involved reducing costs, at least in part by reducing head-count. And before that, you had the 80's LBO[2] craze, which resulted in dramatic layoffs at many companies. As a Gen-X'er who grew up in the 80's, I have never expected to have a life-long career at a single company, and I can't imagine many - if any - of my peers imagining that either. In this regard, there's nothing unique at Netflix. All jobs are essentially "temp" jobs in this day and age. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_reengineering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_reengineering [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveraged_buyout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveraged_buyout
- distances 10y ago
  > You’ll have to fire some really nice, hard-working people. But you have to do it with dignity. I wonder if this is part of the reason why there are not too many Netflix-like high achieving companies in Europe -- firing people is not possible. Even totally sucking at your job isn't acceptable reason for employment contract termination, that'd be just a reason for further training. You'll have to go through different hoops, usually concerning the company's financial needs -- and which high achiever would want to join a company that announces dire economical times? This (easier to get rid of people) is also a reason behind a recent trend of people-for-hire companies and freelancers-only requirements. Disclaimer: probably does not apply to all of Europe.
  - dominotw 10y ago
    >I wonder if this is part of the reason why there are not too many Netflix-like high achieving companies in Europe -- firing people is not possible. This probably explains why I've never seen my German counterparts ever being fired. The lowest performers are endlessly shuffled between projects, maybe hoping they would leave voluntarily ?
    - distances 10y ago
      That's perhaps one way. Or assigning the employee no tasks at all, just an empty room with a desk and chair, and a requirement to be there during normal working hours. No sane person takes that for a longer time. Companies do have longish probation periods (say, 6-9 months) before the contract is final. Within this period either party can cancel the employment at will, with no notice period. This is meant to be the testing time during which both parties can confirm that they are happy with the deal.
      - majewsky 10y ago
        I saw an article a year back or so about an administrative office in Germany that was dismantled. But because they couldn't fire the officers, they put them in a building with nothing to do until everyone quit voluntarily. The toughest made it about over a year. (Can't find the original article, sadly.)
- talmand 10y ago
  I hope there's more to it than that. Firing "really nice, hard-working people" is stupid. There are far better things to do with such people than firing them. All that teaches people is to have no loyalty whatsoever to their company since the company's leader directly gives them a reason not to. All that leads to is "really nice, hard-working people" you would not fire jumping ship at the first sign of a slightly better deal, because why not?
  - mc32 10y ago
    One thing that pops up is that it does not include the context of the other people in the organization and how they work as a whole. That's to say you may have it where the most efficient organization is made up of non individually optimum components rather than it being comprised of the most optimum individual components.
  - aianus 10y ago
    > All that leads to is "really nice, hard-working people" you would not fire jumping ship at the first sign of a slightly better deal, because why not? If you combine this behavior with really high compensation for those you keep, you'll likely be the best deal. Most companies' compensation does not match their rhetoric about 'hiring the best' and will balk at the cost to poach from you. That and the fact that high-performers want to work with other high-performers so they wouldn't risk a crappier work environment without a big raise.
    - asimuvPR 10y ago
      From experience: high performers tend to want to work alone. Most wise up and open their own company.
    - talmand 10y ago
      A positive work environment and satisfaction is not just about compensation. Working with other high-performers is good, I agree, except the company policy is that high-performers can be shown the door at any moment due to various changes outside the control of that high-performer. That's not a good work environment.
- perseusprime11 10y ago
  Did Reed hold McCord's hands and say 'Nothing lasts forever.'
  - koralatov 10y ago
    We can only hope that he did.
- quantumhobbit 10y ago
  Netflix gets a lot of flack for their approach here, but at least they are honest about it and try to compensate by paying employees very well. The truth is there are many companies that are just as ruthless about firing employees they view as underperforming but try to hide it with layoffs and don't compensate employees nearly as well. If you take a job with Netflix at least you know what you are getting into.
  - bbarn 10y ago
    Yeah, but the one problem is other companies you're going to afterwards don't know what you were getting into. So you are interviewing and they interviewer is impressed you led X big project at Netflix, recieved a promotion, etc.. and were fired for non performance. How do you explain that without saying "I was no longer good enough, but I'm way good enough for this job"
    - coredog64 10y ago
      There's plenty of places like that. We couldn't hire the former CTO from Netflix, but maybe we could hire some VP/director that couldn't go any higher as our CTO.
  - beamatronic 10y ago
    Should you not expect to have a good work-life balance while at Netflix?
    - zjaffee 10y ago
      The type of person who will thrive at Netflix doesn't see an issue here. Either they have no issues whatsoever about having work always on their mind, or they are just simply so good at their jobs that they can still be one of the best engineers around only working 40 hours a week. The problem with this whole thing is that people view working at a company of this caliber as some type of competition, they want to be the one working at the company with the best and brightest so others see them as the best and brightest. The truth is that if you aren't really up there, you won't thrive in such an environment, and the vast majority of people will both advance the most, and be happiest working at a place where they are able to be the big fish.
- 11thEarlOfMar 10y ago
  It's this: 'The key concept is summed up in the 23rd slide. “We’re a team, not a family,” it reads. “Netflix leaders hire, develop and cut smartly, so we have stars in every position.” ' I see it like a professional sports team. Players have to deliver performance game after game. If they can't keep it up, they are traded or released, or their contract is not renewed. When they age-out, they either go into coaching, buy or start their own team, or move on to do something different entirely. They are taken off the field. Applying this approach to a corporate workplace is controversial and I'd be interested in knowing what policies the legal department has put in place regarding employee agreements and termination processes to specifically accommodate Netflix' approach.
  - yardie 10y ago
    The minimum salary in the NFL is currently $450,000. The "job" is unionised and you have lifetime benefits (negotiated after some players with chronic concussion related illnesses were found broke and homeless). While the careers are short the compensation is fair. And you are legally allowed to work a side job, i.e. sponsorships. I don't imagine corporate USA saying yes to high salaries, unionisation, pensions, nor side projects willingly.
    - rpgmaker 10y ago
      They also have "job security" for the duration of the contract and if they are "fired" as we traditionally understand it usually they have to be compensated in some form (although it depends on the contract).
      - yardie 10y ago
        Sadly that is not that case. The contract is per game. If they are cut midseason they forfeit the contract. NFL contracts are really nasty things. Most of the big valuations you see will probably never pay out. They can backload them so that a player with a 5 year $10mm contract will probably never see that amount. They'll get $1mm the first year, and the same for each year, with the remaining $5mm paid out at the end. If they don't make it that far they don't get it. It's not unheard of for a player to make it 50% of their time on contract and only see 20% of their pay. I only know this because I have a family member who plays professionally. The NFL likes to present an image that they take care of their players. It's a business to make money (and a not-for-profit) and exists only to enrich themselves. If they can short a player out of his money they will do it.
- draw_down 10y ago
  When you combine it with top-of-market compensation and generous severance, as Netflix does, one can reasonably believe that this practice is actually done for the reason they claim (keeping the best talent). When you don't combine it with good compensation, it's simply a rationalization for firing people whenever you want.
- dasil003 10y ago
  I sort of agree that if I wouldn't re-hire a person for a role then they should be let go: after all once someone has been trained in and is gelled with the team, they should be better at the job than anyone coming in from outside. In that sense this is just a dramatic reframing of standard performance evaluation wisdom. But I also find it a very strange thing to say, because the biggest challenge of hiring new people is that you really never know how they'll perform until you actually start working with them. In my case I've always hired for smaller organizations with a smaller pool of applicants, so I prefer to just roughly gauge for Spolsky's test of "smart and gets things done" as well as I can and then turn them loose to see what they can do. In large, well-known companies with huge hiring funnels false negatives matter much less and they are incentivized to screen very aggressively on whatever axes they can. However in either case, the existing employee has a known performance profile, and the new hire is unknown regardless of how good they look on paper. So I just find it an obtuse apples-to-oranges comparison to frame performance reviews this way.
gumby 10y ago
> “If it is a flop, we will have overpaid for one series,” he told Hastings. “But if it succeeds, we will have changed the brand.” Traditional big companies are structurally unable to think this way.
- lukeschlather 10y ago
  It also said they set up an indie film distribution company which was shut down because "We would have been better off spending the money on DVDs." Which sounds more like a traditional bigco.
  - gumby 10y ago
    Is it? Sounds like an example of what I was praising: they tried it, and found that the economics wouldn't work -- surprisingly they needed to control more of the value chain (at least it's a surprise to me).
kylec 10y ago
Why is it that every discussion about Netflix somehow devolves into a discussion about their hiring/firing practices?
- majewsky 10y ago
  1. Because they are open about them. 2. Because people care about having a job and earning money. 3. Because they literally make up about a third of the article.
- pekk 10y ago
  Hiring/firing practices are a perennial subject on HN.
drostie 10y ago
TL;DR: Netflix changed everything when it switched from mail-order DVDs to streaming-video. Now, people find themselves (a) not watching commercials and (b) watching shows back-to-back. This has been lucrative for the company in terms of raw revenue, but not in terms of profits after costs: though the article is pretty murky on this (one part says that they made millions in profits; another says that they have a consistent cash-flow problem involving borrowing and more borrowing). Netflix has several concerns up ahead which might make it difficult to survive operating at a constant loss. One is that Hulu and Amazon are encroaching on its markets, and competition tends to drive down profits. Another is that they don't own the vast majority of their content, which puts them at the mercy of the pricing of their suppliers -- and being downstream from a monopoly can also drive down profits. Even worse, their suppliers still have a revenue model based on this old advertising-and-cable-packages system, which Netflix is destroying by transforming the landscape: which is a disincentive to working with them; a channel which can broadcast a breakout-popular new TV show might keep that in-house to try to keep the channel alive, rather than licensing the show to Netflix for an alternative revenue stream. At the very least this will probably keep Netflix content about a season behind whatever's on TV. Finally, Netflix is finding itself raising its own prices, which may lead to a flurry of cancellations from people who maintain inactive subscriptions precisely because they're pretty cheap. On the flip-side, it's not clear that they can sustain continued growth in their subscriber base; maybe at this point almost everybody who wants Netflix's service is already signed up. If those numbers don't keep up, then problems arise that are not too different from the problems with "borrowing from the future" in Ponzi schemes (albeit with a solid net positive revenue, which makes it morally very different -- in Ponzi schemes this is 0 and it is being advertised as a huge number, which is a huge lie -- no similar problem here). A similar "collapse" could happen, where the growth tapers, thereby skepticism spikes, thereby costs to borrow go high, and everything rapidly turns around from apparent success to apparent failure. There may also be problems with the corporate culture, but while most of the article is devoted to the corporate culture, no clear message is given; it is apparently a somewhat ruthless place which is probably somewhat sad but is also sold as really exciting, because the ruthlessness only keeps the people who really care about what they're doing, which apparently creates good morale. There's a lot of other details like that which don't really amount to anything significant regarding what this "new world" is that Netflix has created, or whether it will survive the above growth pains.
ergothus 10y ago
One of the best professional pieces of advice I've ever read said something like "Think you're indispensable? Do they know that?". It made me aware that often the people making the hiring/firing decisions aren't actually aware of my day-to-day. Rather, they know only the summary info. Those kudos to fellow employees and in-house "awards" that I'd been ignoring? Those are documentation that someone is worthwhile, and I had none. If I were fired that day, I'd have had precious little "proof" that it was a mistake. (and of course, the point isn't to "prove" it's a mistake, it's to make sure they know not to in the first place). Now, when I learned that advice I was working for virginia state govt, where I didn't have technically competent and aware management like I do now in Seattle tech companies, but there is still an important kernel in the message: We tend to judge our performance relative to the difficulty of the tasks in front of us. Often, our performance will be judged my management using different criteria. It's a good idea to be aware of how you look from the outside. ...which is why I'd not want to work in the Netflix system. It's not whether I'm a good performer, it's whether THEY THINK I'm a good performer. Ideally these are related, and outside of a Netflix-like environment I might have confidence that my manager would let me know in advance of action if there was a discrepancy. While I'm sure Netflix would claim the same, I doubt McCord was expecting the axe to fall...
- olalonde 10y ago
  > It's not whether I'm a good performer, it's whether THEY THINK I'm a good performer. To play the devil's advocate, isn't that true of any employer (that wants good performers)? Do you believe Netflix's system is too subjective?
  - kelvin0 10y ago
    The important thing to gather from 'They think I'm a good performer' is to first try and understand your management. For example, in a coding shop where most employees are Software engineers (and also yours bosses) you have a higher probability that your yardstick and your bosses will be fairly close. However, having non-technical bosses is a bigger challenge, thus the need for you to demonstrate your 'worth' be means other than 'Yeah I just refactored FOO kernel code in BAR module and have 80% test coverage'.
gentleteblor 10y ago
The most interesting thing (to me) in this piece, is how many pivots Netflix made/is still making. Many of those moves were very much unsafe/risky (which is why the networks didn't make em themselves)...brave for what was already an established company then.
- Animats 10y ago
  That's a good point. They're desperately trying to outmaneuver the cable companies. So far, they're doing OK, but not great. While Netflix is big, Netflix is not very profitable. Netflix is becoming more like a cable company, with a limited menu. Total access to a huge back catalog has been cut back. Netflix, though, doesn't own the pipe. Owning the pipe for TV is so profitable that AT&T more or less gives away voice and data if you get their TV service. Internet without TV costs more than Internet with TV.
  - gentleteblor 10y ago
    True. It's going to be interesting to watch things play out. The portion of the article about consumers not wanting to subscribe to too many streaming services rings true to me. I think a lot of the newer (cable) network streaming services might die off in the next few years if they don't become one of the dominant few. If Netflix is on top of this (dominant) heap it should give them a lot of leverage when it comes to content costs which might lead to higher profits etc etc.
mortenjorck 10y ago
At another point, Netflix created a dedicated device through which to access its content, only to decide that adapting its service to everything from mobile phones to TV sets made more sense. (The Netflix device was spun out into its own company, Roku.) Pretty sure this is a factual error in the article. As far as I know, Roku existed as a consumer electronics company independent of Netflix for years before it produced any Netflix streaming devices - anyone remember the Roku SoundBridge series of home audio devices? I’m not clear on the actual relationship between Roku and Netflix (they are both based in Los Gatos) but saying the Netflix hardware was “spun out” into Roku cannot be accurate.
- sithadmin 10y ago
  If I recall correctly, the 'Netflix Player' was a partnership between Roku and Netflix. I suspect that the remark about Roku being 'spun out' is likely due to an misunderstanding about that partnership.
- polpo 10y ago
  This is somewhat accurate. The Netflix Player was an internal Netflix project. Close to launch, Hastings realized that other device makers would balk at Netflix making their own hardware, so it became a Roku product. [1] Most articles I've seen about this say Netflix spun off Roku, but like you I remember they definitely existed as a company before that. Did they simply just transfer that whole department to Roku? Did they have any kind of relationship before that? It's a little murky. [1] https://www.fastcompany.com/3004709/inside-netflixs-project-griffin-forgotten-history-roku-under-reed-hastings https://www.fastcompany.com/3004709/inside-netflixs-project-...
- arprocter 10y ago
  You're right. We sold SoundBridges at my old job in the mid 2000s - I'm pretty sure Netflix was still postage only at that time
jdblair 10y ago
Hi, Netflix employee here, been here 7 months. In my 18 year career I've never liked working at a large organization as much as I like it here. The people I work with are uniformly excellent at their jobs, I'm learning from all of them, and I enjoy the time I spend with them.
- chrismealy 10y ago
  Enjoy it while it lasts! As soon as they find someone new and better, you're fired!
  - jdblair 10y ago
    I don't understand why that's a problem. My work experience has been one where its much more likely that under-performers drag down the top performers, not that top performers are let go prematurely. If they let me go before I'm ready to leave I will be disappointed, but there are other jobs.
jonathankoren 10y ago
Funny how Netflix HR polices never extend to the boardroom or the C-suite.
- kschrader 10y ago
  It literally says in the article that Hastings fired the Chief Talent Officer that came up with the "Would you hire them again today?" litmus test that they use because she no longer passed it.
rogerbinns 10y ago
Does anyone experience the Netflix recommendation system being useful? If you use their web browser experience then you can tell it to never show items again. But if you use mobile apps, Chromecast, Roku etc you do not get that option. My experience is that they keep recommending the same content over and over again, despite me already having watched some of it, and not wanting to watch the rest. It is also an incredibly user hostile experience: "here are the same items we showed you last time that you didn't want to watch, so you must look at them again". Heck they even go so far as recommending items where they accurately predict I'll give it low ratings, while ignoring the items where they accurately predict I'll give it higher ratings. I really don't understand why they do this. Is my experience unique?
ExpendableGuy 10y ago
Aren't DVDs still a major profit-winner for Netflix? Last I checked 5 million people were still subscribed to receive DVDs, and their subscriptions were more profitable than streaming-only ones. DVD subscriptions, however, are declining. Something people forget about the Qwikster debacle: video game rentals were teased. The fact that Netflix never explored this again really bugged me. Imagine if Netflix bundled video games into their DVD rental plans -- I think they'd be able to start boosting DVD rental numbers again, and thus boost profits.
ergothus 10y ago
Stepping away from hiring/firing practices, I had a very visceral reaction to this: >“Five years ago,” says Richard Greenfield, a media and technology analyst at BTIG who happens to be Netflix’s most vocal proponent on Wall Street, “we wrote a piece saying that the networks shouldn’t license to Netflix because they were going to unleash a monster that would undermine their business.” This exposes to me how capitalism, for all it's very real benefits, also has big flaws. "Don't do this thing because people will want it but you won't be the one to profit" is a bad attitude for society in general. Sure, it means there's a profit motive for someone else to fill that niche, but the point of creative works is that they are unique. If Shakespeare is too expensive you go to Marlowe...but then you never get Shakespeare. That's a survivable choice, but not the most beneficial result. I don't have a solution, and I'm not saying to tear down the system. I'm just saying quotes like this make me cringe.
- dexterdog 10y ago
  But Netflix was just a distributor then and not a creator. The biggest problem in this is middle men. People want to pay the creators for their work, but there are layers upon layers of middle men that end up getting a far larger slice of the overall pie than the people who actually create the stuff. With the technology we have and systems similar to (but more open than) Netflix, we should be able to have a proper compensation mechanism.
  - ergothus 10y ago
    Perhaps, but I can also see the middleman as a value add. When I paid Netflix and could see most anything, it was great, though a few things I couldn't see. Now I pay Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, pay for devices (e.g. Roku) to access them, have to hop accounts, and STILL can't see everything. Heck, Netflix's library has gotten less reliable. ("Want to see Groundhog day? let's see if it's currently in or out of catalog"). Middlemen aren't evil. Middlemen that want to gouge money WITHOUT providing value coughcoughRIAAcough* aren't evil either, but they're a lot less "good". Frankly, I'm a fan of competition, and in general when competition revolves around trying to offer more value to consumers, it's a bunch of winning (except for the companies that fall behind). Too often we see a competition to AVOID that scenario (Coke/pepsi & exclusive deals, everything about Comcast, HFT, the examples are numerous).
dcole2929 10y ago
The thing is Sports is the key! Cable and Network television exists almost entirely due to revenue generated from Sports Viewers. Seriously, like the majority of your cable bill is used to pay for licensing to air live games. Cable is the only way for people to legally watch the majority of NBA and NFL games (in HD). We are making stride with stuff like NFL Sunday Ticket, but honestly those services still aren't great. When current license agreements end Netflix (and by extension Amazon, Hulu and whoever else) should back up a dump truck full of money to league offices and offer whatever terms they want. In the game of Internet TV you get sports and you win. It's as simple as that. I don't believe that any of these networks competing services will ever take off because fragmentation is bad for consumers and they know it. Bundling is hugely important in this market. No one is going to be willing to pay $10 a month for a streaming service for every Network that decides it needs it's own. Sure a lot of people will be willing to pay for more than one but certainly not enough for all or even a lot of networks to go this route. HBO can survive that way but does NBC for instance have any show compelling enough to spend $10 for it separate from other networks shows.
- ben_jones 10y ago
  The problem with NFL Sunday Ticket and NBA League Pass is that they both feel extremely nerfed as to not get in the way of TV. I have trouble believing the NFL and even the NBA actually have problems putting out a decent streaming service, they just don't want to because they're getting all their money from TV. I would have absolutely no problem paying like $5 a game for the amount of entertainment I get from it, but they don't even let me do that! I have to pay for an entire season in which some games won't even be shown on the service. They basically force you to watch illegal streams. It's ridiculous.
- sien 10y ago
  In many countries outside the US NBA league pass is much better than a subscription to the cable service. It's the same for NHL, Baseball & the NFL. BeIn Sports have excellent streaming of (world) football. ESPN in many countries has loads of not very popular ESPN constructed events like the X-Z games or whatever.
unabst 10y ago
What world? Streaming was not created by Netflix. Netflix could be gone tomorrow, and we'd stream our way around them just fine, just as us cable-cutters stream our way around cable or around HBO to get Game of Thrones, top downloaded show all the way back in 2012 [1]. Netflix just carved the monster wave beautifully like any pro surfer would by building the largest subscription base for it. Good for them. But beyond that, anyone can practically stream anything now. And it's not because of Netflix. Anecdotally, good TV has always been good TV, and has been king. So as long as Netflix can generate good original content as they have, people will be happy to pay them 10 dollars. You could say this world was created by HBO, but whatever created what, it all traces back to good television, aka content, being king. The underlying technology doesn't really matter. As we can see HBO appears to have caught up just fine. [1] https://torrentfreak.com/game-of-thrones-most-pirated-tv-show-of-the-season-120608/ https://torrentfreak.com/game-of-thrones-most-pirated-tv-sho...
okoksowhatis 10y ago
Netflix did not create a New World.
swagv 10y ago
Netflix is the DVD bargain bin of the Internet. I would never consider them relevant to the "world it created" because that world only offers fewer than 10-12 of Spike Lee's Top 100 movie canon.

194 points by yarapavan 10y ago

Spoiler: It's a long read! > Does this still holds? Is there any other organization in dissimilar industry where this works? McCord also convinced Hastings that he should ask himself a few times a year whether he would hire the same person in the same job if it opened up that day. If the answer was no, Netflix would write a larger check and let the employee go. “If you are going to insist on high performance,” McCord says, “then you have to get rid of the notion of retention. You’ll have to fire some really nice, hard-working people. But you have to do it with dignity. “I held the hands of people weeping, saying, ‘I want to be here forever,’ ” McCord says. “I would tell them, ‘Nothing lasts forever.’ I would say to Reed, ‘I love them, too, but it is our job to be sure that we always have the right people.’ ” > Ironically, in 2011 Hastings decided to re-evaluate everyone in the executive ranks, using the litmus test McCord taught him: Would he hire them again today? One of the people this led him to push out was McCord.

kefka 10y ago
And this precisely is why we Millenials have no qualms about leaving a job. They have no problem divorcing us because of some vapid "performance" metric. How do they quantify understanding how to get things done in that org? I know with my job, I'm learning how the institution hinders growth, except through certain channels. That meta-knowledge is absolutely essential... yet seemingly ignored.
- mercer 10y ago
  Instinctively and ideologically I mostly oppose the idea of this lack of loyalty toward employees. At the same time, for some reason it bothers me less the way it is presented to work within Netflix. I'm not sure why, though. Maybe it's to do with the fact that there are plenty of jobs in tech right now and Netflix apparently pays very well, enough for a future employee to accept that disadvantage. Partly it's also because of the transparency of it all. Another thing is that it can benefit the employee too, long term. I've worked in many different companies and there were always a bunch of 'holders-on' who held everyone back and didn't even seem happy themselves. I often thought they and the team would be much better off if they found work somewhere else where either they'd feel challenged to develop themselves further, or where their current skills were good enough. I still would not choose to run a company that way myself, but provided that 'performance' is measured in a somewhat accurate way, provided that the compensation offsets this risk, provided that there is honesty about it all, and provided that there are alternative jobs one can find afterwards, well, then I'd at least be curious to see if it works in practice. (and decreasing 'institutional knowledge' is one very big advantage, in my opinion.)
  - koralatov 10y ago
    > Partly it's also because of the transparency of it all. What's transparent about it? The process is totally opaque -- some executive evaluates whether they feel you're meeting their standards, which may or may not be obvious, and then decides to let you go if they feel you aren't. I don't think it could be any less transparent.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      That they fire people rather arbitrarily is being written about in a national publication. So someone applying for a job has a good chance of understanding it going into the process. That's a pretty high degree of transparency about how they do things.
      - koralatov 10y ago
        That's not really what we're talking about when we're talking about 'transparency' her. Just because it's known that something happens doesn't mean it happens in a transparent fashion. Transparency of process is important, too, and required before you can really call something 'transparent'. As it stands, the person making the decision could be doing so for totally arbitrary reasons. It doesn't appear that there's an established process or criteria in place beyond "I don't feel like I'd hire X now" -- the rationale "Because Executive Y says so" is not transparent in the slightest.
        Programmatic 10y ago
        I think the part that is transparent is that you're not going to build your career and retire at Netflix, you know it's a stint. It may be arbitrary and capricious otherwise, but you know that in advance and can decide if it's worth it. I would not mind being in such an environment for a stint, myself.
        mindcrime 10y ago
        I think the part that is transparent is that you're not going to build your career and retire at Netflix, you know it's a stint. But anybody who has been paying attention has known that any job is "just a stint" since at least the 90's, if not the 80's. A big part of the Re-engineering[1] push of the 90's involved reducing costs, at least in part by reducing head-count. And before that, you had the 80's LBO[2] craze, which resulted in dramatic layoffs at many companies. As a Gen-X'er who grew up in the 80's, I have never expected to have a life-long career at a single company, and I can't imagine many - if any - of my peers imagining that either. In this regard, there's nothing unique at Netflix. All jobs are essentially "temp" jobs in this day and age. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_reengineering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_reengineering [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveraged_buyout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveraged_buyout
distances 10y ago
> You’ll have to fire some really nice, hard-working people. But you have to do it with dignity. I wonder if this is part of the reason why there are not too many Netflix-like high achieving companies in Europe -- firing people is not possible. Even totally sucking at your job isn't acceptable reason for employment contract termination, that'd be just a reason for further training. You'll have to go through different hoops, usually concerning the company's financial needs -- and which high achiever would want to join a company that announces dire economical times? This (easier to get rid of people) is also a reason behind a recent trend of people-for-hire companies and freelancers-only requirements. Disclaimer: probably does not apply to all of Europe.
- dominotw 10y ago
  >I wonder if this is part of the reason why there are not too many Netflix-like high achieving companies in Europe -- firing people is not possible. This probably explains why I've never seen my German counterparts ever being fired. The lowest performers are endlessly shuffled between projects, maybe hoping they would leave voluntarily ?
  - distances 10y ago
    That's perhaps one way. Or assigning the employee no tasks at all, just an empty room with a desk and chair, and a requirement to be there during normal working hours. No sane person takes that for a longer time. Companies do have longish probation periods (say, 6-9 months) before the contract is final. Within this period either party can cancel the employment at will, with no notice period. This is meant to be the testing time during which both parties can confirm that they are happy with the deal.
    - majewsky 10y ago
      I saw an article a year back or so about an administrative office in Germany that was dismantled. But because they couldn't fire the officers, they put them in a building with nothing to do until everyone quit voluntarily. The toughest made it about over a year. (Can't find the original article, sadly.)
talmand 10y ago
I hope there's more to it than that. Firing "really nice, hard-working people" is stupid. There are far better things to do with such people than firing them. All that teaches people is to have no loyalty whatsoever to their company since the company's leader directly gives them a reason not to. All that leads to is "really nice, hard-working people" you would not fire jumping ship at the first sign of a slightly better deal, because why not?
- mc32 10y ago
  One thing that pops up is that it does not include the context of the other people in the organization and how they work as a whole. That's to say you may have it where the most efficient organization is made up of non individually optimum components rather than it being comprised of the most optimum individual components.
- aianus 10y ago
  > All that leads to is "really nice, hard-working people" you would not fire jumping ship at the first sign of a slightly better deal, because why not? If you combine this behavior with really high compensation for those you keep, you'll likely be the best deal. Most companies' compensation does not match their rhetoric about 'hiring the best' and will balk at the cost to poach from you. That and the fact that high-performers want to work with other high-performers so they wouldn't risk a crappier work environment without a big raise.
  - asimuvPR 10y ago
    From experience: high performers tend to want to work alone. Most wise up and open their own company.
  - talmand 10y ago
    A positive work environment and satisfaction is not just about compensation. Working with other high-performers is good, I agree, except the company policy is that high-performers can be shown the door at any moment due to various changes outside the control of that high-performer. That's not a good work environment.
perseusprime11 10y ago
Did Reed hold McCord's hands and say 'Nothing lasts forever.'
- koralatov 10y ago
  We can only hope that he did.
quantumhobbit 10y ago
Netflix gets a lot of flack for their approach here, but at least they are honest about it and try to compensate by paying employees very well. The truth is there are many companies that are just as ruthless about firing employees they view as underperforming but try to hide it with layoffs and don't compensate employees nearly as well. If you take a job with Netflix at least you know what you are getting into.
- bbarn 10y ago
  Yeah, but the one problem is other companies you're going to afterwards don't know what you were getting into. So you are interviewing and they interviewer is impressed you led X big project at Netflix, recieved a promotion, etc.. and were fired for non performance. How do you explain that without saying "I was no longer good enough, but I'm way good enough for this job"
  - coredog64 10y ago
    There's plenty of places like that. We couldn't hire the former CTO from Netflix, but maybe we could hire some VP/director that couldn't go any higher as our CTO.
- beamatronic 10y ago
  Should you not expect to have a good work-life balance while at Netflix?
  - zjaffee 10y ago
    The type of person who will thrive at Netflix doesn't see an issue here. Either they have no issues whatsoever about having work always on their mind, or they are just simply so good at their jobs that they can still be one of the best engineers around only working 40 hours a week. The problem with this whole thing is that people view working at a company of this caliber as some type of competition, they want to be the one working at the company with the best and brightest so others see them as the best and brightest. The truth is that if you aren't really up there, you won't thrive in such an environment, and the vast majority of people will both advance the most, and be happiest working at a place where they are able to be the big fish.
11thEarlOfMar 10y ago
It's this: 'The key concept is summed up in the 23rd slide. “We’re a team, not a family,” it reads. “Netflix leaders hire, develop and cut smartly, so we have stars in every position.” ' I see it like a professional sports team. Players have to deliver performance game after game. If they can't keep it up, they are traded or released, or their contract is not renewed. When they age-out, they either go into coaching, buy or start their own team, or move on to do something different entirely. They are taken off the field. Applying this approach to a corporate workplace is controversial and I'd be interested in knowing what policies the legal department has put in place regarding employee agreements and termination processes to specifically accommodate Netflix' approach.
- yardie 10y ago
  The minimum salary in the NFL is currently $450,000. The "job" is unionised and you have lifetime benefits (negotiated after some players with chronic concussion related illnesses were found broke and homeless). While the careers are short the compensation is fair. And you are legally allowed to work a side job, i.e. sponsorships. I don't imagine corporate USA saying yes to high salaries, unionisation, pensions, nor side projects willingly.
  - rpgmaker 10y ago
    They also have "job security" for the duration of the contract and if they are "fired" as we traditionally understand it usually they have to be compensated in some form (although it depends on the contract).
    - yardie 10y ago
      Sadly that is not that case. The contract is per game. If they are cut midseason they forfeit the contract. NFL contracts are really nasty things. Most of the big valuations you see will probably never pay out. They can backload them so that a player with a 5 year $10mm contract will probably never see that amount. They'll get $1mm the first year, and the same for each year, with the remaining $5mm paid out at the end. If they don't make it that far they don't get it. It's not unheard of for a player to make it 50% of their time on contract and only see 20% of their pay. I only know this because I have a family member who plays professionally. The NFL likes to present an image that they take care of their players. It's a business to make money (and a not-for-profit) and exists only to enrich themselves. If they can short a player out of his money they will do it.
draw_down 10y ago
When you combine it with top-of-market compensation and generous severance, as Netflix does, one can reasonably believe that this practice is actually done for the reason they claim (keeping the best talent). When you don't combine it with good compensation, it's simply a rationalization for firing people whenever you want.
dasil003 10y ago
I sort of agree that if I wouldn't re-hire a person for a role then they should be let go: after all once someone has been trained in and is gelled with the team, they should be better at the job than anyone coming in from outside. In that sense this is just a dramatic reframing of standard performance evaluation wisdom. But I also find it a very strange thing to say, because the biggest challenge of hiring new people is that you really never know how they'll perform until you actually start working with them. In my case I've always hired for smaller organizations with a smaller pool of applicants, so I prefer to just roughly gauge for Spolsky's test of "smart and gets things done" as well as I can and then turn them loose to see what they can do. In large, well-known companies with huge hiring funnels false negatives matter much less and they are incentivized to screen very aggressively on whatever axes they can. However in either case, the existing employee has a known performance profile, and the new hire is unknown regardless of how good they look on paper. So I just find it an obtuse apples-to-oranges comparison to frame performance reviews this way.

gumby 10y ago

> “If it is a flop, we will have overpaid for one series,” he told Hastings. “But if it succeeds, we will have changed the brand.” Traditional big companies are structurally unable to think this way.

lukeschlather 10y ago
It also said they set up an indie film distribution company which was shut down because "We would have been better off spending the money on DVDs." Which sounds more like a traditional bigco.
- gumby 10y ago
  Is it? Sounds like an example of what I was praising: they tried it, and found that the economics wouldn't work -- surprisingly they needed to control more of the value chain (at least it's a surprise to me).

kylec 10y ago

Why is it that every discussion about Netflix somehow devolves into a discussion about their hiring/firing practices?

majewsky 10y ago
1. Because they are open about them. 2. Because people care about having a job and earning money. 3. Because they literally make up about a third of the article.
pekk 10y ago
Hiring/firing practices are a perennial subject on HN.

drostie 10y ago

TL;DR: Netflix changed everything when it switched from mail-order DVDs to streaming-video. Now, people find themselves (a) not watching commercials and (b) watching shows back-to-back. This has been lucrative for the company in terms of raw revenue, but not in terms of profits after costs: though the article is pretty murky on this (one part says that they made millions in profits; another says that they have a consistent cash-flow problem involving borrowing and more borrowing). Netflix has several concerns up ahead which might make it difficult to survive operating at a constant loss. One is that Hulu and Amazon are encroaching on its markets, and competition tends to drive down profits. Another is that they don't own the vast majority of their content, which puts them at the mercy of the pricing of their suppliers -- and being downstream from a monopoly can also drive down profits. Even worse, their suppliers still have a revenue model based on this old advertising-and-cable-packages system, which Netflix is destroying by transforming the landscape: which is a disincentive to working with them; a channel which can broadcast a breakout-popular new TV show might keep that in-house to try to keep the channel alive, rather than licensing the show to Netflix for an alternative revenue stream. At the very least this will probably keep Netflix content about a season behind whatever's on TV. Finally, Netflix is finding itself raising its own prices, which may lead to a flurry of cancellations from people who maintain inactive subscriptions precisely because they're pretty cheap. On the flip-side, it's not clear that they can sustain continued growth in their subscriber base; maybe at this point almost everybody who wants Netflix's service is already signed up. If those numbers don't keep up, then problems arise that are not too different from the problems with "borrowing from the future" in Ponzi schemes (albeit with a solid net positive revenue, which makes it morally very different -- in Ponzi schemes this is 0 and it is being advertised as a huge number, which is a huge lie -- no similar problem here). A similar "collapse" could happen, where the growth tapers, thereby skepticism spikes, thereby costs to borrow go high, and everything rapidly turns around from apparent success to apparent failure. There may also be problems with the corporate culture, but while most of the article is devoted to the corporate culture, no clear message is given; it is apparently a somewhat ruthless place which is probably somewhat sad but is also sold as really exciting, because the ruthlessness only keeps the people who really care about what they're doing, which apparently creates good morale. There's a lot of other details like that which don't really amount to anything significant regarding what this "new world" is that Netflix has created, or whether it will survive the above growth pains.

ergothus 10y ago

One of the best professional pieces of advice I've ever read said something like "Think you're indispensable? Do they know that?". It made me aware that often the people making the hiring/firing decisions aren't actually aware of my day-to-day. Rather, they know only the summary info. Those kudos to fellow employees and in-house "awards" that I'd been ignoring? Those are documentation that someone is worthwhile, and I had none. If I were fired that day, I'd have had precious little "proof" that it was a mistake. (and of course, the point isn't to "prove" it's a mistake, it's to make sure they know not to in the first place). Now, when I learned that advice I was working for virginia state govt, where I didn't have technically competent and aware management like I do now in Seattle tech companies, but there is still an important kernel in the message: We tend to judge our performance relative to the difficulty of the tasks in front of us. Often, our performance will be judged my management using different criteria. It's a good idea to be aware of how you look from the outside. ...which is why I'd not want to work in the Netflix system. It's not whether I'm a good performer, it's whether THEY THINK I'm a good performer. Ideally these are related, and outside of a Netflix-like environment I might have confidence that my manager would let me know in advance of action if there was a discrepancy. While I'm sure Netflix would claim the same, I doubt McCord was expecting the axe to fall...

olalonde 10y ago
> It's not whether I'm a good performer, it's whether THEY THINK I'm a good performer. To play the devil's advocate, isn't that true of any employer (that wants good performers)? Do you believe Netflix's system is too subjective?
- kelvin0 10y ago
  The important thing to gather from 'They think I'm a good performer' is to first try and understand your management. For example, in a coding shop where most employees are Software engineers (and also yours bosses) you have a higher probability that your yardstick and your bosses will be fairly close. However, having non-technical bosses is a bigger challenge, thus the need for you to demonstrate your 'worth' be means other than 'Yeah I just refactored FOO kernel code in BAR module and have 80% test coverage'.

gentleteblor 10y ago

The most interesting thing (to me) in this piece, is how many pivots Netflix made/is still making. Many of those moves were very much unsafe/risky (which is why the networks didn't make em themselves)...brave for what was already an established company then.

Animats 10y ago
That's a good point. They're desperately trying to outmaneuver the cable companies. So far, they're doing OK, but not great. While Netflix is big, Netflix is not very profitable. Netflix is becoming more like a cable company, with a limited menu. Total access to a huge back catalog has been cut back. Netflix, though, doesn't own the pipe. Owning the pipe for TV is so profitable that AT&T more or less gives away voice and data if you get their TV service. Internet without TV costs more than Internet with TV.
- gentleteblor 10y ago
  True. It's going to be interesting to watch things play out. The portion of the article about consumers not wanting to subscribe to too many streaming services rings true to me. I think a lot of the newer (cable) network streaming services might die off in the next few years if they don't become one of the dominant few. If Netflix is on top of this (dominant) heap it should give them a lot of leverage when it comes to content costs which might lead to higher profits etc etc.

mortenjorck 10y ago

At another point, Netflix created a dedicated device through which to access its content, only to decide that adapting its service to everything from mobile phones to TV sets made more sense. (The Netflix device was spun out into its own company, Roku.) Pretty sure this is a factual error in the article. As far as I know, Roku existed as a consumer electronics company independent of Netflix for years before it produced any Netflix streaming devices - anyone remember the Roku SoundBridge series of home audio devices? I’m not clear on the actual relationship between Roku and Netflix (they are both based in Los Gatos) but saying the Netflix hardware was “spun out” into Roku cannot be accurate.

sithadmin 10y ago
If I recall correctly, the 'Netflix Player' was a partnership between Roku and Netflix. I suspect that the remark about Roku being 'spun out' is likely due to an misunderstanding about that partnership.
polpo 10y ago
This is somewhat accurate. The Netflix Player was an internal Netflix project. Close to launch, Hastings realized that other device makers would balk at Netflix making their own hardware, so it became a Roku product. [1] Most articles I've seen about this say Netflix spun off Roku, but like you I remember they definitely existed as a company before that. Did they simply just transfer that whole department to Roku? Did they have any kind of relationship before that? It's a little murky. [1] https://www.fastcompany.com/3004709/inside-netflixs-project-griffin-forgotten-history-roku-under-reed-hastings https://www.fastcompany.com/3004709/inside-netflixs-project-...
arprocter 10y ago
You're right. We sold SoundBridges at my old job in the mid 2000s - I'm pretty sure Netflix was still postage only at that time

jdblair 10y ago

Hi, Netflix employee here, been here 7 months. In my 18 year career I've never liked working at a large organization as much as I like it here. The people I work with are uniformly excellent at their jobs, I'm learning from all of them, and I enjoy the time I spend with them.

chrismealy 10y ago
Enjoy it while it lasts! As soon as they find someone new and better, you're fired!
- jdblair 10y ago
  I don't understand why that's a problem. My work experience has been one where its much more likely that under-performers drag down the top performers, not that top performers are let go prematurely. If they let me go before I'm ready to leave I will be disappointed, but there are other jobs.

jonathankoren 10y ago

Funny how Netflix HR polices never extend to the boardroom or the C-suite.

kschrader 10y ago
It literally says in the article that Hastings fired the Chief Talent Officer that came up with the "Would you hire them again today?" litmus test that they use because she no longer passed it.

rogerbinns 10y ago

Does anyone experience the Netflix recommendation system being useful? If you use their web browser experience then you can tell it to never show items again. But if you use mobile apps, Chromecast, Roku etc you do not get that option. My experience is that they keep recommending the same content over and over again, despite me already having watched some of it, and not wanting to watch the rest. It is also an incredibly user hostile experience: "here are the same items we showed you last time that you didn't want to watch, so you must look at them again". Heck they even go so far as recommending items where they accurately predict I'll give it low ratings, while ignoring the items where they accurately predict I'll give it higher ratings. I really don't understand why they do this. Is my experience unique?

ExpendableGuy 10y ago

Aren't DVDs still a major profit-winner for Netflix? Last I checked 5 million people were still subscribed to receive DVDs, and their subscriptions were more profitable than streaming-only ones. DVD subscriptions, however, are declining. Something people forget about the Qwikster debacle: video game rentals were teased. The fact that Netflix never explored this again really bugged me. Imagine if Netflix bundled video games into their DVD rental plans -- I think they'd be able to start boosting DVD rental numbers again, and thus boost profits.

ergothus 10y ago

Stepping away from hiring/firing practices, I had a very visceral reaction to this: >“Five years ago,” says Richard Greenfield, a media and technology analyst at BTIG who happens to be Netflix’s most vocal proponent on Wall Street, “we wrote a piece saying that the networks shouldn’t license to Netflix because they were going to unleash a monster that would undermine their business.” This exposes to me how capitalism, for all it's very real benefits, also has big flaws. "Don't do this thing because people will want it but you won't be the one to profit" is a bad attitude for society in general. Sure, it means there's a profit motive for someone else to fill that niche, but the point of creative works is that they are unique. If Shakespeare is too expensive you go to Marlowe...but then you never get Shakespeare. That's a survivable choice, but not the most beneficial result. I don't have a solution, and I'm not saying to tear down the system. I'm just saying quotes like this make me cringe.

dexterdog 10y ago
But Netflix was just a distributor then and not a creator. The biggest problem in this is middle men. People want to pay the creators for their work, but there are layers upon layers of middle men that end up getting a far larger slice of the overall pie than the people who actually create the stuff. With the technology we have and systems similar to (but more open than) Netflix, we should be able to have a proper compensation mechanism.
- ergothus 10y ago
  Perhaps, but I can also see the middleman as a value add. When I paid Netflix and could see most anything, it was great, though a few things I couldn't see. Now I pay Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, pay for devices (e.g. Roku) to access them, have to hop accounts, and STILL can't see everything. Heck, Netflix's library has gotten less reliable. ("Want to see Groundhog day? let's see if it's currently in or out of catalog"). Middlemen aren't evil. Middlemen that want to gouge money WITHOUT providing value coughcoughRIAAcough* aren't evil either, but they're a lot less "good". Frankly, I'm a fan of competition, and in general when competition revolves around trying to offer more value to consumers, it's a bunch of winning (except for the companies that fall behind). Too often we see a competition to AVOID that scenario (Coke/pepsi & exclusive deals, everything about Comcast, HFT, the examples are numerous).

dcole2929 10y ago

The thing is Sports is the key! Cable and Network television exists almost entirely due to revenue generated from Sports Viewers. Seriously, like the majority of your cable bill is used to pay for licensing to air live games. Cable is the only way for people to legally watch the majority of NBA and NFL games (in HD). We are making stride with stuff like NFL Sunday Ticket, but honestly those services still aren't great. When current license agreements end Netflix (and by extension Amazon, Hulu and whoever else) should back up a dump truck full of money to league offices and offer whatever terms they want. In the game of Internet TV you get sports and you win. It's as simple as that. I don't believe that any of these networks competing services will ever take off because fragmentation is bad for consumers and they know it. Bundling is hugely important in this market. No one is going to be willing to pay $10 a month for a streaming service for every Network that decides it needs it's own. Sure a lot of people will be willing to pay for more than one but certainly not enough for all or even a lot of networks to go this route. HBO can survive that way but does NBC for instance have any show compelling enough to spend $10 for it separate from other networks shows.

ben_jones 10y ago
The problem with NFL Sunday Ticket and NBA League Pass is that they both feel extremely nerfed as to not get in the way of TV. I have trouble believing the NFL and even the NBA actually have problems putting out a decent streaming service, they just don't want to because they're getting all their money from TV. I would have absolutely no problem paying like $5 a game for the amount of entertainment I get from it, but they don't even let me do that! I have to pay for an entire season in which some games won't even be shown on the service. They basically force you to watch illegal streams. It's ridiculous.
sien 10y ago
In many countries outside the US NBA league pass is much better than a subscription to the cable service. It's the same for NHL, Baseball & the NFL. BeIn Sports have excellent streaming of (world) football. ESPN in many countries has loads of not very popular ESPN constructed events like the X-Z games or whatever.

unabst 10y ago

What world? Streaming was not created by Netflix. Netflix could be gone tomorrow, and we'd stream our way around them just fine, just as us cable-cutters stream our way around cable or around HBO to get Game of Thrones, top downloaded show all the way back in 2012 [1]. Netflix just carved the monster wave beautifully like any pro surfer would by building the largest subscription base for it. Good for them. But beyond that, anyone can practically stream anything now. And it's not because of Netflix. Anecdotally, good TV has always been good TV, and has been king. So as long as Netflix can generate good original content as they have, people will be happy to pay them 10 dollars. You could say this world was created by HBO, but whatever created what, it all traces back to good television, aka content, being king. The underlying technology doesn't really matter. As we can see HBO appears to have caught up just fine. [1] https://torrentfreak.com/game-of-thrones-most-pirated-tv-show-of-the-season-120608/ https://torrentfreak.com/game-of-thrones-most-pirated-tv-sho...

okoksowhatis 10y ago

Netflix did not create a New World.

swagv 10y ago

Netflix is the DVD bargain bin of the Internet. I would never consider them relevant to the "world it created" because that world only offers fewer than 10-12 of Spike Lee's Top 100 movie canon.