4 ms·
The "tech company" monicker is increasingly nondescript, but any kind of classification needs context to be useful. These big guys, at present, aren't doing obv
by netcan 5y ago
The "tech company" monicker is increasingly nondescript, but any kind of classification needs context to be useful. These big guys, at present, aren't doing obvious head-2-head competition in well defined market categories. Ford, GM and Toyota are similar to each other that Amazon & Google are not.
To think in classifications, you pick your classification based on the aspect of company you care about.
Netflix's culturalness, financing, hiring/labour practices are more like "tech companies." Their competition, is home entertainment for consumers, and media companies for content. Their business model is basically cable. etc.
In any case, it seems the author goes through all these semantics to notice tha:
"you can access the same service on any device (Netflix, Spotify, Kindle), or the same content on any service (music, books), or both. Content doesn’t stop you switching - unless it’s exclusive, and that’s a totally different budget."
So yep, key point. Media economics is understudied.
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y agoThe more important distinction it seems is how much of your sales is marginal profit, how your revenue scales, and the growth potential. If you have very high fixed costs, but the profit from each additional subscription is ~90%, and you have a clear path to growth - your future profits could be ridiculous. Netflix is selling non-durable goods with insane marginal profits. In this way, it isn't much different than a software company - like Microsoft in the 90s. The distinction between whether you are selling software or NFTs, streaming videos, or ads seems less relevant.