5 ms·

You're right that Netflix and Pornhub have both been able to replicate this. IMO, it might be wise for Netflix to start their own YouTube-like service. For exa

You're right that Netflix and Pornhub have both been able to replicate this. IMO, it might be wise for Netflix to start their own YouTube-like service. For example, subscribe to Netflix, get access to user-created videos on a separate app. The best part is that users would then generate content for a fraction of what they currently pay to produce content, and they could have basically what YouTube has, but ad-free.

Hekioi 5y ago
Netflix only provides one very static huge library. As long as you move a few PB around the globe on your video release date, Netflix is fine. It's very easy to build a Netflix in comparison to yt. I would argue that for Netflix going into yt direction would eat up there revenue baseline fast.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Netflix could square the circle by offering "YT for indie filmmakers." More static content than YT. Better viewer:creator ratio. Fewer content headaches. Content moderation is lower volume and amounts to watching the film. And closer to their existing product fit. It's actually kind of mind-boggling that Netflix hasn't pivoted into a turnkey solution (standard deal + optional financing support + broadcast platform) for mass-market film-making. Everyone's content starved, it's an obvious weakness that Amazon / Disney / ATT are blind to, and somehow Reed Hastings hasn't pushed in that direction. It's literally what Netflix is famous for doing (twice!): be the platform.
  - SahAssar 5y ago
    > Everyone's content starved I've been mostly hearing the opposite, most people feel like they have more content they want to watch than they have time to.
  - hazza_n_dazza 5y ago
    great idea, however I think they would become more like a hosting company with more overheads - so probably better for them to stick to their higher margin service they offer now. also, i bet they doo offer something like "(standard deal + optional financing support + broadcast platform) for mass-market film-making." just not to everyone
- Trex_Egg 5y ago
  what is mean by "PB"?
  - vulcan01 5y ago
    PB stands for petabyte.
  - saghm 5y ago
    I think "petabytes"
sharemywin 5y ago
Netflix doesn't own it's own infrastructure.
- snek_case 5y ago
  Which means its hosting infrastructure is not even as cost-efficient as it could be.
  - teh_klev 5y ago
    For their use-case it's probably as cost effective as it needs to be. Bring all that cloud hosted infrastructure in house and then you've a whole new set of costs to deal with that aren't present in their current arrangement.
- fragmede 5y ago
  Netflix runs a CDN for the video nodes, but runs on AWS for everything else (eg login microservices). The CDN, which includes hardware deployed inside of ISP), represents a huge capital outlay (over decades) and is a competitive advantage for delivering large amounts of data around the world.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  They own their own CDN for content, they don't own their own general web hosting (they famously use AWS). Surely the CDN for that huge streaming library is the expensive part of their infra. https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/

Hekioi 5y ago

Netflix only provides one very static huge library. As long as you move a few PB around the globe on your video release date, Netflix is fine. It's very easy to build a Netflix in comparison to yt. I would argue that for Netflix going into yt direction would eat up there revenue baseline fast.

ethbr0 5y ago
Netflix could square the circle by offering "YT for indie filmmakers." More static content than YT. Better viewer:creator ratio. Fewer content headaches. Content moderation is lower volume and amounts to watching the film. And closer to their existing product fit. It's actually kind of mind-boggling that Netflix hasn't pivoted into a turnkey solution (standard deal + optional financing support + broadcast platform) for mass-market film-making. Everyone's content starved, it's an obvious weakness that Amazon / Disney / ATT are blind to, and somehow Reed Hastings hasn't pushed in that direction. It's literally what Netflix is famous for doing (twice!): be the platform.
- SahAssar 5y ago
  > Everyone's content starved I've been mostly hearing the opposite, most people feel like they have more content they want to watch than they have time to.
- hazza_n_dazza 5y ago
  great idea, however I think they would become more like a hosting company with more overheads - so probably better for them to stick to their higher margin service they offer now. also, i bet they doo offer something like "(standard deal + optional financing support + broadcast platform) for mass-market film-making." just not to everyone
Trex_Egg 5y ago
what is mean by "PB"?
- vulcan01 5y ago
  PB stands for petabyte.
- saghm 5y ago
  I think "petabytes"

sharemywin 5y ago

Netflix doesn't own it's own infrastructure.

snek_case 5y ago
Which means its hosting infrastructure is not even as cost-efficient as it could be.
- teh_klev 5y ago
  For their use-case it's probably as cost effective as it needs to be. Bring all that cloud hosted infrastructure in house and then you've a whole new set of costs to deal with that aren't present in their current arrangement.
fragmede 5y ago
Netflix runs a CDN for the video nodes, but runs on AWS for everything else (eg login microservices). The CDN, which includes hardware deployed inside of ISP), represents a huge capital outlay (over decades) and is a competitive advantage for delivering large amounts of data around the world.
vineyardmike 5y ago
They own their own CDN for content, they don't own their own general web hosting (they famously use AWS). Surely the CDN for that huge streaming library is the expensive part of their infra. https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/