> They lost 700,000 from Russia gained 500,000 elsewhere net -200,000...Loosing Russia wasn't really a consumer choice type of thing. Management's loss "reason

> They lost 700,000 from Russia gained 500,000 elsewhere net -200,000...Loosing Russia wasn't really a consumer choice type of thing. Management's loss "reasons" all seem valid, but don't forget the production aspect (which is much closer tied to competition) > "In an effort to continue to gain share in the market, Netflix has increased its content spend, particularly on originals. To pay for it, it’s hiked prices of its service. The company said Tuesday those price changes are helping to bolster revenue, but were partially responsible for a loss of 600,000 subscribers in the U.S. and Canada during the most recent quarter." My observation is that they are selling attention addiction like Facebook without caring about quality content recently. Ex: Korean copycat shows and "documentaries", just because both categories tend to rate higher on IMDB. Seems like a decision a PM will make, based on metrics to improve profit, not quality - i.e. give users what they want, even if it is bad for them (or the business) in the long term (as seen with competition's content quality) PS: Similar thing happened with Facebook back in February. The point is it might take years, but eventually the bs will catch up. Their desperation is starting to show with the exploration of potential "low hanging fruit" revenue sources like ads instead of new growth markets (games) - as is happening with indirect competitors (Microsoft, Amazon, Google, FB); and direct competitors (Hulu, Disney and HBO): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31101175 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31101175 The thing about public companies...is that most eventually fall into the pressures of "consistent growth" by stockholders, following the pack mentality (profit at all costs), even if sorting to unethical means.