3 ms·

Netflix, at least compared to Dropbox, had the opportunity to transition to producing 1st party content which they could use to continue to generate revenue eve

Netflix, at least compared to Dropbox, had the opportunity to transition to producing 1st party content which they could use to continue to generate revenue even after all the 3rd party content went proprietary. My gut instinct is that Netflix has failed to succeed on that front, but there was an attempt. Curious where on your crystal ball you see the likes of Spotify and the music (and podcast I guess) industry in 10 years.

markdown 4y ago
> but there was an attempt. Unfortunately it was data-driven. This meant that if a new show didn't catch on within a season or two, it was cancelled. They've killed so many great shows chasing the lowest common denominator. The formula they settled on was: big name star in a generic designed-by-committee (or AI) show. Shame.
- dougmwne 4y ago
  This is where Apple TV+ has been a breath of fresh air, like eating a garden fresh tomato after years of canned tomato paste.
- thedougd 4y ago
  I think you're spot on about this. Oddly, Netflix has seen some success by reviving shows that were discontinued on major networks. You'd think they'd know better than to cancel shows like The OA before completion.
- jon-wood 4y ago
  I'm really disappointed that creators didn't catch on to this and design their shows to run for one or two seasons. Not everything needs to be a decade long odyssey, and in fact a great many TV shows that were great at first were IMO destroyed by trying to keep running for as long as possible, long past the point where they ran out of things to say.
gilbetron 4y ago
Not OP, but I don't see why anyone would invest in Spotify - there's many other options out there for great music. Spotify doesn't have sole rights to really any music as far as I know, plus music is far easier to make than movies & series. If you cut me off from established artists, I can still get great joy in a multitude of music being developed today. Beyond that, there's always the option of just giving money to the artists I like directly. The only thing Spotify has going for it is convenience, and I still would rather use Google/Youtube music. I pay for Youtube premium and get music for free with it, as does my entire family. Furthermore, it doesn't matter to the artists where their listeners get their music, there is no extra cost to them licensing it out to 2 or 1000 Spotifys, although there's an argument to be made that just 1 legal license would benefit them, but with pirating I don't there's much to that argument. There was an article in the Atlantic about how people are listening more to "old" music these days, which makes sense, but will have a big impact on the industry as well: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/old-music-killing-new-music/621339/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/old-music-...
nabla9 4y ago
> continue to generate revenue even after all the 3rd party content went proprietary. They did and they do. They put all their money into the 1st party content. They produce huge number of bulk mediocre content and also some really good shows. I can't see how they could do anything different. It's not enough. They have no competitive edge in 1st party content creation except size. That edge is in danger. The competition has either deeper pockets, more content, or other income sources. I have no idea about music streaming. I assume its similar network externalities, economies of size business. --- edit: As an infrequent investor, the company must do better than relevant index fund (SP500, NASDAQ composite, and so on) over the next 5-10 years to make sense to me. Netflix may establish itself as a good blue-chip company, but that's not enough a reason to buy it.
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  >some really good shows That they almost always cancel after two seasons regardless of popularity or story progression. As a result, lots of people are wary of starting to watch anything new on Netflix since it's almost guaranteed to be cancelled prematurely.

markdown 4y ago

> but there was an attempt. Unfortunately it was data-driven. This meant that if a new show didn't catch on within a season or two, it was cancelled. They've killed so many great shows chasing the lowest common denominator. The formula they settled on was: big name star in a generic designed-by-committee (or AI) show. Shame.

dougmwne 4y ago
This is where Apple TV+ has been a breath of fresh air, like eating a garden fresh tomato after years of canned tomato paste.
thedougd 4y ago
I think you're spot on about this. Oddly, Netflix has seen some success by reviving shows that were discontinued on major networks. You'd think they'd know better than to cancel shows like The OA before completion.
jon-wood 4y ago
I'm really disappointed that creators didn't catch on to this and design their shows to run for one or two seasons. Not everything needs to be a decade long odyssey, and in fact a great many TV shows that were great at first were IMO destroyed by trying to keep running for as long as possible, long past the point where they ran out of things to say.

gilbetron 4y ago

Not OP, but I don't see why anyone would invest in Spotify - there's many other options out there for great music. Spotify doesn't have sole rights to really any music as far as I know, plus music is far easier to make than movies & series. If you cut me off from established artists, I can still get great joy in a multitude of music being developed today. Beyond that, there's always the option of just giving money to the artists I like directly. The only thing Spotify has going for it is convenience, and I still would rather use Google/Youtube music. I pay for Youtube premium and get music for free with it, as does my entire family. Furthermore, it doesn't matter to the artists where their listeners get their music, there is no extra cost to them licensing it out to 2 or 1000 Spotifys, although there's an argument to be made that just 1 legal license would benefit them, but with pirating I don't there's much to that argument. There was an article in the Atlantic about how people are listening more to "old" music these days, which makes sense, but will have a big impact on the industry as well: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/old-music-killing-new-music/621339/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/old-music-...

nabla9 4y ago

> continue to generate revenue even after all the 3rd party content went proprietary. They did and they do. They put all their money into the 1st party content. They produce huge number of bulk mediocre content and also some really good shows. I can't see how they could do anything different. It's not enough. They have no competitive edge in 1st party content creation except size. That edge is in danger. The competition has either deeper pockets, more content, or other income sources. I have no idea about music streaming. I assume its similar network externalities, economies of size business. --- edit: As an infrequent investor, the company must do better than relevant index fund (SP500, NASDAQ composite, and so on) over the next 5-10 years to make sense to me. Netflix may establish itself as a good blue-chip company, but that's not enough a reason to buy it.

Mountain_Skies 4y ago
>some really good shows That they almost always cancel after two seasons regardless of popularity or story progression. As a result, lots of people are wary of starting to watch anything new on Netflix since it's almost guaranteed to be cancelled prematurely.