3 ms·
>Your theory is that Netflix isn't selling entertainment, they're selling boredom insurance? That somebody might have a sudden, unexpected, and catastrophic nee
by nobody9999 4y ago
>Your theory is that Netflix isn't selling entertainment, they're selling boredom insurance? That somebody might have a sudden, unexpected, and catastrophic need for sitcom reruns that might cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars, so to mitigate that risk they pay Netflix just in case?
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything even approaching that.
Netflix sells a service (a pretty useless one, in my view) -- video content -- for which they charge a monthly fee.
Insurance companies sell a service (more useful, in my view) -- covering (or at least reducing) the costs of bad stuff happening -- for which they charge a monthly fee.
One is (at least in my view) more useful than the other, but the business model is the same -- pay a monthly fee for some product/service.
As I said, it's not the model that's the problem, it's those who use it in an exploitative fashion.
Please do go ahead and set up another straw man you can knock down for your own satisfaction, but I won't participate further.
Have a great day!
- wpietri 4y agoThe business models are not the same. Insurance is deeply different in an economic sense than selling videos. Willfully ignoring that distinction is ridiculous, and I tried to make the difference apparent in the comment you're quoting. If you're not getting it, that's fine, you are free to carry on not getting it.
- nobody9999 4y agoWhile the business models are different (obviously), the payment model is the same. I was inexact (business vs. payment model) in my previous comment. My apologies. But my point still stands: Subscription payment models aren't inherently exploitative; rather they can be implemented/administered (or not) in an exploitative fashion. Don't like Netflix/NYT and others' implementation of said payment model? I'm not surprised. I'm not very high on them either. But just because you don't like the specific implementation, doesn't make them a different payment model. That payment model being: "pay a monthly fee, get whatever product/service you've paid (and continue to pay) for. You appear to be claiming that because different companies sell different stuff, that the payment models are not the same. Which is akin to arguing that since automobiles with ICEs[0] serve a different purpose than automobiles with electric engines. They don't. And likewise, subscription payment models are subscription payment models, regardless of the product/service being offered. >If you're not getting it, that's fine, you are free to carry on not getting it. And you're free to continue making wildly inaccurate statements. Have fun and a good day! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine