3 ms·

> Netflix is just the victim of basic capitalism. You need to show endless growth no matter what the circumstances are. Fundamentally unsustainable. What's bas

> Netflix is just the victim of basic capitalism. You need to show endless growth no matter what the circumstances are. Fundamentally unsustainable. What's basic capitalism? Is it bad that capitalism victimizes fundamentally unsustainable companies? And to whom does netflix need to show endless growth? Lots of people and even companies do not require or have endless growth, many are content (or at least sustainable) turning a relatively constant profit.

oneplane 4y ago
Netflix works fine, they make plenty of profit. The problem is the endless growth requirement (be it from IP owners, share owners, or other stakeholders). It's unrealistic and Netflix could just coast along as-is with very few issues. But they don't want that, they want growth and ever increasing counts in subscribers, content and money.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  I still don't understand what exactly is "the problem". Capitalism punished the people who had unrealistic expectations of netflix's growth.
  - oneplane 4y ago
    The problem is that a profitable entertainment service used and enjoyed by many is somehow going to "not survive" based on unrealistic models applied by people that are neither consumers or producers of the profitable service itself.
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      If it's profitable it will likely survive in some form, thanks to capitalism.
      - oneplane 4y ago
        Not if 'profitable' is not deemed enough, which is the problem. It's simply never enough (hence the many references to unrealistic infinite growth), so what is most likely to happen is some way to 'restart' the growth count, so we can have a pretend-infinite-growth party again. Maybe a merger, maybe a spinoff, maybe a some other construction.
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        > Not if 'profitable' is not deemed enough, which is the problem. This is not the case under capitalism, it happens under regulated economies. Under capitalism, "profitable" _is_ the signal of the net value something generates, and that is its own motive. > It's simply never enough (hence the many references to unrealistic infinite growth), Untrue. Many people and companies operate under steady (or even declining) profits, still run while they generate profit. > so what is most likely to happen is some way to 'restart' the growth count, so we can have a pretend-infinite-growth party again. Maybe a merger, maybe a spinoff, maybe a some other construction. A great number of good options for valuable companies and products and services are available under capitalism yes, this is one point I will agree on.
        oneplane 4y ago
        We're talking about the silly Netflix story here. Not capitalism and/or other companies.
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        Strange retreat, but no we were talking about capitalism as well. If we were just talking about netflix story, in that case what we're talking about is a CNN article claiming these things might happen which really has little basis in actual reality or how capitalism works. The _actual_ Netflix is still here, and it is still here despite being deemed not profitable enough by many.
        4y ago
e3bc54b2 4y ago
Why is Netflix 'fundamentally unsustainable'? Hollywood studios are some of the oldest and biggest companies (notwithstanding overvalued tech stocks) on the planet. They've been 'sustainable' for decades. Netflix has (had?) quite good tech with CDN and recommendation engine, their engineers were well paid, they had sufficient users to be profitable, and one of the strongest, well regarded brands. I'd say fashion or bottled sugarwater companies have more 'fundamentally unsustainable' models because their main product is the brand. Netflix has a lot more than that.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  > Why is Netflix 'fundamentally unsustainable'? I was replying to parent who said that. Or at least that's how I read it.

oneplane 4y ago

Netflix works fine, they make plenty of profit. The problem is the endless growth requirement (be it from IP owners, share owners, or other stakeholders). It's unrealistic and Netflix could just coast along as-is with very few issues. But they don't want that, they want growth and ever increasing counts in subscribers, content and money.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
I still don't understand what exactly is "the problem". Capitalism punished the people who had unrealistic expectations of netflix's growth.
- oneplane 4y ago
  The problem is that a profitable entertainment service used and enjoyed by many is somehow going to "not survive" based on unrealistic models applied by people that are neither consumers or producers of the profitable service itself.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    If it's profitable it will likely survive in some form, thanks to capitalism.
    - oneplane 4y ago
      Not if 'profitable' is not deemed enough, which is the problem. It's simply never enough (hence the many references to unrealistic infinite growth), so what is most likely to happen is some way to 'restart' the growth count, so we can have a pretend-infinite-growth party again. Maybe a merger, maybe a spinoff, maybe a some other construction.
      - throwawaylinux 4y ago
        > Not if 'profitable' is not deemed enough, which is the problem. This is not the case under capitalism, it happens under regulated economies. Under capitalism, "profitable" _is_ the signal of the net value something generates, and that is its own motive. > It's simply never enough (hence the many references to unrealistic infinite growth), Untrue. Many people and companies operate under steady (or even declining) profits, still run while they generate profit. > so what is most likely to happen is some way to 'restart' the growth count, so we can have a pretend-infinite-growth party again. Maybe a merger, maybe a spinoff, maybe a some other construction. A great number of good options for valuable companies and products and services are available under capitalism yes, this is one point I will agree on.
        oneplane 4y ago
        We're talking about the silly Netflix story here. Not capitalism and/or other companies.
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        Strange retreat, but no we were talking about capitalism as well. If we were just talking about netflix story, in that case what we're talking about is a CNN article claiming these things might happen which really has little basis in actual reality or how capitalism works. The _actual_ Netflix is still here, and it is still here despite being deemed not profitable enough by many.
        4y ago

e3bc54b2 4y ago

Why is Netflix 'fundamentally unsustainable'? Hollywood studios are some of the oldest and biggest companies (notwithstanding overvalued tech stocks) on the planet. They've been 'sustainable' for decades. Netflix has (had?) quite good tech with CDN and recommendation engine, their engineers were well paid, they had sufficient users to be profitable, and one of the strongest, well regarded brands. I'd say fashion or bottled sugarwater companies have more 'fundamentally unsustainable' models because their main product is the brand. Netflix has a lot more than that.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
> Why is Netflix 'fundamentally unsustainable'? I was replying to parent who said that. Or at least that's how I read it.