3 ms·
I think the advantage was in the convenience, not just in being a middle-man. When Netflix was the primary streaming platform, I could do a single search on Ne
by MereInterest 4y ago
I think the advantage was in the convenience, not just in being a middle-man. When Netflix was the primary streaming platform, I could do a single search on Netflix. That if I wanted to look for Robin Hood (1973), Star Trek, The Matrix, 24, Glee, Doctor Who, John Wick, or Kill la Kill. Now, in order to find something that I want to watch, I would need to search for it on Disney+ (Robin Hood (1973)), Paramount+ (Star Trek), HBO Max (The Matrix/Doctor Who), Amazon Prime (24), Hulu (Glee), Peacock (John Wick), or Crunchyroll (Kill la Kill). Even if subscribing to all of the platforms were the same price, it would still mean that the convenience would be completely gone.
Fun fact: In 2019, the DoJ decided that it would stop enforcing the Paramount decrees, because there's no way studios could lock out independent distributors in today's environment. Clearly, no way whatsoever.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc.#Termination_of_the_Paramount_decrees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic...
- throwawaylinux 4y agoI didn't say being a middle man is worthless, by definition they provide value by making transactions more convenient. Netflix could have continued to focus on this actual advantage it had -- building its partners / clients (studios) to provide streaming services with a convenient single point with the customer and economies of size and scale. If they had charged a small price commensurate with the service being provided to studios, on reasonable terms, and had not attempted to fund a direct competitor to their clients, they quite probably could have continued being a great distribution service. But they didn't, they threw that away trying to fund a studio startup for some strange reason.