4 ms·
I'd suspect that one side factor was that the tech moat wasn't anywhere near as deep as you'd expect. People used to be very impressed by Netflix's infrastruct
by hakfoo 4y ago
I'd suspect that one side factor was that the tech moat wasn't anywhere near as deep as you'd expect.
People used to be very impressed by Netflix's infrastructure-- CDN boxes in major ISP sites, all the reliability engineering gimmicks. There was probably a case to be made that "IP first" companies wouldn't want to bet that big on trying to be tech firms.
There was also a secondary risk factor, especially at your B-tier IP firms. Disney owns everything and can presumably fill a viable streaming catalog, but if your catalog is a bunch of old sitcoms and movies-of-the-week that your acquired before people were savvy about rights negbotiation, that doesn't command $10 per month. On the other hand, it would do well with an established service, plumping its long tail offerings. I suppose that was the original premise of Hulu, collecting some of the catalogs that weren't big enough to self-sustain.
- macstainless 4y agoThe tech moat can only be so deep. IMO Netflix has two main issues: 1. Content is expensive to make and they are not the only game in town making quality stuff anymore. 2. Tons of their old back catalog was licenced stuff that the rights-holders have decided to take back & use for their own back catalogs. Netflix was great when it was the only game in town. But competition is fierce between Disney needing to pay $0 to licence SW, Marvel, Disney stuff and Apple with insanely-deep pockets. Both can take on losses for YEARS before turning a profit on streaming. Let's not forget that Apple didn't even charge for ATV+ in its first 18-months in existence.