3 ms·
This has been explained a bunch of times in other places if one cares to look: A) Netflix was running out of $ B) the $50m was a lot more than it would cost to
by jcz_nz 4y ago
This has been explained a bunch of times in other places if one cares to look:
A) Netflix was running out of $
B) the $50m was a lot more than it would cost to replicate the Netflix model at the time
C) The terms they asked for would have been ridiculous to accept (full control over channels etc)
This isn’t “the dumb sleeping giant” story.
- DANmode 4y agoThe result of the wrong call is the result, despite business justification at the time.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- sheepscreek 4y ago> full control over channels etc But they’d still be owned by Blockbuster. Why would this be a sticking point? If Blockbuster was even remotely serious, they would have at least considered owning a company that will continue to be run by its founders. Also - when the two sides get serious with lawyers, the actual redlined agreement ends up looking quite different from the start state. Given this, at the very least, Blockbuster was lacking imagination, or was overconfident in their position, or wasn’t willing to take a risk (even as a divestment/insurance policy), or all of the above. The sleeping giant theory isn’t a far cry.