3 ms·

> My personal experience is that e.g. if your cdn can serve ads, but not video, then you lose subscribers. Of course. But none of the major providers is suffer

> My personal experience is that e.g. if your cdn can serve ads, but not video, then you lose subscribers. Of course. But none of the major providers is suffering from that problem on a regular basis. > if you lose money on every video a subscriber plays because of DTO costs, then you can't stay in business These are public companies, and they have to report material risks (as CDN costs would be, if your claim is accurate) on their SEC filings by law. They're not reporting these as a material risk. They could be lying, I guess, but that seems rather unlikely as they'd be at risk of shareholder lawsuits and government prosecution. Speaking of which, the Disney suit you referenced doesn't mention CDN costs at all. It mentions the "staggering" cost of content creation, which makes sense to me; content production easily dwarfs CDN costs. (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.884443/gov.uscourts.cacd.884443.1.0_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.88...) (Also, as a side note, no large customer like these is paying retail DTO costs. Large or strategic customers get significant discounts on public pricing.)

simtel20 2mo ago
All your points are valid, but they all assume a fait accompli of all cdns have already built out to Netflix scale with similar contracts for bandwidth at the edge. If they have done so, then that is not a moat or even a difference at all. However these things take time, and amortize over years, and I don't think the big.playets are all there yet, and so it's a moving target. Also you are saying that the lawsuit speaks to context cost, which is the headline, but that is unlikely to be the full story at the end of the day since it is a fishing expedition at the moment.
- otterley 2mo ago
  > that is unlikely to be the full story at the end of the day since it is a fishing expedition at the moment. This suit, assuming it's like most shareholder derivative "failure to disclose material information which led to a stock price drop" suits, was filed to wet lawyers' beaks and get the company to settle by compensating shareholders. It's not really intended to get at the whole story, and neither party has any interest in disclosing CDN costs to the public.

simtel20 2mo ago

All your points are valid, but they all assume a fait accompli of all cdns have already built out to Netflix scale with similar contracts for bandwidth at the edge. If they have done so, then that is not a moat or even a difference at all. However these things take time, and amortize over years, and I don't think the big.playets are all there yet, and so it's a moving target. Also you are saying that the lawsuit speaks to context cost, which is the headline, but that is unlikely to be the full story at the end of the day since it is a fishing expedition at the moment.

otterley 2mo ago
> that is unlikely to be the full story at the end of the day since it is a fishing expedition at the moment. This suit, assuming it's like most shareholder derivative "failure to disclose material information which led to a stock price drop" suits, was filed to wet lawyers' beaks and get the company to settle by compensating shareholders. It's not really intended to get at the whole story, and neither party has any interest in disclosing CDN costs to the public.