2 ms·

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 e

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.