> There's some good observations here, but I would stop short of the claim that "for viewers, this can only be good." It's not good that some great movie librar

> There's some good observations here, but I would stop short of the claim that "for viewers, this can only be good." It's not good that some great movie libraries have already been stripped from Netflix because the contract renewal was going to be too expensive. That's a non-sequitur. That content was going to be stripped regardless of what production Netflix was engaged in. In fact, it doesn't matter if Netflix can magically realize 10x revenue per subscriber overnight, because there is game theory at play here. Big content is happy to make nice marginal payouts from Netflix on the side, but they will do anything to prevent Netflix from consolidating a comprehensive library of A-list content because they already have by far the broadest device reach, and if they get all the content, cable cutting will ramp up overnight and destroy any leverage for rights holders because there will be nowhere else they can go for distribution. > It's not good if Netflix goes all-in on original programming and fails, potentially taking the rest of the company down as well. They have no choice. Big content will never let them win. With their own content at least they have a chance to control their own destiny. > It's not good if Hollywood feels little pressure to make it easier for consumers to access their content because they're getting great contracts with traditional distributors. As long as customers balk at paying $10/month for Netflix while happily shelling out $150/month for cable, Netflix has no leverage. On balance I have to agree with the OA's assertion. Netflix putting some of its money directly to production can only benefit viewers overall. Putting that money to more contracts is not going to move the needle in terms of production from the major studios, to them it's just gravy at this point.