Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Or maybe Netflix could say "no this is a service we are providing to our users" and then the big "Hollywood exec" would be like "ok maybe we will not sit on the million dollars we get from our agreement" and that would be it.





Content is king; Netflix, as long as it doesn't have exclusive rights, is just a middleman trying to extract rents. As soon as technically competent competitors popped up (Amazon etc.) Netflix's margin on licensed content is liable to be squeezed.

That's why Netflix borrows so much to spend on creating its own content. It's not viable otherwise.


not exactly sure how to parse your wording for the Hollywood exec, but I assume you're saying Netflix has the leverage and the Hollywood person has to shut up and take the money?

that doesn't seem to be the case in reality. Netflix streaming doesn't really have a lot of big Hollywood movies.


How much content are you going to sacrifice to preserve a feature? Which draws in more customers, having good content to watch or the ability to do it in a party format?

Ideally you have both, but if forced to choose, you choose whatever makes sense for your business.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: