NetFlix: America's Most Underestimated Company

http://www.slate.com/id/2265755

by mattrjacobs • 16 years ago

164 123 16 years ago

slate.com

Goladus5• 16 years ago

I won't become a netflix customer until they stop using pop-under advertising.

jonursenbach• 16 years ago

Adblock?

nzmsv• 16 years ago

Speaking of annoying ads, this is the page that helped me get rid of the Meebo bar on Slate: http://www.chizang.net/alex/blog/2010/08/19/block-meebo-bar/

there• 16 years ago

are you sure it's them directly and not someone advertising for their affiliate account?

Goladus5• 16 years ago

No, but that doesn't really matter to me. If netflix doesn't realize it's happening, maybe someone will notice my comment and do something about it.

staunch4• 16 years ago

They're still culpable. It's their responsibility to police their affiliates. They can't rightly turn a blind eye to the means by which they profit.

jonknee• 16 years ago

What browser are you using that you still see pop-under ads?

Goladus5• 16 years ago

It happens occasionally. I haven't used the same browser on the same computer every day for the past four years, and providing a matrix showing the pop-under-exploit-blocking capability of each one over that timeframe would be difficult.

binaryfinery2• 16 years ago

Doesn't happen on the Wii, PS3, Xbox, iPad, iPhone and I'm guessing not on the new apple tv either.

Goladus5• 16 years ago

Right, it happens when I visit other sites on a the web with a browser that doesn't block pop-unders. I'll see a big red ad with the word "Netflix" on it.

breakall• 16 years ago

Are you thinking of Hulu? When does Netflix do pop-unders?

Goladus5• 16 years ago

For the past several years I've observed netflix pop-unders at various points on www.reelviews.net, and possibly other sites. (see my comment about using a variety of different computers and browsers over that timeframe)

papa2• 16 years ago

It's too bad there's no way to assign a universal "reputation" score to the various pundits out there so that readers can better assess the value of their published predictions. Michael Pachter, for instance, has been wrong on a number of occasions (he predicted Sony would dominate the current console generation and Nintendo would languish and MSFT would be #2 -- at least he got the last part right).

Like the iPad which many pundits couldn't figure out, the consumers never wrote off Netflix and that's pretty much all that matters.

kiba• 16 years ago

A database that list all pundits' specific prediction and give them a rating based on if they succeeded or not?

papa2• 16 years ago

That could be a component. I can't put my finger on the other ones, and it was just a slapdash thought, but I'd just love a scorecard that maybe considered: predictive success, factual error rate/truthyness (e.g. do they make frequent bogus claims?, known biases and employer(s).

It's not really realistic to comprehensively log all of this, of course. But it sure would help me assessing the relative quality of some sources, especially now that sources for news are so varied and fragmented. I suppose in the past the reputation of a publication served some of this purpose (i.e. WSJ or NYTimes having stellar reputations).

I knew of a couple of databases for equity analyst performance like Starmine and Bulldog Research. So those do exist. Not sure if either are still around since I'm no longer in the finance space.

tomjen3• 16 years ago

The problem is that you have to take account how unlikely a given prediction would be in comming true - a person who predicts one in a million things but only gets it right one out of a thousand is still way better than somebody who predicts the results of coin-flips with 51% accuracy but in your system the latter would be ranked far higher.

amirmc2• 16 years ago

I've seen such a website somewhere but can't find it. It was in relation to an apple prediction but there were plenty of others there too (inc political).

opoloqo• 16 years ago

The Long Now Foundation put up longbets.org to encourage some kind of accountability for predictions.

brandnewlow• 16 years ago

Why couldn't it be a combo Wiki + Browser toolbar app?

When you read a story on any of X sites, a popup appears in your browser informing you that the writer of this story has an entry on JournoWiki (or whatever), and that independent readers like you have deemed him/her "Full of Crap."

The popup would then have a link to share something on Twitter of Facebook indicating whether you thought their latest story was better or worse than what people thought of them. That share would have a unique tag in it so it could be picked up by your app and sucked onto his/her profile page.

epe• 16 years ago

It appears to be down at the moment, but there's a site called Wrong Tomorrow (http://wrongtomorrow.com/) that seems to me like a good start in this direction. Here's the blog post announcing it:

http://www.idlewords.com/2009/04/wrong_tomorrow.htm

sgoraya• 16 years ago

> the consumers never wrote off Netflix and that's pretty much all that matters.

Not that I necessarily wrote off netflix, but I did jump ship to Blockbuster's online service for short while when it was first introduced. The ability to return the movies I got in the mail with any movie at their physical store was a pretty nice feature, in addition I got to rent one game per month as well.

A couple of months later, blockbuster started changing their policies and I switched back to trusty netflix.

When blockbuster first introduced their service I thought that netflix might be in trouble...but my unpublished prediction was unfounded! ;)

dopeyman• 16 years ago

There's a project working on this very issue. Developers, check out http://nextny.jobthread.com/job/lead-developer-new-york-ny-u...

stinkytaco• 16 years ago

I think that pundits' predictions are largely colored by their own bias, much like political pundits.

I have to admit that I'm a consumer and I still don't get the iPad. It's like an underpowered laptop that I have hold instead of letting it rest in my lap. What could the benefit possibly be? But... here I am, eating my proverbial hat.

Netflix, on the other hand, I get. I had it early and people would say, "Why would you want to wait for your movie when you could get it at the video store?" I would explain that 1. I wanted movies I couldn't get at the store and 2. I generally had 2 or 3 going, so I wasn't without something.

It's just a matter of what you value and then projecting those values onto the observed behaviors of a large population. If you see a bunch of people going to the river you might think that they are thirsty, but in reality they want to go swimming. That uncertainty makes predicting hard.

noelchurchill2• 16 years ago

I love Netflix. But Apple is gaining on them. At some point I might switch, or just use both.

I'll certainly never sign up for cable tv.

chadgeidel2• 16 years ago

I think Apple's store has some great ideas, but I'm not going to pay for a "one time rental" type of service when Netflix is an "all you can eat" type of service.

I realize their "Instant" offering is still not as large as their DVD offering, but it's growing all the time. I currently have over 100 items in my "play it now" queue. I routinely switch items from my DVD queue to the "play it now" queue, so it appears that they are continually adding more content.

noelchurchill2• 16 years ago

I've stuck with Netflix thus far because nobody can compare with their vast catalog of movies (DVD or streaming). However when it comes to value, there are months when I might watch many movies and really get the value out of Netflix's "all you can eat" structure, but other months I might not watch any movies and still pay the full subscription price. I think it probably averages out to cost about the same as Apple's pay-per-view system, so to me it really comes down to who has the best catalog of movies.

iamwil• 16 years ago

Netflix also has a company culture that tends to keep people motivated. They've identified that a great place to work isn't a place with perks, it's a place where you get to work on hard problems with great people.

And besides making users happy (which is important), at its heart, it's a technology company, and it shines through when they're able to leap from platform to platform to deliver the movies.

aresant• 16 years ago

The killer app in this space is studio catalog - that's the competitive advantage.

Distribution for NFLX is strong - but given the move for most new hardware devices to include "Apps" integration, distribution is going to be a waning advantage.

It's going to be an interesting battle, for instance what does the paperwork look like in Netflix' studio agreements - can they sell to Apple?

binaryfinery2• 16 years ago

I agree, with a caveat:

Distribution involves an endpoint: me+device. Netflix has me, and millions like me. On any device. I watch on my PC, my Mac, my Wii, my iPad. My 5 yr browses for shows on the Wii and the iPad. So Netflix has the advantage of customers and devices.

I spend $20/month on netflix. I have spent a total of $10 for TV shows on iTunes.

cowboyhero3• 16 years ago

Astute. I think you're dead right about the studio catalogue.

Unfortunately, the studios are still trying to protect what they view as their major customers: Retail chains (WalMart and Blockbuster) and cable companies. They understand those business, they've made money with them, and file sharing and secondary markets are negligible in those environments.

I've never thought about Netflix's agreements with third party distributors. That's a good question. Originally, I assumed some money was changing hands but maybe not. Maybe Netflix looks at it as a form of loss leader and a strategic advantage in the long run.

It seems like every company that comes out with a set top or mobile device now eventually includes Netflix. For consumers, Netflix is becoming a feature that's just not anticipated, it's expected.

mmorris• 16 years ago

I think Netflix is aware that their advantage with regards to distribution isn't going to last forever and that they need to focus on getting more (and newer) movies.

They seem to be making headway in expanding their catalog - e.g., the $1 billion deal with Epix (Paramount, Lionsgate, and MGM) to increase the size of their "Watch Instantly" portfolio. From what I've read, this is a big deal, as they're paying a bit more (relative to the premium cable channels) for the same rights.

More info on the Epix deal: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i...

MikeCapone• 16 years ago

I just wish the would come to Canada.

igrekel• 16 years ago

Actually, Netflix is supposed to be available in Canada soon.

http://www.netflix.ca/

Mind you there are existing similar services.

jat850• 16 years ago

Zip.ca is existing, similar... and awful. Which parallels a lot of tech-oriented services in Canada (cell phones are a great example).

Hopefully the Netflix service in Canada nails it.

riklomas• 16 years ago

For UK people, they're planning to relaunch here by the end of the year:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a200103/netflix-to-r...

JoelMcCracken• 16 years ago

I have been a Netflix subscriber since February 2006. It is the only service that I have subscribed to for that long, and the only one I never, ever ponder unsubscribing to.

mortenjorck• 16 years ago

I've subscribed for as long, and Netflix occupies the same place in my lifestyle. It's a testament to just how great the core service is that they could make some very bad decisions, such as removing the entire social subsystem of friends, lists, and notes, yet not once did the thought of canceling cross my mind.

RK• 16 years ago

Netflix is probably the only pay service that almost everyone I know in the US has.

Vivtek5• 16 years ago

Argh, a truly good article marred by one thing: the assertion that BitTorrent is a competitor for NetFlix. This notion just won't die - I use BitTorrent, sure - to get stuff I can't pay for, because nobody is interested in selling it to me. But I'd much, much, much rather toss NetFlix their $9 every month to deliver what I want without the hassle of BitTorrent, and that's the canard that the entertainment industry just can't get past. Just because it's free doesn't mean it's cheap. $9 a month is cheaper.

Herring• 16 years ago

>hassle of BitTorrent

What do you mean? I hadn't noticed.

loire280• 16 years ago

In my experience these are the shortcomings of using bittorrent:

1. It can take several minutes to find a decent release for titles that are older (>5 years) or less popular. 2. Older/Less popular items are poorly seeded, meaning I potentially have to wait overnight for the download to finish. (A new episode of a current series, however, usually comes in as fast as my broadband connection can handle). 3. Unless you know all of the release groups by heart, you have to spend a minute or two sifting through search results to find a release in a usable format in good-enough quality. Often I have to settle for something that plays fine in mplayer/vlc instead of something I can stream to my PS3 connected to my TV. 4. Maybe about 1/20 times I finish a download only to realize that it's A) not in the right language or burned-in with foreign subtitles B) terrible quality C) incomplete.

Sure, I get to keep the files, and often I can find stuff that streams on all my devices without hassle, but I watch stuff infrequently enough that the effort and possibility of failure is bothersome. I'd gladly pay to be able to choose a show and watch it immediately, assuming that the library of available content was large enough.

MichaelSalib• 16 years ago

Using BitTorrent to pirate media incurs some legal risk; there is always a chance that a media company will decide to sue you. Now, the odds of that happening are low, but once they decide to sue you, you will almost certainly lose thousands of dollars, even if you end up winning.

In a sense, you can think of the money spent legally purchasing all (or most) of your media as an insurance policy -- you're paying for the right to enjoy media without having to worry about losing tens of thousands of dollars. Low probability high cost scenarios might not trouble younger unattached folk, but I found they weighed more on my mind as I grew older and started a family. YMMV.

jcl• 16 years ago

I think the article is referring to the Bittorrent company's attempt several years ago to get into bed with the Hollywood studios. The result would have presumably provided a service similar to Netflix's online offering -- i.e. not the same service you are currently getting from the Bittorrent software for free.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.j...

Vivtek5• 16 years ago

Ah - I hadn't known that. Then they shouldn't have called it a "new technology" imho, if that's what they meant.

reitzensteinm3• 16 years ago

You might have morals and/or value your time, but actually I think the article is dead on that they're competitors. A large segment of the population chooses to pirate instead of pay. If BitTorrent ceased to exist (as a technology - not the company), NetFlix would almost certainly gain some customers.

duck3• 16 years ago

A large segment of the population chooses to pirate instead of pay

Is there any numbers backing this up?

dkarl2• 16 years ago

Whoever prefers the hassle and crappy experience of using Bittorrent instead of spending a few bucks a month for Netflix, their money isn't worth chasing. It would be like Econolodge trying to market to the homeless population.

lallysingh• 16 years ago

I donno -- I know some people who bittorrent as default behavior. They tend to also pay for both netflix and a fast network link.

Remember, many people technically sophisticated enough to do bittorrent are also smart enough to be lazy with their effort.

Didn't the strength of iTunes paid songs show that people's time is worth money?

cowboyhero3• 16 years ago

It's a valid assertion.

Not to start a whole thing about piracy -- but what always surprises me in conversations about Bittorrent is that most people speak as if it has no effect on anything, anywhere, ever. Somehow, it also seems to exist outside any real purchasing decisions.

I'm not attacking you personally, but honestly that kind of thinking (as I've stated it, not you) is delusional.

The existence of unlimited free copies of your product is going to effect your business and your ability to profit. No question.

DannoHung• 16 years ago

I watch way more stuff with Netflix than with BitTorrent because getting the stuff I want to watch on BitTorrent would be a huge hassle.

brianpan2• 16 years ago

BitTorrent is a competitor to NetFlix in the same way that it, and P2P, was a competitor to the iTunes Music Store. Even if it's not free or not without hassle, it's still a way that some people get movies/TV shows etc. Which makes it competition.

Vivtek5• 16 years ago

Yes, yes, and the convenience store in the gas station two blocks down is also "competition" for the Meijer superstore with actual produce and food, that I have to drive to.

It's not really competition. I never go to that convenience store because they don't have what I want to eat. So in your sense, while they exist in the same market and are therefore "competitors", that viewpoint really distorts the reality of the situation.

blizkreeg• 16 years ago

This is a tangential pricing-related question:

Why does Netflix, which is solving some hard and interesting problems both on the technical (delivery/algorithms) as well as business side (licenses etc) only charge $9-$15 a month whereas online services like dating sites and project collaboration SaaS tools that are arguably much easier to build get away with charging anywhere from $30 to $60 a month?

If pricing is about supply and demand, shouldn't Netflix be able to charge a lot more (at least double of what they do now) since there aren't any comparable services with the level of user satisfaction as Netflix. I would gladly pay $30 a month for Netflix just because of how great the service is - I mean unlimited instant watching, access to some amazing foreign films, DVDs. Dating sites and some other SaaS services - dime a dozen. When a Match.com asks me to pay $30 a month, I cringe.

I'm perplexed by this.

minouye• 16 years ago

I don't think I would pay $30 a month for Netflix. From my perspective the demand for their services is fairly elastic, especially considering the substitutes. However, I do expect that prices will be recalibrated once video streaming makes up more substantial portion of their business. I'd imagine the economics of streaming vs. sending a DVD are quite different.

danilocampos3• 16 years ago

Perhaps it's a volume thing?

I suspect that "I want to be entertained" is a bit more universal than "I want to find a mate" or "I want to manage my project."

So maybe they're finding some kind of sweet spot there?

The thing is, I use Watch Instantly sporadically. Sometimes hardcore, every night, for a week when I just need a break from everything, and other times not more than once or twice a month. $9 is such a fair amount of money to ask, I just let them bill away regardless, because I want to have it immediately if and when I want it.

So it could also be that <$10 is just the right amount of auto-pilot billing to maximize their revenue for spotty users.

cowboyhero3• 16 years ago

Remember that Netflix came around in a consumer culture that was renting videos and DVDs from corner shops for maybe $2-4 a pop.

Throughout their history, all of Netflix's pricing structures have been designed to stay within that range.

It costs Netflix pennies to stream movies. ("Akamai charges a customer like Netflix about 5 cents for an HD movie, compared with about 3 cents for standard definition." See: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_34/b41920385...)

I expect their prices to rise, though. If they want to stream first run movies (a la cable), they're going to have to pony up serious dough for the licenses. That means higher costs to the end consumer.

rjurney• 16 years ago

Why would they want to do that? They're kicking ass on the long tail.

dabent• 16 years ago

I will take a shot at this. Netflix does have competition, from RedBox and pay-per-view on cable. People probably spend about $9-$15 on those competing services.

When it comes to those SaaS and dating services: Never underestimate the value assigned to hooking up or getting paid. People will pay if it thinks it will help them make more money or meet someone.

The question I have is how is Match.com still charging $30/month when Plenty of Fish is still pretty much free?

duck3• 16 years ago

how is Match.com still charging $30/month when Plenty of Fish is still pretty much free?

100% branding and brand ranks probably at the top when it comes to things that people perceive as "serious" - like finding a mate.

sangaya• 16 years ago

I think it's a sweet spot. For $9 a month my wife and I don't need to discuss it. For $30 a month recurring, one we'll discuss it, and two, we'd better see a lot of value.

The price is at a point where even if we're busy and don't watch more than 1 or 2 movies that month, we won't mind, because of the convenience of having them instantly available via streaming, and knowing that the price is low.

It's low effort, high convenience.

chadgeidel2• 16 years ago

Here's my take. A recent blog post at OkCupid (http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/07/07/the-biggest-lie...) indicated that most people use dating sites for 6 months. I would estimate Netflix users are multi-year users. Just using those numbers you need to charge more per user.

Obviously this isn't a really deep analysis, but it's perhaps one reason.

frossie• 16 years ago

It's a pretty big reason. I've been a Netflix customer continuously since 1999. There isn't a single subscription service I have signed up online or offline (magazines etc) that comes close to that kind of longevity.

And I pay them a hell of a lot more than 9.99, too, being that I have a fondness for HD/BluRay and a modest broadband connection.

smartrly2• 16 years ago

Let's look at a couple factors:

1) Customer Acquisition Costs. I'd be surprised if NetFlix pays more than $20-30 per customer. Dating websites have a lot more competition and are probably closer to $50/customer.

2) Lifetime Value. Customers of dating websites are transient, there only for a matter of months. As such, their lifetime value is not particularly high (I'd guess something in the $150 neighborhood). Netflix customers have long lifetimes (I've been a customer since 2000, with no intention of quitting) which adds up to a LOT of value.

3) Customer Price Elasticity. Dating websites are catering to people who will spend many hundreds of dollars on dates in their pursuit of happiness. $30/mo is a drop in the bucket if it helps increase your odds of finding that somebody. Netflix charges between $10 and $30/mo, depending on your plan, which is comparable to the cost of a few premium channels on cable, which is a cost their customers are accustomed to paying.

4) Price as value. If Netflix is more expensive, it does nothing to help you, it just costs more. If Match.com is more expensive, then the people on the site are likely to treat it a bit more seriously, which can make it a better product for some.

trunnell4• 16 years ago

Prices are always based on demand, not costs. So the difficulty of creating something is irrelevant to its price in the market.

If there is a perfect substitute for a good, competition might drive the price down. In a perfect market, the price of a perfect commodity will equal its cost (in theory), but in practice there are no perfect commodities-- not even toilet paper.

lionhearted• 16 years ago

> When a Match.com asks me to pay $30 a month, I cringe. I'm perplexed by this.

As other commentors said, it's partially volume.

Second, it's partially strategy - Netflix could charge more, but have a smaller customer base. Even if the net profit for the short term was higher at a higher price point, they might think it's worth it to get market share, word of mouth, and future expansion.

Third - for some services, customers see higher price as a desirable attribute. That could be the case in dating - people in certain demographics might prefer to know whoever else is using the site is serious enough to pay a decent chunk of coin, not just throwing a profile up for kicks.

Lots of factors. Shortest answer is - strategy. Netflix might be able to make higher short term revenues and net profit, but they might prefer the lower-price driven expansion to get economies of scale, volume, market share, word of mouth, and loyalty. Match.com might be able to make higher short term revenues and profits by lowering price and attracting more users, but instead they prefer trying to brand and position themselves as a premium, curated, high-quality site for serious people. Strategy is complex, lots of layers you can look at it, especially when playing at that really high dollar level.

eavc• 16 years ago

Netflix can get a customer in perpetuity at $9-$15.

Much higher than that, it becomes a budget item that's scrutinized once a month, twice a year, or when times get tough.

I canceled cable with enthusiasm because it saved me $50 a month. I look at the value I get for $10 from Netflix, and it's clear that canceling it would be a mistake.

If it was $20, I'd cancel it. Instead, they have me forever and ever.

qjz• 16 years ago

NetFlix simplified my life. The value of that is what I think is underestimated.

newmediaclay• 16 years ago

Apple Stock vs. Netflix Stock over past 5 Years: http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&...

danilocampos3• 16 years ago

I love Netflix. They're a role model for other companies, and for me as a person.

Netflix has succeeded on the strength of two things: integrity and ambition.

They genuinely care about their customers. They work extra hard to make sure people who give them money are happy to do it. In their call centers, CSRs are friendly and empowered. They're instructed to err on the side of doing things that are most likely to make a customer happy, instead of pissing people off with stupid "it's policy!" behavior. In their distribution centers, they have a hardcore quality control culture that goes to great lengths to ensure that mailed out DVD's correctly match a customer's order.

Contrast this with their dying competition, who never once gave a damn about customer satisfaction. Who, indeed, codified policies whose direct result was to enrage customers.

As for ambition, Netflix has continually worked hard to make the service the very best it could be, opening more and more distribution centers to minimize the wait between returning and receiving your DVDs. Despite having every reason to rest on their laurels, they decided they'd also be the Netflix to their Blockbuster, going deep on the Watch Instantly strategy that's redefining their business. Instead of waiting for someone else to come along and make them obsolete, Netflix grabbed the bull by the horns.

This is one of the rare moments of modern capitalism producing something truly excellent, on its merits, based on the needs of the market. If only we could see similar disruption in larger and even more corrupt industries.

Honestly: I love these guys.

pmichaud3• 16 years ago

I wasn't so lucky with them. I was a good customer, but they started silently throttling my account, and they wouldn't admit to it either. It's since come out that that's exactly what they were doing.

If it's too expensive to send me that many disks, fine, but don't lie to me about it.

danilocampos3• 16 years ago

I didn't know about this. So much for my remark on integrity. Do you know if they still do this throttling?

I personally never ran into this -- I've never been more than a light-to-medium user, except in spikes. Like when I when I discovered 24 six years ago.

edit: Here's something straight from the horse's mouth:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/...

"I stopped my subscription to your service because of your well-documented "throttling" of frequent renters. How can you say you are focused on customer service when you alienate your customers in this way? Bill Greenstein, Seattle

When we are short on new releases, which we try not to be, we believe it's fairest to allocate those new movies to subscribers who have not rented much recently. This upsets heavy users because they are not in the front of the line for new releases. We are straightforward about how it works, but not everyone likes that policy."

Eh, okay, assuming it begins and ends there, I can see the argument for doing things this way.

kakuri2• 16 years ago

I live in a big city where they have a local warehouse and they consistently ship movies to me really fast. I'm on the cheapest plan ($8/mo) and when I send a movie back, they get it the next day, and in the same day send out a new one. At that level of service it was already easily worth $8, but now they have an awesomely expanding offering of HD streaming content which makes it tremendously more valuable to me.

kakuri2• 16 years ago

I've only talked to them once (I was annoyed that there was no option for communication except phone), but the guy I talked to was very helpful, friendly, receptive, and did indeed seem empowered.

deadmansshoes• 16 years ago

On a recent visit to the states I got to try out Netflix, and on being told you could watch any film you wanted was very impressed.

Turned out there are only certain categories of film (i.e. the ones that would be on daytime tv..) you can watch on "freeplay" and anything good you have to wait for a DVD in the post.

No wonder its cheap. Was still better than the adverts every 8 mins while watching Rambo on a cable channel though.

ketanb• 16 years ago

Netflix succeeded because of having right values and great culture. The slides explains their values and culture in detail. It is so much easy to visualize why they are successful: http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664

trunnell4• 16 years ago

Netflix has a great engineering culture, not just a great stock.

Shameless plug: we're hiring good hackers. Check out http://netflix.com/Jobs

staunch4• 16 years ago

Your use of Silverlight makes me question that assertion :-)

trunnell4• 16 years ago

Why?

salemh• 16 years ago

More pay for Sr Engineers vs Amazon,many others (tech recruiter whose pulled people from both:) )

kh812000• 16 years ago

Meh. Netflix was great for the first 6 mo. Then everything got stale and nothing is good on streaming nor DVD. C'mon where's the remake of Tron for god sake.... I've canceled.

stcredzero• 16 years ago

Quite simply, they are in the business of renting video content to people using newly available infrastructure. Put that way, theirs is a good business to be in.

NetFlix: America's Most Underestimated Company

Related Stories