From The Verge, "Nest says it may offer 'compensation' to Revolv users for disabling smart home hub:"
http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/5/11374358/nest-revolv-smart-...
http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/5/11374358/nest-revolv-smart-...
The Nest/Revolv situation is reminiscent of when Netflix raised prices in 2011 [1]. It was a great product, and despite being the industry leader, customers disappeared overnight. Then Netflix made the correction and recovered strong as ever. In that moment Netflix was touch and go and needed money. Fortunately for consumers, they survived.
[1] http://www.cnet.com/news/netflixs-lost-year-the-inside-story...
Netflix's stock price went down, but they already had a huge streaming business and were not distressingly low on cash.
In fact, raising prices generated record revenue.
So your comments don't make any sense to me.
However, if you had said, "Hollywood could rape Netflix any time they wanted on licensing fees," then that is actually true and the reason Netflix is a sketchy investment, and why they are creating their own content.
What I meant was, before the price hike, Netflix's future looked bright. After the price hike, the future looked a lot less bright. The drop in stock price shows that investors agreed.
> Netflix's stock price went down, but they already had a huge streaming business and were not distressingly low on cash.
I agree not distressingly low, thanks for the correction. In 2011 they had $376 million [1]. That's still low given your point that they needed to generate their own content. This year they plan to spend $6 billion on creating their own content [2]. That's an expenditure that didn't exist previously.
In 2011, Netflix's streaming business was huge and competitors were popping their heads up. Hastings' job seemed to be on the line and there was some light talk about whether they could be acquired or taken over [3]. That was unthinkable six months earlier.
> In fact, raising prices generated record revenue.
Raising prices may have generated revenue in the short term. They also lost a lot of customers by doing so. Long term, they felt they were better off building a stronger user base first. The low stock price probably did hurt their balance sheet.
Bringing this back to Nest, I see this as a pivotal point for them. I could be wrong, that's just my opinion.
> throwaway_xx9
Do you really need a throwaway to discuss Nest and Netflix? ;-). You make some great points. Even if you were the one who decided to do the Netflix price hike or Nest/Revolv retirement I wouldn't fault you. You never know how users will react. I don't agree with all of your points but I'm not an analyst, just a programmer. The trick is not to stress over the past. It's to understand the past, assess what's happening today and react, and consider the future.
[1] http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/19/technology/netflix_cash/
[2] http://www.ew.com/article/2016/01/17/netflix-too-much-tv
[3] http://fortune.com/2011/12/14/if-netflix-is-for-sale-who-sho...