The author goes on to list examples in credit cards, computer OS's, ATM's etc, but all those things are cherry-picked. They conveniently ignore Apple's iPhone/iPad/App Store combination being wildly successful. And the mis-use of terms like 'open' and 'proprietary' lead me to conclude the author doesn't actually understand what those terms mean.
The comparison of Windows to Mac OS X is just laughable; calling Windows an 'open' and 'shared' operating system? Mac OS is 'closed' and 'proprietary'? Well actually they're both proprietary and neither are open. Also being ignored by the author is video game consoles. For more than 2 decades, Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft have co-existed with their own proprietary hardware/software systems. According to the author, I suppose Google search must be 'open' and 'shared' just because it has 90% market share.
> There are hundreds of possible participants out there with valuable film, TV, or other intellectual properties, and they aren’t large enough to take on Netflix on their own. But if they combine their efforts, they will be formidable... > ...Can you imagine the power of a single monthly subscription that gave you immediate access to films, TV shows, music, video games, streamed live events, etc.?
The author hypothesizes about a product that DOES NOT EXIST and comes to the conclusion Netflix is doomed? Also what is the likelihood that all the players in the media industry are just going to decide to come together and hold hands? Even if they all decided to conduct a super-merger, that would never get legal/anti-competitive clearance. How does that not seem a bit outlandish? And yet the author writes about it as if it's some inevitability.