Memory leaks detection paper co-authored by Netflix CEO Reed Hastings in 1992 [pdf]
web.stanford.edu
web.stanford.edu
He co-founded Netflix in 1997.
I can imagine what you mean but a visual aid would be super useful.
I appreciated the description anyway!
It definitely was a tech company by that time’s standards.
Nowadays every company has an online store, but that was not the case when Amazon was selling books online that you usually had to go to a store for.
Much sooner than that.
Amazon started in 1995. Not a lot of ecommerce websites existed then. One the earlier ones is Powell's Books which started selling in 1993 via telnet, in 1994 via web.
How do you think Amazon infra gave birth to AWS? Does that sound to you like something a retail company would do?
edit: A very cursory check of the Wikipedia page and https://www.vox.com/2017/9/13/16288364/streampunks-book-exce... suggest that it probably isn't true that Netflix was "originally intended as a streaming company" considering at it's founding online streaming was still far from feasible, but I'm open to evidence to the contrary.
While streaming technology was early and teetering on the edge of viability, the real challenge was maneuvering the studios to license content that they didn't want to license because they wanted to retain absolute control. They were very averse to streaming for multiple reasons. The gambit of using DVDs in a series of Hobson's choices for the studios almost worked but ultimately failed at the late stages for an important reason that was difficult to bridge.
> We currently provide titles to our subscribers on DVD only. However, we continue to monitor additional delivery technologies and, when appropriate, believe that we are well-positioned to offer digital distribution and additional delivery options to our subscribers.
And further down, a bullet point in their growth strategy section:
> Implementing Digital Delivery. We continuously monitor the development of additional digital distribution technologies. Historically, new technologies, including the VCR and more recently the DVD player, have led to the creation of additional distribution channels for filmed entertainment. We intend to utilize our strong relationships with the studios to obtain rights to acquire and deliver filmed entertainment through emerging digital distribution platforms as they become economically, commercially and technologically viable for those subscribers who prefer digital distribution.
And later, regarding competition:
> We believe that our strategy of developing a large and growing subscriber base and our ability to personalize our library to each subscriber by leveraging our extensive database of user preferences positions us favorably to provide digital distribution of filmed entertainment as that market develops.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1065280/000101287002...
Streaming on the internet was already exploding by 1997; relatively speaking, of course. I distinctly remember first watching South Park--myself and several other students, working in the computer lab technical assistance office for work-study, huddled around a Mac. This likely would have been circa 1998-1999, if not late 1997 when it debuted. (In fact, I don't think I ever watched South Park on cable television until many years later, while staying at hotels.) Around that time I also remember a major, well-funded streaming website that was supposed to revolutionize Indie film distribution. Anybody working in computing or the film industry knew where distribution was heading--the only question was when all the pieces would come together to make it viable, broadband adoption being the most important. (Not sure if a majority of American households were yet "online", but if not that was already a rapidly approaching inevitability.) There were many ventures which dove in too early.
While I wasn't paying attention to (or even knew much about) Netflix before it's IPO, certainly by then it was well recognized--and recognized as brilliant--that Netflix's strategy was to build relationships with studios and rights holders on the one hand, and customers on the other, precisely to position themselves to dominate digital distribution when the time came. Online DVD rentals was the ramp, permitting them to build momentum so they'd have a head start ahead of anybody else in the digital distribution space. And it worked spectacularly; it took nearly a decade, if not more, for anybody to even come close to Netflix's lead. (Wikipedia says Netflix began streaming in 2007, same year as Hulu, but Netflix was still dominating until only a few years ago.)
Nowadays I wouldn't consider anyone in the DVD-renting business to be a tech company. I would still consider Netflix a tech business under their current business model.
Note that Netflix is relatively small and not really in control of their fate; they were presumably included in the "FAANG" acronym to make it fun. Now that two of those companies have changed their name it doesn't even fit (A, A, A, M and...N? Not the other M?)
Well now we can say "MAAAAN it went downhill"
Netflix still rents DVDs.[1]
I actually much prefer their DVD service, because their selection of movies on DVD is infinitely superior to their streaming service, whose selection is absolutely atrocious.
Netflix's streaming service might have world-class delivery, but what they deliver is crap.
[1] - https://dvd.netflix.com/
At that time you would have to physically shop at Blockbuster to pick out a movie to watch.
With Netflix you picked what you wanted to watch online, maintained a queue and they would automatically send you DVDs through the mail.
It was absolutely a tech company since its inception.
I saw Reed Hastings being interviewed on YouTube last night - fascinating how he has so many personal friendships with CEOs of competing companies.
Was this the company that made Midtown Madness 2?
(I think Purify might've been the first phoning-home tool I saw, finding a way to email Pure if you exceeded your simultaneous licenses, but I might've misunderstood at the time. Around that time, it was normal for big-ticket Unix workstation software to have network license managers, which were tied with stale NFS mounts at our site as the most common cause of a fleet of expensive engineers on expensive workstations with expensive software all suddenly unable to work. :) )
A related awesome C development tool we used for discovering memory errors before then was the Saber-C debugger. https://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/interactive_c/...
I could be mistaken, since I no longer have the files from close to 30 years ago.
But I did think I saw a case in which it would try to email corporate about using too many seats.
It was memorable because that's the first time I saw that, and it seemed clever but invasive.
I could be mistaken. Or maybe the licensing code changed (due the Web explosion, or to evolution of a great product, or some other reason).
Things like the CS experience that Reed Hastings has, seems like the key driver here.
[0] https://www.teamblind.com/post/Why-Netflix-only-hires-senior...
The takeout is: valgrind is free and doesn't require recompilation, purify has a more complete UI, they both have similar performance impact and bug-finding abilities.
Anyway, I would think the gold standard these days is clang's Address Sanitizer (https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizer). clang/ASAN also runs on Mac in addition to Linux.
Purify did have a debugger-like GUI that would break on errors, which could be handy.
valgrind can also do most of the same checks, but is much slower.
On my team we use both