Hacker News Reader

Comment by mushufasa | Hacker News Reader

in Reed's "No Rules Rules" book, they discuss how this contest was really a way to recruit top-quality engineering talent, which is a key assumption in how they ran their culture (highly paid small teams with lots of freedom, trusted to know what's best from the ground-up rather than top-down).

They didn't really need an algorithm in the first place, they just brainstormed what would sound the coolest to developers.

View on HN

A little secret is that the content rights holders negotiated draconian streaming contracts that are outright prohibitive to Netflix. Netflix is trying to do everything possible to hide the fact that their streaming library is small and shrinking. In the old hey-day of Netflix mail-in red envelopes with DVDs you were hard pressed to find a movie they did not have. These days your search returns mostly crap.

This is why I'm still surprised they separated out (and eventually killed) their disc-by-mail service. I understand the visceral feeling that discs are an antiquated relic—but you just can't beat that catalog.

Combining discs and streaming in one subscription provides customers with the best of both worlds. Need something to watch right now? No problem, we have an excellent streaming catalog and you're going to love Stranger Things! Want a specific movie or show, maybe Friends or The Lion King? We've got that too, it'll be in your mailbox in a couple days.

And if some customers choose to forgo either the digital or physical side of the package, it doesn't cost Netflix anything.

I'm sure they just ran the numbers and realized that being both a data streaming software company and a physical package logistics company just didn't add up. Every dollar they spent on the latter would have net them more profit if they instead invested it in the former.

Maybe--I of course don't have their numbers--but remember that Netflix kept offering discs up until last year, just under a separate subscription. So they were still investing some money.

I think Netflix got cocky. When Netflix separated the plans, streaming rights were cheap and Netflix's streaming catalog was growing quickly. They didn't foresee the market becoming so competitive.

Continuing to offer discs would have allowed Netflix to hedge their bets and avoid relying on rights-holders. The original content push did that too, but at a much higher cost. If keeping DVDs meant Netflix could produce a few less original shows per year, that seems worth the trade.

The transition from not needing a license (mailing discs) to renting content to owning it was intrinsic in their business plan all along.

They saw that streaming was the future but that mailing discs would let them build a big brand early on, but they took the disc market very seriously and optimized it.

Once you're streaming the cost structure is like this: Fox or Disney or someone like that will charge them $X /month/sub but it costs $Y to create a piece of content, independent of how many subscribers you have. There is a crossover point where you have enough subscribers that it makes sense to own.

I'd say the majority of their customers wouldn't have a way to play the discs if sent.

Right? I have a half-dozen old devices around my house that could play a DVD, but I've never owned anything that can play bluRay, much less 4K disks (I've never even seen one of those IRL). And DVDs are no longer worth bothering with mostly because of the aspect ratio hassle if nothing else.

Many people own an Xbox One S/X, Xbox Series X, or PS5, which can all play 4K Blu-ray. Many more people own a PS3, PS4, or regular Xbox One, which can all play regular Blu-ray.

Xbox One S/X doesn't have a disc drive, Xbox Series X doesn't have a disc drive, PS5 needs the disc drive bought separately and paired over the internet.

Only the original Xbox One had a disc drive integrated.

> Xbox One S/X doesn't have a disc drive, Xbox Series X doesn't have a disc drive, PS5 needs the disc drive bought separately and paired over the internet. Only the original Xbox One had a disc drive integrated.

It’s always fascinating that people say things that are verifiably untrue. Like, really?

OP may have meant Xbox Series S and X? Honestly a partly blame MS, their console naming has always baffled me.

My Xbox One X legitimately has no disc drive.

Weird, everyone I can find online says that the One X has a disc drive.

The Xbox One X certainly does have a disc drive, it's a little out-of-the-way though. Check on the left side of the front of the console, under the overhang.

I checked and you are right, apparently it does. It's weird that I was never able to find it before, because I did look under the overhang, but was unable to get any discs in there. Oops.

Not to dump on LoganDark, but I find it absolutely fascinating that you owned an Xbox and legitimately only today discovered that it has an optical drive!

EDIT: Definitely shows the shift to online game delivery in a way that I have not seen before.

I grew up with a 360, and knew about the drive on the original Xbox One, but I really could not tell that my Xbox One X had a disc drive. I don't know how I missed it.

I meant One S and One X, plus Series X. The One S and One X are refreshes of the One, with the One S getting 4K HDMI and Blu-ray support and the One X getting both of those plus more power and 4K gaming support. There was a version of the One S that didn't have an optical drive, but it was a bit of a flop. The Series X is one of the two successors to the One line (along with the Series S), with the Series X having a 4K Blu-ray drive and the Series S not having an optical drive.

Source: I own all of them except for the One X.

> It’s always fascinating that people say things that are verifiably untrue. Like, really?

I have an Xbox One X and there is no disc drive. I remember having an Xbox One before that did have a disc drive.

When I looked it up, the first search results are news outlets saying the Xbox Series X/S are not going to have disc drives...

> PS5 needs the disc drive bought separately

You can get a PS5 with a built in disc player.

Ironically one of the reasons I bought a PS3 was to play Blu Ray movies. But during Covid I ripped all my physical media and got rid of them, I only use the disc model of the PS5 to play my old PS4 games.

The regular One S and the One X both have 4K Blu-Ray drives (the One S All-Digital Edition doesn’t). The Series X does have a 4K Blu-Ray drive (the Series S doesn’t).

I have a One X (the Gold Rush Special Edition) and there is no disc drive. At least I haven't been able to find one.

> At least I haven't been able to find one

Isn't there a slightly wider hole the left (other side than the Xbox log) between the top part and the black bottom part? You should be able to fit a disk there even if it's pretty hard to notice...

e.g.: https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61+XhWct5lL._AC_SL1500_....

Apparently so?? I've never been able to fit a disc there. Oops.

There are 2 versions of the PS5: base and digital. The base version comes with a Blu-ray drive that can play Ultra HD Blu-ray discs.

The "base" one didn't exist when the console first released, there was only digital. The "base" version bundles the disc drive that is normally purchased separately.

That is incorrect. The PS5 disc version was available at launch. The recent refresh has an optional disc accessory.

They launched with one with a built-in disc drive and one without. For their mid-cycle refresh they changed it to a single model with a disc drive add-on but sell a SKU that includes the drive in the box.

This is HN in 2024, and people are complaining about aspect ratios? For about 15 years now I have been feeding physical DVDs & BluRays into < $100 USB DVD/BR players, filtered through makemkv, and then through mpv or whatever which understands AC3 pass through to at first a NAD pre-amp and currently now that my NAD died, Denon receiver, which does the down mix to 3.0. Looks and sounds glorious, aspect ratios are not a problem at all, and a backup drops out, huh.

I loved greencine and physical netflix but those killed themselves, seppuku, it seemed like, a long time ago.

DVDs aspect ratio is 16:9, just like the vast majority of TVs and PC Monitors.

Were you referring to resolution instead? The picture quality of a DVD (even properly digitized) would be atrocious by modern standards (high bitrate 1080p)

NTSC DVD native max resolution is 720x480 (ignore more depth like overscan) that isn't 16:9. So most 16:9 titles uses non-1:1 PAR to display 16:9 that isn't ideal for quality. Though anyway any DVD quality is now considered poor regardless of aspect ratio.

Why is non-1:1 PAR bad beyond just the raw pixel count?

I think it's obviously bad for Dot-by-Dot displaying especially on LCD, but I remembered that 480p DbD LCD wasn't a thing.

480p LCD's do exist (or did), iirc they were marketed as "Enhanced Definition" as opposed to the later "High Definition" displays. However, they were 4:3.

Remember it's compressed, so a higher pixel resolution at the same bitrate could end up lower quality.

I guess either my DVDs or my player is garbage because even though it's hooked up by HDMI I often find DVDs with 4:3 menus and then double-letterboxed (so, like, framed) video within.

My pet peeve is that I wanted to buy a couple blu-rays a few years ago to watch on my PS4. But I either I had to buy the DVD, or the Blu-Ray+DVD. There was no blu-ray only option, and I was like... what I'm gonna do with the dvd?

I agree, but largely because Netflix stopped renting them.

I disagree, because I stopped watching disks long before I lacked devices to play them.

It's not that hard to get DVD and Blu-Ray players. I went to this place

https://ithacareuse.org/

this afternoon and saw 5 DVD or Blu-Ray players that cost about $20. They even had a funky VCR with a USB port (to digitize movies on your computer) for $12.

That assumes you have some kind of TV set. I'd think a lot of people get their entertainment on a laptop or phone, VR headset or something like that and don't have a TV.

A digitizing VCR sounds awesome.

Or Netflix could BUY Redbox, and treat them as instant-rental or "free rental/return with subscription".

That would be the best of all worlds. Just scan the Redbox with your Netflix app, look at the top 1000 discs in there. And just get it.

(Again this would be better than what pirates can offer. Cheap AND easy AND good.)

RedBox is mostly useful for current blockbusters. The selection is (has to be) very limited so it's not great for random older films.

You can always buy most films. It's just relatively expensive (and not instant) for a one-time watch. Of course many are available for a la carte buying/rental via streaming as well.

Even many relatively older people I know look at you weird if you talk about playing a DVD. Netflix didn't drive this change. It just happened--Netflix isn't that powerful.

I think that I should put the DVD in my old PlayStation 2.

I see more and more DVD collections on TikTok lately. I’m not sure how widespread it is but I think DVDs are coming back. It can be hard to find specific movie or shows streaming anymore even when willing to buy a digital copy and hope if doesn’t get taken away when you cancel prime or whatever.

Yeah, I'm buying DVD's again cause I can't stream a lot of my old faves any more, I'm not alone. If you want something older they're just disappearing, or you have to subscribe to watch one show.

Man, I'd pay someone to take away all these DVDs lying around that we never watch

I'm more surprised they didn't sell it off so it could keep running, as the claims were that it was still profitable.

I was a die hard subscriber to the end. I would have happily paid more money per month to get access to 4k disks as well

The DVD business was ~1% of total revenues by the time they shuttered it. At that point, it was no longer really cost effective for them to retain such a large physical infrastructure for so little ROI.

> A little secret is that the content rights holders negotiated draconian streaming contracts that are outright prohibitive to Netflix. Netflix is trying to do everything possible to hide the fact that their streaming library is small and shrinking.

I think that's fairly well-known at this point, though I agree it should be more widely known.

I think the real secret is that Netflix discovered that their users aren't trying to watch the best movies, they're just trying to kill time. Apparently you can substitute good films for generic junk and people will keep their subscriptions.

Really, the business model for Netflix has some weird perverse incentives. They make money from monthly subscriptions. They lose money when actually streaming content to users. So the ideal user from their standpoint is one who keeps paying but never watches anything.

Thus, the company is incentivized to put out just enough good stuff that you can't miss that you don't cancel, but otherwise produce garbage you don't want.

I pay $16.55 per month for Netflix. I generally watch movies with my spouse. That cost is less than the cost for both of us to go to a movie theater. If Netflix has one item per month of roughly movie length or longer that we want to watch, the price seems worth it just for that.

In recent years, this has still not been a sure bet month to month, but over a year, 12 scores are pretty much guaranteed.

I rent any movie I’d like for like 3-4eu instead of a monthly subscription with a tiny offering.

From where?

Not the OP but I know I can rent both from Google and from my ISP, I imagine there are more services available.

Google will stream a huge number of films for less than 5 USD each. You can see the list of countries here: https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2843119?hl=en#z...

go to JustWatch.com. They'll tell you where to stream or rent/buy any movie/show you want

With the theater you're buying a very different experience than Netflix, though. A more apt comparison would be to movie rentals, which you consume on the same screens and with the same people.

Amazon will rent you most movies for <$4, so 4 movies per month is the number for Netflix to beat, not 1.

This is always going to be a very subjective assessment. I don't doubt that the comparison makes sense for you, but it's not the way my spouse or I see it.

Also, most movies I might go to a theater to see cost substantially more than $4 on amzn.

Paying monthly to Netflix vs. paying per use with Amazon isn't a subjective difference. If you are only watching 2 movies a month of average, then Amazon is objectively a better deal than Netflix as you not only pay less, but have more options. (Amazon movies are generally $4 or $6 to rent.)

Given that we do both, the actual question is whether Netflix manages to offer us one exclusive offering per month that ticks the box. This particular January, it is setting itself quite nicely for the year :)

Movies yes, but often a single episode of a show is say $2. That means if you watch a season in a month, you're up to $16-20 pretty quickly with 8-10 episodes.

This is why I legit jack sparrow shows.

You can rent movies on many services like google, itunes, youtube, etc... But for shows, you only have the option to buy each episode, which makes no sense.

Netflix isn't just competing against movie theaters though, it's competing against 10 other similarly priced streaming services. If they let their quality degrade too much people are going to start choosing other services as their movie theatre alternative (likely already happening).

I rent individual movies for $3-4 apiece, and that turns out to be a big win over Netflix because I typically only watch 1-2 movies per month, and the rental service has a bigger library.

But I think that I'm a very unusual consumer in that respect. If I liked to watch TV series more then I'd be bingeing those, and that's where I think Netflix really attracts consumers, not movies. I don't think there's an economical way to do a la carte viewing of TV series on a regular basis.

Someone I know who was a fairly early-on high level technical person at Netflix (and later AWS) once told me that people came to Netflix initially for the movies and stayed for the TV shows.

And, yes, on an hourly basis they're probably comparable but renting a film now and then feels reasonable to me whereas paying per TV episode feels expensive.

Buying a DVD on Amazon isn't much different in price and paying for an a la carte streaming rental if available is probably cheaper.

With the fragmentation, streaming services start to make more sense if you're someone who likes to have the TV on as background. They make less sense if you watch a few hours of deliberately selected video a week.

Guess this also explains why they cancel good shows after a few seasons but not sure how well the hypothesis extends to reality.

Netflix rarely does good shows that are created exclusively by them. My go to example is the Witcher series. What they are amazing at though is picking up projects from small scale studios and helping them produce it. Nimona, Klaus and Arcane are some of the stuff I remember on top of my head. Wish they stick on to that, helping small scale studios reach a wider audience

I genuinely don't think Netflix discovered or believes that. I think if they could they'd have the highest quality and most extensive library possible. I think other media companies got stupid business school level FOMO and tried to copy Netflix when they didn't realize that Neflix is the Steam of videos/shows and as a user I don't want N streaming apps I want one or two. So the market is selecting for a few high quality streaming implementations because the market doesn't want 20 separate cable bills all tallying more than a single cable bill with content licensing. Netflix will be the streaming service I purchase again once their library comes back online, unless Apple TV+ is competitive at that point.

For us Netflix has been replaced, we don’t keep subscribed to it as everything they have that we want is available elsewhere and with better deals. So personally I would say it could be the Steam of streaming; if Steam was split into many more platforms which all provided a large chunk of desired content while Steam wallowed with the scraps for revenue via price-gouging and account limitations.

Apple isn’t interested in replacing Netflix, they’re purposely keeping it “small batch artisanal”

Isn't apple tv currently in talks to merge with paramount plus?

Nope. You’re thinking of Warner Brothers Discovery and Paramount.

https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-tv-plus-and-paramount-p...

A "bundle" and "merger" are a very different things.

Merge or bundle? Merge is a company thing, bundle is a product thing.

oh, that would be horrible, I canceled "max" after the discovery takeover, I'd hate to cancel paramount+ as well, they have a good catalog that discovery would eviscerate.

"It's not TV, it's _Apple tv+_"

Gyms also have the same incentive. Their ideal customer is one who pays for the membership but doesn't come.

That is me with mubi! I keep paying but I rarely watch any films. I find that I need to be in the right headspace to watch any serious stuff but when I do, I do watch a couple of them and I don't really mind paying. I like to joke that I'm their ideal customer haha.

Unlike netflix where I downgraded my plan to the lowest tier, there's literally nothing on it and they also keep on cancelling good tv shows. I think they should focus on serious stuff and work with more indie directors. But then again I can't blame them because they're just following the trend.

The ideal customer of any company is someone who just gives you money, of course, but if that actually happened those customers would eliminate themselves eventually by running out of money.

(This is part of what economics means by "markets are rational" - the irrational people go broke.)

Netflix and gyms are pretty similar here.

A bit like gyms, then.

Maybe Netflix should add loads of learning content so people feel good about their sub.

My favorite part about this is that a lot of the rights holders are losing their shirts on their alternative streaming services, because it turns out making content is different than running a profitable streaming service. Peacock and Disney+ are losing huge money, Amazon is introducing commercials or an upcharge to their service because they've been spending on their own content with abandon (I can't imagine why WoT costs per episode what I read it costs), and I don't know how appletv+ is doing in 2023 but in 2022 and 2021 they were also losing huge sums of money. Is netflix the only major streaming service that makes money at this point?

Everyone decided "I can cut out the middleman and keep the money in my pocket" and they all lost hugely on that strategy.

Funny to think back on all those HN/Reddit stock threads parroting “anyone can put a video on a CDN Netflix is doomed lmao” as if being responsible for a double digit percentage of the entire internet’s bandwidth was some intern project.

The real hard part was always customer acquisition and retention.

I got free apple tv+ with an ipad I bought and I couldn't find a reason to keep it after the free trial ran out.

I roam different video services, switching every month or two. I don't have time to need all the services at once anyways.

Of all the platforms I don’t think Apple is actually interested in replacing Netflix

apple has been in the content licensing and user distribution business for a long time with books, music, etc. Its a logical extension of their business. But they have more money than god and if their studio spending far outweighs its income they can absorb that with prophets from other divisions.

Also, apple has the problem where they have more money than they know what do with - if they can figure out a profitable movie and tv studio then it would be an honest to god diversification.

The real "Netflix Optimization Problem" is them figuring out how to minimize the cost of licensing or creating content while staying just good enough that you renew your subscription.

Real question: Why doesn't HBO suffer from the same?

Funny enough it has been so long that we have come full circle on this. Studios that were pulling their content from Netflix to launch competing streaming services are now willing to license it again because their services are failing, leaving them bleeding for cash. You can even find the newest Disney and Warner Bros movies and shows on Netflix now.

Is it region locked? In the UK it's basically cobwebs. 99% of new stuff is just unwatchable filler. Template stories with dialogues probably written by ChatGPT.

You're overstating considerably.

I live in Australia and have noted the same phenomenon on Netflix. There is an absolute dearth of new, quality content coming through. I've seen no indication that formerly exclusive content from other platforms is making its way to Netflix in my country.

I don't believe the person you're replying to is overstating at all, and certainly not 'considerably'.

The general consensus in the media industry is that Netflix basically won the streaming wars this year. Every other service is contracting, has a fraction of the viewership, is running at a loss. Netflix is running in the black, has by far the highest viewership (like an order of magnitude over many of them), dominates over seas. The other studios have started to license content again to get every last bit of cash flow they can.

I can't help but feel that being in the black (or the degree to which they are) is a short term effect of the password sharing crackdown and the price increases. Both of those are likely to have a drop-off in impact over the long run, especially as the cost of living crisis develops.

It makes sense to me that the first thing to go is the other streaming services, as Netflix has such a strong mindshare, but their lack of content is more noticeable all the time, and I think there will be a swing back to cheaper services with at least different content, if not better.

For me Netflix has the best foreign content selection hands down, look at the impact of RRR (India), Dark (Germany), or Squid Game (Korea). They’ve become _the _ platform for South Korean content when South Korea is ascendant on the global pop culture stage. Somebody on Netflix has been using the ol noggin

> I can't help but feel that being in the black (or the degree to which they are) is a short term effect of the password sharing crackdown and the price increases.

The numbers disagree. Net income and profit margin was doing great even before password sharing crackdown.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NFLX/netflix/net-i...

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NFLX/netflix/profi...

They're starting to publish viewership statistics as part of the writer's strike agreement- is that what you're basing this on?

I don't follow that closely but I hadn't heard anything either way about how things were going.

I like some of the original content, but I quit when 5/5 times I wanted to watch an old movie, it was not available.

That is annoying as a user. I guess they remove content because of the contracts they have. Wouldn't it be nicer to have all content on all platforms, and then when content is watched the creators receive a money payment? Not sure if that is feasible though, storing content also has a cost. To make it simpler they could switch from subscription fees to a fee based on views.

I'm still surprised Netflix hasn't bought a bunch of media companies with big back catalogs. I feel like it'd help with people complaining about lack of content and give them better negotiating power.

> Netflix is trying to do everything possible to hide the fact that their streaming library is small and shrinking.

And it appears to be working. I was telling this girl the other day about why I canceled Netflix years ago, because they frequently didn't have whatever I searched for. She insisted that "no, Netflix has everything!" So we proceeded to search for various things with her account, including the final straw that made me cancel. Netflix proceeded to not have a single thing we searched for.

There are a couple movies/TV shows that were unobtainable via Netflix DVDs, and which seem unstreamable. Some very old DVDs float around at high prices.

Examples are: Exit to Eden, The Others, and Baccano!

How does this happen? Why do rights holders want movies killed?

Is that a secret? I thought that's the whole reason they moved to making a bunch of originals instead (many of which are great).

All the top talent they've acquired and money spent still can't save them from their complete garbage lineup of content they push out, all while limiting account access and raising prices.

People can call it garbage all they want. Their raised prices resulting in more revenue for them

I kind of agree with you. I feel like there's a narrow set of content there worth watching and when you get through it all it's just like: okay, now what? There's nothing else worth watching. I haven't been able to use my netflix account for months now. I just go to youtube now and subscribe to channels I like. Seems much more interesting than netflix.

Currently following some interesting permaculture projects. I find the type of work these people do so useful and clever really.

Netflix obviously since enjoyed a period of success. You may need to reconcile that with your overly negative portrayal of the situation which honestly seems more about your personal feelings about Netflix rather than more objective measures of success.

You call it garbage content, but every other person is somehow watching them. I’m probably not their target audience, but looking at my friend circles, those shows are definitely being consumed.

Not only being watched, but most desired. Like, people threatened to cancel netflix if they implemented password sharing but inevery country they implemented it, they actually grew on subscriber numbers..

Neflix revenue went from 4.3b in 2013 to 31b in 2022. Astounding success by any measure. That means they are doing something right, including their talent strategy. "garbage" is subjective. Neflix employees are likely paid bonuses on views / subscriptions generated, which from their revenues looks like they know how to hit.

Netflix is not an Apple product, so its garbage to ycomb users

> revenue went from 4.3b in 2013 to 31b in 2022 ... That means they are doing something right

Yes.

> including their talent strategy

No.

It only means they're doing one thing right: income > expenses. Beyond that, revenue tells us nothing about how they're increasing it.

> It only means they're doing one thing right: income > expenses. Beyond that, revenue tells us nothing about how they're increasing it.

That would be profit, not revenue. Still, in terms of profit they went from $25M to $4.5B.

Top engineering talent likely doesn't make content decisions

At least in my country the have the best catalog for my family.

Unlike the old days of broadcast TV when the networks had to produce shows that appealed to the broadest possible audience, Netflix can, and does, produce shows that appeal to a narrow demographic. This results in a sliver of shows that are highly appealing amidst a lot of stuff perceived as "garbage." But what a teenage boy thinks is garbage differs widely from what a retired grandma things is garbage. To each their own.

It's funny, all the top talent, all the blog posts, yet sorry to say as everyone has long learned, streaming platforms are utter commodity and were not an unique advantage at all. All made up. They were always just a nice wrapping paper around their content & licensing.

Wait, so they knew _in advance_ that they weren't going to use the result? Before they even started the competition? Or is this ret-conning once they decided not to use it. I feel like I can't really trust Reed's word on it, since he has a very strong incentive to paint himself as a mastermind.

In these kind of competitions (e.g. Kaggle), the algos never really get used because they are too complex/optimized to implement into production (i.e. 3 layers of 10 ensembled XGB + 1000 highly engineered features + etc, etc).

Mainly they are used for recruiting, new ideas (simpler versions get implemented), and proof of concept (if we did this really really well, what would it look like, should we spend 2 engineering years on it?)

Everything that Netflix says or does externally wrt to tech appears to be for this purpose, including open-sourcing some things. It is all catnip for the HN crowd to come work for them.

Netflix pays in the same ballpark as other FAANG companies but the product is so much clearer (stream people movies and shows, maybe recommend them something to watch) and the complete lack of grey ethics like in AdTech or a Monopoly like Microsoft is the real catnip.

They use a lot of the same concepts as AdTech but only for their own content without shilling for everyone who is willing to pay.

I think that context makes a reasonable difference for some people.

(The following is a tangent.)

To put it another way, using a slightly different kind of situation, I don't want BigCorp's AI watching everything I do to "serve me better", but I'm very interested in the idea of a local AI that watches everything I do and helps me be N times more efficient, while I maintain full control. I don't care if the local AI uses the same data-gathering, data analysis, etc. concepts as BigCorp's AI to accomplish the goals I want it to accomplish.

Caveats include:

- The local AI is Skinner-boxing you or similar. This isn't about the AI having conscious malicious intent; it could be a design defect. Also, a local, offline, open source video game can still be addictive.

- The risk of the system being compromised / manipulated, and all that data on you being exfiltrated.

I think it’s worth noting that actually, they pay the most of the FAANG companies, and they pay all cash, no RSUs. They also have some extremely generous benefits - one that comes to mind is 6mo fully-paid parental leave.

Netflix compensation is fucking bonkers.

Many things have come out describing it as toxic culture on hackernews. New employees last less than a year.

> New employees last less than a year

Isn’t this ideal? Find out if it’s for you quickly? And if it’s not move on to something that you actually will like doing?

Not for new employees. If you knew you were going to be let go 9 months later I'd rather take a different offer.

But you don’t know that lol.

If you knew you were going to stay there 9 years and make a tractor trailer load of money and love the culture you’d take the offer.

If you’re not sure which is more likely and you really like the maximum upside then you should take the offer and get out in 9 months if it’s not for you.

In this case we do know on average you are out in 9 months. Do you gamble you can somehow make an important friend or you will out political influence some of the 10 year vets; maybe you take the gamble. For the average person you would be better offer taking the other offer.

Well we know that in this case because you just made it up and added it to the story lol.

And yes, if I knew that the average new hire at Netflix lasted 9 months, I’d still probably take it. I think I’m much better than average and I’d want to test myself at a place that is challenging to work at. If I’m good enough to get a Netflix offer I can probably get another offer in the future.

The average person should do what the average person wants but the upside of a long career at Netflix seems pretty darn high and might make an average person an above average person.

The HN take is highly sensationalized. It’s a great place to work with fantastic work / life balance, great pay, and friendly coworkers. I was there for nearly a decade and would never describe it as toxic.

If you have been there for 10 years you might be part of the culture problem.

Really? Do you always endorse the external perception/criticism of places you have worked for a while?

I know I don’t, having worked at places where I barely recognized the company from the ridiculous things people said about it on the internet.

Or maybe I’m the problem, wherever I go.

Which is odd given their app is highly trivial.

Hmm. I can't think of any time I've thought the app was really missing something, or didn't work. In fact, I always thought the app was pretty smooth and "just worked".

By comparison, several years ago, I was regularly streaming Netflix content without any trouble. One day I streamed a show on the HBO app on mobile data and it ate up almost all of my month's data usage. I guess it's behind the scenes work, and not so exciting, to e.g. stream a smaller resolution for a mobile phone, but in moments like that you realise there are a substantial amount of things to think about when making such an app.

If you live in the US there is a good chance that was your phone company throttling Netflix and the app automatically switching to 480p to adjust to the reduced bandwidth. They probably do that more broadly now but when they first started it was only Netflix.

I don't live in the US, but how would this work? Isn't the video sent over SSL? In that case how would the phone company know what to send back?

I just assumed that Netflix had different video formats on its' servers, ready to go, and when the app requested the video it also sent the screen size/resolution to get the smallest file size, that would also look good on my phone. If that was 480p then all well and good, it was fine to watch.

It was a while ago now, but IIRC the amount HBO used was pretty horrendous, like a GB for 30 mins or so of video, so I guess they just downloaded a big file and let the player on the phone handle that.

Like a say, a few years ago now so the situation may well be better with HBO now.

Building one of the largest CDNs on the planet is trivial? https://openconnect.netflix.com/Open-Connect-Overview.pdf

Changing the way Hollywood and content licensing works is trivial? https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/arts/how-netflix...

Yeah, it's not rocket science to build a streaming service using AWS or GCloud lego blocks in 2024, but remember that Netflix started streaming in 2007.

I got a bit sad and embarrassed when I realized that in terms of SpaceX, that's what the hyperloop pod competition was all about, oh so long ago.

I was just an outsider, but I guess at least I learned about passive levitation.

So the entire premise by which they were “recruiting” was dishonest? No one sees any problems with lying to people? Dishonesty has apparently become the norm, not the exception. Honestly and trust is a bedrock principle of society. It’s no wonder our society is in the state that it’s in today.

You really cannot trust anything anyone says, especially large companies. They basically always lie and manipulate and are at a constant advantage to those of us who find dishonesty morally wrong.

Eh, I don't think anyone participated because they just really wanted Netflix to have a better recommendation system. Teams put serious effort into it for the million dollar prize, which wasn't a lie. And hackers and tinkerers enjoyed the novelty of the challenge and the cool dataset to work with, also not a lie.

I don't think they ever said they would use it necessarily either? I feel like it was obvious that it wasn't going to capture all of their actual requirements - your algorithm could be slow or expensive or difficult to adapt to new requirements or difficult to adapt to new data etc etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com