←back to thread

492 points storf45 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
_fat_santa ◴[] No.42157053[source]
When you step back and look at the situation, it's not hard to see why Netflix dropped the ball here. Here's now I see it (not affiliated with Netflix, pure speculation):

- Months ago, the "higher ups" at Netflix struck a deal to stream the fight on Netflix. The exec that signed the deal was probably over the moon because it would get Netflix into a brand new space and bring in large audience numbers. Along the way the individuals were probably told that Netflix doesn't do livestreaming but they ignored it and assumed their talented Engineers could pull it off.

- Once the deal was signed then it became the Engineer's problem. They now had to figure out how to shift their infrastructure to a whole new set of assumptions around live events that you don't really have to think about when streaming static content.

- Engineering probably did their absolute best to pull this off but they had two main disadvantages, first off they don't have any of the institutional knowledge about live streaming and they don't really know how to predict demand for something like this. In the end they probably beefed up livestreaming as much as they could but still didn't go far enough because again, no one there really knows how something like this will pan out.

- Evening started off fine but crap hit the fan later in the show as more people tuned in for the main card. Engineering probably did their best to mitigate this but again, since they don't have the institutional knowledge of live events, they were shooting in the dark hoping their fixes would stick.

Yes Netflix as a whole screwed this one up but I'm tempted to give them more grace than usual here. First off the deal that they struck was probably one they couldn't ignore and as for Engineering, I think those guys did the freaking best they could given their situation and lack of institutional knowledge. This is just a classic case of biting off more than one can chew, even if you're an SV heavyweight.

replies(8): >>42157067 #>>42157069 #>>42157146 #>>42157772 #>>42158104 #>>42158143 #>>42158185 #>>42158359 #
Loughla ◴[] No.42157067[source]
>First off the deal that they struck was probably one they couldn't ignore

If you can't provide the service you shouldn't sell it?

replies(5): >>42157082 #>>42157102 #>>42157109 #>>42157161 #>>42157484 #
immibis ◴[] No.42157082[source]
You've never worked in a startup have you? Or any business for that matter. You have to promise something first, then build it.
replies(2): >>42157186 #>>42158023 #
colesantiago ◴[] No.42157186[source]
No joke, is this actually true?

Do startups really do this? I thought the capability is built or nearly built or at least in testing already with reasonable or amazing results, THEN they go to market?

Do startups go to other startups, fortune 500 companies and public companies to make false promises with or without due diligence and sign deals with the knowledge that the team and engineers know the product doesn't have the feature in place at all?

In other words:

Company A: "We can provide web scale live streaming service around the world to 10 billion humans across the planet, even the bots will be watching."

Company B: "OK, sounds good, Yes, here is a $2B contract."

Company A: "Now team I know we don't have the capability, but how do we build, test and ship this in under 6 months???"

replies(6): >>42157237 #>>42157476 #>>42157708 #>>42157873 #>>42158000 #>>42179687 #
1. tky ◴[] No.42157476{3}[source]
“Aspirational sugar” is as common in startup culture as in Fortune 500 sales contracts, they’re just messaged and “de-risked” differently.