Most active commenters
  • JumpCrisscross(5)
  • namaria(5)
  • moralestapia(4)

←back to thread

492 points storf45 | 22 comments | | HN request time: 1.983s | source | bottom
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 #
1. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.42157772[source]
Livestreaming is a solved problem. This sounds like NIH [1]. (At the very least, hire them as a back-up.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here

replies(3): >>42157965 #>>42157973 #>>42160144 #
2. gregorygoc ◴[] No.42157965[source]
Saying live-streaming is a solved problem is like saying search is a solved problem.
replies(1): >>42158121 #
3. oehpr ◴[] No.42157973[source]
Look. I'm a small startup employee. I have a teeny tiny perspective here. But frankly speaking the idea that Netflix could just take some off the shelf widget and stuff it in their network to solve a problem... It's an absurd statement for even me. And if there's anyone it should apply to it would be a little startup company that needs to focus on their core area.

Every off the shelf component on the market needs institutional knowledge to implement, operate, and maintain it. Even Apple's "it just works" mantra is pretty laughable in the cold light of day. Very rarely in my experience do you ever get to just benefit from someone else's hard work in production without having an idea how properly implement, operate, and maintain it.

And that's at my little tiny ant scale. To call the problem of streaming "solved" for Netflix... Given the guess of the context from the GP post?

I just don't think this perspective is realistic at all.

replies(2): >>42158138 #>>42158527 #
4. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.42158121[source]
> Saying live-streaming is a solved problem is like saying search is a solved problem

It is. You can hire the people who have solved it to do it for you.

replies(1): >>42158338 #
5. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.42158138[source]
> the idea that Netflix could just take some off the shelf widget and stuff it in their network to solve a problem

Right. They have to hire one of the companies that does this. Each of YouTube, Twitch (Amazon), Facebook and TikTok have, I believe, handled 10+ million streams. The last two don't compete with Netflix.

replies(2): >>42158512 #>>42163767 #
6. talldayo ◴[] No.42158338{3}[source]
> It is. You can hire the people who have solved it to do it for you.

"GPGPU compute is a solved problem if you buy Nvidia hardware" type comment

replies(2): >>42158458 #>>42158558 #
7. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.42158458{4}[source]
> "GPGPU compute is a solved problem if you buy Nvidia hardware" type comment

You're replacing the word hire with buy. That misconstrues the comment. If you need to do GPGPU compute and have never done it, you work with a team that has. (And if you want to build it in house, you scale to it.)

8. hunter2_ ◴[] No.42158512{3}[source]
I believe this is the spirit of the "solved problem" comment: not that the solution is an off-the-shelf widget, but that if it has ever been solved, then that solution could technically be used again, even if organizing the right people is exorbitantly expensive.

Offering it for sale != having solved it.

9. ikiris ◴[] No.42158527[source]
There are multiple companies that offer this capability today that would take a few weeks to hide behind company branding. This was a problem of netflix just not being set up for live stream but thinking they could handle it.
replies(1): >>42160583 #
10. moralestapia ◴[] No.42158558{4}[source]
>"GPGPU compute is a solved problem if you buy Nvidia hardware"

Which is valid? If your problem can be solved by writing a check, then it's the easiest problem to have on the planet.

Netflix didn't have to put out 3 PhD dissertations on how to improve the SOTA of live streaming, they only needed to reliably broadcast a fight for a couple hours.

That is a solved problem.

Amazon and Cloudflare do that for you as a service(!). Twitch and YouTube do it literally every day. Even X started doing it recently so.

No excuses for Netflix, tbh.

replies(1): >>42160164 #
11. namaria ◴[] No.42160144[source]
"Solved" merely means you don't need to invent something new to solve it. It doesn't mean trivial nor easy. And it definitely doesn't mean the problem is above trade-offs.
12. namaria ◴[] No.42160164{5}[source]
Landing on Mars is a solved problem. Nuclear bombs are a solved problem. Doesn't mean anyone can just write a check and get it done and definitely doesn't mean any business model can bear that cost.
replies(1): >>42160224 #
13. moralestapia ◴[] No.42160224{6}[source]
Of course it means that!

You only need a big enough check.

replies(1): >>42160309 #
14. namaria ◴[] No.42160309{7}[source]
No it doesn't.

India has landed on Mars for a fraction of the cost it took other nations, and the ESA has never been able to pull it off.

Not every cost is fungible and money isn't always the limiting factor.

replies(3): >>42160578 #>>42162011 #>>42163149 #
15. shermantanktop ◴[] No.42160578{8}[source]
It should be obvious that not all risks can be converted into a capital problem.

People say this, but then fall in love, get divorced, get depressed, or their company might lose its mojo, get sued, or lose an unreplaceable employee. But they will still say “all risk can be costed.”

16. shermantanktop ◴[] No.42160583{3}[source]
At 120m concurrents? I’d be interested who can whitelabel that.
17. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.42162011{8}[source]
> Not every cost is fungible and money isn't always the limiting factor

Sure. This isn’t relevant to Netflix.

replies(1): >>42163354 #
18. moralestapia ◴[] No.42163149{8}[source]
>India has landed on Mars for a fraction of the cost it took other nations, and the ESA has never been able to pull it off.

This further confirms my assertion, btw.

replies(1): >>42163347 #
19. namaria ◴[] No.42163347{9}[source]
If it is just a matter of paying up, why hasn't ESA pulled it off? I'm pointing out and offering examples that "solved problem" has no bearing on the ease or organization capacity of any one group to do it. It is merely a statement that no unknown, new solution needs be invented.

If I have to spell it out you're clearly debating in bad faith and we're done here.

replies(1): >>42163449 #
20. namaria ◴[] No.42163354{9}[source]
It is. The fact that 'streaming is a solved problem' has no bearing on any one company's ability to do it at scale. Solved problem means merely you don't have to invent something new, not that it is easy or within reach of everyone.
21. moralestapia ◴[] No.42163449{10}[source]
We are arguing if it's possible or not.

Who cares if a thousand guys are incapable? (like Netflix, lmao)

What matters are the ones that can do it, and you even said they've done it at "a fraction of the cost".

Paraphrasing, your argument says more about the incompetence of the ESA than the impossibility of doing such thing.

22. kasey_junk ◴[] No.42163767{3}[source]
We now know it was more than 60m streams. I think it’s either a record or approaching one for a live stream.