←back to thread

256 points MattSayar | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
gcanyon ◴[] No.43542368[source]
I read through that whole article thinking,

   - I wonder what the UI looks like compared to tools I use now
   - I wonder if there will be a free tier, since my video needs are modest
It never occurred to me until I reached the end that this wasn't a "enjoy this tool we made" post, but instead a "look how awesome we are" post. :-/
replies(10): >>43542462 #>>43542555 #>>43542668 #>>43542722 #>>43543112 #>>43543475 #>>43543588 #>>43543944 #>>43544780 #>>43548122 #
dkh ◴[] No.43543944[source]
For people in within the industry or the tech side of it, Netflix’s engineering blog has always been fascinating and extremely useful because of the insane amount of stuff in this space they have solved or reworked. They have put more into tech side of modern-day TV/film than anybody else, and it's not even close. In a technical/workflow sense, working on a Netflix show is unlike working on any other. I have my issues with Netflix in other respects, but with respect to technology and workflow, they are awesome.

If you’re unable to appreciate a behind-the-scenes look at their engineering because the technology isn't for you or available to you, that's totally valid! But it's a you're not interested thing, not a Netflix is boasting about something that doesn't matter thing. Only a few thousand teams in the world need most of what they do over there, but that doesn't mean they aren't massive technical achievements. Most of them are. The scale, complexity, and cadence of modern production has given rise to some of the biggest technical challenges I’ve ever seen. And for anyone close to that world, this kind of content is of great interest — if not genuinely valuable.

replies(5): >>43545562 #>>43546738 #>>43547840 #>>43549066 #>>43553310 #
1. gcanyon ◴[] No.43553310[source]
I didn't say it wasn't interesting, but I'll take the bait: the article is light on details and misleading.

Light on details: the article is almost 3000 words, filled with vague and low-effort content: a lot more "We're so big and global!" and not nearly so much "Here's the problem we faced because we're so big and global, and here's how we solved it."

Misleading: they use the word "democratizes" twice: "we have crafted a scalable solution that ... democratizes access to advanced production tools across the globe" and "we’ve taken a bold step forward in enabling a suite of tools inside Netflix Content Hub that democratizes technology: the Media Production Suite" -- do you really get to say "democratizes" when you're describing an in-house system?