Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    But what if I want a faster horse?

    (rakhim.exotext.com)
    1525 points saeedesmaili | 15 comments | 11 Apr 25 11:39 UTC | HN request time: 0.912s | source | bottom
    Show context
    cjs_ac ◴[11 Apr 25 12:22 UTC] No.43652999[source]▶
    For any given thing or category of thing, a tiny minority of the human population will be enthusiasts of that thing, but those enthusiasts will have an outsize effect in determining everyone else's taste for that thing. For example, very few people have any real interest in driving a car at 200 MPH, but Ferraris, Lamborghinis and Porsches are widely understood as desirable cars, because the people who are into cars like those marques.

    If you're designing a consumer-oriented web service like Netflix or Spotify or Instagram, you will probably add in some user analytics service, and use the insights from that analysis to inform future development. However, that analysis will aggregate its results over all your users, and won't pick out the enthusiasts, who will shape discourse and public opinion about your service. Consequently, your results will be dominated by people who don't really have an opinion, and just take whatever they're given.

    Think about web browsers. The first popular browser was Netscape Navigator; then, Internet Explorer came onto the scene. Mozilla Firefox clawed back a fair chunk of market share, and then Google Chrome came along and ate everyone's lunch. In all of these changes, most of the userbase didn't really care what browser they were using: the change was driven by enthusiasts recommending the latest and greatest to their less-technically-inclined friends and family.

    So if you develop your product by following your analytics, you'll inevitably converge on something that just shoves content into the faces of an indiscriminating userbase, because that's what the median user of any given service wants. (This isn't to say that most people are tasteless blobs; I think everyone is a connoisseur of something, it's just that for any given individual, that something probably isn't your product.) But who knows - maybe that really is the most profitable way to run a tech business.

    replies(43): >>43653102 #>>43653133 #>>43653161 #>>43653213 #>>43653214 #>>43653232 #>>43653255 #>>43653258 #>>43653326 #>>43653448 #>>43653455 #>>43653565 #>>43653604 #>>43653636 #>>43653811 #>>43653827 #>>43653845 #>>43654022 #>>43654156 #>>43654245 #>>43654301 #>>43654312 #>>43654338 #>>43654357 #>>43654677 #>>43654723 #>>43655344 #>>43655627 #>>43655701 #>>43655913 #>>43656046 #>>43656072 #>>43656178 #>>43656340 #>>43656803 #>>43657011 #>>43657050 #>>43657261 #>>43657715 #>>43663848 #>>43664249 #>>43668575 #>>43680835 #
    _kush ◴[11 Apr 25 13:34 UTC] No.43653604[source]▶
    This is the cycle I keep seeing:

    Most great products start out for enthusiasts and often by enthusiasts. They’re opinionated, sharp, sometimes rough, but exciting.

    Then VC funding comes in, and the product has to appeal to a broader audience. Things get smoothed out and the metrics rule decisions.

    Eventually, the original enthusiasts feel left out. The product’s no longer for them.

    So a new product comes out, started again by enthusiasts for enthusiasts. And the cycle repeats - unless someone chooses to grow slowly and sustainably, without raising, and stays focused on the niche.

    replies(12): >>43653714 #>>43653888 #>>43654029 #>>43654064 #>>43654159 #>>43654190 #>>43654985 #>>43654993 #>>43655101 #>>43657848 #>>43658227 #>>43663660 #
    1. beloch ◴[11 Apr 25 14:25 UTC] No.43654159[source]▶
    To simplify:

    1. Innovate.

    2. Exploit.

    You start by innovating a "fast horse". This gains you early adopters who pull in a larger audience. A horse can only be so fast, so continued innovation might lead to something more like a car. This will only cause you to bleed users. Stick to the horse.

    Instead of continuing to innovate endlessly, you switch to exploitation. Fire the visionaries. They're just a waste of payroll. Bring in people who can squeeze every last dime out of your user base.

    -----------------------

    The above isn't anything new. However, it's clear that some companies are better at maintaining quality while exploiting. Are they doing something different, or is it just that their customers have to choose them repeatedly? e.g. Most people don't sign up with one car company for life. They'll buy several cars over their life and that's a choice that the car company must win each time. Meanwhile, people sign up for Netflix or Spotify and stay subbed. They don't look at the alternatives every few years. Porsche needs to keep up with the latest and fastest horses to continue exploiting their reputation, while Netflix can focus purely on making more money from their users. A faster horse may come along, but Netflix doesn't break down and need to be replaced.

    replies(3): >>43654205 #>>43654251 #>>43657611 #
    2. nthingtohide ◴[11 Apr 25 14:29 UTC] No.43654205[source]▶
    Are you ignoring the benefits of network effects? Network effects should ideally improve recommendations for all subgenres of people.
    3. _kush ◴[11 Apr 25 14:34 UTC] No.43654251[source]▶
    Porsche is easy to replace only if you bought it as just another fast car. If you bought it for the design, the legacy, or what the brand means to you, it’s not so easy.

    Netflix has their content as their moat. Even if someone today builds a better version of what Netflix used to be, it wouldn't matter. They won’t have the rights and licenses to the shows and movies. That’s what keeps people from switching.

    Porsche has to keep earning you as a customer with every new model. Netflix just needs to keep you watching.

    replies(2): >>43654361 #>>43655034 #
    4. echelon ◴[11 Apr 25 14:42 UTC] No.43654361[source]▶
    > Even if someone today builds a better version of what Netflix used to be, it wouldn't matter. They won’t have the rights and licenses to the shows and movies. That’s what keeps people from switching.

    What, apart from Stranger Things and Squid Game, has been enough of a cultural touchstone that it keeps people on Netflix? Those aren't things you keep coming back to again and again.

    Netflix doesn't own Friends, Seinfeld, The Office, Community, Parks and Rec, etc.

    I'd argue Max (nee HBO) has better legacy titles and franchises. They have both enduring IP as well as the reputation of being "destination television".

    The thing that keeps people from cancelling Netflix is that they have a better content slate of licensed classics paired with new originals. And they do it in the greatest volume of all the streamers, so there will be "something" on, even if it isn't particularly good.

    replies(2): >>43655357 #>>43656728 #
    5. Arainach ◴[11 Apr 25 15:33 UTC] No.43655034[source]▶
    >Netflix has their content as their moat.

    Only Netflix-produced shows apply here. Before Netflix started producing content they had *no moat*.

    That's the big problem with media streaming - the content owners have all the leverage. Any profit you make they can see and simply increase licensing costs to transfer to them. If you don't want to pay they can (and will, and have done) start their own competitor since the technology isn't a moat - content ownership is.

    replies(4): >>43656050 #>>43656370 #>>43661623 #>>43665377 #
    6. cestith ◴[11 Apr 25 16:02 UTC] No.43655357{3}[source]▶
    Nobody Wants This; Bridgerton; Wednesday; Man on the Inside; 3 Body Problem; Emily in Paris; the live-action Avatar: The Last Airbender; Love, Death, and Robots; How to Sell Drugs Online (Fast); Is It Cake?; Everybody’s Live with John Mulaney; and some others I’ve definitely had conversations about outside my own household.

    Arcane was a pretty big deal and it was released on Netflix and TenCent.

    They also have continued series that originated on other networks, including Unsolved Mysteries and Black Mirror.

    I know several people who watched Cyberpunk: Edgerunners on Netflix and are excited about the upcoming CDPR and Netflix project set in the Cyberpunk universe.

    I’ve had recommended to me and have recommended to others quite a few of their original movies. You might like 6 Undergound if you’re looking for an action movie.

    replies(2): >>43655999 #>>43656740 #
    7. BigGreenJorts ◴[11 Apr 25 16:59 UTC] No.43655999{4}[source]▶
    Love How to sell drug online (fast), surprised to see it listed here tho 'cause I've never heard anyone talk about it. Considering it got 4 seasons, it must be popular tho.

    And yeah, Bridgerton, Wednesday, Emily in Paris, and 3 Body Problem each certainly take their moment at least in my circles.

    8. TimPC ◴[11 Apr 25 17:04 UTC] No.43656050{3}[source]▶
    Large aggregation is also to a certain degree a moat. Most creators have quickly found that people won't pay for one creator's content unless that creator is a huge volume creator (at the scale of maybe Disney). No one subscribes to a platform with 20 movies and 5 TV shows.
    replies(1): >>43659313 #
    9. immibis ◴[11 Apr 25 17:37 UTC] No.43656370{3}[source]▶
    Which is also how rent works for physical locations, by the way.
    10. badc0ffee ◴[11 Apr 25 18:16 UTC] No.43656728{3}[source]▶
    There was the original Netflix-produced hit, House of Cards. Making a Murderer was also huge (although I didn't watch it). And then Tiger King blew up during the pandemic (although again, I never saw it myself).

    I think the Jeffrey Dahmer one was also big, because there have been so many stupid memes about him since then, from people who weren't around to hear about him on the news.

    11. HWR_14 ◴[11 Apr 25 18:17 UTC] No.43656740{4}[source]▶
    Also, Netflix kicked off the streaming premium shows with House of Cards and Orange is the New Black.
    12. lgeorget ◴[11 Apr 25 19:34 UTC] No.43657611[source]▶
    > Are they doing something different, or is it just that their customers have to choose them repeatedly?

    I guess it's market-related. Your remarks remind me of Behringer. They make products for the music and audio enthusiasts. They have decent quality products at a very fair price that have been around for 10+ years now (like the X32 mixer) and apart from that, they churn out new products all the time (especially remakes of vintage synthesisers) to keep their users coming back and check out what's new.

    13. travisjungroth ◴[11 Apr 25 22:20 UTC] No.43659313{4}[source]▶
    Dropout.tv is a counterexample. They're not 20 movies and 5 TV shows, but they're closer to that than they are Disney. There are also all the people who make a living on Patreon.
    14. chii ◴[12 Apr 25 05:33 UTC] No.43661623{3}[source]▶
    Which is why back in the 1930's, there's anti-trust legislations preventing movie studios from owning cinemas. This prevents the ownership of IP from dictating prices in the cinema.

    The situation with streaming platforms are exactly equivalent, and these content production studios have learnt to prevent this sort of anti-trust legislations from forming.

    in fact, the cinema ownership decree has been ended i think: https://www.laineygossip.com/with-sonys-purchase-of-alamo-dr...

    15. mejutoco ◴[12 Apr 25 15:45 UTC] No.43665377{3}[source]▶
    Funny enough, when netflix was shipping physical dvds they could have any ip they wanted.