this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
150 points (92.1% liked)

Television

4620 readers
74 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

All the naysayers were correct. Netflix is losing money and subscribers in North America.

Netflix did add subscribers, but not in the markets where they cracked down on password sharing. They added subscribers in countries where they don’t charge very much for subscriptions. So they didn’t make much money from the new subs.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Red0ctober@lemmy.world 101 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Turns out infinite growth isn't possible and consumers will move on when a service becomes stale.

[–] Hikiru@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago (5 children)

What is it with the obsession with infinite growth for every company anyways? Why can’t they be happy with a stable, still extremely high, income? The people at the top already have more money than they need but still want more for no reason

[–] Uphillbothways@lemmy.world 58 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because capitalism is broken. It's predicated on increasing share price. This means a functional company regularly making good stable income based on consistent product is a failure, because share price becomes stable if income and production remain stable.

[–] nyar@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not really broken if that's always been it's core tenet. It's working as designed.

[–] biddy@feddit.nl 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's broken because infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible.

[–] nyar@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, in reality. Capitalism isn't designed around reality.

[–] biddy@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So it's broken. Because it doesn't work in reality.

[–] nyar@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It's functioning exactly as designed. That's not broken.

[–] thedarkfly@feddit.nl 3 points 1 year ago

Wouldn't the share price follow inflation, and wouldn't the stock holders keep getting dividends that themselves follow inflation? I'd say that a stagnant company can still be profitable. But yeah, there's greed and people expecting to make fast, big earnings by buying low and selling high...

[–] Enigma@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Infinite growth is also impossible as there are only so many people on this planet, and even less that are able to afford these services.

[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 year ago

Because public corporations are absolutely beholden to one goal: (eventually) returning a profit to investors.

[–] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Why can’t they be happy with a stable, still extremely high, income?

Shareholders. If you buy a share of a company for $5, you expect it to go up in value so you can make money from your investment.

Any publicly traded company must (by law!) try to maximize profit beyond what they're already doing, to satisfy shareholders. They could be sued if they don't.

It's capitalism. Driving the economy by profit means that each company has to race to obtain as much profit as possible, or risk losing to their competitors who are trying to do the exact same thing.

[–] fer0n@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

If you read the article, Netflix gained subscribers and revenue also grew. Just not as much as shareholders were hoping for