[genidoi]

They are competitors - for your eyeballs. Just because they don't provide precisely the same service doesn't make them non-competitors.

Youtube competes with Netflix the same way your shower length preference competes with Netflix. The disconcerting (if not narcissistic) elephant in the room being that service providers are viewing any activities that cause you to spend time away from their service as "competition" at all.

[mijamo]

I don't really understand this. Netflix cares about how much you watch it ONLY if it means you will stop your subscription. In fact, as long as you keep your subscription their interest is that you watch as few as possible to minimize costs, right? So a few addictive shows that make you need to keep Netflix are betters than keeping you on Netflix all day every day.

If Netflix cannot be replaced by Youtube, it is not a real competitor.

Saying otherwise leads to weird useless definitions of competition. We would have to say everything is a competitor of everything else, and then how is that interesting to know?

[davidivadavid]

No, it leads to the only valuable definition of competition: competitors are products that serve the same need. Netflix and Youtube are entertainment. They compete with each other, as well as TV, video games, and a bunch of other things. They also serve other needs (e.g. education). But there are (many) other needs that they don't serve (e.g. nutrition (you can't eat Netflix), healthcare, human relationships, etc.).

[pmart123]

Not quite, at least from what Netflix has publically stated about its content strategy. Each time Netflix produces content, they view that content as having very diminished value for the customer that has already watched it, but that new content has made its subscription offering more value to the next potential customer. With this line of thinking, Netflix probably doesn't want you to every "finish" its catalog. I think there are exceptions given what Netflix paid to keep Friends. But, my guess says they found that most content does not get repeat viewership, which is much different than music for instance.

[coldtea]

>So a few addictive shows that make you need to keep Netflix are betters than keeping you on Netflix all day every day.

Not really, as you're more likely to drop the service you're not on "all day every day" than otherwise. And the fewer the addictive shows the more chance you'll get addicted to something else next year on another service (or just download the stuff).

[bryanrasmussen]

yes but if you have a subscription and you watch nothing algorithms probably tell them that sooner or later you will stop to have a subscription. There is probably a sweet spot where you are most likely to keep your subscription even without watching much. This would really be what must watch original content would be about. If you have netflix only for showing your kid BabyBoss, then that is when it might be good for them. (until that kid hits the teenage years)

[bluGill]

Not exactly. Makers of woodworking tools consider football a bigger competitor than other woodworking tool manufactures. If you buy a nice tool from a different brand - well there is a chance you will buy from them latter. If you get addicted to football and quit doing woodworking you won't buy from them at all.

[bryanrasmussen]

Ok but how do you compete against football? In competing against another tool maker, analyse what people like about their tools that your tools do not have, improve your tools is pretty easy. also variations of this strategy. But you cannot analyse what your tool does not have that football has and replicate it because essentially your woodworking tool has nothing that football has and football has nothing your woodworking tool has.