The dirty secret of "FAANG" is that Netflix is not a FAANG company anymore despite literally being the N of the acronym.
The idea behind FAANG was to create a catchy acronym for "high-growth, big-cap tech stock". At the time, maybe it made sense to stick Netflix in the acronym - but their business model was also radically different than it is now. It also wasn't really sustainable: Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Google all own their "moats[0]", Netflix is just a middle-man that licenses content.
The FAANG business model is all about creating your own sovereign territory on the Internet through capex and licensing. You spend a lot of money building out the best tech platform possible, and then license that out to as many people as possible so you can take 30%[1] off of the top of every transaction ever. This also implies being "cynically inclusive": trying to onboard anyone and everyone, regardless of their absolute economic value as a customer or the company's ability to support them. 30% of pennies adds up across billions of individual publishers.
Netflix does not do this, never have, and never will. They only license premium video content, which means they're exclusively working with people who actually have negotiating leverage. Furthermore, the people selling that content are better-capitalized than Netflix and can afford to just DIY/self-host their own streaming service. Thus, their business model is less like YouTube, and more like Comcast. The amount of profit Netflix can make off of premium content is far lower than FAANG companies make off of the "30% of pennies" model. That's also why they moved into content production - owning the shows is more valuable than owning the screens they are showed on.
Counting Netflix as a FAANG makes absolutely no sense and we should just pretend the N stands for, oh... I dunno. Does Alphabet own an "N" company yet? Is there any other platform owner out there that has an "n" somewhere in their name?
[0] A tech company euphemism for a monopoly. Amazon likes to call it a "flywheel". Other companies use the phrase "stickiness".
[1] A lot has been made of "the 30%", especially in the context of Epic v. Apple. In my opinion, the problem is not the fact that the cut is 30%, or even that it exists at all; it's just a convenient shorthand for market power gained from owning the platform.
Big Tech stocks have changed since FANG/FAANG was coined, the term doesn't necessarily relate to what was big and heading for explosive growth back then. "FAANG" is a noun that doesn't necessarily mean "Facebook Amazon Apple Netflix Google" any more
> He made a GAAF, no need to read anything into it.
But did not say they were wrong and Netflix was actually the same as Bitcoin.
They edited it to another group to prove their point.
Which to be honest confirms the original implication, they are picking and choosing for politics.
OP point is clear to me, everyone can trash talk Bitcoin from twitter rote, but no one is actually thinking. How does it relate to the US equity market? The top comments are currently very uninspiring.
Certainly is clear, big tech stocks are falling, not as much as crypto, and that probably has something to do with big tech stocks have fundamental value.
Well sure, the N literally stands for netflix. But semantically, it's often used as "the big tech companies". At least that what it means in my head. And that's Apple, Microsoft, (gap), Google, Amazon, (gap), Telsa, Facebook, at least by market cap. Netflix isn't anywhere close.
The idea behind FAANG was to create a catchy acronym for "high-growth, big-cap tech stock". At the time, maybe it made sense to stick Netflix in the acronym - but their business model was also radically different than it is now. It also wasn't really sustainable: Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Google all own their "moats[0]", Netflix is just a middle-man that licenses content.
The FAANG business model is all about creating your own sovereign territory on the Internet through capex and licensing. You spend a lot of money building out the best tech platform possible, and then license that out to as many people as possible so you can take 30%[1] off of the top of every transaction ever. This also implies being "cynically inclusive": trying to onboard anyone and everyone, regardless of their absolute economic value as a customer or the company's ability to support them. 30% of pennies adds up across billions of individual publishers.
Netflix does not do this, never have, and never will. They only license premium video content, which means they're exclusively working with people who actually have negotiating leverage. Furthermore, the people selling that content are better-capitalized than Netflix and can afford to just DIY/self-host their own streaming service. Thus, their business model is less like YouTube, and more like Comcast. The amount of profit Netflix can make off of premium content is far lower than FAANG companies make off of the "30% of pennies" model. That's also why they moved into content production - owning the shows is more valuable than owning the screens they are showed on.
Counting Netflix as a FAANG makes absolutely no sense and we should just pretend the N stands for, oh... I dunno. Does Alphabet own an "N" company yet? Is there any other platform owner out there that has an "n" somewhere in their name?
[0] A tech company euphemism for a monopoly. Amazon likes to call it a "flywheel". Other companies use the phrase "stickiness".
[1] A lot has been made of "the 30%", especially in the context of Epic v. Apple. In my opinion, the problem is not the fact that the cut is 30%, or even that it exists at all; it's just a convenient shorthand for market power gained from owning the platform.