[olliej]

I know plenty of people who argue about whether Netflix is a tech company - certainly their infrastructure is non-trivial but are they meaningfully different from HBO?

For Amazon though, it's incorrect to refer to them as a bookstore - AWS is a huge portion of their revenue.

On the other hand you have Google and Facebook that people call technology companies, but their core business is advertising.

I think at this point "tech" in "tech company" doesn't mean technology, because otherwise surely Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc would surely be tech companies?

[sksksk]

I think of "tech" companies as companies where you've got large fixed costs to build out and maintain the product, but the marginal cost of your product is very close to zero.

So Facebook and JCDecaux are both advertising companies, but only Facebook is a "tech" company.

Lockheed Martin is a tech company, but Google is a "tech" company.

I don't think it's a great term for that kind of company.

[kristopolous]

In spirit it's to take big bets on things that may not work; the transistor radio, the microprocessor. The eventual goal is to push forward something potentially for the social welfare such as say a logarithm table or star catalog in an earlier time.

Companies like Uber or Netflix don't do this. They're platform for rent-seeking of services or durable goods (or perhaps call it "assisted living for people under 60")

Tech investing (big bets in say, a new solar panel manufacturing technique) has really been replaced with very conventional investing that uses technology (a platform to say rent panels out and have the rental fees paid by the power sold back to the utility company).

Sand Hill Road has lost its mojo. I'm part of the problem. The rentier multisource funding model sounds way more attractive to me then some technical way to reduce manufacturing costs by say 80%.

Our minds have been polluted. We need to get back to the fundamentals and avoid the lemon squeezing extractive stuff. That's not how we move things forward and it's part of the reason many people have lost faith in capitalism; it's become too much a siphoning of the commons instead of a servicing to it. It needs a reorientation.

[scarface74]

How is Netflix “rent seeking?” They pay up front to either license or produce shows.

[kristopolous]

It's an academic economic term. Economic rent isn't the same as the common term. Taking a back catalog of content and charging for the right to view is a form of academic, economic rent. Licensing models, such as a video store, are frequently used as examples of rentierism.

I've got zero interest getting into one of those internet "debates" where a bunch of people extremely unfamiliar with concepts flex their knowledge to show me how "wrong" I am. No interest

Have a good day and forget about it

[scarface74]

> Rent seeking (or rent-seeking) is an economic concept that occurs when an entity seeks to gain added wealth without any reciprocal contribution of productivity.

Are you really saying that Netflix offers no “contribution of productivity.”? Or that they don’t have any added value.

If you had said that the 30% App Store fee is “rent seeking”, I would agree with you.

[kristopolous]

Sorry, I've got lots to do today. Have a great day

[hvidgaard]

There is two sides to Netflix. One is the content side, which is much like HBO, and the other side is the infrastructure side, which without a doubt is a tech company. They could contract out their infrastructure and they would surely not be a tech company, but as long as they develop that, they are a tech company in my book.

[dagw]

Does HBO develop its own steaming infrastructure?

[scarface74]

They use BAMTech, now owned by Disney.

[lancesells]

I think of tech companies whose main purpose is to sell or make software for businesses and people. Netflix is a media company. Tesla is a car company. Apple is both a consumer device company and tech company. Peleton is a fitness company.