[raw_anon_1111]

Netflix very much was priced below the cost of production for years and had to borrow money to make Netflix originals.

[cyberax]

I'm not familiar with their originals economics, but the original streaming Netflix was not priced below the cost. As evidenced by them keeping the same subscription cost for years.

[raw_anon_1111]

How is that “evidence” of anything? The “evidence” that they were charging less for subscriptions than it cost to run the streaming service is that they were borrowing billions of dollars to both license content and create new content over the course of years.

Netflix borrowed $16 billion over a decades

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/business/netflix-earnings...

Because subscriptions didn’t make enough money to fund its business. Were they being “anti competitive”?

[tovej]

Yes. They were. The US just hasn't enforced antitrust laws in decades.

[raw_anon_1111]

So now a business shouldn’t be able to borrow money either to start a new initiative? Should they have instead charged customers enough from day one to fund growth? So the first 1000 or so customers should have been charged enough so they could spend an extra $16 Billion?

[cyberax]

If they're using their overwhelming size to lock out smaller competitors that can't put up a similar collateral?

Probably a good idea. And it looks like Netflix simply needed to make the service a bit more expensive?

[raw_anon_1111]

A “bit” more expensive to cover $16 billion of expenses?

So how would that have helped smaller competitors? Where were they going to get the money from to compete if not other lines of businesses or borrowing? Were they going to charge their first 10,000 customers $100,000 a year so they could fund development without either borrowing money or take it from existing businesses?