[apendleton]

That may well be, but two responses: firstly, House of Cards, in particular, was exorbitantly expensive, and a huge gamble on Netflix's part that may or may not turn out to be sustainable in the long term. Second: Netflix is producing way less content than is available on cable. They produce less content than HBO, which is one cable channel among the hundreds that are currently available in the US. They'll never be able to match the breadth of content production cable can pull off, and it probably won't ever make sense for them to produce super-niche stuff of the kind that's available on non-general-audience channels (think the Golf Channel or Food Network). So they're a sort-of partial replacement for a tiny subset of content.

[aqme28]

They produce way less content partly because they only recently got into the game. It's unfounded to say that just because they're a small fish means that they'll never be able to make content with neither the breadth nor specificity of other networks.

[acgourley]

It's possible less content for less money is OK with people. The current pricing scheme of TV never got a chance to test that hypothesis. It's certainly true for me.

[r00fus]

Netflix did well to create House of Cards (and LilyHammer, though that one sucked) - they learn the ins/outs of content creation while also adding a feather to their hat of their big offering - a reason for people to not leave.

The "idea" of Netflix as an exclusive content creator has big ramifications. Nascent competitors like HBO get put "on notice". Amazon, who wanted to disrupt them with Prime streaming are put back on the defensive (most of Amazon's similar efforts are pretty lackluster). And in general, investors like it also, as it means a new possible disruption area for Netflix. Furthermore, employees can be proud of something that's an in-house product/process.