Comment by raw_anon_1111
14 hours ago
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”?
Yes. They were. The US just hasn't enforced antitrust laws in decades.
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?
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?
2 replies →