Why Netflix is Winning:
When Netflix announced their new DVD division, Qwikster, back in 2011, I thought it was the beginning of the end for Reed Hastings and his company. It wasn’t just the ill-conceived Qwikster, I saw a new landscape where established powers would collude, as in the case of Hulu, and squeeze dot com upstarts out of the business.
Boy was I wrong.
The charts above demonstrate Netflix’s incredible run in 2013. Here’s the New York Post reporting on the numbers:
In the third quarter, Netflix wooed 1.3 million new US subscribers and reported revenue of $1.1 billion, which was 22 percent above its third-quarter number last year. When those data were announced Oct. 21, Netflix stock soared 10 percent, to $393, after ours.
Janney Capital media analyst Tony Wible recently wrote in a report to investors that he is maintaining a “buy” rating on Netflix and sees a price of $450 as fair value. (Netflix closed on Friday at $368.97, up 4.1 percent on the week.
It’s more of the same: old industry stalwarts, too afraid to cut in on their sacred cow, in this case cable, allowing upstarts into the business. If computer companies thought this way, we wouldn’t have the Commodore 64 (Vic 20), the IBM PC (mainframe computers), the Macintosh (Apple II), Netflix streaming (DVDs), or the iPad (Macintosh) - for fear that adopting new technologies and approaches would cut too far into the margins of a company’s previous successes (in parenthesis).
It’s time for media to start thinking like technology companies. Netflix is, and they’re winning.
[Images: Charts via Quartz]
Ben Sinclair and Katja Blichfeld, the masterminds behind the brilliant web series High Maintenance, count down their own favorite masters of the art form from this year.
Our language has wisely sensed the two sides of being alone. It has created the word “loneliness” to express the pain of being alone. And it has created the word “solitude” to express the glory of being alone.
As South Sudan, the world’s newest country, veers dangerously close to ethnic civil war, we’re already getting a glimpse of the international crises that could greet us in the new year. Now the Center for Preventive Action, an affiliate of the Council on Foreign Relations, has presented a more comprehensive view, releasing its annual forecast of the conflicts that could pose the greatest threat to the United States in 2014.
The survey, which asked more than 1,200 U.S. government officials, academics, and experts to assess the impact and likelihood of 30 scenarios, divides the results into three tiers of risk. And some of the findings are alarming. Beyond the familiar flashpoints—military intervention in Syria’s civil war, strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities—the report raises concerns about overlooked threats ranging from turmoil in Jordan to civil war in Iraq to a border clash between China and India. The study is also notable for the risks it downplays, including armed confrontation between China and its neighbors over territorial disputes in the East and South China Seas.
The most threatening and most likely conflicts (in red) include some you might expect: limited military intervention in Syria’s deteriorating civil war; a cyberattack on critical infrastructure in the U.S.; military strikes against Iran if nuclear talks fail or Tehran advances its nuclear program; a North Korean crisis sparked by military provocation or internal political instability; a major terrorist attack on the U.S. or an ally; and greater turmoil in Afghanistan and Pakistan as U.S. troops withdraw from the region and Afghanistan holds elections.
Read more. [Image: Center For Preventive Action/Council on Foreign Relations]
Source: The Atlantic
Photo Credit: “Trading Places”, 1983 Paramount Pictures.
I don’t know why this (ARTICLE) is bothering me so much today. I read a few days ago on Huff Post. I guess it because I love both cities. For anyone living in either city the report is nothing new, but if you take look at the census graph they put together looking at the wealth gap between 1990 to 2012 it’s a sobering visual.
Pressure bust pipes…
Saw this in the comments section from Dan K. (MrBadExample):
"The Economic Policy Institute did a study last year on what sort of income it takes to cover the rent, utilities, insurance and food for a New York family of four. Minimum was $93K (nothing for savings or vacations in that budget, btw). Housing is the main thing driving costs. Brooklyn isn’t all that far behind.
A large part of what’s driving up NYC’s housing costs (besides a creeping decontrol of rent-stabilized units) is the fact that many corporations and wealthy individuals feel they need to have a footprint in Manhattan or North Brooklyn. Thus many of those apartments are sitting empty much of the time. And because these aren’t ‘residences’ per se, the city isn’t getting income or sales taxes. This was all due to a policy the Bloomberg Administration has aggressively pushed to get luxury development going in NYC and Brooklyn. And it has implications for the city’s governance for the next 50 years.”
Tensions are flaring over San Francisco’s tech-driven gentrification. Monday morning, protesters calling for an end to the increasing number of evictions, blocked a Google bus from leaving the city and shuttling its workers to the company’s headquarters in Mountain View, California. One Google worker inside the bus named Alejandro Villarreal, captured the scene and shared it on Instagram (pictured above).
The privately-owned Google buses (and their counterparts at companies like Facebook and Apple) have long been symbols of the city’s gentrification (a hidden map of their routes was published last January). Earlier this year, San Francisco native Rebecca Solnit published a piece in the London Review of Books on the impact of the buses. Solnit wrote:
The Google Bus means so many things. It means that the minions of the non-petroleum company most bent on world domination can live in San Francisco but work in Silicon Valley without going through a hair-raising commute by car - I overheard someone note recently that the buses shortened her daily commute to 3.5 hours from 4.5. It means that unlike gigantic employers in other times and places, the corporations of Silicon Valley aren’t much interested in improving public transport, and in fact, the many corporations providing private transport are undermining the financial basis for the commuter train. It means that San Francisco, capital of the west from the Gold Rush to some point in the 20th century when Los Angeles overshadowed it, is now a bedroom community for the tech capital of the world at the other end of the peninsula.
Read Solnit’s essay in full over at the London Review of Books. As well-paid tech workers have moved into the city, many working class residents have been forced out as both rents and evictions have increased in recent years, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
The protest was organized in part by a group called Heart of the City, which wrote on its website that “the city needs to declare a state of emergency, stop all no-fault evictions, and prevent tech companies from running buses in residential neighborhoods, which is driving up rents (up to 20% along their route)”