At least five years ago I read an article on Netflix that pointed out that Netflix relied on studio content and that the studios had all the information they needed to understand Netflix's economics since Netflix was a public company. The author argued that the studios would be offering their own streaming services, that they understood how to compete with Netflix and that they had big content libraries and the connections and money to buy more. Basically, the big content owners could put Netflix on an increasingly short leash.
To Netflix's credit, they became a studio of their own and funded a lot of good shows. They offered a new venue for the talent and offered attractive terms. Netflix got a lot of buzz and a lot of new subscribers from their hit shows. Unfortunately, Netflix was subject to the same tech startup forces as everyone else. Amazon used to offer great bargains and Prime was an amazing shipping deal, back when they weren't making a profit. Google offered great search and a good deal on advertising before it figured out to monetize advertising efficiently. Uber and its competitors offered cheap, convenient rides before they had to show a return on investment.
The basic "disruptive" idea is the move into a new market and subsidize operations heavily in hopes of capturing enough market share and become big enough to survive and make a profit. Back in the 1980s, venture capitalists used to say that one can tell the pioneers by the arrows in their backs. Sometimes the pioneers carve themselves a new niche. More often they are shot in the back by the latecomers. Netflix is more vulnerable than most. As Ted Turner demonstrated back in the 1970s with the rise of cable, old media libraries can be exceedingly valuable. Nothing there has changed.
So, where are the chinks in the FAANG armor? I see Facebook and Amazon has having some vulnerabilities.
Facebook makes its money from advertising, but it has been alienating its content providers. It could be subject to disruption by a more open social network provider or a general move to more open tools. e.g. Apple could rethink iWeb as part of iCloud or the carriers could offer an open social service. I think Facebook knows it is vulnerable Meta and AR smack of desperation.
Amazon is vulnerable to businesses like Shopify and that merchants and online vendors have gotten better at online sales.UPS and Fedex have lowered their effective shipping rates across the board. Amazon once owned the online shopping space, but everyone else is catching up. COVID forced a lot of companies to take online shopping seriously.
Google and Apple have fewer soft spots. Google search isn't as good as it once was, but it is still good enough for most people. Google has repeatedly tried to branch out but has failed every time. Apple makes its money selling hardware. While performance is good, the selling points are simplicity and privacy.
At least five years ago I read an article on Netflix that pointed out that Netflix relied on studio content and that the studios had all the information they needed to understand Netflix's economics since Netflix was a public company. The author argued that the studios would be offering their own streaming services, that they understood how to compete with Netflix and that they had big content libraries and the connections and money to buy more. Basically, the big content owners could put Netflix on an increasingly short leash.
To Netflix's credit, they became a studio of their own and funded a lot of good shows. They offered a new venue for the talent and offered attractive terms. Netflix got a lot of buzz and a lot of new subscribers from their hit shows. Unfortunately, Netflix was subject to the same tech startup forces as everyone else. Amazon used to offer great bargains and Prime was an amazing shipping deal, back when they weren't making a profit. Google offered great search and a good deal on advertising before it figured out to monetize advertising efficiently. Uber and its competitors offered cheap, convenient rides before they had to show a return on investment.
The basic "disruptive" idea is the move into a new market and subsidize operations heavily in hopes of capturing enough market share and become big enough to survive and make a profit. Back in the 1980s, venture capitalists used to say that one can tell the pioneers by the arrows in their backs. Sometimes the pioneers carve themselves a new niche. More often they are shot in the back by the latecomers. Netflix is more vulnerable than most. As Ted Turner demonstrated back in the 1970s with the rise of cable, old media libraries can be exceedingly valuable. Nothing there has changed.
So, where are the chinks in the FAANG armor? I see Facebook and Amazon has having some vulnerabilities.
Facebook makes its money from advertising, but it has been alienating its content providers. It could be subject to disruption by a more open social network provider or a general move to more open tools. e.g. Apple could rethink iWeb as part of iCloud or the carriers could offer an open social service. I think Facebook knows it is vulnerable Meta and AR smack of desperation.
Amazon is vulnerable to businesses like Shopify and that merchants and online vendors have gotten better at online sales.UPS and Fedex have lowered their effective shipping rates across the board. Amazon once owned the online shopping space, but everyone else is catching up. COVID forced a lot of companies to take online shopping seriously.
Google and Apple have fewer soft spots. Google search isn't as good as it once was, but it is still good enough for most people. Google has repeatedly tried to branch out but has failed every time. Apple makes its money selling hardware. While performance is good, the selling points are simplicity and privacy.