this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
928 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

59197 readers
3404 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 142 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

streamers are currently being forced to reckon with their profitability — or lack thereof.

Netflix's 2023 2nd quarter revenue: 8.1 billion dollars BTW

[–] [email protected] 62 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Brace yourself for a tidal wave of corporate apologists rushing to point out that “revenue isn’t profit!,!”

[–] [email protected] 69 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The number you're looking for is $1.49 billion in net income for Q2 2023.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 year ago (1 children)

See? Clearly not profitable, need more ads

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago

What's that? You want to share your four-screens-at-a-time account with three other people outside your house?

Fuck you, pay us more.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Profit is the portion of revenue that is stolen from workers and given to shareholders. Profit is bad. Revenue is good.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unless you use that revenue to do stock buybacks, then it’s not considered profit but you still get to steal it from the workers. That way you can cry about unprofitability while all your shareholders and c suites crank up the exploitation of workers and consumers chasing “profitability” until the business collapses.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Which is crazy, right? If a stock sale allows an investment in a business, a stock buyback should be a paying off of that debt, freeing more revenue in the future to be used explicitly to pay workers who generate that revenue. How the fuck that is justified in instead enriching the value of other investments still held by other investors shows the selective use of the analogy by corporate interests and that the whole house of cards is just bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

For the most part, it's not given to the shareholders, either. Dividends are pretty rare these days (which is when stocks largely went from being an ownership investment to - mostly - a form of gambling)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Anybody can look these numbers up. I'm not sitting on some secret Bloomberg terminal LOL

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Then why only mention revenue?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I didn't realize people can't do a 10 second google search on their own. 🙄

Net income isn't the whole story anyways, especially when this article points out that one of their costs is lobbying for a cause that isn't necessary. They're raking in billions of dollars every year.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"just Google it, bro" is never a source.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not my fault you aren't capable of typing 4 words into a search engine.

It's not a 'source', bud.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did you know profitability =! Net income?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes. Did you know that "just Google it, bro" isn't a source?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Positing a claim =! positing a source. That's 0/2.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can't count, either? That's rough, buddy.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I didn’t realize people can’t do a 10 second google search on their own.

You specifically chose to quote a sentence about profit and then provide a number that is not profit. What was the point of commenting at all if the number you provided had no relevance?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

My quote:

streamers are currently being forced to reckon with their profitability — or lack thereof.

profitability

Your misinformed quote:

You specifically chose to quote a sentence about profit

profit

There's a very important difference there that I think you're not built to understand.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

...but it's not. And I really think people either don't understand that or they are intentionally misrepresenting the situation.

Being level-headed and fact-driven isn't "corporate apologist", it's how you maintain integrity and don't derail your own movement by being dishonest about shit that doesn't even matter.

It's like when Trump lies about his golf games. No one cares about his golf games but it makes you realize that if he's willing to blatantly and badly lie about something so trivial, he's probably also lying about absolutely everything else about him that might even remotely appear negative.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Plenty of people understand it, and some of them understand that profit is so malleable that it’s not really a useful measure of a company’s financial health. What really matters is how much they make over their essential production operational expenses. They can tailor their non essential expenses to seem as profitable or unprofitable as they want and use stock valuation tricks like buybacks to make money for shareholders regardless.

What does it matter if the company is profitable or unprofitable on paper when certain people can make lots of money off it either way? Twitter was “unprofitable” it’s entire life but somehow I bet the executives still got their bonuses, I doubt the shareholders were dissatisfied with their stock valuations or the buybacks, and it sure didn’t stop them from acquiring other companies.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Thank you for putting this more eloquently than I could. I must admit, I was losing my cool with people being irrational about this.

I don't know if people are ignoring expense scaling and stock buybacks or purposely choosing to hide it.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago

On a tangent, and nothing to do with you, but I don't like how these streaming companies are being called "streamers". Streamers are those people streaming on twitch, not a company like Netflix damnit.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be clear, revenue does not equal profit.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Net income doesn't equal profitability either. Companies scale their costs, including stock buybacks, based on revenue. https://ycharts.com/companies/NFLX/stock_buyback