If it were successful, they'd be bragging about the numbers left and right. I'm having dot-com bubble vibes with this one. Huge money at the beginning due to big promises with the streaming revolution and then a bitter realisation that people won't pay for multiple services, and once you invested the money, you have to pay the loans you took, and with the streaming market so fragmented among all the various companies, the returns look not too promising.
What if they're once-in-a-decade level shows, like Thrones or Breaking Bad? Would you still not subscribe to watch them? Even after they're completed, with 73 and 62 episodes respectively? That's hell of an amount of content. That's obviously a theoritical example btw.
> but no one wants to just be the studio that produces content for netflix.
At the end of the day it might be the best way to go. You focus on making the content and Netflix focuses on the distribution. Everyone focuses on the thing they do best and they split costs. But no, they had to be greedy and now everyone pays more - everyone loses.
Existing-Class-140 OP t1_j2381wh wrote
Reply to [OC] Correlation between GDP per capita in certain countries and natural population growth (does not include immigration) by Existing-Class-140
Source:
wikipedia GDP data and demographics data:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Separate Wikipedia articles for all countries' population data, example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Latvia#Vital_statistics (natural change per 1,000)
Tools:
MS Excel.