Thing is that Netflix didn't really succeed at that goal. HBO was and still is the gold standard for premium cable content. Netflix instead decided to go for the bottom 70% of the market, and the quality of their shows reflects that.

In fact the very reason for this purchase is that they desperately need help on the creative side.

Netflix is what it is today because all the studios trying to compete with their tech was an even bigger disaster than Netflix competing on content.

▲

triceratops 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think the Netflix vs HBO comparison is fair.

HBO was always one channel in a home. They produced a limited amount of high-quality content. You watch it a few times a week and network TV reality shows or whatever other trash the rest of the week.

Netflix wanted/wants to be the only channel in cord-cutting and cord-never homes. When that's your goal you have to produce mostly crap and some good stuff.

▲

hulitu 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> and some good stuff

which is mostly inexistent on Netflix

▲

triceratops 4 hours ago | parent [-]

That's a matter of opinion. Other people all over this thread have shared what they think are good Netflix shows and movies.

▲

Fricken 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

It's the opinion of Netflix execs, who have expressed envy over how much money HBO is still making off of decades old IP. Not a lot of Netflix content has legs like that, but I suppose that's about to change with the WB acquisition.

	▲	triceratops 27 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> how much money HBO is still making off of decades old IP I'd say Disney is the uncontested king of making money off old work. If HBO was that good they wouldn't have been scooped up so easily. Netflix execs may be envious of the enduring cultural cachet of shows like The Sopranos or The Wire. That's completely different from making real money.

▲

jimbokun 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm not sure how you quantify "premium cable content" but Netflix has certainly made great strides in that market.