Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday October 24 2017, @11:03PM   Printer-friendly
from the can't-show-what-you-ain't-got dept.

Netflix is raising another $1.6bn (£1.2bn) from investors to finance new shows and possibly make acquisitions.

The video streaming service plans to spend up to $8bn on content next year to compete with fast-growing rivals.

Netflix will issue bonds to investors, although the interest rate it will pay has yet to be decided, the company said in a statement.

Netflix plans to release 80 films next year, but some analysts are wary about its cash burn and debt interest costs.

The company's latest debt fundraising is its largest so far, and the fourth time in three years it has raised more than $1bn by issuing bonds.

Earlier this month, Netflix said it would raise prices in countries including the UK and US for the first time in two years.

Has Netflix added enough original material to make up for the licensed content they've dropped and the price increase they mean to enact?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday October 25 2017, @12:06AM (8 children)

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @12:06AM (#587177) Journal

    Nah, "Third World" is the right term to use. It means "backward," and that ought to sting. If it doesn't sting, then they have no reason to strive to better themselves. After all being poor and backward because they cannot curb their corruption or cooperate long enough to build their country up has failed thus far to spur them to progress. Shame. They need to feel shame, too.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jelizondo on Wednesday October 25 2017, @12:33AM (3 children)

    by jelizondo (653) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 25 2017, @12:33AM (#587185) Journal

    Third world does not mean ‘backwards’. I’m sure you are old enough to remember when there was the West (1st world), the Commies (2nd world) and yes, the third world, which were all those countries not in the “west” or “commies”.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @01:04AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @01:04AM (#587196)

      Clearly, if it ain't "First World", then it's backwards.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 25 2017, @02:13AM (1 child)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 25 2017, @02:13AM (#587222) Journal

        Clearly, the current "First World" is going backwards.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @02:27AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @02:27AM (#587229)

          There. Settled.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @04:43PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @04:43PM (#587448)

    Pretty sure they would be second world:
    http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/third-world.asp [investopedia.com]

  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:07PM (2 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:07PM (#587498)

    Actually, it's a somewhat stupid term to use, because you'd have to be a complete idiot to think that Switzerland is a "backwards" country, yet it absolutely does qualify for "third world" status because it was never aligned with either the USA or USSR. Same goes for Norway.

    • (Score: 2) by jelizondo on Thursday October 26 2017, @01:54AM (1 child)

      by jelizondo (653) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 26 2017, @01:54AM (#587664) Journal

      But it gets better, Japan was considered to be in the “West”… Never trust politicians or ideologues, they twist words so they can twist your mind.

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday October 26 2017, @02:14AM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday October 26 2017, @02:14AM (#587669)

        In many way, Japan *is* part of the West. In case you forgot, it was occupied by the US for some time, its Constitution was written by the US, and it's one of the US's strongest allies now, and the US is their biggest trading partner. Their modern culture borrows heavily from American culture. Politically and militarily, they're very much aligned with "the west".

        No one's trying to "twist your mind", these labels exist for a reason. The first/second/third-world stuff is really just obsolete, and became that way the day the Soviet Union collapsed. It was just a way of designating which countries were aligned with either side, or neither side. These days it just doesn't make sense because there is no more "second world".