I loved every minute of my time working at Netflix. Great, talented coworkers who I could constantly learn from, management chain from bottom to top of former engineers, so they understood when you would say, "I worked on this for a week but have no results because it didn't work". Plenty of resources to do what you needed to do, and lots of autonomy to do what you thought was right. Very little process and upper management actively moved to eliminate what little process there was. Unlimited vacation time that was real -- management took long vacations to set an example and would actively encourage everyone to do the same. And of course a great paycheck which included 10%+ raises because they made sure that new people didn't make more than veterans.
I'll be the first to admit it's not for everyone. As they say, they are a sports team, not a family. Perform well and be rewarded handsomely, perform poorly and get cut with a big check. I personally thrived in that kind of environment, where you always have to keep proving your value. But not everyone wants to work that way.
I've had a pretty excellent time at Netflix myself.
The business model is refreshingly simple: people pay to watch shows they'll enjoy. As a result, our work is pretty aligned with our customers. No annoying ads, no selling data, no focusing on whales, no anti-consumer dark patterns (or at least not many).
And Reed is an excellent CEO, imo. He's tried his best to build a culture that treats everyone as human and intelligent - minimal red tape, lots of flexibility, wide transparency with data & strategy, very focused business, and he even encourages middle management to cut down on big meetings.
Lastly, it's nice to work at a place where you can count on everyone to be competent. It's expensive to pay well and not hire juniors, and it can also mean that 'senior' employees end up doing 'junior' work, but it also means that your colleagues are usually solid, which is nice.
Not to say everything is perfect, but overall I've been satisfied with Netflix. I still might leave for another company someday, but if I do, it will because that other company is also great, not because Netflix is sucky to work for.
> no anti-consumer dark patterns (or at least not many)
There's plenty of those. They removed the star ratings, they don't show IMDB or other external ratings, nonsensical categories, things that still autoplay even with all autoplay options off (e.g. when selecting an episode in a series).
They keep producing average to bad content and keep pushing it in front of you without any option to filter it out. And the things they produce that are worth watching are hidden in a stream of junk and cancelled after season 3, usually without a satisfying ending, because Netflix structures their contracts in such a way that they would have to pay a lot more after season 3.
And they keep removing non-netflix content. They said themselves, they want to become HBO before HBO can become them. Well, I don't want HBO. I want a Spotify for video content where I can watch everything in one place. Old netflix was just that. I refuse to pay for multiple streaming services at the same time. Yo-ho and raise the flag.
> And they keep removing non-netflix content.
I was under the impression they don't have much choice and actually it's the copyright owners pulling their content to have it exclusively on their new shiny streaming service, or at the very least demanding exorbitant amounts from Netflix to allow them to keep certain things (e.g. Friends).
,, The business model is refreshingly simple: people pay to watch shows they'll enjoy''
I believe that this is true, but I also have a feeling that the main goal for netflix is maximizing views, and not maximizing the experience per supscriber weighted by user spend.
In other words I would prefer less, but very well thought out and executed movies that focus on having a great story (like House of Cards until the main character was kicked out of the series). I would still pay the same amount of money for those few movies than a person who's binging on all new lower quality and lower budget series. I loved the movie Dune for example, where the story made sense, in opposed to Netflix's Brave new world, where even my girlfriend who read the book said that the movie doesn't make any sense, and it has nothing to do with the book itself, and totally ruined it, as the movie series had no story.
Can you tell me if Netflix focuses on total views for a movie, or rather tries to estimate the revenue by dividing user spend by the number of movies the user watched?
The auto play of movie trailers while browsing for titles irritates me to the core.
It's like I know I can't read the description longer than 3 seconds or else all these moving pictures that I don't want to see are going to start jumping at me.
I know it sounds like a 1st world problem but it made the Netflix experience unbearable for me.
I was ready to cancel my subscription.
Then I learned on this site while reading comments you can turn this off by logging in your account on the web.
These *&$ knew only geeks like me would be put off by auto-playng trailers. They knew only geeks like me would find the turn off setting. I hate Netflix, but I'm still paying. I hate myself.
> The auto play of movie trailers while browsing for titles irritates me to the core.
Nevermind trailers, what about when it just starts playing the film while you're reading the description and talking about it?
I agree it's infuriating. Always end up doing this ridiculous quick-jumping around back and forth dance, and often end up on mute too if we don't decide quickly.
> Then I learned on this site while reading comments you can turn this off by logging in your account on the web.
I have 'do not autoplay previews' on in my settings; don't see an option for 'do not autoplay features'.
>> ,, The business model is refreshingly simple: people pay to watch shows they'll enjoy''
> I believe that this is true, but I also have a feeling that the main goal for netflix is maximizing views, and not maximizing the experience per supscriber weighted by user spend.
Not GP, but I believe Netflix has patterns to keep the subscriber in the app for as long as possible, including browsing through the list, adding things to an endless list, moving through the list of content just to avoid the trailer that would autoplay (this was around for years until it brought an option to disable the autoplay)…in other words, Netflix has focused (intentionally or unintentionally) on reducing the amount of actual content streamed while making sure the person isn’t using another streaming service for longer.
> …in opposed to Netflix’s Brave new world…
There are many titles on Netflix that are marked as Netflix Originals that aren’t produced by Netflix or even show up on Netflix first. Brave New World was a Peacock (the streaming service from NBC) original that was canceled after the first season. It was sometime after this that Netflix bought it and stamped it as a Netflix Original. I have no idea why Netflix bought it or how it relates to the book though.
> making sure the person isn’t using another streaming service for longer.
Thanks, as I just pay for all available streaming services, I forgot that most people don't view them as orthogonal services...now the whole strategy makes so much more sense.
About the Netflix Original comment: it's again only about maximizing viewing time, but at least now I understand the reason. It means ,,not available on other streaming services, stay here''
Yeah, the strategy doesn't quite have the same oomph when you're already content having a few different streaming services subscribed at a time.
If I spend too long browsing Netflix without picking something, I switch apps and leave a mental check against leaving Netflix in the renew rotation, but only because I have a backup already on deck.
I’ll second this. Netflix was one of my favorite places to work as well for mostly the same reasons. Having said that I do hear they are getting bigger and things have changed somewhat recently. So YMMV.
Edit: it’s also nice to not have ethical concerns with your choice of employer.
> Edit: it’s also nice to not have ethical concerns with your choice of employer.
Did you not happen across the predatory soliciting of new content? In that by attending a Netflix "screening event" you give Netflix a right to use your film in perpetuity, royalty free?
9.2: ... By making available your Proposal via the Platform, if you are a Shortlisted Entrant you automatically grant Netflix and UNESCO a free license to use the Proposal and/or pitch (if you participate in the Final Round) in connection with marketing and promotional purposes, behind the scenes footage, and airing your final film on Netflix in relation to the Competition.
This suggests that the only thing Netflix has to do is put your film under the "competition entry" category of their app and they can broadcast it for free. Not if you "win" their competition and are paid, but if you are on the short list of consideration for being a finalist.
9.3 ... you accept that by entering into the Competition, if you are selected as a Shortlisted Entrant, but are not a selected as a Finalist, you are agreeing all rights to the content of your Proposal and pitch will be held in abeyance for one year ...
11.1. Entrant is bound by confidentiality with respect to this Competition and their participation. Entrant shall not disclose in any way the content of the Proposal, nor disclose the contents of any message or notification Entrant may receive from Netflix, UNESCO, or Dalberg in furtherance of this Competition. Entrant acknowledges and agrees that the aforementioned obligation of confidentiality includes but is not limited to interviews, the internet, print publications or any social networking sites or similar (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Tik Tok etc.). Entrant’s obligations under this Section 11.1 shall end in accordance with the second sentence of Section 8.2.
So if your pitch is considered, Netflix has it locked up for a year without paying you anything. Furthermore, you can't market it to anyone else or even market it yourself due to the confidentiality clause.
These pitch scam events aren't new, here's another one following the "Netflix model" to lock up the rights to scripts without paying for them.
> The prospect of giving up rights to a script for a year and a half — with no pay — horrified several entrants. But, says Green, “We’ve revised that. It was an admitted overlook on our end. We’ve emailed the finalists to say we’ll negotiate a new option agreement for the screenplays we want to move forward with.” Even so, contestants still have to sign the free option agreement and will have to take him at his word that it will change.
There was one this past year I saw posted on the company's Twitter account which suggested that all entries would grant Netflix rights to the content in perpetuity but it took quite a beating in terms of angry tweets in response, and I can't find it so I presume the company deleted the tweets about it.
There are also reports that Netflix "blacklists" films which they offered on, but the owner rejected their offer, in that they force people who license content to them not to buy content from people who have rejected Netflix. This is just a flat out rewrite of the Microsoft tactics from the 80s/90s to kill competition by telling Dell and Gateway to drop competing software.
> But Atkinson came back down to earth when he learned after the festival that suddenly all the prospective buyers of the movie pulled out. He said he was told that Netflix blocks any service deals for movies on the streaming platform after they have turned down Netflix Original deals.
This whole post is basically an exercise in the most easily downvoted post you can make on this forum:
"There are no accidental mom and pop billionaires."
They're all guilty, it's just a matter of degree. How do you know they're guilty? They have the money, and you know their name. If they weren't guilty, someone else would have the money and you would know someone else's name instead.
Just be prepared to apply and never hear back from them, even with twenty years of internet company and vfx experience. Absolutely nothing, not even a “no thanks,” for all the time wasted on their job site.
Applying through company websites is usually a black hole. For whatever team you’re applying for, try to find the team lead/manager/etc and hit them up on social media. Obviously be prepared to sell yourself but getting hold of a human usually fares much better than applying through whatever portal.
Unfortunately I've had the same experience as the OP with regards to Netflix.
How effective do you actually find reaching out to random people related to job postings?
In my experience for the companies I've worked at, even if I'm referring a close friend/former colleague the only difference (visible to me at least) is that it they get put in a similar queue.
Might've been useful five years ago when I was looking for work. Have a great job now working remotely for a responsive company, not eager for a daily commute.
I started a startup a few days after I left. Also had a baby a few months before leaving and really liked the schedule flexibility when I was on paternity leave.
Not the parent, but I have some experience here - my cofounder and I both had kids a month apart (four years ago). It switches you to playing the startup game in "hard mode", but it is doable with the right spouse(s).
YMMW, but FWIW. You no longer have the luxury of hours-long uninterrupted coding streaks, but it doesn't prevent you from thinking through things that need to be done (e.g. when you are walking outside with a stroller). The net effect of it is that when you do have a chance to sit down and code, you produce something that requires no rewriting or refactoring later on. If you then compare time it takes to get X done, the think-then-code comes on top of code-then-rewrite and by a large margin.
In a sense having a baby forces you to become a more thoughtful and effecient programmer :)
All FAANG/MANGA are two years stints. Its a common experience but of course many people stay longer and are comfortable with that traditional view of being married to a corporation.
A) Netflix is an ideal first company in the Silicon Valley circuit because their compensation package is a simple formula of <every other FAANG’s compensation package but in all cash>, which makes negotiating the next place much easier because you’re more liquid already and already know what the total compensation should be - or would balk at any other base salary because the cash portion is so much lower, forcing companies to entire you with more shares than they were prepared to. And B) because you simply made enough money to attempt something else in your life.
People are either vesting 1/48th immediately every month, 3/48th every quarter, or are in the same circumstance a year after starting. The 4 year part is irrelevant for them as there is no actual waiting involved. They simple are able to negotiated being enticed by another company that will exceed how much cash they are already collecting. The company they work for gave them a signing bonus that required them to stay one year, the next
company will too, as well as a higher base salary and higher dollar amount of shares that begin vesting quickly.
four year vest doesn't mean you get all the RSUs at the end of four years. or if it does, that's not how it actually works at google, facebook, microsoft, etc. typically you get an offer with a certain amount of RSUs, and then you get 25% of that each year. amazon is an exception; you get most of the RSUs in the third and fourth year. but you also get a large signing bonus paid over the first two years that mostly makes up for that.
tl;dr: your yearly TC doesn't change much at these companies unless you get an actual raise. I don't fully understand the reasoning behind the four year schedule, but AIUI, it does not strongly incentivize sticking around for the full four years unless you assume significant stock appreciation.
I know it doesn't mean you get all the RSUs at the 4 year mark but if you leave after 2 years, you only get 50% of your RSUs. Why leave potentially hundreds of thousands on the table to jump after two years? I've never heard of this two-year stinting.
You shouldn't view the RSUs as different from any other compensation package, even just an all-cash package.
If Google says they'll give you $200k per year in cash + $400k split over 4 years as RSUs, that's the same as just getting $300k per year in cash.
Why would you leave $300k per year in cash on the table? Because another company is offering you $350k per year (or more likely in the case of FAANG, another company is offering you the same $300k/yr but with significantly less stress).
Yeah I guess I'm just surprised that, once you're at the FAANG level, the packages are going to vary that much that one would jump every two years. Also, having just interviewed at the FAANG level, they are very weary about job hoppers to the point where if you haven't worked at a place for longer than 3+ years, they want a detailed explanation why.
> if you haven't worked at a place for longer than 3+ years, they want a detailed explanation why.
Interesting. At my FAANG (Amazon) we explicitly are told to not ask this. It would be kind of weird for us to ask that, really, considering the tenure of most people here is <2 years.
This has not been my experience at all. I've job hopped every 2 years to promote in transition and take on significantly more compensation. I'm about 18 months into my current role and I'm looking for the exit. Why? Because my future compensation at these companies is based on "impact" instead of what the market is willing to pay. So even if I have the highest levels of impact, I'm losing compensation staying at my current company.
Yeah I mean historically I've done the same. Most of my jobs have been at most 2 year stints. This is my first experience under this kind of scrutiny. It does make sense, since most of the people (at least on this team) are all 4+ years tenured but it was a surprise.
You’re not factoring in stock appreciation there. It’s somewhat common these days to see people sitting on huge unvested grants, so in your example, your yearly comp won’t be the $300k/y you had at year one. Then it’s pretty hard to get a match on your “inflated” TC anywhere else. You don’t get that in an all-cash package, even if you buy stock from the company with your cash comp
If you're granted an equal amount each year, then you'll get a similar amount in your first year at a competitor who also grants an equal amount each year.
Also - for talented engineers at companies I've worked with, we gave starting bonuses ~equal to the value of the unvested options as a recruiting tool.
Facebook does stock refreshers every year, so there is _some_ benefit on sticking around, as you’ll have more stock vesting every year (until the 4y cliff at least)
I'd like to work for Netflix. It's one of my favorite services, and after talking to a principal who was with them through the 2000's, the challenges they face are fascinating. I feel like I'd be doing a net positive for the world since so many people rely on it for peace of mind.
Cool! Is it still like that, even today? Netflix is possibly my "reach" job, based specifically on what I've read about the culture.
I'm about equally split talent wise between "mathy things" (signal processing) and lower level systems engineering. "video & image encoding" or "research scientist - algorithms engineering" look hot to me.
Same here. Loved my years at Netflix. Great colleagues building robust systems and management is there to help.
If I were to ever go back to big tech, this is where I would try first.
I know its a trope here, but why are there a lot of devs in Netflix. I'd think you'd need a few dozen people. Plus basically what has changed in 10 years?
- maintaining the number of clients alone is a gargantuan task. Almost every TV manufacturer has a different OS, and many TV models have different OS, plus all of the different consoles, phones, etc
- The pure engineering of pushing that many bytes around the world 24/7.
- Then storing information about those users for advertisers. https://netflixtechblog.com/revisiting-1-million-writes-per-...
- Security, because if they are found negligent (ie making it easy for people to make illegal copies), there goes their business.
- Constant product tweaks on the above thousands of clients to make the UI experience consistent across clients.
- Performance improvements to keep users engaged.
- AI that surfaces what customers want.
- Data storage to deal with all of the content they have.
- Dynamic content serving based on where in the world you are.
- etc.
I'll be the first to admit it's not for everyone. As they say, they are a sports team, not a family. Perform well and be rewarded handsomely, perform poorly and get cut with a big check. I personally thrived in that kind of environment, where you always have to keep proving your value. But not everyone wants to work that way.