Netflix makes more money than ever and its shares fall 9%. The explanation is that Netflix is ​​the new mainstream

Reed Hastings founded Netflix 29 years ago with an idea as simple as it was revolutionary: charge a fixed fee in exchange for access to content on demand and without interruptions, in a digital version of the video store by mail in which the company took its first steps. This Thursday, as the company posted solid quarterly results that still disappointed Wall Street, it was announced that Hastings will step down from the board of directors in June. The man who built Netflix is ​​leaving now that the platform is no longer what he envisioned. The results. The results for the first quarter of 2026 are, in absolute terms, notables. They reached 12.25 billion dollars, 16% more than in the same period of the previous year, meeting what the company itself had projected and slightly exceeding the average expectations of analysts. Net profit grew 82% to $5.23 billion. It is a spectacular percentage, yes, but that earnings per share of $1.23 includes the $2.8 billion break-up fee Frustrated deal with Warner Bros. Discoverywhich inflates the accounting result. Without it, the number would have been more modest. And that’s why shares fell 9% on Wall Street. Fall in the stock market. The main reason for this stock market crash was not the data for the quarter, but the outlook for the second. Netflix projects 13% growth in revenue for Q2, to about $12.6 billion, when the Wall Street consensus was closer to $13.1 billion. The difference is small in relative terms, but enough to remind us that investors have been accustomed for years to Netflix far exceeding its forecasts. Goodbye Hastings… The company has also announced that Reed Hastings, co-founder and until now president of the councilwill not stand for reelection when his term expires at the shareholders meeting on June 4, 2026. This ends 29 years with the company which he himself co-founded. Hastings had already given a step back in January 2023when he left the co-CEO position in the hands of Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters. His definitive departure from the board, the company explained, responds to his desire to focus on philanthropy and other projects. During the call to analysts after the presentation of results, Sarandos had to respond to whether Hastings’ departure had any relationship with the failure of the operation with Warner Bros. Discovery. Sarandos stated that “I’m sorry to anyone who seeks palace intrigue. Reed was a great defender of that agreement.” …hello to the announcements. Hastings was for years one of the most visible skeptics within the company regarding the use of streaming advertising. In 2022, when Netflix first lost subscribersdeclared to be “against the complexity of advertisements.” Four years later, the advertising business has become one of the structural pillars of the company. The company works with more than 4,000 advertisers, 70% more than the previous year, and the advertising-supported plan already accounts for more than 60% of new registrations in the 12 countries where it is available, according to data from Netflix itself. The projection of advertising revenue for 2026 is 3,000 million dollars, double the 1.5 billion generated in 2025. It is paradoxical that the platform that has been seen as an evolutionary step of traditional television, without its inconveniences (among which, without a doubt, is advertising), now competes directly with YouTube and linear television for brand advertisements. What’s more: Netflix has migrated its advertising technology to its own platform, leaving behind dependence on Microsoft, and programmatic purchasing It is already close to 50% of its advertising business not tied to events. The paradox. That is, everything in these results points to a great paradox. The company itself recognizes which represents less than 5% of the share global television, but projected annual revenues of between $50.7 billion and $51.7 billion place it among the largest media companies on the planet. And meanwhile, its shares fall 9%. There is an explanation for all of this. For years, Netflix was a company of exponential growth, the type of asset that technology funds love: skyrocketing subscriber metrics, unstoppable geographic expansion, its own content that accumulated prestige and audience… Now it is something else: the mainstreamprofitable and predictable, with several monetization levers (subscription, advertising, live sports, gaming) and a business model that is no longer surprising, but widely imitated. A solid company, with a dominant position and prospects for growing profitability, but at a calm pace, in the medium term. It is certainly not the Netflix that Hastings built. In Xataka | Netflix is ​​desperate to find the next franchise that will make it gold. The problem is that he can’t find it.

OpenAI has turned ChatGPT into mainstream AI. In the business world the game is being won by its great rival

Anthropic is nowhere near as well-known as OpenAI, but its AI model, Claude, is gaining traction almost unnoticed. Perhaps because he is doing it in a somewhat more opaque sector like that of companies. at least like this I pointed it out this summer a study by Menlo Ventures that certainly paints an interesting picture for this corporate AI war. Overtaking on the right. The data of that company venture capital companies reveal that at the beginning of 2023 OpenAI dominated the business segment with its AI models: it had a 50% share, when Anthropic barely had 12%. In July the situation had changed radically, and while OpenAI had reduced its share to 25%, Anthropic had managed to grow it to 32%. Source: Menlo Ventures. Companies bet on Claude. According to data from OpenAI itself, the company already has 800 million users. A small part of them already use a paid subscription, and that has allowed annual revenue to rise to $13 billion by 2025. Of them, 30% come from companies. Anthropic itself points out that revenues in 2025 will be about 5,000 million dollars – although they may end the year with 9,000 – but 80% of them come from business clients, whose number now amounts to 300,000. The difference is notable. The programmers, protagonists. The Menlo Ventures report further argues that there is one type of professional user that is especially important in those numbers: programmers. In fact, Anthropic’s market share among developers is 42%, while OpenAI’s is 21%. A priori and according to this data, the developers’ preference is clear: they like Claude more than ChatGPT—and specific products, Claude Code and OpenAI Codex—when it comes to programming. Source: Menlo Ventures. Companies pay more easily. This reality seems to make it clear that for business users the benefits seem to be clearer and that is why companies do not seem to have qualms when it comes to paying for subscriptions to these AI models. Not only in programming, but for example in legal or administrative departments is where ChatGPT or Claude can improve productivity and save work for professionals, who pay to be able to use these options without the limitations of free plans. Even Microsoft signs up. Anthropic’s reputation is making companies traditionally linked to OpenAI also want to start betting on its models. This is what happened with Microsoft, which in September announced that Claude would be available in the Copilot suite in addition to ChatGPT. Meanwhile, OpenAI conquers the ordinary user. OpenAI’s approach is quite different. Although it obviously has part of its business focused on companies, its latest movements are very focused on attracting the largest possible number of users. The launch of Sora 2 and its social network Sora, and the recent presentation of the ChatGPT Atlas browser – which of course can also be used by professionals – indicate this. But. The data that puts Anthropic in this excellent position among companies comes from the Menlo Ventures study, but this company is an interested party because one of the startups in which it has invested is precisely Anthropic. Not only that, it is a common criticism among Anthropic users that their models are comparatively more expensive than those of competitors like OpenAI. These conclusions from the Menlo Ventures study may therefore be subject to suspicion. Image | Fortune Brainstorm Tech 2023 In Xataka | Anthropic has seen what OpenAI is doing with its circular financing and has decided that you only live once

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.