this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
357 points (96.9% liked)

Technology

60008 readers
3600 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s
[email protected]
[email protected]
L4s
enu
357
Hollywood is on strike because CEOs fell for Silicon Valley’s magical thinking (www.latimes.com)
submitted 1 year ago by L4s to c/technology
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Hollywood is on strike because CEOs fell for Silicon Valley’s magical thinking::Inspired by the success of Netflix, Hollywood studios pursued Silicon Valley-style hypergrowth with tactics borrowed from the likes of Uber and Lyft.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jarix 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Found this odd, anyone smarter than me care to offer opinions on why they wrote it this way?

"Yet Iger reportedly makes $27 million a year, while Netflix just raked in $1.5 billion in net profit in the last quarter."

Why are they comparing a person to a company?

Shouldnt it be disney(3.19B last year) to netflix(1.5B last quarter), or Iger(27 million) to Reedings/Sarandos(35 mill each as co ceos)

*The numbers i used are from a quick google search where they arent taken from the article, please be kind if i found the wrong ones. I dont actually care about the numbers was just trying to match what the article did. Feel free to correct them for everyone elses benefit

[–] sachabe 5 points 1 year ago

I see it more as Disney's CEO saying his company can't afford to pay actors more, and yet they chose to pay him 27mil a year. That's why his salary is relevant in the discussion.