????里德?海斯亭斯決定將Netflix拆分為兩家獨立的公司，一家主營流媒體業(yè)務(wù)，另一家（即將被命名為Qwikster）將繼承Netflix的“遺產(chǎn)”，經(jīng)營DVD業(yè)務(wù)。海斯亭斯此舉贏得了評論人士的一片喝彩，他們甚至援引《創(chuàng)新者的兩難境地》（The Innovator's Dilemma）一書，以示支持。該書作者是克萊頓?克里斯騰森，于1997年出版，出版后受到了普遍歡迎，論述了當(dāng)現(xiàn)有市場充滿了技術(shù)創(chuàng)新時，企業(yè)應(yīng)如何應(yīng)對市場由此發(fā)生的根本轉(zhuǎn)變。這部分評論家呼海斯亭斯實乃天才，因為他洞悉時務(wù)，認(rèn)識到流媒體業(yè)務(wù)才是視頻租賃業(yè)務(wù)的未來。

????這些人也許說得不錯，但是，Netflix的分拆舉措其實有幾點非常值得警惕。其中最明顯的一點是，租碟坐在家里觀看的人，沒幾個真正關(guān)心顛覆性技術(shù)和創(chuàng)新者的兩難境地。他們只想看看電影，越便宜、越方便越好。Netflix宣布將其定價計劃一分為二之后，市場上掀起了軒然大波。本周二，反對之聲又?jǐn)?shù)次升溫，原因在于客戶很想知道，Netflix這一最新舉措到底會對他們帶來什么影響。主要是，他們認(rèn)為，此舉只會給他們帶來更多麻煩，而Netflix此前上調(diào)價格已經(jīng)讓許多人有些不情愿了。

????Netflix這次業(yè)務(wù)拆分動了真格，兩塊業(yè)務(wù)將在兩個網(wǎng)站上獨立運營，兩塊業(yè)務(wù)的客戶也將收到兩份不同的計費賬單。從根本上說，盡管將業(yè)務(wù)一分為二從長遠(yuǎn)角度看可能不失為明智之舉，但對于該公司的流媒體業(yè)務(wù)而言，此舉帶來的巨大風(fēng)險簡直是立竿見影。

????原因在于：對Netflix的DVD業(yè)務(wù)和流視頻業(yè)務(wù)來說，版權(quán)法的應(yīng)用方式截然不同。根據(jù)首次銷售條款（First Sale Doctrine），Netflix可以依其所愿，租賃任何DVD。一旦它擁有了某個DVD，該公司就有權(quán)按自己希望的價格，將之租借給任何想看這張DVD的人。不幸的是，對于流視頻業(yè)務(wù)來說，情形就完全不同了。在流視頻業(yè)務(wù)領(lǐng)域，權(quán)利始終屬于內(nèi)容所有者，這些所有者收取的許可費要高得多，而且很可能許可費很快就會漲到天價。此外，這些所有者還能決定哪些視頻可以進入流業(yè)務(wù)，哪些不能。對許多客戶而言，盡管DVD租賃業(yè)務(wù)需要通過郵遞來完成，由此會帶來一些不便，但相較于流業(yè)務(wù)，它可能更劃算。

????此外，在Netflix宣布拆分之前，如果它無法獲得某個特定視頻的流媒體業(yè)務(wù)權(quán)，它還可以向客戶提供DVD租賃服務(wù)。因此，媒體公司也就更有理由放權(quán)讓Netflix將其視頻內(nèi)容納入流媒體業(yè)務(wù)中。Netflix拆分后，這種動力幾乎蕩然無存。原因在于如果Netflix無法獲取流媒體業(yè)務(wù)租賃權(quán)，它就得將客戶分流到另外一家截然不同的公司去租借DVD，盡管這家公司仍然歸Netflix全資所有。

????這可不是小事。隨著流媒體業(yè)務(wù)逐漸取代DVD租賃業(yè)務(wù)，后者終將消亡。此言不假。海斯亭斯在寫給客戶的“致歉信”中表示：“流媒體業(yè)務(wù)與通過郵遞租賃DVD業(yè)務(wù)正日益成為兩塊截然不同的業(yè)務(wù)，其成本結(jié)構(gòu)也截然不同，收益不同，而且銷售方式也不同，因此我們需要將這兩塊業(yè)務(wù)分開，讓它們獨立成長并運營。”

????這段話中的關(guān)鍵詞是“成為”。如果流媒體業(yè)務(wù)中可供付費下載的好電影跟DVD業(yè)務(wù)一樣多，而且成本也一樣，那Netflix應(yīng)該做的就不僅僅是將DVD業(yè)務(wù)分離出去，而是應(yīng)該將之完全拋棄，那樣才合情合理。不幸的是，無論對于Netflix還是對其客戶來說，這塊市場整個就是一片混亂，許多電影都尚未納入到流媒體業(yè)務(wù)中來，而且未來定價到底會是何種情形，也根本說不準(zhǔn)。此外，一旦電影果真廣泛地納入到流媒體業(yè)務(wù)中，也很難說到時情形又會如何。屆時Netflix是否依然是市場的主要參與者？沒人能夠斷言。

????譯者：大海

????In applauding Reed Hastings' decision to split Netflix (NFLX) into two separate companies, one for streaming and one (to be called Qwikster) for the "legacy" DVD business, several commentators have cited The Innovator's Dilemma, Clayton Christensen's much heralded 1997 book about how to deal with fundamental changes to existing markets wrought by technological innovation. Hastings is a genius, these commentators have declared, in recognizing that the future of video rental lies in streaming.

????They might be right, but there are a few huge caveats. The most immediate one being that people sitting at home trying to rent and watch videos probably aren't thinking much about disruptive technologies and innovators' dilemmas. They just want to watch a movie, as cheaply and conveniently as possible. The loud backlash that ensued after Netflix split its pricing plan in two is being turned up several notches today as customers wonder how this latest move will affect them. Mainly, they see it as only making their hassles worse, on top of the price increases many of them are already coping with.

????More fundamentally, though, while spitting the business in two (this is a real split – the businesses will be run separately, operate on separate Web sites, and customers of both will get two separate billing statements) probably makes sense in the long-term, it poses serious immediate risks to Netflix's streaming business.

????This is because copyright law applies very differently to Netflix's DVDs and streaming videos. With DVDs, Netflix can rent whatever it wants thanks to the First Sale Doctrine. Once Netflix owns a DVD, it has the rights to rent it to whomever it wants, at whatever price it wants to charge. Unfortunately, that's not the case with streaming video. There, the rights stay with the owner of the content, and those owners are charging more in licensing fees, and might be charging way more very soon. They also decide which videos can and cannot be streamed. DVD rentals, despite the relative inconvenience of rental by mail, might look like a bargain by comparison for many customers.

????Furthermore, Netflix until now had the option of giving customers access to DVDs if the company couldn't get streaming rights to a particular video. That gave media companies a further incentive to allow Netflix to stream their videos. That incentive is now mostly gone, because if Netflix can't get streaming rights, it will have to shunt customers off to a completely different company (albeit one wholly owned by Netflix) to get the DVD.

????Not that this is an easy problem. DVDs will eventually fade from the scene as streaming replaces it. It's true, as Hastings wrote in his "apology" to customers, that "streaming and DVD by mail are becoming two quite different businesses, with very different cost structures, different benefits that need to be marketed differently, and we need to let each grow and operate independently."

????The important word there is "becoming." If there were just as many good movies available via streaming as there are on DVD, at the same cost, it would make sense for Netflix to not merely spin-off the DVD business, but to drop it altogether. Unfortunately for Netflix and for its customers, the market is a total mess, with lots of titles not available for streaming and with future pricing highly uncertain. And it's unclear what will happen when movies do become more widely available via streaming. Will Netflix even be a major player at that point? Nobody can say for sure.