I think you're missing my point. Netflix taking out BlockBuster does not prove they can do no wrong, merely that Reed Hastings a perfectly capable CEO, and smarter than the media would have you believe.

If you read about the history of the company, they started by SELLING DVD's. They barely made any money renting them. But, Reed Hastings made the decision to split that company because it wasn't the future. His 10,000 customers complained but he stuck to his guns. And look at them now. The largest streaming company in the world.

He was placed in the same situation this past year. Stick to a business model with no future (DVD's-a dying medium), or split the company to improve negotiating terms for streaming deals(the future) and hopefully sell off "Quickster." It was a brilliant plan that poised Netflix for the next generation of digital distribution.

Instead they backed down and changed direction, looking weak in the process.

"Quickster" was also an absolutely terrible name. Orders of magnitude worse than "Netflix" which communicates perfectly what that company does.

Netflix was not originally an internet streaming company, that came later. I'm not sure I could call Netflix a "perfect communication of what the company does", given the name came around when the internet was only used to select your next mail-received movie.

From what I've read his goal was always to start a streaming movie company. He just did the DVDs by mail thing while he waited for technology to catch up.

Really? Truly fascinating that he had that foresight, then.

I imagine there are quite a few people who would agree with you; had Jobs stayed on at Apple, he wouldn't have learned the hard-won lessons from starting Pixar and NeXT.

Yes, but the lesson learned should be "sometimes things unexpectedly wind up working out well", not "fire your CEO and you too could become the highest market cap company in the world"...

Interesting correction: George Lucas actually started Pixar, not Steve Jobs.