Updated on 21 May 2026
iflix was once one of Southeast Asia’s most ambitious subscription video-on-demand (VoD) platforms focused on emerging markets. Headquartered in Kuala Lumpur during its peak growth years, iflix expanded aggressively across Southeast Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa through telco partnerships and regional content licensing deals.
Originally backed by Catcha Group, iflix reportedly raised more than US$300 million and grew to tens of millions of users across multiple regions before eventually being acquired by Tencent in 2020 and integrated into the broader WeTV ecosystem.
Since then, the streaming market has evolved dramatically, with stronger competition from Netflix, Disney+, Viu, Amazon Prime Video, and regional players competing heavily for local audiences and exclusive content rights. Let's understand how they started out, and how they compare to similar services.
When iflix launched around 2015, its main strategy was affordability and localisation. Unlike Netflix at the time, iflix focused heavily on emerging-market consumers who primarily watched content on smartphones and often lacked access to international payment cards.
The company aggressively partnered with telcos, internet providers, and device manufacturers to distribute free trials and bundled subscriptions. Local-language content, regional dramas, and affordable mobile-first streaming became the core differentiators.
At the time, this was a smart strategy because streaming adoption in Southeast Asia was still early, mobile internet usage was rising rapidly, and consumers were highly price sensitive.
The streaming industry today is far more competitive than it was during iflix’s early expansion phase.
Netflix remains dominant globally due to its massive investment in original content, recommendation algorithms, and global scale. Disney+ strengthened its position through franchises like Marvel, Pixar, and Star Wars. Meanwhile, Viu built strong traction across Asia with Korean dramas and Asian entertainment.
Regional localisation, however, still matters heavily. Southeast Asian audiences continue consuming local-language content, Korean entertainment, anime, and regional dramas at very large scale. This validates part of iflix’s original thesis that local content matters significantly in emerging markets.
Traditional broadcasters such as Astro have also evolved into hybrid digital streaming ecosystems instead of relying purely on satellite television.
The biggest difference today is that streaming has shifted from purely subscriber growth toward profitability, advertising monetisation, retention, and ecosystem integration.
Initially, iflix relied mainly on subscriptions, bundled telco deals, and discounted plans. Over time, however, the company realised that the pure subscription model was difficult in lower-income emerging markets where average revenue per user (ARPU) was significantly lower than Western markets.
This eventually pushed the company toward ad-supported streaming models, freemium content, and hybrid monetisation strategies.
Today, many streaming companies globally use combinations of:
This shift toward advertising-supported streaming has become industry standard globally, even for companies like Netflix and Disney+ that previously focused almost entirely on subscriptions.
Following Tencent’s acquisition, iflix branding became increasingly integrated into WeTV’s regional expansion strategy. The focus shifted away from standalone aggressive expansion toward ecosystem consolidation and content distribution efficiency.
Modern streaming competition is no longer simply about “who has more users.” Instead, it revolves around customer retention, cost of acquiring subscribers, exclusive content ownership, advertising monetisation, platform engagement, ecosystem integration, AI-driven recommendations, and mobile-first user behaviour.
This is especially important because content production costs globally have risen significantly over the last decade.inning strategy to bet millions on.
Upon closer inspection, Iflix has free content and "VIP" content. For the Iflix VIP content, they require you to pay via subscription monthly (RM10/mo) or yearly (RM8/mo), paid via your phone bill or credit card.
Do keep in mind though, Iflix price changes when they have promotions. Iflix subscription was RM5/mo at one point, or even RM30 for 12 months. Their marketing team is quite aggressive and have the flexibility to offer huge discounts. Even free access for a few months for new accounts (which can be easily abused, by the way).
While they claim to have 5 million subscribers, do note that some may not be subscribing at all. They are known to subscribe customers on their behalves via their mobile carrier accounts where Iflix gives out free accounts.
Iflix said it had five million registered users back in March, but it isn’t giving an update on that this time around. It instead hailed “tremendous growth” which it said includes a 3X increase in subscriber numbers and 2X rise in user engagement over the past year. Revenue, it said, is up 230 percent year-on-year, but it is keeping quiet on raw figures.
Having 3X increase in subscribers and 2.3X revenue growth basically signals to investors that there are some customers that are getting free accounts. This is usually done as trials to try and entice potential paying customers to subscribe.
In any case, let's look at the revenue model itself.
If 30% of the 5m subscribers (which is a very high figure among Startups) pay for their services, their revenues would be RM15m a year at full price. If they doubled to 10m subscribers at full price, they should be making RM100m. It's probably safe to assume they're currently at RM15-100m revenues (or US$3-25m revenues). Not great for a company that raised $300M, but that will do for now since they have a longer-term picture to play out. Time will tell.
Alongside pre-roll ads, brands will also be offered product placement options within local and regional content, plus in-app ads.
Basically, Iflix is now aiming to diversify their risk of small revenues by running multiple types of ads. Let's do some calculations to estimate how much they could be making!
Their previous investment was $90m at $500M valuation. Their latest fundraise of $133m is unknown, but let me take a stab at it because $133m is an odd figure to raise. It basically signals a multiple of 3. It could be 33% equity given away to match $400m valuation or it could be 16% which would be very favourable to them at $800m. Both figures are near the typical 15-30% equity given out at late stages. Take your pick.
Netflix's enormous spending on original content has led the streaming video platform to accrue $20.54 billion "in long-term debt and obligations," according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.
http://www.thefader.com/2017/07/31/netflix-20-billion-debt
The company is expected to spend $6 billion on original content this year, with an undetermined budget spent on licensing fees for programs from TV studios. Its net cash outflow will increase this year to $2.5 billion, up from $1.7 billion, and the company expects “to be free-cash-flow negative for many years."
I am not sure what to make of this. Netflix is a 20-year-old company. With 20b in debt and 2.5b in negative cash flow, and that expectation that they will not make money for a long time makes me wonder. When should they start making money then?
Let's look at the picture from another angle. They have raised 3.1B (see what to do when competitors have raised way more than you have), and their latest revenues in 2017 is reported to be 11.7b.
The good news for them, is that people do not only watch new movies, so old movies can still make them money. As their subscriber base is retained longer, the revenues keep pouring in as well.
If they were to stop making content for a year, they could probably immediately make a profit given the costs of producing content
Netflix will spend between $7 billion and $8 billion on content in 2018, up from the roughly $6 billion it will spend this year
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/16/business/media/netflix-earnings.html
Their operational costs are about 14b and revenues are 11.7b. The profit they could be making is 4.7b if they suddenly stopped producing content. That's 40% margins. They could just be capping it at 20% profit margins while still producing content. Instead, they choose to have negative cash flows just to grow faster.
So comparing Netflix & Iflix , we can see that there are some viable strategies to make this business model work. Many models or strategies that should be scrapped as well.
