The difference is that apps aren't what attract users to Netflix. Movies attract users to Netflix. That lets Netflix build up a base of users, which then makes it an interesting platform for apps.
App.net, on the other hand, is just glue to connect applications together. Outside apps, there is no "there" there. So it suffers from a chicken-and-egg problem that Netflix does not -- they need users to attract developers, but to attract users, there have to be developers building attractive stuff.
Probably the easiest way out of this conundrum would be if they could entice some celebrities or other high-profile figures to ditch Twitter for App.net. They would create streams of content people want to read, which would attract their fans, which would attract developers. This seems a bit contrary to the App.net "we're just an API" philosophy, though.
I anticipated your response (not you personally, the point you're making). I agree App.net needs top-notch personalities with interesting content or discussion. I don't agree with the "no 'there' there" premise, however -- I've already found that in spades. But I'm of the tech crowd. If they can draw more people from the margins of the tech world who can pull their communities in, there were be a lot more "there" to go around.
App.net, on the other hand, is just glue to connect applications together. Outside apps, there is no "there" there. So it suffers from a chicken-and-egg problem that Netflix does not -- they need users to attract developers, but to attract users, there have to be developers building attractive stuff.
Probably the easiest way out of this conundrum would be if they could entice some celebrities or other high-profile figures to ditch Twitter for App.net. They would create streams of content people want to read, which would attract their fans, which would attract developers. This seems a bit contrary to the App.net "we're just an API" philosophy, though.