301–310 of 335 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not exactly. It’s $2.99 per month. So pay that when there is something good to watch on Prime Video, then remove it. Though I’m hoping that will work, will see when if actually happens.
Why would it not work? I've done the same with other streaming services.
I just don’t know if Amazon will insist on it being only annual or not if you have annual Prime subs. I didn’t see details regarding that in the press release.
Probably most people will disagree, but I'm happy with this. I pay for Prime exclusively for the shipping. I never wanted video in the first place. So if Amazon needs to raise prices/revenue, I prefer that they keep Prime the same, and raise the price (now +$2.99/mo.) for people who are big watchers of Prime Video and don't want ads. So this price segmentation makes sense to me.
> No action is required for Prime members While I understand why it needs to be stated, it was such a funny line in the middle of this announcement. This is also one of these cases where it goes out in US and some select western countries first, and they will shape the evolution of the product before it hits the rest of the world. I'm pretty much hoping there's a big uproar in the first countries, because otherwise i…
Ah yes, the classic shakedown where companies sell products for money. How dare they.
It's not a product when it's implemented by the same company that injects the ads in the first place.
Which is capitalism speak for “we are raising the price.”
Shitheads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly this. Is this a way to pass the cost of the WGA/SAG negotiation to consumers? It sounds like it, and it might even make sense as such. The challenge is that the cost is passed while content is not generated, so as consumer the reasonable choice is to also "strike" on subscriptions for a while, until the pipeline is full again. Hopefully this strike will stick, the same way subscriptions tend to stick.
Now that you mention it I’m surprised the actors and/or writers haven’t suggested folks cancel their streaming services temporarily to show support for the “little guys” against the studios. Maybe they’re afraid of the long-term effects if people do get used to watching less?
Probably most people will disagree, but I'm happy with this. I pay for Prime exclusively for the shipping. I never wanted video in the first place. So if Amazon needs to raise prices/revenue, I prefer that they keep Prime the same, and raise the price (now +$2.99/mo.) for people who are big watchers of Prime Video and don't want ads. So this price segmentation makes sense to me.
Although I hate ads, the option to pay $3/mo to not have them seems entirely reasonable. The value I get from prime is far in excess of what I pay for it - even at a much higher price.
Being ok with it because it’s “only 3 bucks” is just letting them know it’s ok and they and others will do it more and more.
Amazon makes plenty of profit. They can have a lower price option with ads.. and keep ad free the same.
Imagine a world where a guy worth over 150 billion dollars who owns a company worth over a trillion dollars and has a quasi-monopoly over the internet is in such desperate need of more money to the point where he's going to put advertising on his video platform, even though people already pay for the platform. Instead of raising prices moderately, or putting better content on the platform, they decide to instead put…
If he'd stopped when he had enough, I wouldn't be able to order stuff at 23:00 and have it delivered at 07:00. If Musk had stopped when he had enough, I won't be able to take weekend vacations to orbital hotels in my lifetime. Enough money to live comfortably is just one goal; building cool things is another orthogonal one.
These are not things worth the human costs associated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, the classic shakedown where companies sell products for money. How dare they.
"pay for less ads" is a product in the sense that ad blockers or piehole style network filtering devices are products. It's not a product when it's implemented by the same company that injects the ads in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly this. Is this a way to pass the cost of the WGA/SAG negotiation to consumers? It sounds like it, and it might even make sense as such. The challenge is that the cost is passed while content is not generated, so as consumer the reasonable choice is to also "strike" on subscriptions for a while, until the pipeline is full again. Hopefully this strike will stick, the same way subscriptions tend to stick.
Now that you mention it I’m surprised the actors and/or writers haven’t suggested folks cancel their streaming services temporarily to show support for the “little guys” against the studios. Maybe they’re afraid of the long-term effects if people do get used to watching less?
My alternative proposition would be for the actors and writers to allow for crowd-funded productions and go for individual show/movie streams. I would personally invest in a production happening in the midst of dearth of content.
I flat out do not watch ads. If a platform has ads, I do not watch it full stop. I pay YouTube for no ads. If I lost that option, I would not watch YouTube. Same with all of the other streaming services. Netflix pushed it last year with preview rolls. It was barely acceptable/tolerable. But I will eagerly jettison any service that makes me pay for ads. Heck, I even look askance at people who willingly pay money to un…
When I got rich, I bought a bunch of it for my family a long time ago and it looks to be in mint condition now, decades later. It’s also super easy to recognize on the luggage carousel. Never regretted it.
Other than that I have to admit I never pay to advertise anything. I live on a farm and dress like a plumber, so I never actually match the luggage.