- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Amazon Prime Video will soon come with ads, or a $2.99 monthly charge to dodge them::Amazon’s Prime Video will begin showing ads during shows and movies early next year.
Amazon Prime Video will soon come with ads, or a $2.99 monthly charge to dodge them::Amazon’s Prime Video will begin showing ads during shows and movies early next year.
Prime Video isn’t profitable and they need it to be. They included it with Prime to build a user base but they were always going to charge or make you watch ads after that. And that’s perfectly fine because running a service that’s never going to make any money is fucking stupid.
If you don’t like it, don’t pay but stop with that “big corp makes enough money so keep giving me shit for free” bullshit.
Would love to read your pitch for a streaming service that doesn’t charge money and doesn’t show any ads though
The multi-billionaire owned Amazon (A company that pays no taxes) already charges for their service.
They charge for Prime (Delivery) and until now, Prime Video was included in that price. I hate Amazon as much as the next guy (don’t even haven an account) but all i read from you guys is exactly this kind of unconstructive rambling.
What the fuck do you expect? That a listed mega corporation just goes like “Oh you know what we make billions, what does it even matter if one of our services doesn’t make any money, let’s just keep going, not like we have shareholders to answer to”.
Remember when people used to pay 5 bucks to rent a VHS for ONE DAY and no one lost their mind about it? Without constantly whining about Blockbusters profit margin?
But thanks for clearing up that Amazon is a billionaire owned company, only read that for the 500th time this week.
Sure, but pointing out that this strategy of carpet pulling isn’t the best consumer feeling is valid. And, um, Prime isn’t free.
Not what they pointed out though. It’s just the usual, mindless big corp rant you can’t escape on here.
Existing Prime users got all this content without additional charges for years, that’s what I meant when I said free but you probably know that. If you think that’s a sustainable way to keep producing content for billions of dollars, it’s very naive imo.
But feel free to point out what would have been a better strategy and maybe actually start a discussion
Wow. You need to Netflix and chill.
I have been a Prime member since 2014 and joined exclusively for Prime Video access. Of course nothing is free. I am now going to pay more, yes you heard right, and will choose to continue being a paying member even at the higher cost, so that I can receive the SAME service and not have it degraded with ads. I hate ads and for all the services I subscribe to, 4 video streaming and 1 music streaming, I always pay the premium to not see ads.
You need to have a good hard look at yourself if you think defending Amazon puts you on the right ethical side of the fence. These cheap extra ad based profits, that deliver no new customer value, will not go to raising the low salaries many of their workforce endure, or relieve the pressure with their mandated 6% non-regrettable attrition policies, or stop their practices of stealing designs from small businesses and undercutting them with Amazon branded equivalents, or ensure taxes are paid in the relevant countries, or prevent further large scale lay offs.
This additional subscription cost is a first world problem for me but Amazon is not only an easy target for constant criticism, but a deserving one.
You guys just keep throwing everything in the same pot. I don’t like Amazon and don’t even have an account.
To raise the price (by 3 measly bucks) for a service that doesn’t make money is something a listed company IS REQUIRED to do. That’s all I am saying.
It has nothing to do with how much money the company makes in other areas and is a completely separate issue from the horrible working conditions, which is a political one.
But i guess it’s easier to just cry about everything while still throwing money at them and then jerking each other off because you commented “aMaZon SuCks”. Talk about the right side of the fence
It is not uncommon for a corporation to have areas of the business that are not profitable if those parts of the business are considered loss leaders. In this case Amazon has been trying to build up a larger Prime user base (220+ million globally now) as it helps drive other more profitable parts of the business such as online Amazon sales.
“Consumer Intelligence Research Partners reports that Prime members shop about 25 times annually on the site, versus non-Prime members’ mere 14 purchases.”
This increase is understandable, ad revenue was actually a bigger business than subscriptions last year, but annoying as there is nothing of value for a consumer behind it and yes many of us are cynical that these additional profits would bring much broader benefit.
This has been interesting to read. This is my first comment in Lemmy that has actually generated any meaningful debate.
Thanks internet stranger for actually putting an opinion forward. We don’t have to always agree but it is fun to engage with other real people.
Exactly, of course there a correlation between the two but they must have gotten to a point where Prime Video sign-ups don’t boost their regular Prime user base anymore, so they had to do something about Prime Video operating at a net loss.
As i said before, Prime Video was never intended to be a “free” addition to regular Prime forever, this is something everyone should have seen coming.
Thanks for your kind words, to have an actual debate about this is all i wanted instead of reading the same, undifferentiated bullshit that seems to take over Lemmy more and more…
Church.