It's funny math if he thinks Amazon is buying him for $100, when he's the one supplying the $100. And before anyone comes back about how he's getting a savings

It's funny math if he thinks Amazon is buying him for $100, when he's the one supplying the $100. And before anyone comes back about how he's getting a savings compared to what he would be paying, he's confused somewhere, because the number he cited was $300, not $100, and that's only because he doesn't opt for the sometimes slower (but usually way faster than promised) free shipping, which is available to all, Prime or not. I buy a huge amount of stuff on Amazon. No prime needed, no extra Prime fees spent. What if I need something fast? I'll pay $20 for one-time 1-day shipping, not $100 for a year of 2-day shipping that I don't need. $20 versus $100, in all my years of using Amazon, have never spent the $20 once, so I've saved a few hundred dollars so far. Lesson here maybe is that pretty charts can obscure the underlying reality, when basic assumptions about who is paying who get flipped.