3 ms·
As long as they have an add free option for a reasonable price I’m fine with it. It seems likely that with the money they are spending on shows streaming isn’t
by sarchertech 3y ago
As long as they have an add free option for a reasonable price I’m fine with it. It seems likely that with the money they are spending on shows streaming isn’t currently profitable.
Looks like $2.99 extra a month gets you no ads.
- JadeNB 3y ago> Looks like $2.99 extra a month gets you no ads. That's only a reasonable price if you discount the $15/month you're already paying. I mean, maybe it's reasonable anyway, and sure that $15/month is also paying for other things; but let's not discount the existing price just because it's existing.
- throw9away6 3y agoI’d be happy to drop prime video out of the normal package. The only good show is the expanse. The rest is mostly meh. The lord of the rings bonfire is mostly a flop
- rz2k 3y agoAt some point advertisers are going to say they don’t want to reach people who don’t pay the $2.99, and eventually the ad-free tier will become “limited ads”. Why would Amazon leave all that money on the table? Even PBS has about a minute and a half of “major corporate funders” ads on their nightly news.
- sarchertech 3y agoThat’s a real possibility. The more money you pay to avoid ads, the more valuable you are to advertises. I hope that it’s not inevitable though because there are so many streaming services, and because piracy and VPNs are an option. If I had my way I’d create regulation that forces companies to offer ad free versions for some multiple above the ad supported price.
- tensor 3y agoAnd at that point I cancel and find other ways to get the content ad-free. Maybe I can buy shows I like individually on Apple TV, or I don't watch them. I have a hard no ads policy.