3 ms·

Dumb. You pay for Prime. You pay extra for Prime Video. You now pay even more extra for Prime Video to not show you ads. This is a company worth $1.5 trilli

Dumb. You pay for Prime. You pay extra for Prime Video. You now pay even more extra for Prime Video to not show you ads. This is a company worth $1.5 trillion dollars (with a founder worth $175 billion dollars)....yet they can't help themselves but triple-dip? Yeah, no. Arr, matey, I hear the high seas calling.

dcgudeman 3y ago
What does the market cap of the company or the founders net worth have anything to do with the unit economics of operating a streaming business? Netflix, Hulu and others are all exploring charging more or introducing ads. Does that not factor into your analysis at all??
- mr90210 3y ago
  > What does the market cap of the company or the founders net worth have anything to do with the unit economics of operating a streaming business? For being a sub-product when compared to other streaming platforms, I, the naive me, would expect that Prime wouldn’t be in such a rush to milk money from users and instead they would focus on making the best product they can given that their mother company is wealthy as fuck. Like I said, I am naive.
- enriquec 3y ago
  Not that I even agree, but I guess the point is that someone so highly paid should be able to find solutions that don't at least feel unfair. I mean most people pay for cable and there's not even a way to not have ads and they increase prices regularly - then again most people do hate the cable companies.
- worewood 3y ago
  It's like a Ferrari stopping in a tire shop and the owner trying to haggle $10 off the service.
  - comprev 3y ago
    The reason they own a Ferrari might be because they're good at money management including negotiation. The local "cheap" supermarket (Lidl) to me has plenty of >€70k vehicles in the carpark.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      Cars are depreciating assets. Owning a Ferrari is pretty much the opposite of good money management.
      - comprev 3y ago
        Handling finances well enough that you can safely afford a luxury car is an example of good money management, no?
- wolfendin 3y ago
  It doesn’t and doesn’t need to, especially since Amazon profits tripled YoY
- jakequade 3y ago
  If the company is already huge and makes a tonne of profit, there's little/no need to double-dip on an accessory service that already makes a good case for pushing people into their main service (i.e prime video is free if you use amazon prime -> using amazon's main website/service). It's not about the market cap specifically, it's stating that prime video doesn't need to operate at a profit in order to benefit amazon's core business.
  - tedunangst 3y ago
    Wait, I thought it was evil and anticompetitive to use one business unit to prop up another business unit at unsustainable profit margins.
coder543 3y ago
> (1) You pay for Prime. (2) You pay extra for Prime Video. (3) You now pay even more extra for Prime Video to not show you ads. There is no triple dipping occurring here. Prime Video is included with the normal Prime membership under (1). So, (1) and (3) are true, but (2) isn't. I believe you can buy Prime Video (2) separately from Prime (1), if you don't want to pay the full price required for an Amazon Prime membership (1), but if you have (1), you don't pay extra for (2). I've googled this just now, and I'm pretty sure about what I wrote above. I would definitely complain about (3) too, but I think it's important to be accurate in the complaint.
- wetpaws 3y ago
  [dead]
- pierat 3y ago
  The term is called "Bundling". And no, everyone who gets Prime gets bundled Prime Video as a hidden add-on cost. Nah, I'll source my videos, music, books, and games in more DRM free manners :D Yarr harr harr and a bottle of RUM
redcobra762 3y ago
What does Bezos' worth have to do with this? If you're suggesting he cover the cost for everyone, why would he do that? To prevent subscription loss maybe, but the whole point is that the increased prices make up for the lost subscriptions, so the move makes financial sense without a Bezos intervention. Or is the idea that Bezos should subsidize Amazon with his billions out of the kindness of his heart? At that point, aren't there better, more worthy causes than this for Bezos to give his money to? I tend to wince when people suggest that, because a CEO is wealthy, therefore the company ought to operate in some specific way. Those two things are unconnected, as it's rarely a direct compensation that causes the CEO to be as wealthy as he is.
- redserk 3y ago
  Bezos' wealth is overwhelmingly tied into his Amazon holdings. Something seems off about being able to enter the business of nickle-and-diming while propping up the wealth of a single individual. I can understand the grievance of GP.
  - redcobra762 3y ago
    So is the argument that Bezos “owes it” to the Amazon consumer to fix this, then? Based on what?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

dcgudeman 3y ago

What does the market cap of the company or the founders net worth have anything to do with the unit economics of operating a streaming business? Netflix, Hulu and others are all exploring charging more or introducing ads. Does that not factor into your analysis at all??

mr90210 3y ago
> What does the market cap of the company or the founders net worth have anything to do with the unit economics of operating a streaming business? For being a sub-product when compared to other streaming platforms, I, the naive me, would expect that Prime wouldn’t be in such a rush to milk money from users and instead they would focus on making the best product they can given that their mother company is wealthy as fuck. Like I said, I am naive.
enriquec 3y ago
Not that I even agree, but I guess the point is that someone so highly paid should be able to find solutions that don't at least feel unfair. I mean most people pay for cable and there's not even a way to not have ads and they increase prices regularly - then again most people do hate the cable companies.
worewood 3y ago
It's like a Ferrari stopping in a tire shop and the owner trying to haggle $10 off the service.
- comprev 3y ago
  The reason they own a Ferrari might be because they're good at money management including negotiation. The local "cheap" supermarket (Lidl) to me has plenty of >€70k vehicles in the carpark.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    Cars are depreciating assets. Owning a Ferrari is pretty much the opposite of good money management.
    - comprev 3y ago
      Handling finances well enough that you can safely afford a luxury car is an example of good money management, no?
wolfendin 3y ago
It doesn’t and doesn’t need to, especially since Amazon profits tripled YoY
jakequade 3y ago
If the company is already huge and makes a tonne of profit, there's little/no need to double-dip on an accessory service that already makes a good case for pushing people into their main service (i.e prime video is free if you use amazon prime -> using amazon's main website/service). It's not about the market cap specifically, it's stating that prime video doesn't need to operate at a profit in order to benefit amazon's core business.
- tedunangst 3y ago
  Wait, I thought it was evil and anticompetitive to use one business unit to prop up another business unit at unsustainable profit margins.

coder543 3y ago

> (1) You pay for Prime. (2) You pay extra for Prime Video. (3) You now pay even more extra for Prime Video to not show you ads. There is no triple dipping occurring here. Prime Video is included with the normal Prime membership under (1). So, (1) and (3) are true, but (2) isn't. I believe you can buy Prime Video (2) separately from Prime (1), if you don't want to pay the full price required for an Amazon Prime membership (1), but if you have (1), you don't pay extra for (2). I've googled this just now, and I'm pretty sure about what I wrote above. I would definitely complain about (3) too, but I think it's important to be accurate in the complaint.

wetpaws 3y ago
[dead]
pierat 3y ago
The term is called "Bundling". And no, everyone who gets Prime gets bundled Prime Video as a hidden add-on cost. Nah, I'll source my videos, music, books, and games in more DRM free manners :D Yarr harr harr and a bottle of RUM

redcobra762 3y ago

What does Bezos' worth have to do with this? If you're suggesting he cover the cost for everyone, why would he do that? To prevent subscription loss maybe, but the whole point is that the increased prices make up for the lost subscriptions, so the move makes financial sense without a Bezos intervention. Or is the idea that Bezos should subsidize Amazon with his billions out of the kindness of his heart? At that point, aren't there better, more worthy causes than this for Bezos to give his money to? I tend to wince when people suggest that, because a CEO is wealthy, therefore the company ought to operate in some specific way. Those two things are unconnected, as it's rarely a direct compensation that causes the CEO to be as wealthy as he is.

redserk 3y ago
Bezos' wealth is overwhelmingly tied into his Amazon holdings. Something seems off about being able to enter the business of nickle-and-diming while propping up the wealth of a single individual. I can understand the grievance of GP.
- redcobra762 3y ago
  So is the argument that Bezos “owes it” to the Amazon consumer to fix this, then? Based on what?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]