5 ms·

He does pay for prime. The fact that they have done a bait-n-switch and now _still_ show you adverts, despite you paying, is reprehensible.

mortehu 2y ago
Before that, they did a bait and switch and added free videos to their package delivery service. Beyond that, there's no lock-in to a video service beyond any exclusive show you're currently watching, so your decision to continue paying is on you.
robertlagrant 2y ago
Only if they didn't issue that as new Ts & Cs. If they just changed the service he should get his money back for an unagreed change of service.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  Unilaterally written terms are morally bankrupt. We gain nothing by helping Bezos.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    It doesn't matter if they're unilaterally written as long as they're bilaterally agreed.
    - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
      It actually does matter.
- account42 2y ago
  My personal T&Cs say websites don't get to show me any ads. Websites continue to agree to those T&Cs by sending me content.
  - benj111 2y ago
    Is this a 'do not track' extension
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    Hah yes, a bit like "Kia agree to let me steal their cars by making cars so stealable".
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
But here's the thing: the subscription is not being cancelled. Amazon tries it, gets some people grumbling, but their bottom line is not affected and in fact goes up from this move because in addition to subscribers they also get ad revenue. A vocal minority doesn't outweigh hard numbers in this case. But that's one of the causes of enshittification, everything becoming metrics-driven.
- int_19h 2y ago
  Ah, the wonders of platform-exclusive content.
- 0xEF 2y ago
  Indeed, the market gives permission to the offense. The funny part is we should have all learned our lesson from the cable television days. Perhaps it's been long enough that everyone forgot, or maybe most of the market is just too young now, but there was a time in the US when cable television was ad-free. Commercials started sneaking into that with some regularity even though part of the draw to paying for cable tv was that it was commercial free. My brain wants to say this happened around the late 1980's? I might be wrong on that time frame, but at some point, like a frog sitting in a pot of water, the heat slowly rose and we found ourselves boiled to death with more and more commercial interruptions in our paid cable tv channels. Then we watched the same thing happen with the Internet in the mid-2000's. Needless to say, I am a heavy user of ad blockers and Pi Holes. I especially loath sites that want to detect my ad blocker, and throw up a message trying to to guilt me into turning it off. The thing is I am not just blocking the ads, but also trying to block all the tracking that comes with those ads. It's not really just about being annoyed by ads this time around. It's also about the right to privacy.
  - miki123211 2y ago
    From my (admittedly non-US) experience, people actually get pretty annoyed when they have to watch a long movie or TV show without commercial breaks, especially when there's no "pause" feature available. Not so much of a problem on modern TVs / set top boxes, as they usually offer that feature (though things get complicated if you want to do some channel flipping to e.g. quickly check how a sports game is going), but it was definitely a pretty big deal back in the day. None of this applies to on-demand, of course.
freddie_mercury 2y ago
No, they just raised the price of the ad-free experience. You can pay $3 a month more than last year to remain ad-free.

mortehu 2y ago

Before that, they did a bait and switch and added free videos to their package delivery service. Beyond that, there's no lock-in to a video service beyond any exclusive show you're currently watching, so your decision to continue paying is on you.

robertlagrant 2y ago

Only if they didn't issue that as new Ts & Cs. If they just changed the service he should get his money back for an unagreed change of service.

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
Unilaterally written terms are morally bankrupt. We gain nothing by helping Bezos.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  It doesn't matter if they're unilaterally written as long as they're bilaterally agreed.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    It actually does matter.
account42 2y ago
My personal T&Cs say websites don't get to show me any ads. Websites continue to agree to those T&Cs by sending me content.
- benj111 2y ago
  Is this a 'do not track' extension
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  Hah yes, a bit like "Kia agree to let me steal their cars by making cars so stealable".

Cthulhu_ 2y ago

But here's the thing: the subscription is not being cancelled. Amazon tries it, gets some people grumbling, but their bottom line is not affected and in fact goes up from this move because in addition to subscribers they also get ad revenue. A vocal minority doesn't outweigh hard numbers in this case. But that's one of the causes of enshittification, everything becoming metrics-driven.

int_19h 2y ago
Ah, the wonders of platform-exclusive content.
0xEF 2y ago
Indeed, the market gives permission to the offense. The funny part is we should have all learned our lesson from the cable television days. Perhaps it's been long enough that everyone forgot, or maybe most of the market is just too young now, but there was a time in the US when cable television was ad-free. Commercials started sneaking into that with some regularity even though part of the draw to paying for cable tv was that it was commercial free. My brain wants to say this happened around the late 1980's? I might be wrong on that time frame, but at some point, like a frog sitting in a pot of water, the heat slowly rose and we found ourselves boiled to death with more and more commercial interruptions in our paid cable tv channels. Then we watched the same thing happen with the Internet in the mid-2000's. Needless to say, I am a heavy user of ad blockers and Pi Holes. I especially loath sites that want to detect my ad blocker, and throw up a message trying to to guilt me into turning it off. The thing is I am not just blocking the ads, but also trying to block all the tracking that comes with those ads. It's not really just about being annoyed by ads this time around. It's also about the right to privacy.
- miki123211 2y ago
  From my (admittedly non-US) experience, people actually get pretty annoyed when they have to watch a long movie or TV show without commercial breaks, especially when there's no "pause" feature available. Not so much of a problem on modern TVs / set top boxes, as they usually offer that feature (though things get complicated if you want to do some channel flipping to e.g. quickly check how a sports game is going), but it was definitely a pretty big deal back in the day. None of this applies to on-demand, of course.

freddie_mercury 2y ago

No, they just raised the price of the ad-free experience. You can pay $3 a month more than last year to remain ad-free.