Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Amazon Prime


cookinbrak
 Share

Recommended Posts

The only streamer making money is Netflix. Their biggest subscriber base? The lower-cost Netflix+Ads subscription.

Prime Video was always an add-on bonus to being a Prime Subscriber. That it started as ad-free is important to note, but nobody subscribed to Prime specifically/only for the Prime Video offering.

Similar story: Prime users get a basic version of Amazon Music with a subset of songs... but if you want full Amazon Music access, it'll cost (about) $7/month extra.

Compared to how other services have handled price increases, Amazon is taking the correct approach with Video:  you're not losing any content by staying with the default plan and we aren't going to change your overall Prime subscription cost.

However, if "no commercials" is important, then that's going to cost an additional $X.

Amazon could have raised the overall Prime subscription cost, which would have annoyed any Prime subscriber who doesn't take full advantage of Prime Video. They chose a route with least price resistance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, 0kBoomer said:

Yeah it’s pretty lame streaming services are going back to ads. Thats the biggest reason everyone ditched cable. 

People were'nt that concerned with Ads, with TiVo's Ad Skip technology or other DVR usage allowing people to zip through them.

Was more about overall carriage fees charged by the Channels being passed to consumers by the cable companies. Non-sports folks didn't like having to pay $13/month for ESPN, a channel they didn't/rarely watched but was required as part of the basic cable package.

Consumers wanted more of an a la carte model. But there was too much focus on being able to pick-and-choose-the-channels rather than on the ads/who pays for content conversation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • When the Panthers start making great decisions that turn into great moves they will begin to get the benefit of the doubt on certain things. Until then this is the norm. Just labeling any and all skepticism as hate is silly. Welcome to the real world.
    • Man a safety early round one is tough. I really like Nick Emmanouri but at 18, not at 8. Guy is a freak. 
    • I haven't bothered to look into it for 2 reasons, but I'm not so sure his contract would be bonkers for a team that trades for him.  Because the new team doesn't pick up the signing bonus portion or the cap hits that come from that, so depending how SF structured the deal, there is always a chance that it's actually not a bad contract for a team to trade for. But the two reasons that doesn't matter is because if SF is actually willing to trade him, to me, that screams they're concerned about his recovery from the injury and would make me not want him based on that alone.  And the second is that if his injury recovery is fine, then in the end, they're not going to trade him anyways, so it's all moot to begin with.
×
×
  • Create New...