That's just describing the strategy of likely the majority of retailers in existence, from grocery stores to theaters though isn't it? Grocery stores have lead products that get people in the stores (like cheap roast chicken) and then make more margins elsewhere. Fast food sells burgers and hope people will buy fries. When theaters have movies that have won awards and have big buzz, it helps them sell more snacks. Department stores, classic electronics stores, and so on all have window display items and major flashy things that they hope will get people to come inside at all, at which point they may get those, get add-ons, or something else entirely.

Maybe for subscription video specifically Amazon is more unusual, but it's certainly not because Bezos came up with some wild strategy. Movie and TV producers themselves aim for far more monetization than just the sticker; merchandizing, product placement, ancillary media (sountracks/interviews/tie-ins), etc are all things commonly aimed for. And even for subscriptions there are players like Apple, who clearly are interested in selling more Apple hardware.

I guess what bothers me about what you're saying is that I don't think it makes sense that every single unit in a company needs to "pay its own way", and on the contrary that sort of reasoning in management is the source of a lot of horrors many of us have experienced in IT. Security say gets cut to the bone because it's "not a revenue generator" and down the road systems get broken into causing tons of costly damage (infuriatingly often externalized too to add salt to the wound). Outsourcing sometimes can be an answer, but that sometimes creates its own major headaches as well. Amazon's size and weight certain give rise to concerns that might be lower elsewhere, but some of the bonuses they bring represent quite genuine economic value, and either way I don't think justify what seems to be a general argument against vertical integration.