This is only true if external actors redefine "the service" to be something other than what millions of customers voluntarily purchase (Prime). For example, I subscribe to Prime because I get free/better shipping on goods as well as video. I don't know what % of my subscription fee I would allot to either, but fortunately I don't have to do that.
Disney makes a lot of money in theme parks etc.; Walmart makes something like $42B annually in healthcare; Costco sells cars & travel packages; Kroger sells gas (petrol); Apple (also a competitor) makes most of its money selling phones.
Why leave all those businesses intact and target Amazon?
That just doesn't seem internally consistent.
The Disney corporation is built around exploiting the rights to these media IPs to the fullest.
In contrast, Amazon is the online version of Walmart that can also sell you computing time and makes feature films which are just a perk of their "fast shipping" club.
There's a pretty clear distinction here, even with one of the other mega-conglamerates (disney) that probably owns too many different content production units.