Dumping us into ad tier of Prime Video when we paid for ad-free is 'unfair' | Hacker News Reader

Dumping us into ad tier of Prime Video when we paid for ad-free is 'unfair'

theregister.com

56 pointsLinuxBender21 comments

What Amazon did here is just plainly mishandle a price increase in the worst way possible. Personally speaking, the majority sentiment in my social bubble is "they should've just said it's $3 more but you can drop down to ads instead". People I know have already accepted (or rather resigned to) the fact that all streaming services are increasing their prices; Amazon just had to tack on a PR disaster to go along with it.

(Anyone else's bubble have a significantly different view? Genuinely curious…)

Cancel your prime account. Walmart offers free shipping just as good as them. You want to disincentivize bad behavior? Stop patronizing the assholes who keep abusing you.

A fair amount of Walmart orders are filled from Amazon warehouses. Same product with slower shipping.

Source: in ecommerce

Im fine with paying $2.99 more a month for no ads, I just wish I was given the option on login instead of having to chase it down

Bad behavior is everywhere. Actual convenience is rare.

Walmart.com is an absolute crap user experience, with a tiny fraction of selection, worse prices and delivery from stores is only free if you skip the expected tip knowing the "independent contractor" delivery agent isn't paid much.

They also comingle Walmart merch and "pro sellers" in search results which are often both in the same local store and upc ergo the try to trick you into buying the toilet paper that they pre sold to a scalper selling it for 80% markup.

Then they try to let propellers set their own return policy...

Walmart is only good at logistics and labour exploitation. Amazon is at least also good at websites and returns.

The irony of directing people to Walmart from Amazon. Walmart is just as bad, if not worse, than Amazon.o

If Walmart was better people would already be using it. It's still a valid strategy to use a worse product or no product to pressure a company to act.

Because the free market is perfect.

Can you expand on this? Just walk me through the thought process.

[dupe]

Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39350257

What are the odds that the customers would win this case? There is no ad free streaming service that could scoop people who are unhappy.

Depends on the country. In Australia 90% I would say.

Doesn't that depend on what the terms of service are and the contract?

Reducing streaming quality even if you paid for full HD and are willing to buffer is piracy. You wouldn't download a customer..

I don't quite understand the following:

> When Netflix launched its ad-supported tier [...], it tried to tempt viewers in with discounted rates

What 'discounted rates'? If it's 'ad-supported' surely they don't expect people to pay for it? Who in their right mind would pay for the privilege of sitting through ads?

People who pay for cable TV.

People with cable have DVRs and can trivially and reliably skip commercials. It's streaming where you lose control of being able to seek arbitrarily through the video stream. Cable customers are the ones who can avoid commercials.

Really? I haven’t had cable since before DVRs were a thing, I didn’t realize you got one with your cable subscription now.

For a while the cable companies would partner with Tivo and provide a DVR as an upsell but now they all have their own DVR platforms and it's become the standard cable box.

It's been built into the set top experience for near a decade. They used to compete on space offered or how many TVs could record at once.

I don't think ads vs. paid needs to be a binary choice; for example a cheap but not free plan that only has ads at beginning/end of titles but not midways is definitely a valid choice alternative to midspan ads as on classic TV. Some people hate getting interruptions mid watching something but aren't bothered waiting through some ads at the start.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com