Interesting. Why do you think this’ll be true?
Less friction. Network speeds are orders of magnitude faster. Content is digitized. It’s trivial to download an app, add a Roku channel, no technical chops required. Policing is a whack-a-mole exercise, even deep pockets like the NFL and NCAA seem to have given up on squashing Youtube live streams and highlights.
All of that pales though, in comparison to the simple fact that as a society, we are now relatively comfortable with simply taking what we want from the web, akin to speeding on the freeway. We all know it’s against the law, but collectively, tend to ignore it, drivers and enforcers alike.
I think that’s the fundamental difference between today and say, pre-iTunes. It’s normalized.
3 Likes
It might not be if the authorities had the ability to access all our information. Both the UK and Australia now have laws that could force businesses to hand over user data even if it is encrypted. How long until all countries pass the same kind of laws?
1 Like
The real sad thing is that before the internet was commercialized that was the intent. Wide (and free) dissemination of information, at least among researchers and then students. Just imagine an internet without advertising or paywalls!
4 Likes
Hmm, not sure if piracy of Barbie quite fits within the original intent 
Absolutely disagree. You had one or two options and you were forced to pay for all the crap that you didn’t watch.
I am going to say this is much better, I pay for what I use.
Imagine paying for Fitness + if you just want iCloud+.
I do think it’s become a fractured mess, but also,
Buying things in bulk saves money, so getting all of Apple’s services is cheaper than each one. It’s quite a good deal if you want it all.
But, if you want a little from column A, a site from column B, a movie from column C, it’s going to cost more.
Personally, I’m spending less by only having zero or one (ad-free) video service at a time, but then we don’t watch that much.
Thats what I am saying, you have an option to buy Apple One if you want all services. If you want only iCloud+ you have that option.
Previously, if you didn’t watch sport (I actually watch lots of sport) you still paid for it, now you can skip that part. You can subscribe to all the services that you did 15 years ago and the cost will nearly be the same adding inflation.
I agree with you here. Even though it’s frustrating the streaming services have increased prices over the years, I’m glad I can turn them off when I don’t want them. I do this for YouTubeTV (turning it on if there’s some kind of live sports that I find easier to watch on that…think World Cup). I turn off Netflix when there isn’t a show we are actively watching…same with Max. The ones I tend to keep around are Disney, Peacock, and Paramount+ because they are all free (refunded through my credit card or covered by Verizon with my cell phone plan).
I am going to take a different path, respectively.
Does 2.99 really make that much difference where you go to the library, do curbside pickup, etc.
You’ve already spent 2.99 in your time writing the title of this post and Amazon is pretty damn convenient.
I find ironic when we complain about minor price changes yet we have the most expensive computer hardware in the world.
2 Likes
I see where you’re coming from. If Amazon services provide value to you, $3 is a no-brainer.
But…
Even though the original topic refers to Amazon Prime Video, I think the frustration here is about the collective price hikes on services in general and the value one can get from them.
It all adds up pretty quickly.
I’m more deliberate every day on which services/subscriptions are really worth it, otherwise it becomes “death by a 1,000 paper cuts”.
At the end of the day I’m saving a lot of money from services I don’t subscribe to. These savings are redirected to a more useful hardware purchase for example.
1 Like
I also think Netflix did it better than Prime.
They created a tier with ads and its entry price was cheaper.
But then again Prime can create a cheaper tier and the number of people seeing ads will be low as most people use prime video with prime shipping.
Well, while most macusers can probably afford 3$ a month it still feels greedy given that they spent almost a billion on Rings of Power and Citadel. Both of them seem to have disputed quality (I am not saying they are terrible but they were certainly not universally appreciated). Next they ask for money to invest into meaningful content or show you ads.
Edit: I have my prime subscription running out in Feb and will see how I feel without one. Plan on going back and for between streaming services. Also I hope it encourages me to buy at merchants.
1 Like
I gotta say, libraries are doing drive-throughs and have pretty robust online systems. Yes, you’re limited in what you can get - but Prime is limited too. It’s not an alternative to Prime, but if somebody already has a habit of going to one it’s a viable option for somebody that doesn’t always need the latest thing.
On one hand, I get the idea that Apple users typically have more discretionary money to spend. This is generally known in the app ecosystem.
But on the other hand, over the 3-year lifespan of my phone, Prime itself currently costs $420. Over the five-year lifespan of my Mac, Prime currently costs $700. When I compare that to a $700 phone and a $1200 laptop, that’s not a trivial amount - especially since those prices have almost doubled over the past several years, with part of the justification being that ad-free Prime Video was included. And much of Prime’s benefit is fast shipping - not free shipping. Amazon already offers free shipping without Prime.
Given a cultural expectation that a paid-for streaming service won’t have ads (you’re either the customer or you’re the product), what they’ve effectively done is say that Prime Video isn’t part of Amazon Prime anymore. It’s a $36/year upgrade.
It’s even less compelling because there’s no way to just say “show me the stuff that’s free.” Prime Video is littered with upsells, both for content sold by Amazon and content sold by third parties. In the email announcing the price increase they even promoted the “benefit” that you could subscribe to third-party content services through their platform.
I can see the logic that the value is far less compelling than it was previously.
5 Likes
My comment was specifically about TV/film streaming services, so your examples of Fitness+ and iCloud+ are irrelevant.
In Ye Olden Days, you wanted to watch a film, you went on Netflix and chances are they had it unless it was obscure (in fact in Ye Very Olden Days, you went to Netflix, ticked the box for the film and waited for it to turn up in the mail, and I suppose before that you went to Blockbuster). You paid for one service and you largely had the content your household wanted at your fingertips. You had a delay in receiving postal items, but you knew the films you wanted to see would turn up eventually and the household was happy.
Now, you have a show you want to watch on X service, but your partner needs something that’s on Y service, and the kids are off on their own service at Z. It’s a mess. There are now 3 services where you only needed one previously.
And, it all costs more, so whilst your examples were irrelevant it’s not true in the streaming sector anyway - we’re paying more collectively (and per app) for services that are offering us less (we’re paying for 3 services where we used to pay for 1 in my example, and it’s still not offering us what Netflix used to do by itself 15 years ago).
I would also say it’s not true to argue that this fracturing has resulted in more bespoke services. This could have happened and perhaps consumers might have liked that. For example, we could have had service X which specialises in sci-fi and fantasy, service Y which specialises in crime dramas - and in this scenario those services could have held a large library of content. People might have liked that. That’s not what we’ve ended up with though. In addition, all the main streaming services are producing their own content, much of which is rubbish (yes, they have a few gems, no I don’t think that makes up for the degradation in the quality of TV and film caused by these commercial changes). So as a customer I am in fact paying for stuff I didn’t want.
Ironically I think long-term the winners of this will be Apple and Amazon rentals. It’s far less hassle now to just rent the film you want to see. If you’re running multiple streaming services and only watch one film a week it’s cheaper, and there’s no delay to watching new content (beyond your internet download speed).
2 Likes
As long as JustWatch keeps up, it’s not bad.
- Get in the mood to watch something.
- Google [movie name] Justwatch or use the app.
- If it’s on a streaming service you’re subscribed to, click on that.
- Otherwise rent it, start a trial/subscription to a service or find it on one of the Lookmovie/Putlocker type sites (legal to view, just not to operate, btw, at least in the US.)
It’s a good time to be a tool that helps people choose quickly.
4 Likes
My comment comparing Fitness + , iCloud + was to cable bundle. There was a time you had to pay for the whole cable bundle even if you didn’t watch sports. Its very relevant as Apple allows you to pay for those separately.
The Ye olden days that you are misremembering was a very brief period of time and even then Netflix did not have everything.
If you really want to compare the cost of what you’re paying today vs what you were paying in 2005, look at your cable bill because that is what you paid for everything.
As I said, This is what the cable bundle did and now you can not pay for what you don’t want.
Personally Streaming services have allowed me personally to lower the bill when I first became interested in watching sports, movies and TV.
Om Malik published a blog post today about subscription overload.
Interesting read.
This quote from the article summarizes my sentiment precisely and, thus, the reason I started this thread.: “ John Gruber, in his typical colorful manner, said it best: “This is a rinky-dink move that solidifies Prime Video’s status as a second-rate streaming service … Subscription madness is not just restricted to streaming services; you can hardly get any software as a one-time purchase. Instead, everyone wants you to keep paying for things perpetually. At some point, you have to ask yourself — do I really want to spend $100 a year on a note-taking app when I can get Apple Notes for free? Between media subscriptions, software subscriptions, and streaming subscriptions, I was spending enough money to actually hit pause and streamline.”
3 Likes
Yes, this bothered me too. $3 is nothing, but I’m already paying for Prime and don’t want to be nickel and dimed. I’ll just reduce my Amazon Prime viewing (which I’ve done anyway–so many good shows on other platforms).