zlacker

>>qainsi+(OP)
Dumb. You pay for Prime. You pay extra for Prime Video. You now pay even more extra for Prime Video to not show you ads.

This is a company worth $1.5 trillion dollars (with a founder worth $175 billion dollars)....yet they can't help themselves but triple-dip? Yeah, no.

Arr, matey, I hear the high seas calling.

>>NickC2+N4
What does the market cap of the company or the founders net worth have anything to do with the unit economics of operating a streaming business? Netflix, Hulu and others are all exploring charging more or introducing ads. Does that not factor into your analysis at all??

>>dcgude+98
If the company is already huge and makes a tonne of profit, there's little/no need to double-dip on an accessory service that already makes a good case for pushing people into their main service (i.e prime video is free if you use amazon prime -> using amazon's main website/service).

It's not about the market cap specifically, it's stating that prime video doesn't need to operate at a profit in order to benefit amazon's core business.

>>jakequ+1c
Wait, I thought it was evil and anticompetitive to use one business unit to prop up another business unit at unsustainable profit margins.