
Worse - shawndumas
http://www.marco.org/2014/03/15/worse
======
tptacek
As an aside: for me, Amazon Instant Video is _much_ better than Netflix
Streaming. I pay for both (Amazon unintentionally, because I bought Prime for
the shipping), watch both on a PS3, and spend 2x the amount of time in Amazon
as I do in Netflix.

Apart from the free catalogs, which are comparable between the two services,
Amazon also has an enormous paid streaming catalog. Like most nerds, the value
of an hour of my time is such that even thinking about the price of paid
streaming content is a waste of time, so Amazon's paid streaming catalog is a
great win for me; 9 times out of 10, whatever I want to watch, I can get
through Amazon.

Amazon also does a better job of maintaining my library of past purchases and
my wishlist than either of Netflix or iTunes.

I didn't buy Prime to get the videos, but the videos aren't s small feature.
Amazon executes streaming content as well as anyone else, and if you haven't
checked them out (because you use Netflix, for instance) you should.

Also: I don't think streaming media is at all out of place in Amazon's core
offering. They started with books. Then digital media, just like Borders did.
Then "everything else", which is what people seem to think of Amazon as now
--- the Walmart of the Web. But: then Kindle (consolidating their reach into
content), then streaming media, then publishing.

It doesn't seem at all weird to me that the Internet's largest retailer of
paid content would have a streaming media service; online content delivery
would otherwise obsolete one of their original offerings.

~~~
NDizzle
Does anyone know why I can't use Amazon Video on my apple tv? Don't tell me I
can use airplay, either. I don't like watching stuttering garbage that sounds
like crap. Why isn't there a native app yet?!

~~~
dublinben
Or why can I not use Amazon Video on any Android device other than their off-
brand Kindle tablets? I'm already a paying customer, but they won't let me use
their service.

~~~
ja27
Or on Chromecast. I know - competitive blah blah blah - but it sucks as for us
as customers. Amazon has no problem _selling_ Chromecasts themselves, but they
won't add support for them in their own apps?

~~~
mattmcknight
You can stream an Amazon video tab on Chromecast if you disable Silverlight
and choose to use the Flash player.

------
scottjad
What's with this stupid title where you have to read the thing to have any
clue what it is about?

Imagine if the front page were full with these kind of titles. We might as
well change the titles to random numbers.

The last post by this guy that I remember, and the second to last one to do
well on the frontpage (perhaps explaining the current behavior), was titled
"Off". Can you get any more vague?

In that post all he said about anything being off was "The presenting
executives seemed a bit off, too."

My prediction is that before long he'll have a post at the top of Hacker News
titled "And" where he ends it with "And that's what I think."

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "What's with this stupid title where you have to read the thing to have any
clue what it is about?"

I think you've answered your own question. A lot of people will think it's a
stupid title but be curious enough to click through.

~~~
michaelt
Or perhaps he chose a title appropriate for traditional blog/RSS reader format
where readers are presented with the first paragraphs of the article, and the
title is little more than decoration.

The article author can hardly be blamed for the HN policy of using article
titles even when they aren't descriptive.

------
mikeash
This is the key to the entire article:

"There’s nowhere to go. Amazon has either destroyed or bought every competitor
that has ever come close to its retail business."

Without this, nothing else matters. If there are alternatives, then you keep
using Amazon and Prime only if they're worth it. If Amazon ruins them, go
somewhere else.

Personally, I think it's _completely_ wrong. I buy on Amazon because it's
extremely convenient and because I can be pretty sure that they're going to
offer a good price, likely the cheapest price available.

However, any time I make a purchase that's more than $30 or so, I shop around.
There is _no_ shortage of other places to buy anything I've looked for. They
usually have higher prices or worse service than Amazon and so I skip them.
Occasionally they're better, and then I buy from them.

There's no lock-in, there's no monopoly, there's _nothing_ that makes people
stick with Amazon besides better prices, better service, and inertia.

If you don't like it, go somewhere else. It pains me to say this because that
phrase is _so_ overused, but it applies to Amazon well.

~~~
dublinben
Amazon bought all the competing sites I used to use:

Zappos has fantastic customer service, great selection of shoes, and good
prices. They've been owned by Amazon since 2009.

AbeBooks is a fantastic used (or new) book marketplace. Amazon bought them in
2008.

Audible is the largest retailer of audiobooks. Amazon bought them in 2008. Try
buying an audiobook anywhere else.

Amie Street provided independent music downloads will a revolutionary demand-
based pricing system. Amazon bought them in 2010 to shut them down.

Woot was a pretty nifty daily deal site. They were bought by Amazon in 2010,
and have really lost their original focus since.

If I want to buy just about anything online, I'm stuck buying it from Amazon.
If it happens to be something that Walmart or Target stocks, I could order it
from them instead. They charge $5+ for shipping even the smallest items
though.

~~~
adyus
Unless Amie Street has a patent on demand-based pricing (which would now be in
Amazon's hands), shutting down just means the market is open to a fresh,
nimble competitor.

Now, said competitor may just end up being bought by Amazon again, true. But
until then, they will be a viable "other" choice.

The same goes for every other service bought and modified by Amazon. You're
complaining about them, so there's at least a demand of 1 for a replacement
service :)

~~~
perlpimp
Wouldn't that be the point of amazon buying competitor to deter future
competitors by acquiring patents and then suing anyone to shut them down, with
legal justifications for doing so? (owning a patent for example)...

------
bunkat
I feel like I must be the odd one here. My wife and I watch free Amazon Prime
videos (i.e. bundled with the Prime service, I know nothing is actually free!)
all the time. The selection is decent enough for us and they have lots of free
television series that keep us busy. Between that and shipping that usually
gets things here the next day, Amazon Prime is worth every penny to us.

~~~
rgbrgb
> free Amazon Prime videos

I know that's how Amazon phrases it but this is the fallacy the OP is arguing
against.

~~~
bunkat
Bad wording, I was differentiating between the Amazon videos that are bundled
with Prime vs the videos that you still have to pay for even with Prime. We
very rarely pay an additional amount to watch a video on Amazon.

------
B-Con
> They want to lock everyone into everything. Just like everyone else. And
> we’re all worse off for it.

I really like Schneier's commentary on how large companies are migrating
toward a feudal system[1]. His perspective is from security, but the central
point is universal.

[1]: [http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/feudal-
security/](http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/feudal-security/)

------
nostromo
I think Amazon needs to get into the delivery business soon.

Planet Money (an NPR show) created a t-shirt for fans and broke down the cost
of each shirt. The biggest line item was shipping the finished shirts to
customers.

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/12/13/250747279/episode-...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/12/13/250747279/episode-503-adding-
up-the-cost-of-the-planet-money-t-shirt)

Out of the total cost of $12.42, it cost $2.26 to ship. It cost $1.04 to
accept payments. Compare these costs with the actual cost of the product:
$0.60 for the cotton, $0.40 to spin the cotton into yarn, $1.00 for sewing.

It seems unlikely that Amazon as it exists today will ever rival Walmart in
volume and price since they avoid these last-mile delivery costs.

Amazon should take on FedEx and UPS and try to disrupt the industry one key
city at a time. They've already started delivering groceries in Seattle, so
perhaps that's the first step to Amazon Delivery Service.

~~~
mikeash
Those last-mile costs exist regardless. It's just that with Wal-Mart, the
customer pays the costs in occasional lump sums to the local gas station and
garage and very occasionally to the car dealership, rather than paying Wal-
Mart.

This is, of course, very much to Wal-Mart's advantage. Americans really hate
to think about the cost of their cars and really love to drive them, so the
perception will generally avoid factoring in the costs of driving to and from
the store into the final prices.

However, make a big enough difference and people will notice. If Amazon can
offer a price that's lower than Wal-Mart's _and_ deliver it for much less than
it costs to drive to the store, people will notice.

I don't see why they couldn't, eventually. Warehouse logistics are much easier
when you don't have to deal with customers wandering around. Transport is
subject to economies of scale like anything else, and it should be possible to
make it much cheaper to use one truck to deliver to 100 houses than it costs
to have 100 people individually drive back and forth.

In short, I think I'm agreeing with you that delivery is where Amazon should
concentrate if they want to compete in this area.

~~~
protonfish
But I don't want things delivered to my doorstep, and I doubt I am the only
one.

I am rarely home during the day (I work) and I don't like having expensive
items sitting on my porch in the weather where anyone can swipe it.

I'd rather stop by a 24-hour (drive through) facility where I can swipe my
credit card and get my package when I am ready. It's more convenient for me
and it saves last-mile shipping costs.

~~~
ydant
Amazon Locker is almost that service (it's not drive-through). Most of the
locations seem to be inside 7-11 stores, but it's just what you describe -
walk in, type in or scan your code, pick up your package.

------
chipotle_coyote
The entire larger point of the post seems to be being missed, which isn't
specifically about Amazon Prime at all. The point is that the big players in
the online services space are competing in a "my way or the highway" fashion
that ends up making everything a little worse.

You may not agree with Arment's take on Amazon Instant Video -- personally,
I'm a Prime customer but haven't been interested in Amazon's video service
because it seemed to mostly overlap with Netflix and because until fairly
recently getting it on my TV was more of a pain than I was willing to put up
with, because I have an Apple TV and Amazon and Apple wouldn't cross the
street to piss on each other if they were on fire. But Google Maps is no
longer used for iOS's native map program in large part because Google wanted
access to iOS customers Apple didn't want to give, and because of that iOS
native maps are worse (and Google lost tens of millions of map users). Google
is making all their services a little worse by trying to tie everything up
with Google+. Amazon's refusal to support EPUB makes my Kindle a little worse.
And so on and so on.

HN readers seem to engage in a lot of debate over whether Google and Amazon
are "better" than Apple when it comes to ecosystem lock-in. But _all_ of those
services only work with approved devices using approved players with approved
content. What you're arguing about is the size of the cage you're in.

------
brwnll
Marco is using a complete straw man here He takes a optional add on service
(Amazon Prime) which a company offers value to its "its most dedicated
customers". Then he compares it to other companies require of you to use their
service.

You are in no way required to have Amazon Prime to use Amazon. If it doesn't
make sense to you, then cancel it. Amazon is still happy to have you as a
customer without it.

It feels like people are complaining they bought a car, asked for the sunroof
option, and now are loudly complaining that cars shouldn't have sunroofs.

~~~
robotresearcher
They bought a car, chose the sunroof option, got the sunroof plus a bluetooth
module they don't use. Every time they use the sunroof, they have to click
through a popup advertising the bluetooth. The cost of the bluetooth may or
may not have been included in the sunroof price, it's not clear.

~~~
philwelch
Ironically, some cars I've been looking into lately only offer the sunroof
bundled with some touchscreen navigation system I don't really want.

------
EGreg
Disagree completely with the fearmongering.

"Its shipping deals always felt unsustainable, so in the absence of other
changes, I’d feel that the extra $20 per year was justified."

So what exactly is the problem being decried? Amazon increases the cost of a
"free shipping" plan that was previously seemed unsustainable.

Oh, and Amazon bundles free videos with Prime as it wants to get into the
media delivery business ruled by Netflix and make it cheaper. It already doss
this with books but now wants to enter the game to challenge Google's Play and
Apple's iTunes Store. This is MORE competition in the mobile OS + media
delivery space. Let Amazon enter it. It already has one of the most
sophisticated infrastructures in the world, with AWS - which by the way is its
biggest revenue center.

If you want to be concerned about anything, be concerned about the effect
these economies of scale will have on the American worker. With self driving
cars from google and packing robots from Amazon and giant data centers from
Apple, who will need record stores, bookstores, newspapers, cab drivers, oh
wait..

~~~
jey
> bundles free videos with Prime

They're not free, they're part of the $99 fee. I don't watch TV and I don't
want to be charged extra so they can give me "free" TV I didn't ask for.

~~~
djur
You're assuming that Amazon would be able to profitably offer a meaningfully
cheaper "shipping-only" Prime service. I doubt it. Shipping is expensive, and
the kind of people who would be inclined to subscribe to that service are
likely to be the ones who make heavy use of the free shipping.

If $99 isn't worth the shipping options you get from Prime, and you aren't
interested in the video service, there's always the option of not using Prime
and paying for shipping as you use it.

------
state
I love to think of all of these things as opportunities. Giants are staggering
around, losing focus and getting in to petty fights. Isn't that the perfect
time for new things? How exciting.

------
res0nat0r
Meh. Of course this is "worse", it isn't something from the Gods Who Are Named
Apple.

> Amazon announced this week that it’s increasing the price of Amazon Prime
> from $80 to $100 per year, its first price change since its introduction in
> 2005.

> This has not been a popular decision, to put it lightly, but most Prime
> customers — which I’ve been since 2005 — aren’t really going anywhere.
> There’s nowhere to go. Amazon has either destroyed or bought every
> competitor that has ever come close to its retail business.

This sounds redundant. There is complaining about lack of competition, yet you
still keep using the service (and are part of destroying that competition by
using Amazon).

The addon program has added items which would have never been on the site
previously, so that is a win, I'm sure other items which just can't be shipped
by themselves cost effectively have been removed, but times change. Streaming
videos are also an addition that are a win for those who use it. Also your
bill is going up from $6.66 a month (the cost of one beer) to $8.33 (the cost
of 1.5 beers) a month for streaming video and 2 day shipping on tons of items,
I don't see a ton to complain about. I'm surprise the price hasn't been jacked
up years ago just due to increasing shipping costs across the board.

~~~
teach
> The addon program has added items which would have never been on the site
> previously, so that is a win

This isn't correct. I have items in my purchase history that were not Add-On
items and now are. Maybe _some_ new items are here because of add-on, but it's
also true that existing items used to be purchasable by themselves and now are
only available as add-ons.

~~~
res0nat0r
Those items would have been deleted from the site without the addon program
and not available anymore at all because it is probably no longer viable to
ship them standalone, so the addon program is a is a net win.

~~~
mikeash
How do you know that?

~~~
res0nat0r
From every add-on items description:

"This item is available because of the Add-on program The Add-on program
allows Amazon to offer thousands of low-priced items that would be cost-
prohibitive to ship on their own."

These tiny items wouldn't be stocked at all if they didn't offer them via add-
on, somewhere in their literature they've said these items are only stocked
because of this program.

~~~
mikeash
Because they couldn't possibly be lying?

~~~
res0nat0r
Sigh. I guess that is conspiracy theory default now days for things you are
unable to prove.

~~~
mikeash
It is not a "conspiracy theory" to think that companies might be putting a
positive spin on (i.e. lying about) changes made to increase their bottom
line. That's what companies _do_.

------
dustcoin
I didn't see any mention of inflation. $79 in 2005 when prime was launched is
equivalent to $96 today.

~~~
saosebastiao
People don't feel inflation the way that the CPI states it. The CPI's "basket
of goods" is full of things that nobody cares about (like CD-ROMs, VCRs), and
it is supposed to apply to the whole country, despite how diverse expenditure
types can be (For example, I spend < $200/mo on transportation, but $2500/mo
on rent, whereas when I lived in Cleveland it was nearly the opposite).

------
codeulike
This article is not about Amazon Prime particularly, its about this quote:

 _They want to lock everyone into everything. Just like everyone else. And
we’re all worse off for it._

Thats the core of the problem. Current monetisation models are based on lock
in and annoying ads, and no decent alternative models seem to be on the
horizon.

~~~
npsimons
If he really wanted to call out lockin, he'd be shouting about Apple's lockin
from the highest parapet, as they are much worse than just about everyone else
out there (Microsoft included!). But of course this is Marco, so I was
surprised when he called out Apple at all.

I'm an Amazon Prime customer who has experienced no lockin, so I'm not sure
what Marco is going on about.

~~~
josteink
_I 'm an Amazon Prime customer who has experienced no lockin, so I'm not sure
what Marco is going on about._

As someone not using Amazon prime, this is one of the _great_ thing about
services and leasing stuff vs owning it. I know some of you swear to owning
everything, but in this new brave world of platform lock-in, owning things
becomes a prison in a much more literal way than the Buddhists ever imagined.

Had I bought stuff from the Apple iStore, I would be stuck with DRMed media I
wouldn't be able to consume on any other devices than those made by Apple. If
I've first invested in this system, leaving it means my media will lose may
stop being playable, turning worthless, and existing devices may not work
correctly with other music download-services, etc.

This vertical integration becomes a set of vertical pilars surrounding you on
all sides. Leaving one thing means leaving it _all_ behind. It has a very high
cost. Very few people will do that unless they are presented with something
truly incredible as a reward. And things like that comes along very rarely.

If I on the contrary used Spotify to consume music I would have nothing to
lose if I stopped subscribing to their service. Leaving for a better service
is completely free of cost and would only present me benefits.

------
ErrantX
Prime has hiked in price here in the UK too, with the bundled video.

But.

It's still worth it here IMO. In fact, Prime here in the UK is about a million
lightyears ahead of the US because of the size of the country :)

Free next day shipping is really brilliant for a heavy Amazon buyer like me.

I was actually a Lovefilm user from before the Amazon buyout. I fondly
remember the day they were primarily a physical rental service - the warehouse
was not far from me and the postal service fantastic. Their catalogue was
huge.

Their online service has always been mediocre; about the same as Netflix, Sky
and BT.

But the combination of on-demand video and free next day is still worth it to
me.

After some research, IMO the combination of Sky (satellite TV with on-demand
offering) and Amazon Prime (free next day delivery + on-demand video) is the
best combination of price & coverage. I can get 99.9% of the things I want for
reasonable price.

Looking at the US service, it doesn't even compare :(

~~~
polshaw
Yes, the delivery situation is much better here, so much so that I can get
free 2-day shipping to a shop a few minutes walk away (which is better in some
ways as it doesn't require you to be in) since they have introduced collect+,
making prime almost completely unnecessary for those near a collect+ location.

~~~
usethis
Same in Germany, price went up from 25 to 45 euros, but is definitely still
worth it. Their video catalogue is not all that bad either, though lacking
original language (non-dubbed) films. But then again, Netflix is not available
in Germany so far.

------
thatthatis
I've been a prime customer for 7 ish years. I'm ok with the new price. Im
extremely happy with the service, appreciate a lot of the new features
(instant video, lending library), and overall Im not off put by tweaks like
add ons that make the service more economically efficient and thus viable.

I get way more than $100 worth of simplicity from being a member of prime.

My only complaint: create an instant video app for android already.

~~~
kybernetyk
My complaint is: Why do I have to install Silverlight on my Mac to use amazon
video while you can stream to your iPad without silverlight?

~~~
anonova
Are you talking about Netflix? Amazon's video player uses Flash.

~~~
cowsandmilk
No, Amazon uses silverlight by default. Under their options for web player,
they even say "Experience less buffering and enjoy HD titles with Microsoft
Silverlight." and the option is "Silverlight (Recommended)"

~~~
anonova
Ah, I wasn't even aware since I don't have Silverlight installed, and Amazon
automatically fellback to Flash. I installed Silverlight to compare, but it
crashes in Chrome and I get "Content Permissions Error (6023)" in Firefox.

------
cbsmith
I feel in general there are some things getting muddled together that probably
shouldn't.

First, you have free services that are using various forms of the walled
garden model to generate revenue. That's hardly surprising, new, and really
anything worth complaining about. If you don't like it, go use that highly
successful paid service that doesn't have the ad revenue. Oh wait...

Then there is the thread about bundling all of Amazon's services through
Prime. Prime is clearly a play to leverage all of Amazon's services in to one
big compelling service. Since Amazon still provides their services at
competitive rates _without_ Prime, I'm not sure how anyone can gripe about
this.

Finally, there is the issue of Prime's price going up. I _don 't_ think it has
anything to do with bundling other services, and everything to do with the
program a) being successful (and you see this in competitors adopting similar
services) and b) suffering from increased costs everywhere else. Guess what?
No matter how much software, and the reverse inflation that comes with it,
eats the world, the rest of the world still suffers from the usual challenges
of increasing costs. In 2005, when Prime was launched, the price of first
class mail has increased 32.4%, which is actually more than the 25% increase
in Prime. Maybe there is no sinister agenda....

------
glanotte
I really couldn't disagree with this post any more. While I think he raises
several points that are applicable to him, none apply to me.

I have also been a prime subscriber since 2005 and it has paid for itself many
times over in shipping costs alone. I have had bunk beds, computers,
televisions all shipped second day for free. Rarely have I had issues, I would
continue to pay for the service even if it was twice what it is now.

And I do use the streaming service quite regularly. I have not had cable for
quite some time so I use streaming services for close to 50% of my at home
entertainment. Of that, I think the amazon library is one of the better
available.

At any rate, I have been and will hopefully continue to be a happy prime
subscriber for at least another year.

------
jusben1369
And this year's Academy Award for Best First World Problems Post goes
to................

Seriously, all of these companies compete for their customers. They're going
to try and optimize their offerings to keep their customers. Sometimes they'll
do a good job - like iMessage meaning no texting costs and locking people into
the platform. Sometimes they'll do a sucky job, like Google + accounts. Half
the time they'll be doing both simultaneously (iMessage and Maps) Those that
irritate their customers over the long run will.......surprise
surprise.....drive them to the better competitor platform.

Both ways uphill in a snowstorm.

------
georgemcbay
Amazon could raise the price of Prime by 2x and I would still keep it. I buy
so much shit through Amazon. I kinda wish I could spread my dollars out among
more online retailers, but Amazon and Newegg are the only ones (based on lots
of experience) who I can trust on the shipping front. If they say the package
is going to be there on day XYZ, there is a 99.999% chance (in my experience)
of it appearing on day XYZ. Of course this only applies when bought from them
directly (or if 'fulfilled by Amazon', I try to avoid the 3rd party sellers
who don't fulfill through Amazon as much as any other store I can't trust to
get shipping right).

Every other retailer I've dealt with online will do stupid shit like allow me
to pay for 2 day shipping and then send the package out 3 days after I order
it.

Nail completely consistent and predictable shipping and I might buy stuff from
you, otherwise you're at best 4th in line behind Amazon, Newegg and every
brick and mortar store within 20 miles.

~~~
rlpb
> there is a 99.999% chance (in my experience)

You have bought 100000 items, and only 1 didn't arrive on time? Really?

------
Aoyagi
You know, when if I had problems like that, I would show my discontent with
the only meaningful way: I'd stop using the service. Like I do it with Google
(aside from Youtube, where I can't comment any more), Facebook and many other
things a lot of people keep complaining about but never do the one thing that
matters. STOP USING THE DAMN THING.

~~~
marshray
Sure, but now you have lost the primary benefit of the service. Some
principles are definitely worth that total walkout.

But modern companies are masters at figuring just how much they can annoy
their customers without pushing too many of them to leave. The point of the
article is that, for us customers, things get "worse".

------
AndrewDucker
What I find frustrating is that when I go to the Amazon Video on my PS3 there
doesn't seem to be a way to say "Just show me the free videos". It insists on
mixing the free and paid ones.

Which is rubbish when I'm just looking to see what's available to watch.

~~~
taeric
If you pick the "Prime Instant Videos" section at the top, it is exactly this,
right?

I don't think there is a way to "search" only for Prime videos. But if you are
only wanting to browse, I am 90% sure that is covered. (Currently letting the
kids watch stuff, so can't verify the section name.)

------
Kequc
Fair points aside I want to know why people still harp on Google+ at this
point.

> Google, the geek world’s undeserved, unquestioned darling for well over a
> decade, has made all of its core products worse by forcefully shoving
> Google+ into them.

This sentiment is so frustrating to me. Yes, Google introduced an identity
service so they no longer needed to tie everything to one of your Gmail
accounts. This means you can now link your Gmail accounts together, this
development is fantastic.

Along with it comes bundled a really good social network application. Which,
hello everyone, don't use it if you don't want it. Allowing everyone with
Google accounts to talk to each other in a social medium and aggregate content
relevant to their interests. Youtube integration was arguably a detriment to
Google+ because it caused an influx of terrible content from late Google+
adopters.

Youtube is a social product, Google+ was a newer much more powerful social
product. Google had two social products so it merged them together. Inarguably
(at least I don't see how you could argue) improving Youtube.

What is an example of Google+ making anything worse?

When will tech bloggers embrace Google's introduction of their identity
service, they badly needed one and Google+ is amazing by any standard.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I think the idea is, G+ is cluttering up the api for everything else. When in
fact it gets used not at all, by almost everybody. So that's definitely worse,
for almost everybody, doing almost anything with Google products.

So, that's worse.

------
stugots
>There’s nowhere to go. Amazon has either destroyed or bought every competitor
that has ever come close to its retail business.

There's nowhere to go because people like you gave their money to Amazon.
Congratulations! Shall I cry you a river now?

------
adventured
"Showing this once is bad enough, but I see it regularly. Amazon is now
annoying their best customers with desperate, obnoxious, tricky interstitial
ads. (Of course, the checkbox is checked by default.)"

Email Bezos. He takes this sort of thing very seriously, assuming you can
present a rational argument. He won't reply directly, but he will see it.
Jeff@

------
coldcode
Hmm all I get is an empty page. Yet another case of not being able to handle
HN traffic?

~~~
palebluedot
That is an interesting coincidence, because around the time of your post, I
was having a similar problem on a couple of other sites (techmeme and recode).
The pages loaded OK, but were completely blank.

------
roberjo
If I click on one more movie title in AmazonPrime Instant Video that is simply
not offered in any form at all (streaming, rental, purchase, nada), I am going
to cry.

~~~
buro9
I'm sorry, I accidentally downvoted you when I was trying to upvote someone
else.

To make up for it, I've given an abundance of upvotes on some of your other
comments elsewhere.

My apologies.

------
hristov
I have tried amazon instant video. People keep saying they love netflix, but
netflix has a huge problem - they keep losing content all the time. So I used
Amazon instant video to watch a show that i started watching on netflix and
which disappeared from netflix soon thereafter.

Amazon instant video is ok once you start watching, but their software is
pretty bad and much much worse than netflix. Both amazon and netflix have to
spread their software on many devices (such as computers, tablets, tv's and
dozens of settop streaming devices) but it seems to me on every single device
i have tried the amazon software is really annoying.

I think a big part of the problem is that they are trying to sell both free
instant video and their paid service.

------
hotpockets
I don't know where this guy lives, but prime has only been getting better.
I've never seen a next day fee greater than 3.99. Same day delivery was added
not too long ago and it costs 3.99. what unbalanced bs link bait.

~~~
gergles
Here, I found one for you with about 45 seconds of effort: [http://snappy-
app.com/s/show.php?pass=a550109d1fb9b47c65d29a...](http://snappy-
app.com/s/show.php?pass=a550109d1fb9b47c65d29adb7d3b6049)

In my experience, many items are well over $3.99. "Local express delivery"
and/or one-day shipping has always been $7.99 or higher in NYC. Prime's
'extra' features for even faster shipping are abysmal compared to what it used
to be.

------
SquareWheel
"This has not been a popular decision, to put it lightly"

From all the forum comments/responses I've seen, Prime customers seem just
fine with it. Maybe we read different news websites?

~~~
johnward
I thought the same thing. I haven't really heard any complaints. Most comments
are more along the line of "Amazon increased Prime rates by $20. I hope they
don't figure out how much more I would actually pay"

------
RandallBrown
I buy enough stuff from amazon that I would spend way more than $100 a year on
shipping anyway. Getting the free videos and kindle lending is just a nice
little bonus.

It's too bad Marco hasn't watched any videos on Amazon. They have some pretty
good original shows. Betas is a funny caricature of the startup life we all
live. It's cheesy, but relatively accurate and at times pretty funny. Alpha
House is fantastic. It's like a comedy version of House of Cards.

~~~
eridius
> Betas is a funny caricature of the startup life we all live.

It is? I tried watching the first episode and I couldn't even make it through
the whole thing. That shows was the most cringe-worthy thing I've seen in a
very long time.

~~~
RandallBrown
I actually thought the same thing as I watched it. Once I realized that the
cringe was intentional and that it was poking fun at how ridiculous some
"startup people" are, I actually started to like it.

It's not my favorite TV show by any means, but I definitely enjoyed it.

~~~
eridius
Sure, it was intentional, but that doesn't make it any more watchable.

------
product50
For me, I believe Netflix content is far superior to Amazon's. That doesn't
prove anything.

I think the main point which Marco is trying to make it is the inflexibility I
as a consumer should have over choosing what I want and pricing the products
accordingly. In some ways, it is similar to the wireless carriers post paid
plans (until T-Mobile and AT&T recently changed this) where you paid the same
monthly bill whether you get your phone or use a contract one. Consumers do
not have option to opt out and pay for the entire bundle - thus also getting a
far inferior product (Amazon Instant Videos) with a far superior one (2 day
shipping).

After this Prime price change and the fact that California purchases are
taxed, I will not be renewing my Prime account. I have noticed that for most
of my electronic/tech product shopping, I don't use Amazon anyways as I always
have found things cheaper on competing sites (Adorama, Newegg, eBay or Apple).
For the rest, I am fine with 4 day shipping instead of 2 day and, as Marco
mentioned, for increasing number of Amazon products are now classified as Add-
on products which is not cool as well..

------
alexeisadeski3
Adjusted for inflation, isn't

$80 in 2005 = $100 in 2014

Pretty sure it's darn near if not right on the money.

~~~
AgentConundrum
$79 in 2005 is apparently $94.62 in 2014.

[http://data.bls.gov/cgi-
bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=79&year1=2005&y...](http://data.bls.gov/cgi-
bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=79&year1=2005&year2=2014)

~~~
galago
The CPI is an average based on a somewhat arbitrary bundle of goods which
individually vary in price. People are used to the price of internet services
declining over time (e.g. Google drive pricing), but Amazon prime incorporates
things like shipping and movie royalties, which probably follow inflation
similar to the CPI. Delivery companies surely increase in efficiency by
adopting new technology, but they are also highly dependent on the cost of
equipment, fuel, and labor. In the first few paragraphs, Marco only mentions
the nominal cost, not the fact that the real price has been declining for
eight years. Amazon probably went with $100 because its about right, which
might be high or low for their bottom line, because consumers respond well to
round numbers.

------
Meekro
Anyone who has a .edu email address can get Amazon student, which is free for
6 months and then 50% off forever.

[http://www.amazon.com/gp/student/signup/info?ie=UTF8&refcust...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/student/signup/info?ie=UTF8&refcust=KX7MQVN6RADGKJHSKCQFDZEZZY&ref_type=generic)

------
rwmj
You should try _not_ being a Prime subscriber. You get the interstitials
appearing on every bloody purchase.

------
ahi
Many times on amazon i have found the same products from their marketplace
vendors that cost the same with shipping as the prime product with "free
shipping". With the exception of books which nobody can compete with on price,
and large expensive to ship items, prime isnt a veey good deal.

------
Spooky23
I think the key assumption here that is wrong is that Amazon is this amazing
retail outlet that you just need to use.

I disagree, as someone who has been a huge customer.

Why? Amazon prices suck, and have gotten increasingly less competitive over
the years. The huge 3rd party vendor market on Amazon makes it very difficult
to identify product that you want to. It on many cases as well.

The whole premise of Amazon Prime was to push the uncertainty of shipping time
out of online shopping out of the purchase equation. That experience is both
being watered down and made more expensive. If they don't deliver on the
premise/promise, there are literally thousands of competitors for just about
any product.

IMO, Amazon needs to stop patting themselves on the back and focus on the
customer experience.

------
RealGeek
I don't shop at enough Amazon to make prime shipping economically beneficial
to me. In most cases free ground shipping is alright, and occasionally paying
for 2 day shipping works out to be cheaper than $100 per year.

I bought prime subscription anyway; not for shipping but for Amazon Instant
Video. I won't be renewing it because Amazon Instant Video has been
disappointing so far. There isn't enough content on Amazon Prime. Worse part,
their Xbox app plays video in 360p resolution.

I had similar experience with Netflix as well. Even after paying for several
on-demand Video services, I have to use Torrents. Torrents offer the most
convenience, it has the largest content library, best video quality and no
stupid DRM & restrictions.

------
noonat
I see arguments about whether or not Amazon Instant Video is worth the money,
but I think that's beside the point, isn't it? The important part of the
discussion here is that Amazon Instant Video is not of interest to a large
number of existing Amazon Prime subscribers, and they are likely paying the
price for those who use it.

It's a bit of a frustrating trend to see companies bundling new technologies
like this, often at the expense of their loyal customers. I am an Amazon Prime
subscriber, and will continue to be one, but I would love it if Amazon Instant
video were a separate subscription that I could choose to pay for on its own
merits.

------
JoeAltmaier
I approach it differently. I pay no attention to the plans, the memberships,
the cards and the programs. I buy the best deal I can get on the spot.

It costs some more, but honestly I'm not talking about buying a car or a house
so its 'petty cash' purchases we're talking about.

And I get my dignity back. No more struggling to satisfy some program
requirements; no getting 2nd-rate tickets because of the 'miles' I think I
need. I just buy what I want, and I pay for it.

SO no not a 'member' of anything. This is a 1st-world solution I know. But if
you can afford it, well I recommend it.

------
vonnik
Amazon's upselling and cross-selling methods are good examples of dark
patterns: design working to harm its users.
[http://darkpatterns.org/](http://darkpatterns.org/)

------
eli
_" But I suspect the changes to overnight rates and Add-On Items would have
been enough to keep Prime’s shipping costs sustainable, and these haven’t been
the only changes."_

That's seems extremely speculative.

------
slr555
It is definitely worth noting that Amazon has a shareholder problem. Yes, they
have devoured everything large and small but profit margins are razor thin.
One of the most brilliant things that Jeff Bezos did was telling his early
investors not to see a return for several years, but the market does and will
demand returns. Given that Costco makes most of its profit on membership fees
it will be interesting to see if the Prime increase is sufficient to both
sustain or improve service levels and increase profitability.

------
nateguchi2
Personally, I find that eBay (at least in the UK) has proven itself to have
the best shipping, selection, service and price. Especially with it's new
"Fast and free" promotion

------
zobzu
"They want to lock everyone into everything. Just like everyone else. And
we’re all worse off for it."

dat. every company mankind has produced. every ruler, too. Meh.

------
blinkingled
While we are talking about Amazon Prime - there still seems to be a round
about way to get Prime at the old yearly rate of $79 - even if you are a
currently active Prime member. See this for details -
[http://www.reddit.com/r/deals/comments/20ckxa/you_can_lock_i...](http://www.reddit.com/r/deals/comments/20ckxa/you_can_lock_in_the_79_now_even_if_your_renewal/)

------
jimhart3000
There are some areas where Amazon definitely outshines Netflix, particularly
children's programming, which honestly is 80% of the streaming video my family
does - Amazon has all the Nickelodeon shows, which Netflix doesn't, which is a
key edge for them. We recently went back to cable after cord-cutting 5 years
ago, and prime video allowed me to drop Netflix and Hulu without much
disruption to our viewing.

------
mindcrime
I mostly agree with the OP here, but I will say this: Prime Instant Video was
the main reason I actually finally signed up for Prime. The shipping part is
nice, but I don't actually order _that_ much physical "stuff" from Amazon.

With the price increase, I'm not sure if I'll stay a Prime member or not
though. I do use Prime Video, but I'm not sure I use it enough to justify this
price.

------
abruzzi
I'm surely a rare exception. I don't buy stuff from Amazon (I might if they
would tell me what carrier they were going to use before shipping. Where I
live I have a different address for USPS than I do for other carriers.) But I
did subscribe to Prime for the video. I'm not sure I will stick with them with
the price increase, since I don't use them half as much as I use netflix.

------
Pxtl
Hope they don't do it here in Canada. With no Amazon Video service here, there
already isn't much reason to buy Prime.

------
fh973
This might have an interesting product positioning aspect:

Amazon is calling the product "prime", but it is actually a way to save money.
Hence, this is no premium product and there is no actual perception as a
premium product by customers.

Raising prices for an actual premium product wouldn't be an issue, but it
seems actual product aspects and not naming counts.

------
taeric
I can't say that I feel at all betrayed or ill treated in the Amazon increase.
Maybe I would be more annoyed if my change did not go into affect Jan of next
year, but as it is, I feel I've gotten more than a fair deal out of this.

Of course, I actually use the heck out of the video service... As noted in the
top thread, it really is quite nice.

------
jbinto
As a Canadian Amazon customer, I'm used to this second class treatment.

With a fraction of the inventory, no "addon items", no access to Prime Instant
Video or Kindle Lending Library, there's absolutely no reason for Amazon.ca
customers to subscribe to Prime, even at $79.

~~~
graeme
It's worse, but I wouldn't say there's "no reason". I make almost all of my
purchases on amazon; their selection has improved greatly in the past year.

Adding Prime has removed much of the friction from the process. I don't have
to group items together to get free shipping. Yet I also find I'm not making
impulse purchases, so it works out well.

Mental space is precious, so removing the planning from amazon purchasing has
helped, even if I spend a bit more money.

~~~
Pxtl
Yeah, I've spent a couple of late nights scrambling trying to think of one
item I want to buy from Amazon to pad an order out to the desired price.

Freeing myself from that bit of mental gymnastics might be worth it.

~~~
jbinto
Interesting. I guess my usage of Amazon deviates from the norm then. I don't
think I've ever struggled to put more than $25 in my cart, and I've never
elected for a more expensive shipping option.

Aside: On Amazon.ca, the cheapest (free) shipping method has always
outperformed the promise for express shipping. If they say 5-8 days, it's
there in 2-3. My record was ordering a product on a Saturday afternoon,
selecting free shipping, and getting it Monday morning. I was dumbfounded that
was even possible.

~~~
graeme
I often buy a single book, usually $11. I might buy a $14 book two days later,
but I don't want to keep track, or buy more than I want to for free shipping

------
LukeB_UK
Just getting a blank page. Google cache here:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.marco.org%2F2014%2F03%2F15%2Fworse)

------
yukichan
> because Amazon bundled in a video service nobody wants since 2011

I like Amazon video quite a bit actually.

------
TrainedMonkey
Worse for whom? This is actually wonderful for amazon shareholders as it
demonstrates that amazon finally started to think about generating some
serious cash surplus.

All that said I have no amazon stock and I am a prime user, so I feel your
pain.

~~~
jsolson
No, it doesn't. It will likely generate more free cash flow, though, allowing
Amazon to invest in more things more quickly.

------
hownottowrite
Ego, greed, absence (or loss) of vision... This is how products are "improved"
over time.

For the most part, it's a natural result of a process driven by the demands of
growth and managed by psychopaths.

------
lnanek2
Canceled my Prime membership just now. I don't want any videos, I consider
them a waste of time, so they are upping prices to make me pay for offering me
a waste of time easier. Greeeeeat.

------
davidedicillo
I wonder what the cost of Google Shopping Express will be. I found myself
choosing GSE over Amazon several time because on smaller items is cheaper and
you can't beat same day delivery.

------
yef
I don't think Marco knows what lock-in means. Not to mention, his concluding
sentence is a string of absolutes that almost makes me think he's writing a
satire of some sort.

------
jrockway
Hah, I think I wrote exactly the same post a couple days ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7392846](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7392846)

------
cbsmith
Pretty sure NewEgg and crew have competitive options to Amazon...

------
itsnotvalid
Just take a look at China with multiples of these. Many companies are using
their influence to attack smaller companies and there is virtually no
antitrust laws.

------
mightyuhu
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKU6fKhYpYw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKU6fKhYpYw)

------
gress
whilst it's true that Apple maps is not as good as Google maps yet, especially
outside the US, it strikes me as the odd one out here.

Apple wanted to make maps better but couldn't do so with Google as the
supplier without making unacceptable privacy compromises.

The current state is temporarily worse, but only because their supplier was
uncooperative.

~~~
mikeash
There's more than two maps suppliers out there. While it's true that Apple
probably couldn't realistically proceed with Google, nothing forced Apple to
partner with the cheapest and worst one out there (TomTom) when making the
switch.

Apple Maps could have been much better if Apple had cared to make it so. They
didn't, and that's on them, not anyone else.

~~~
gress
Who exactly are you suggesting they should have partnered with, and what do
you know about what those other partners would have demanded in return?

Seriously, if it's so easy for you to righteously deride them, you presumably
have some credible suggestions about how they could make it better if only
they wanted to.

~~~
mikeash
OpenStreetMap, Nokia, Microsoft, MapQuest, off the top of my head.

Frankly, the claim that Apple Maps was the best possible mapping product Apple
could have made requires far more support than the claim that Apple could have
done better.

~~~
gress
Which of those are you claiming are better than Apple's maps? Only Microsoft
and Nokia seem like they might be contenders, and given that at the time they
were just as competitive towards Apple as Google, what makes you think they
offered a more credible deal?

The claim that Apple could have done better absolutely requires qualification
otherwise it's just more empty bashing. Without qualification it is a claim
that can be made against anyone about anything. Knowing that someone _could_
have done better requires understanding the options available to them.

~~~
mikeash
Apple trusts Microsoft enough to run a bunch of their infrastructure on Azure.
I don't see why their maps couldn't be trusted too.

OSM is also good. Better than what Apple got, anyway.

Of course, my experience was that a blank sheet of paper would be better than
Apple Maps when it was introduced. While a blank sheet of paper contains no
information, it also won't steer you _wrong_ , and that means it comes out
ahead.

What kind of qualification are you looking for?

~~~
gress
Azure is a standard service offering and is a commodity that competes with AWS
which Apple also uses.

Given your general intelligence, it's actually hard for me to believe that you
can't see that Microsoft would have leverage when negotiating to be the
replacement for Google maps, and the terms might have been unacceptable.

It's also quite reasonable that having been dependent on one hostile supplier
for maps, Apple would need want to control it's own destiny with the
replacement otherwise it would just be repeating the same mistake that they
made with Google.

Your comments about the blank sheet of paper make it unclear that you are
offering a serious opinion here.

I was looking for some actual insight or information about how Apple could
have made maps better, but it doesn't seem like you have any to support your
claim.

It sounds like it just boils down to 'I wish they'd used OSM'.

~~~
mikeash
That's a really smooth move there, calling me stupid under the guise of
calling me smart. I like it! I'll have to remember that.

My experience with Apple Maps was that it steered me wrong more than it
steered me right. That made it literally worse than nothing. If you think that
implies that I don't have a serious opinion, well, I can't affect what you
think.

I honestly don't see why you need anything beyond "they should have gone with
anyone, _anyone_ besides TomTom, who has the worst maps in the industry". It
would have required some sort of compromise on their part? Well _duh_.
Obviously they went with TomTom because TomTom's position at the bottom of the
heap gave Apple lots of power. Apple clearly prioritized power in the
relationship over quality of the resulting product. That's their right. But
that doesn't make the resulting product better.

~~~
gress
I'm not calling you stupid. I'm accusing you of not using your intelligence at
a point when to do so would invalidate part of your argument

I agree with you that Apple prioritized power over the near-term quality of
the resulting product. That was the point I made in the first place.

In order to be able to make maps better at their own pace, they _must_ have
control over it otherwise they would just be held hostage again. The
alternative is not _compromise_ ; it's defeat.

This is why simply presenting a list of other vendors doesn't change the
equation. Control is a hard technical requirement.

~~~
mikeash
Then I honestly haven't the slightest idea what point you're trying to make.

You seem to be basically saying, Apple Maps sucks but it's OK because Apple
decided that was the best way to proceed.

Which is obvious (why would they have proceeded in a way that they didn't
think was the best?) and thus completely uninteresting.

~~~
gress
No. I am not saying anything like that trivial straw man which is
intentionally uninteresting because you wrote it that way.

I'm saying that a short term reduction in performance was necessary in order
for Apple to obtain the control they need to make maps better in future rather
than being hamstrung by this key service being owned by a competitor.

------
ribs
Waste of my time. Little insight. Hyperbole.

------
taude
Marco's wrong. Weird, I know. But we use our Prime streaming all the time.
It's a nice little extra.

------
api
[http://www.redecentralize.org/](http://www.redecentralize.org/)

------
gcb0
Most civilized countries it is illegal to force one product with another.
"married sale"

------
efremjw
so don't pay for it you moron

------
DodgyEggplant
That's why the most common financial board game is called "Monopoly"

------
zygotic12
It's the end of the world I tell ya'll. Try using the inter web thingy.

------
amjaeger
Amazon Prime instant video has Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, who could ask for
more?

------
tuke
Apparently I can only stream "The Americans" from Amazon. So there. (Would
love to be told differently; and I don't steal media.)

------
untilHellbanned
wow 258+ comments on so much minutiae. we are lame.

------
ksikka
Why don't you start better companies? Show them wrong. Don't just sit at your
laptop, complain about how bad all these popular, massively used services are.
If you don't like it, leave and make it better.

~~~
chaostheory
Marco is not just another blogger who just complains. He's started Tumblr and
Instapaper.

I don't agree with his opinion in his case, but he always has interesting
insight.

~~~
xcrunner529
Well, he was the first employee of Tumblr and definitely instrumental in its
success and implementation (the PHP framework used is mostly his own
creation).

