Amazon Prime Video content to start including ads next year | Hacker News Reader

Amazon Prime Video content to start including ads next year

bbc.co.uk

172 pointsmellosouls324 comments

Imagine a world where a guy worth over 150 billion dollars who owns a company worth over a trillion dollars and has a quasi-monopoly over the internet is in such desperate need of more money to the point where he's going to put advertising on his video platform, even though people already pay for the platform. Instead of raising prices moderately, or putting better content on the platform, they decide to instead put ads on the platform.

Some people just don't have the ability to say "yeah, we've got enough". Sad.

> Some people just don't have the ability to say "yeah, we've got enough".

It seems fairly clear to me that having more stuff makes people more greedy. And, yes, there is causation there, not just correlation.

You can even see this in young children. Give a pack of preschoolers a mountain of toys, more than they could possibly use, and they will immediately begin hoarding and fighting over them. Give that exact same group of preschoolers three empty cardboard boxes and a wooden spoon, and they will use them as props in a cooperative game.

> It seems fairly clear to me that having more stuff makes people more greedy. And, yes, there is causation there, not just correlation.

My hypothesis for this is that wealth isn't free; the more you have, the more expensive maintaining it is, the more rapidly it'll evaporate if you fail to maintain it, and the worse it'll hurt. In case of Amazon, it's probably less that they're bored and are coveting more money for no reason - it's more likely that they face the usual pressures for growth and continue to seek opportunities to squeeze more money out of people.

> You can even see this in young children. Give a pack of preschoolers a mountain of toys, more than they could possibly use, and they will immediately begin hoarding and fighting over them. Give that exact same group of preschoolers three empty cardboard boxes and a wooden spoon, and they will use them as props in a cooperative game.

I question that. I have two small children, and whether they're dealing with a mountain of toys, or three pans and a wooden spoon, they'll switch between fighting over a single thing and playing cooperatively every couple minutes. They're very quick to get into a fight, and even quicker to make up again.

If Jeff Bezos said "I've got enough", perhaps Prime Video wouldn't exist, which would be a net loss to their employees and their consumers who pay for that. It would also mean that Netflix and Disney would very likely be charging more, due to less competition.

Now, if you meant he should just be running this kind of stuff pro bono, consider that Prime Video cost about $16 billion USD per year just for content last year. Even if he puts all his wealth into it, Prime Video would last less than 10 years as a free service before it had to shut down.

I think we should tax the hell out of billionaires by the way, but that's an unrelated issue.

He didn't get rich from being charitable! He got rich from being greedy and IMO stingy.

You ignored the first paragraph of the article that says you can pay for an ad-free option, which would qualify as “raising prices moderately” to me.

Odds are near 100% that Amazon has been running Prime Video at a loss since it started. They spent $16B on content last year. They can stop producing so much content or they can find ways to make more money. Either way people will snark about how greedy they are for not running a service at a loss forever.

Yeah, people get so weird about this stuff. It's TV shows, not food and water. There should be no obligation for anyone to produce and distribute this stuff at a loss.

Price increases are fine. Inevitable, really. I just really hope that in the long term we'll get to keep the month-to-month model and the "pay more for no ads" model.

Low interest rates created an exceptionally entitled consumer mindset. It's been interesting to watch it break over the last year.

If he'd stopped when he had enough, I wouldn't be able to order stuff at 23:00 and have it delivered at 07:00.

If Musk had stopped when he had enough, I won't be able to take weekend vacations to orbital hotels in my lifetime.

Enough money to live comfortably is just one goal; building cool things is another orthogonal one.

When those “cool things” are made through exploitation (and they are), being ok with it makes you a deplorable shithead.

These are not things worth the human costs associated.

Who is being exploited and how?

The workers who are worked to the bone, while the profit goes to the shareholders. Don’t pretend to not know how terrible Amazon treats its labor.

There are more employers in most towns than just Amazon; everyone who works there thinks it's a better option for them than the other jobs available to them.

The workers are also free to become shareholders; Amazon is of course publicly traded.

When you’re done licking Bezo’s boots, go talk to those people you think are “free to become shareholders” (when they live paycheck to paycheck) or free to work elsewhere (when amazon or walmart have shut down the shops that used to be on Main St.).

Amazon is a publicly traded company. Shareholders want to increase their stock value by increasing profits. Blaming only Bezos for greediness is not fair. He may be greedy but so are all the shareholders.

> quasi-monopoly

AKA, not a monopoly.

Monopoly is such a funny buzzword to me because it's both wildly misused and completely misunderstood to be an inherently bad thing.

In reality, there is rarely a true monopoly and the only bad thing about them is that they enable anti-competitive behavior and that's the thing that's illegal and bad.

Amazon "quasi-monopoly" comes from having the best service. Great service is good for consumers.

Agreed. Products/companies can be anticompetitive even if they are not a monopoly. Products can also contain their own submarket in which they achieved a monopoly through anticompetitive practices. For example ios on Iphones. That last bit is somewhat controversial but is the opinion of the current justice department of the executive branch of the government and seems to be the correct reading of the Kodak case[0]. In any event I don't think Prime video is anticompetitive except in as much as it can take losses for years to price others out of the market but that doesn't seem to be happening.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak_Co._v._Image_Tec....

No true Scotsman argument aside, anti-competitive practices by very powerful firms are a bad thing, even if the firm got the market power because they have or had the best product.

> No true Scotsman argument

I was wary of the phrasing when I was writing it because of that but I don't think it's a "no true scotsman" argument because there is a real legal definition of monopoly that they clearly don't even come close to satisfying. I probably should have replaced the word "true" with "real" or "legal".

The FTC disagrees with you: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/...

1. Jeff Bezos no longer controls Amazon operations. 2. He doesn't own the company either, he owns a minority stake. 3. In what universe does Amazon come even remotely close to having a "quasi-monopoly" over the internet? This isn't true when limiting it to just e-commerce. 4. The majority of people actually prefer to watch ads over increasing prices. Streaming platforms ad-supported plans are MASSIVELY successful.

1. He's the chair of the board, so he has an outsized amount of control. He could easily fire the CEO or any other C-Suite members if he wanted to.

2. He owns a bit more than a minority stake, he owns (I've found several estimates, so I'm putting in a range here) between 9% and 12.5%. That's hardly a minority stake for a company worth nearly $1.5 trillion. He's the single largest shareholder.

3. Maybe not a full on monopoly, but AWS has the same market share in the cloud space as the next two providers combined. (MSFT + Google). That's as close to a monopoly as I can think in of a competitive industry without getting trust busted.

4. Most people I know would prefer to keep things the way they are - they pay for a premium service on top of already paying for Prime. If Amazon offered Prime Video for free but it was ad-supported, I'd be fine with that. I don't think I'm alone when I say that if I'm paying for a premium service (Video) on top of already paying for a service (Prime), Amazon shouldn't be allowed to triple-dip by selling ads.

Streaming platforms usually have ad-supported tiers, yes, but most of those are either free or very cheap.

1. I'm not saying he doesn't still have control over governance at Amazon. As executive chair he most certainly does. Operational decision like these are not subject to the board of directors though. He also couldn't "easily" unilaterally fire Jassy. With all the clout he likely still has if he told the board they should vote to fire Jassy over the decision to run ads on PV they would tell him to get bent.

2. You're literally describing a minority stake here.

3. Last data point I saw was around 3% of internet traffic running through AWS. Also I'd say there's quite a large difference between the internet as an entity and the cloud infra a tiny part of it is run on.

4. Most people I know would prefer to get Prime for free but that's never gonna happen either. I'd wager that at this point the only cash flow positive streaming platform out there is Netflix which is simply not sustainable. So it's either cancel the product eventually, raise prices, or introduce ads. The vast majority of people would opt to go with the ads.

Capitalism demands that all products and services are maximally enshittified for profit to the breaking point line, and no further.

This is equivalent to shrinkflation: pay the same, get less. Streaming platforms want to retain most users, but also extract more value from them. Slowly a new threshold for what's "normal" is set, and perhaps then -more- adds can be added. There's no need to speculate where things go from there. Just look at where cable TV is.

Let's coin a new term for this, "adflation".

Streaming just came full cycle to traditional TV broadcasting. An impressive feat of disrupting an industry right there.

You need a streaming aggregator for the cycle to be complete.

The Pirate Bay

I'd add that I actually pay for Amazon Prime (mostly for the free shipping -- heavy stuff costs a fortune otherwise), but use other means to access Prime Video content because of the ads (there are a raft of Prime Video offerings that already have ads) and the spying.

I had a similar experience when I recently purchased Need for Speed: Heat on sale from Steam. The mandatory EA launcher that was installed along with game had separate spyware that launched at boot and couldn't (easily) be disabled. The "alternative version" didn't have that, so that's what I ended up playing.

It splintered enough at the end with cable vs. DishNetwork vs. DirectTV. i remember specific local sports games only being on one and then another.

I’ve noticed that the Apple TV app on Apple TV drags in content from other apps somehow.

At least one telecom provider in Canada has already started doing that [0]. I expect it won't be long before others join in.

[0] https://www.telus.com/en/streamplus

My Cable TV package comes with at least 5 different streaming platforms. I only have said package because it actually brings my bills total cost down, somehow.

I think every country has at least 1-2 telco operators doing exactly that in their top-tier connectivity packages (usually pretty expensive)

Amazon was advertising during the football game last night that they could aggregate your subscriptions to at least Amazon Prime Video, Max, Paramount+, and AMC+ so you could get content from all of those platforms in the same place.

Seeing the writing on the wall that we could be headed back to the cable TV era, I had a hairbrained idea (haha- really just a name) back in like 2011/12, that would aggregate the three big streaming platform's libraries in a single interface. called: HuFlixPrime.

My idea to get cooperation and buy-in across the streaming providers was to try and "nudge" customers to subscribe and bundle competing services by directly showing all programming that could be accessed in one interface. Ideally streaming and account management and signup would be done through this single clearing house. Perhaps an incentive if all three services were active.

Obviously would be fraught with issues, and I could never really see any cooperation like that working. but I liked the name...

Coming 2025.

Nor sure why anyone would expect somwthkng else. Streaming doesn’t make things any cheaper than traditional tv, production might be slightly cheaper but not because of streaming. Shareholders still want the same roi.

Everything being VoD is a pretty nice feature though.

> Streaming doesn’t make things any cheaper than traditional tv

Streaming is oodles cheaper than owning traditional TV station.

But the networks didn’t (mostly) own the traditional TV stations. Streaming cuts the middlemen out of the loop which is probably a bit cheaper though overall.

The new middlemen are cloud (unless you're amazon/google) and internet providers.

It really isn't cheaper. Netflix pays $1bil/yr to aws. The only advantage streaming providers have is that you're already paying for an internet connection. But TV over internet solutions have been a thing for a long time so even this doesn't really matter. At the end of the day it's just bits going through a plastic tube from one computer to another. If anything, the 1 to 1 on-demand aspect of streaming would make this the more expensive option.

> Netflix pays $1bil/yr to aws

So actual hardware would cost them like 1/4 of that.

Arrr, 'tis a right letdown! Shiver my timbers! Raise that black flag!

enshittification?

this was also my first thought after watching the DEF CON talk: An Audacious Plan to Halt the Internet's Ensh*ttification[1]

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rimtaSgGz_4

Such a cringeworthy word though.

I like the term because it strikes the appropriate nerve for the behaviors it accurately describes.

Maybe it's me, but this word seems overused to the point that it ends up destroying discussion.

That said, in this case it's relevant.

> Just look at where cable TV is.

With a cable DVR you can arbitrarily control the video stream. You never have to watch an ad if you don't want to. Amazon won't let you conveniently skip these ads.

Streaming was always going to be about losing that freedom. Cable companies weren't bold enough to take that away, or it never occurred to them.

The last time I had Spotify installed, it wouldn't even credit me with having heard an ad if I muted my speakers.

Even putting aside the ubiquity of tech like this: we had a particularly busy year and I ended up traveling a lot more often for work than I usually do, and it was insane to me how many fucking ads are in television now.

Mind you I was a from the go cord cutter, when I left my parents and spread my wings, I never once wanted cable. I had it through them and it was... fine. Certainly not worth the absurd prices it goes for and as such, I have never, ever had it. In general my interests are niche too so even OTA TV is just not interesting to me. I watch YouTube, my iTunes library, and a plex box for... other stuff. That's it.

And it just blew my mind, I'm doing some work in the hotel room and I want some background noise, so I flip on the TV and... ads. Ads ads ads ads ads. For every 30 minute block I would say it's 55/45 between content and ads. And endless parade of medications, medical devices, lawyers promising to get you more medicare money, shitty fast food, how to lose all the weight you gained from eating the shitty fast food.

And the repetition. Oh. My. Lord. Like I genuinely can't tell if this is just because I haven't watched TV to any extent since I was living with my parents during schooling, but I do not remember the mix of ads being so lean. Or maybe it's because they're running more of them, I don't know. But I swore over the course of a week long hotel stay I saw a particular ad for Wendy's at least a hundred fucking times.

Ads aren't going away, the war is lost, no service will leave that money on the table anymore past its temporary startup customer-friendly phase. It's not worth complaining about.

What does still matter is whether the video stream tech gives you the freedom to seek/skip or not. Then the ads become more or less moot. Plex for local media gives you freedom, sure. My cable box does. Streaming will not.

Its worth complaining about to hold back the stream of shit for a while.

But you are right eventually ads will get everywhere and even if you are willing to pay more it just means you are making enough that they can charge you even more.

The solution is to abandon any platform you can where you can't block ads.

A lot of channels, opinion news ones IME, seem to have reverted to early Crunchyroll levels of ad redundancy. Are there fewer bids for the ad spots? Is the audience too small or a narrow part of it so valuable that the prices for the spots only make sense for a few products that happen to be scammy shite? You're not alone in feeling like the ads have changed a bit.

Anyone who thought streaming and cutting the cord was a solution to the cable tv was ignorant of businesses desire to make money and reduce cost.

It’s funny how blatantly every streaming service waits for Netflix to do anything bold before doing same thing.

It’s like what happens when Apple does something like removing headphone socket. Backlash from the loud minority “I’ll never buy another iPhone again”. then every competitor quietly follows.

(In Australia, Binge app – the main local streamer with HBO shows etc – also started ads a few months ago, with a higher ad-free tier.)

Still made about the removal of the headphone socket though...

Same. BT is expensive garbage.

Some headsets now come with USB-C connectors instead of 3.5mm jack. For example Koss PortaPro.

In a decade or two when every device has the USB-C instead of 3.5, I will be pretty excited about that. Until then I have to spend my time searching out those dongles.

It's not so bad. Buy a half-dozen dongles, grab a new one from the pile when your current one breaks, and buy another half-dozen when you take the last one from the pile. I find Best Buy's Insignia brand lasts longest. Is it as good a headphone jack? No. But it's not that bad either.

Yeah, it is not the worst thing to deal with. I have adopted this strategy and the end result is I have to spend more money and walk around my house looking for them from time to time. Not terrible.

I'm still mad about it.

Need at least 2 usb-c connectors so you can charge as well

Nokia, Fairphone Androids have 3.5mm headphone sockets still btw.

As does Sony

Fairphone got rid of the headphone jack last I looked.

Just waiting for spotify to do it too.

They already have ads in podcasts.

I adamantly refuse to buy a USB c headset because I'm sure in 2 years there will be a new standard.

USB-C is legally mandated in the EU, and Apple finally switched over their entire lineup. It doesn't seem like it's going anywhere any time soon.

This isn’t exactly true. An industry consensus is demanded in the EU, that just happens to be USB-C ATM. The rules are flexible enough to allow for technology advance, as long as everyone does it all at once.

Where everyone is defined by everyone big enough to send delegations to implementer forums and dictate top down standards to everyone else.

Remember HDCP?

USB micro was introduced in 2007 and is only now on its way out.

I'm pretty sure we have at least decade or two of USB-C.

It also got to the point when nothing but laptops and external hard drives need full capability of it so I think it will live for longer.

USB 4 uses the same port so it will be around for another 10 years most likely.

In this case Netflix followed the other ad supported networks.

Probably most people will disagree, but I'm happy with this.

I pay for Prime exclusively for the shipping. I never wanted video in the first place.

So if Amazon needs to raise prices/revenue, I prefer that they keep Prime the same, and raise the price (now +$2.99/mo.) for people who are big watchers of Prime Video and don't want ads.

So this price segmentation makes sense to me.

Although I hate ads, the option to pay $3/mo to not have them seems entirely reasonable.

The value I get from prime is far in excess of what I pay for it - even at a much higher price.

Except it’s not reasonable and they outright lied. To say they are not increasing prices but then to keep the same quality / category of service you have to pay more … is sociopath / gaslight speak for “we are raising prices.”

Being ok with it because it’s “only 3 bucks” is just letting them know it’s ok and they and others will do it more and more.

Amazon makes plenty of profit. They can have a lower price option with ads.. and keep ad free the same.

It’s too bad that ever since COVID prime shipping no longer means 2 day shipping - at least in my area. I question why we’re still paying for it as we don’t use Prime Video much either.

And those companies wonder why piracy is back on the rise. We have been duped.

Is piracy on the rise? That seems like a difficult thing to reliably track.

Anecdotally, I've found myself doing it again. I used to when I was young, but totally stopped up until about a year ago. Illegal streaming sites have become impressively good. Better UX than Netflix.

There are lots of decent signals out there if someone did want to track it: standard site/search term tracking, the number of leechers of torrents, activity in pirate subreddits/discords, installs of Jellyfin/Plex servers etc.

FWIW I can't say I have noticed any radical increase in popularity. The number of Leechers on the most popular piratebay torrents are only in the 100s so I assume it's very niche. I suspect that "playing an .mkv file" is already too technical/clunky for much of the public compared to using streaming app. Let alone setting up a seedbox and media server behind a VPN or whatever for the best experience.

I think (from my and my friend's behavior), that a lot of movie streaming has moved away from torrents and onto free streaming sites. There's no longer any reason to download a movie you're going to watch once, and it's harder for ISPs to track you down.

I cancelled nearly all my subscriptions and set up an old notebook at home with Jellyfin and qBittorent + search plugins. Pretty simple and satisfies my needs.

I have no problem paying for content, I pay for Spotify and video games, but I refuse to pay for video until company delivers a non-DRMed video file to my hard drive that I can watch where and how I want.

Piracy is a service problem, as Gaben says so it is.

My TV provider allowes me to store up to 2000 hours high definition TV in the cloud.

Combined with 6 movie channels, which show virtually every movie synchronized and in its original language[0] version without ad interruption this setup works for me.

[0] Granted, the original version wasn't too helpful in watching Parasite, which I had to enjoy in the German dub.

> My TV provider allowes me to store up to 2000 hours high definition TV in the cloud.

That you are free to watch until you stop paying for their service. Those movies do not belong to you.

I'm willing to buy Blu-Rays. I'm also willing to stop watching "content" altogether. I'm already hating the experience of the forced unskippable ads for Paramount shows that play at the beginning (AT MAX VOLUME) of every Paramount+ channel stream (Star Trek... sigh).

If I have to watch ads like regular network TV, which I now find unwatchable, I'd just have to do without.

Yeah, the recent NFL ads are obnoxious. I don't like sports. I never watch sports. I avoid sports related content. Forcing me to watch an ad for NFL before every episode of a show is beyond annoying. I think I've hit my limit and will be researching running my own content library now.

I find live sports are the one thing actually worth subscribing to myself. But then again I enjoy a good hockey, football, or baseball game. I know there are alternative streams but the quality is always poor and they're iffy at best. Any conventional show I can find in other ways.

Weirdly, I'm able to skip Paramount's pre-roll ads on Xbox, but not on their iPhone app. Anyway, I've heard Paramount's streaming service isn't doing so well[1], so with any luck they will give up and go back to Netflix.

[1] https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/paramount-just-quit-stre...

So long as they don't give up and try to get a tax write-off by just black-holing all those shows instead like some other studios did...

You have "content" in quotes, but during the actors and writers strike, there isn't even "content"

The business of media distribution drives us to talk about the stories we enjoy engaging with as though they are toiletries we're restocking from the store. I replaced my empty box of tissue with more "content," yay! I put that in quotes because I actually dislike the viewpoint that term comes from. I watch stories and performances, think on them, talk about them, and sometimes come back to them. I don't consume content, as if it were used up after I watch it once.

I hope the writers and actors get a fairer shake, especially with unreasonable terms for generative AI based on actor likenesses and voices. (We get to scan you once, pay you once, and use that "data" forever without ever paying you again.)

> I don't consume content, as if it were used up after I watch it once.

You may be in a minority here, many people I know (like my wife) very rarely will go back to something when they're done with it. Most people are on the lookout for something new to keep them entertained, so I would definitely argue that they are in fact consuming media.

So we all cut the cord to get away from restrictive, over-priced packages riddled with ads so we can end up with restrictive, over-priced packages riddled with ads. Say hello to the new boss, I guess

My public library has thousands of DVD. More than I could watch in a lifetime, I think. There's even a bit of streaming. And, outside of the Disney stuff, none of it has ads I can't skip. All free.

I mention this and someone always complains that that Game of Mad Men is Breaking the New Black isn't at the library. Which gets me thinking that the real boss might be our own consumerism.

I'm not complaining. My kid loves it - the library has titles that are difficult to find or not in my streaming service du jour, plus she gets exposed to just plain discovery by browsing. Something targeted, personalized suggestions have taken away from us

I can't imagine the idea of a public library being proposed in modern times. I'm glad that my local system is there and they seem very dedicated to serving the public.

I am absolutely and wholeheartedly in favor of public libraries. They're fantastic places, and deserve and need much more support than they've got.

But the idea that just because some crappy knock-offs and overdone franchises exist, every piece of entertainment media is just interchangeable with every other one, and no one should ever be upset that they can't easily access the specific piece of media they want to see, is just absurd on the face of it.

People who "cut the cord" yet signed up for the various alternatives didn't really cut anything. They just plugged their cord into a different hole.

If you dropped cable/satellite only to resume watching TV daily on streaming services, are you really a cord cutter, truly? If watching a television for hours a day is still how you burn your free time, if television shows are still your go-to topic for smalltalk, if this television programming still preoccupies so much of your mind that cancelling your streaming services and not replacing them with another kind of television service seems inconceivable, then have you truly cut the cord? The real cord is that ethereal tether between you and the tube, cut that if you want to be free.

It took me a few years to realize this, but cancelling your cable subscription only to spend just as much time staring at the same television mindlessly 'consuming content' on netflix or prime is fundamentally the same lifestyle.

I recently left Prime. I was disappointed to see ads introduced into Amazon Music, for music I'd paid for. I could get the same music with ads elsewhere.

To me, if I can't keep music I'd paid for, there's a strong case for piracy.

They've already killed Prime Video in the last year.

I cancelled my Amazon Prime subscription yesterday because:

- 1-day delivery is not a thing anymore

- Prime Video used to be my favorite streaming service, now it sucks. Every time I want to watch something, I have to pay an additional subscription, and it's way too hard to find what's actually included

- it's too expensive for the value it provides (70€). Actually I'm not sure what value it provides anymore

1 day delivery is still going for most products in the UK

The thing keeping me on Prime has been their unlimited photo backup service. The desktop app either doesn't work anymore or I have too much content for it to handle. It spins and spins but nothing happens. I can manually backup via the web client but it's a huge pain and there's no automatic sync of new content. I never really know if I'm 100% backed up either.

I was excited to see Apple announce new iCloud tiers above their old 2TB limit, but the prices go up linearly with storage and as an amateur photography enthusiast I'm not sure even the 6TB $30/mo plan would cover me. The only other choice is an eye-watering $60/mo plan for 12TB.

only buy it when you need it and when its cheaper than regular shipping, which is rare if you hvae over $25 of stuff.

I rarely buy stuff, there are only like 1 or 2 times a year when I need something fast that I need Prime. I try to get from Walmart of other sites if possible.

I am definitely getting more books from the library now.

I'm sorry but everything sucks now. There's no point anymore in trying to find good content. They've done this on purpose - and you can't fight it.

I don't think it was on purpose, just perverse incentives of the system.

Agree, and I do the same. So many books, so little time.

I can barely find something to watch on Prime which is why I only subscribe like 1 month a year, and for that month I spend maybe 8 total hours watching.

Maybe if Amazon made better content, then they could get more revenue.

The Expanse was excellent, IMO. Apart from that I mostly agree. I've tried Jack Ryan and Wheel of Time, which were good but not amazing.

The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel was fabulous. They had lot of good shows in the prestige comedy or dramedy (is that still a thing?) genre. Transparent, Red Oaks, Mozart in the Jungle, Fleabag (bought from BBC)

+1 to Expanse, one of the best sci-fi shows in recent times. I also saw saw Reacher and felt that it was good.

I agree there isn't a lot of good content on Prime. Expanse was excellent (even though they rushed the last season) and The Boys is really good.

I found Wheel of Time to be terrible. Great spectacle, but trash acting (outside of the MC) and worse writing.

Does Amazon really deserve credit for The Expanse? The first three seasons were SyFy, the next two were Amazon and notably less good (but still good), and then with Alex and the whole sixth season they basically took it out back and shot it for the fuck of it. I'm not saying that if they made a seventh season as a musical where the characters were furries with the effects from Cats I wouldn't still lap it up. But it feels like something Amazon bought into to milk rather than having created it.

Animal Kingdom is exceptional

The Expanse, The Boys and New Bandits are three original series with very different styles that I found entertaining.

So they’ve abandoned being the world’s best employer by forcing return to office and return to hub. Now they are publicly abandoning customer obsession by putting ads in the middle of a movie. Unless of course you pay them extra on top of a $100+ subscription fee that has already increased YoY. This is just the start of the Amazon extracting more and more from their customers. Enshitification of everything continues.

It's day 2 at Amazon.

Well said. I agree 100%.

1983: “pay for cable and it’ll be ad free!”

2023: “hey charlie brown, …”

All these streaming services are rushing towards $20/month at a time when the content pipeline has dried up with the WGA/SAG strike over the unsustainable streaming model.

I’ve always resented the bundling of Prime delivery with a wannabe Netflix service. This change means I either won’t use the the video service anymore or I’ll have to pay more.

Time to go back to piracy.

Exactly this. Is this a way to pass the cost of the WGA/SAG negotiation to consumers? It sounds like it, and it might even make sense as such. The challenge is that the cost is passed while content is not generated, so as consumer the reasonable choice is to also "strike" on subscriptions for a while, until the pipeline is full again. Hopefully this strike will stick, the same way subscriptions tend to stick.

Now that you mention it I’m surprised the actors and/or writers haven’t suggested folks cancel their streaming services temporarily to show support for the “little guys” against the studios. Maybe they’re afraid of the long-term effects if people do get used to watching less?

I think that would be something like asking a friend to key your boss’s car when you’ve given an ultimatum that you want a raise or you’ll quit.

Too risky for them too, indeed. They go for a bigger piece of the pie, but are motivated for the pie to remain big. I don't know how the content gap will fill though and I do expect people will start cutting down on subscriptions after Christmas. There's only so much one can get from foreign productions where the industry is not scaled, and the criteria for success are even harder.

My alternative proposition would be for the actors and writers to allow for crowd-funded productions and go for individual show/movie streams. I would personally invest in a production happening in the midst of dearth of content.

I only use prime for the expedited shipping. I've tried finding something to watch but it's nothing but endless garbage.

Mods, I suggest a title change to something like, “Ads coming to Prime Video”

Editorializing titles is generally frowned upon on HN, even if your suggestion is accurate

That's true, but in this case I would argue that the title "An Update On" is itself aggressively editorialized into fake bland neutrality. Correcting that is very different than the normal prohibition on title changes.

I don’t make the rules, but i do think it’s funny how “an update on” has taken on a bit of a life of its own.

For example when Google says it, they’re probably killing off a service.

Yeah that's part of the reason I left the title as-is when I submitted the article

I was surprised that Prime is ranked 3rd according to 2022 data from Statista, I almost never watch anything on it but watch several channels through it and wonder if that counts towards their stats.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1368336/video-streaming-...

I had a similar curiosity and just inquired about it at work.

It turns out there's quite a bit of children's programming (possibly exclusively) available on Prime Video, which could be at least one reason for its popularity among families.

It’s huge but getting worse.

There used to be large swaths available on Prime but it seems reduced, and you might as well just watch it on YouTube directly.

If I get in mind to watch a movie or show that's not a popular current series, I find most of the time that only prime has it, or prime and some streaming service that I'm not going to add to my stack of subscriptions just for one movie/show, especially because nowadays thanks to my experience with Hulu, it takes a little research to tell if I'm going to get ads even if I pay for the service, and I'd rather not spend that time.

It does seem like Amazon has bought up rights to a lot of older content.

Many Prime users will have it for the delivery options (and the black pattern they got to buy it). Once you have that the video streaming is there so why not use it.

There's a demographic that pays for content and then watches it on unofficial streaming sites - driven there in reaction to big platforms' ahole designs (can't filter or search well, pre-roll ads).

This will cement that group a bit.

Whilst I use prime video, thats only because it comes 'for free' alongside shipping, which (at least in the UK) still is pretty good in terms of next-day, sometimes even same day.

I wish they would do a cheaper tier without all these additional 'benefits' (Video, Music, Twitch etc), but I suspect the reality is that its sort of a loss leader even without those benefits.

Good news then, that’s what they did. You get a $36/year discount for not getting ad free movies and a $120/year discount for not getting music.

Its still gone up from the original price to £95 a year though, removing features now, such as ad-free video, doesn't come with a discount. In fact there is no option to totally opt out of video and pay less tha £95.

20 years ago, Steam was the reason I stopped pirating games. Netflix et al had the same effect for TV & movies.

Today, I subscribe to 5 different streaming services, and occasionally do a month of various “channels” in those apps.

I want to pay for content, but the camels back is about to break. I truly don’t want to set sails again, but the bullshit has been adding up for a while. Ads is where I draw the line.

You can still buy almost everything from Prime/iTunes/Blu Ray without ads.

unless you have a DRM'less file it's still renting

you own nothing

Was never really able to find a great way to land in a role where you track and measure conversions but it's always been a [admittedly lame...] interest of mine. TV ads seem to be more about brand awareness instead of actually generating conversions (as much as Hulu tries on FireTV) but it's kind of cool to look at objectively all the same.

Curious to see what kind of ads Amazon will allow on their streaming platform, how much those ads will cost, how much more expensive it will be to inject ads into any of their 'most watched this week/month' programs, and blah blah blah - the numbers and metrics will be fun to look at once they are published.

All the streaming services are in the process of migrating to this model which was kinda the main thing they advertised as not doing...but we're in 2023 now...so c'est la vie, I guess. Another user used the term "adflation" which is a pretty concise way to view the shifting model.

Gives me a good reason to cancel Prime. Haven't been getting so much value out of free delivery as I'm not buying much physical media any more.

Between Prime Video and the occasional delivery, it seemed worth keeping it. But I won't watch a streaming service with ads. Its value to me would be reduced right down to zero.

Yeah, I'm currently paying monthly for Amazon Prime, and every time I think of canceling, I decide that I'm still using Prime Video as my only streaming service.

I experimentally tried the Prime Video "free with ads" content, and there's no way I'm going to tolerate that, much less pay for it.

Oh, besides Amazon's "free with ads" ruining the content experience, and also being a little creepy and making me feel dumber, they recently pulled a whopper of a faux pas: every Prime Video ads break included a commercial for HIV medication. Assuming that ads are somewhat personalized, as many other ads seemed to be, this was startling. I don't have HIV, my doctor would've told me, I'm not at elevated risk, I haven't browsed about it, I haven't searched Amazon for anything I know to correlate, haven't knowingly shared my WiFi, what is Amazon smoking this time, etc. All thoughts I went through. Was I watching a show before that? For entertainment and relaxation?

Just now, I remembered the phrase "Netflix and Chill", and imagined someone getting this barrage of presumably targeted HIV video commercials on their personal Amazon account, on an evening that they had a special someone over. Would that someone persevere until the fourth time the video was interrupted for an extended discussion of HIV medication, before they said, "I'm gonna go now"?

The first of the Amazon Leadership Principles:

> Customer Obsession -- Leaders start with the customer and work backwards. They work vigorously to earn and keep customer trust. Although leaders pay attention to competitors, they obsess over customers.

I don't see how anything about the FreeVee "free with ads" is consistent with the customer's trust. I suspect this and some other recent changes are more like people frittering away others' past long-term investments, in an attempt at short-term returns.

I've seen the same ads on their "free" movies. The way I see it, either some big pharma screwed up their ad targeting or Amazon is scamming them (the real customer) big time.

And we are back to the cable model! We did it everyone! We cut the cable and chained ourselves to the tech companies!

Why can't cable companies innovate and spend billions in VC money to subsidize cable and make it $5/mo?

EBITDA.

I cant think of one positive thing to say about this. It’s a dick^wcorporate move whose sole purpose is to extract more money out of its existing users.

I guess they believe the market can bear siphoning a bit more profit. At least for a little while.

As long as they have an add free option for a reasonable price I’m fine with it. It seems likely that with the money they are spending on shows streaming isn’t currently profitable.

Looks like $2.99 extra a month gets you no ads.

> Looks like $2.99 extra a month gets you no ads.

That's only a reasonable price if you discount the $15/month you're already paying. I mean, maybe it's reasonable anyway, and sure that $15/month is also paying for other things; but let's not discount the existing price just because it's existing.

I’d be happy to drop prime video out of the normal package. The only good show is the expanse. The rest is mostly meh. The lord of the rings bonfire is mostly a flop

At some point advertisers are going to say they don’t want to reach people who don’t pay the $2.99, and eventually the ad-free tier will become “limited ads”. Why would Amazon leave all that money on the table? Even PBS has about a minute and a half of “major corporate funders” ads on their nightly news.

That’s a real possibility. The more money you pay to avoid ads, the more valuable you are to advertises.

I hope that it’s not inevitable though because there are so many streaming services, and because piracy and VPNs are an option.

If I had my way I’d create regulation that forces companies to offer ad free versions for some multiple above the ad supported price.

And at that point I cancel and find other ways to get the content ad-free. Maybe I can buy shows I like individually on Apple TV, or I don't watch them. I have a hard no ads policy.

This is the final straw for me. I’ve wanted to cancel Amazon services for a while but since I have several bundled it was just painful enough to not want to make the effort.

I am figuring by a decade in change:

1) A completely ad-free tier. Costs an extra thirty dollars per month, most of which goes to making the platforms own "originals" that nobody much wants.

2) A "some-ads" tier. (This already exists) Just a few. You won't mind much. And at an extra fifteen a month, what a steal!

3) The "lots of ads" tier. The basic offering.

4) The "tons of ads" tier, might as well be watching television. Programs may have material removed so as to fit more ads into the runtime. Microtransaction pay of a few bucks.

5) The "vicious hellscape of ads" tier. Like #4, but the various offsprings of Stable Diffusion and whatever will seamlessly overlay and inject product placement through the entire show. A character won't be offered a whiskey, they'll be offered Johnnie Walker Blue Label whiskey, and in the original actor's voice. Cans of Coke or Pepsi (whoever is paying most according to that hour's ad market) will be digitally added to dinner tables and nightstands. Some actors may be "faced over" with more popular actors. It's not Payola anymore, but a pop hit of 2035 will be playing in Casablanca. But it is free.

won’t watch it with ads. can’t imagine handing over more cash than i already do to amazon. so, guess i’ll just have to focus on the other many channels i subscribe to.

More pertinently than that, it's a quick win for a kids show, ads when young kids are involved increase friction so much it's not worth it.

So Prime used to be free content plus two day delivery. Now it seems like delivery routinely takes 3 to as much as 10 days. What am I getting for the price of Prime?

Thank you Amazon for this display of unbridled greed. You've helped me realize that I really don't need Prime for anything, I barely use Amazon anyway due to all the fake products, so I am going to cancel and save myself >$100 a year.

If I cancel Prime, do I lose access to the Prime Videos I have already bought? I have LOTR extended on there as well as a bunch of seasons of Always Sunny.

Aren't they re-investing all of their revenue still?

No, you won't lose access to videos you've already purchased if you cancel Prime. I cancelled a few years ago and can still access the video I purchased before.

You keep the videos you bought but some are saying you’ll only be able to watch them with ads.

Amazon Prime Video spent 16 billion dollars on content last year and it's the worst of all the major streaming platform when it comes to original programming.

In the last year, their big budget bombs:

- Wheel of Time barely watchable CW quality TV

- Lord of the Rings oh my gosh level bad

- Citadel unwatchable it's so bad

I will admit they do have some OK recent content. The Peripheral was entertaining, for example.

But man, who gets fired for those billion dollar bombs?

Those should have all been runaway hits. WoT and LOTR especially, all they had to do was stick to what made it successful in the first place.

Instead Rand was sidelined, they made me hate Galadriel, et al.

I can't imagine paying millions for a recipe and then throwing it out because I think I know better.

We don't need to disrupt an industry. We need to disrupt the fact that the global economy is set up to need continuous exponential growth or the whole thing collapses. It reached the point of diminishing returns long ago and is actively killing us at this point yet so many people, here especially, will deny that even as they suffocate.

Just cancelled my prime and set to not auto-renew a week or so ago. As I was doing that, I noticed the pricing was going to increase by ANOTHER $20 USD, from $120 currently, to $140. I've been getting so many delivery delays lately it's just not worth it. I'll stick to the other streaming services for now.

I actually use Uber Delivery on many household items these days, which is same hour delivery with Uber drivers going to local stores, and I believe I pay Uber One for some shipping cost reduction or it comes with a credit card I have or something

I did look at Amazon just to browse the items and get a feel for it, there might be foreshadowing here as that's what I used to use brick and mortar stores for pre-pandemic, before ordering on Amazon.

this time, I was amused by the shipping times in comparison to Uber Delivery. I haven't seen same-day delivery in a while but these were 2+ days, either way I don't even like "by 10pm, I swear, maybe".

so... hm, maybe I can cancel Amazon Prime. shipping was the only thing keeping me, and prime video comes in handy rarely and its stuff I still have to pay for. the same paid catalogue is everywhere.

Time to write a 'VCR' for Prime lol.

It strikes me that auto-stripping ads after DVRing the shows should be a pretty simple AI problem these days.

This reminds me that the Alamo Drafthouse used to have a program called “TV at the Alamo” and it was brilliant.

It was $5 to reserve a seat, and that $5 went towards food and drink purchases. They would show the previous week’s episode while the current episode was airing, strip out the ads and then project the current week’s episode. I watched Mad Men and Breaking Bad this way.

Given how ads tend to be louder than the content, you could probably detect it based on the average audio level without any fancy AI

That's supposed to be illegal now in the US.

Earlier submission today where this is already being discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37610500

Freevee was an obvious step towards this.

Yes. I don't mind ads if the service is free. Put it in a paid service, I'll consider my outlay "money on the table" better spent on more productive/fulfilling ventures.

Freevee disgusts me. I don't think there's any paid option to watch Bosch: Legacy without ads.

It's free (doesn't require amazon). Is Bosch so bad that it's not worth renumerating the publisher/actors/etc?

pirate - download content.

play it off a usb / hard-drive. offline.

win. or buy blueray disk. either ways that's a win.

I wonder if they would make more money if they focused on providing a good service instead of on incrementally maximizing revenue.

Like imagine a streaming service where you could rent shows for a couple weeks for almost nothing, with a huge catalog. People would be all over it.

Instead, they are looking at how to segment people that are using their service into groups that get a shitty experience or pay a bit more per year.

Good thing I didn't throw away all those DVDs.

This is the point where I will stop paying for Prime membership. I was sucked in via dark patterns (which they are now being taken to task over by federal gov) and I've just idly maintained it because I occasionally watch stuff. Once they inject ads, I disconnect the service because I'm not paying to be served intrusive advertising.

Haul me under keel, I still root for torrents. Moreover, there's so little good content is produced nowadays, that more than a half of movies I am watching recently are 10-20 years old.

I also have IMAX theater conveniently nearby for AAA titles. Ads there are inevitable, though.

Just ordered bicycle fenders from my local shop. Ordered a new moto air filter from the local shop. Same prices as Amazon. Yes, I have to bicycle there to pick them up, but I think I'm going to enjoy it. Thanks for the encouragement, Amazon!

I’ll be sure not to renew my Prime Video subscription then.

There’s very little I watch on Amazon to start with.

So, $2.99/month * 12 = $35.88/year. Are they really saying that they are going to make less than $36USD per year from viewers being served ads? Otherwise, why would they allow an ad free experience if it is leaving money on the table?

Perhaps anticipated churn from users who are heavy video users but will not tolerate ads?

This is me. I won't be using Prime Video once they start showing ads with it. I don't think I'll spring for the ad-free upgrade, though, because the whole thing has left a bad taste in my mouth.

They think removing ads will be worth $2.99 to people, and that they'll make enough off of this + the ads themselves to offset the loss of some people leaving due to the add.

It was obvious this was coming down the pipeline in Amazon's streaming life cycle. Even before this, they were injecting their own original content adds (skippable) at the start of every movie/show. I would unsubscribe again if possible.

Hey BE why do you pirate media and refuse to subscribe to streaming services?

This is why...

Glad I canceled prime. The lineup was worse than Netflix’s anyway

Yea if they do this we’re going to cancel. Live is bad enough, but we don’t do ads in our house. Period.

Everyone should have this bias. Then we wouldn’t have this shit show.

Unfortunately, ad supported stream services are making tons of cash and aren't going anywhere.

Just like Netflix and password sharing crackdown, outside of the tech bubble, people don't care. Or don't care enough.

I signed up for two day delivery. I haven’t had that with any regularity in years. This might just be the thing that makes me unsubscribe

I cancelled full Prime as it had those pre-roll ads for other "quality" Amazon products/services

I'm not paying to watch ads, period

That's BS; we use the 2-day shipping and need nothing else, bundling everything like that should be illegal.

You don’t even get the two day anymore, it’s basically worthless for shipping anymore.

I've been really surprised lately how often I go to a product page, see "Prime 2-day shipping, fulfilled by Amazon" and when I order it often takes ~5 days to get my order. Definitely picking the shipped/sold by Amazon listings too, not third party marketplace ones. I'm in the Bay Area, so not a remote area either. Also if I check the tracking, it's not that it gets stuck in the Bay, like if it's just a busy week of deliveries and they couldn't move mine; the order will get stuck in some random state in the country and not move, or sometimes it ends up in some other hub like in Florida or something despite starting in the Midwest. Or it just takes 3-4 days to ship from the warehouse.

I wonder if some products just don't get marked as backordered and so it's a matter of Amazon needing to wait for stock to come in. Or they're just not guaranteeing 2-day delivery anymore.

Where I am they have pretty accurate delivery dates, they’re just “prime” and something like “early next week”.

It’s annoying and makes Walmart just as good or better many times.

>Or they're just not guaranteeing 2-day delivery anymore.

They haven't been, in my experience. They used to throw you a free month (or more) when you complain it took a week, now they just kind of say you could return it if you want. Very late items sometimes do get a refund, but that's rare.

I can regularly get same day and 1 day shipping in my city.

I stopped using prime probably five years ago precisely because it became a bunch of stuff I didn't want and the shipping options got eroded. Most stuff seemed to be "add on" or "not available for prime" and without prime you get free shipping if you order enough anyway. I value the other stuff at zero.

Amazon has become garbage anyway, I buy stuff at retail stores now. What all this really means is that the "disruption" from free money is over and new economy businesses are resorting to the same legacy business crap in order to try and make money.

I don't mind the free Twitch subscription once a month. But yeah, I think there's a world where every large company doesn't have to be in every area of business, and in that world, Amazon doesn't need to be making TV shows. I'm not even sure what benefits Amazon derives from AWS and Amazon.com being the same company anymore.

I used to be a huge fan of vertical integration, but like it less and less as I get older. What I've seen with vertical integration is that if one part of the company blows up, then all the other parts go away too. Meanwhile, a good standard lasts forever. I have used seemingly millions of proprietary chat apps over the years, but the one that has kept working for decades is plain old email. It always works. The PSTN is also great. I can call anyone in the world, no matter what service provider I have or what service provider they have. You just type the numbers and it works. Sure, there's spam. I think I can deal with the spam better than "sorry, we need to cut costs this quarter so X is gone".

Something else I was thinking about is the advantage for the company itself. Imagine you're a software engineer on AWS, but really want to work on Twitch. Easy, it's just an internal transfer! You show up at a new desk tomorrow with the same compensation and benefits as you had before. But if they were separate companies, you'd interview with Twitch, they'd call back and say "we loved you, when can you start" and then you get the chance to negotiate a higher salary. With internal transfers, you get "that's impossible, there is nothing we can do if you want more". Good for the shareholders, bad for software engineers.

> Easy, it's just an internal transfer!

At most BlubCo-type companies these days, an internal transfer often involves all the fun of the interview loop, while getting to skip all the hassle of negotiating a higher salary.

I dunno, I did two transfers while I was at Google. They were both very easy on my part.

The mistake people often make is to assume that the price would be cheaper without bundling.

I have Amazon Prime, but I guess I'll pirate Prime Video too

I guess paying for Netflix is not so bad if it stays ad free.

I thought that Netflix and other services had permanently put me off watching movies with ads. For some reason, I started watching Tubi TV which has ads. If I turned off the audio during the commerical break, I found it was a reasonable experience. I'm now doing the same when I watch sports with ads. So I'm guessing I won't pay extra to disable Prime Video ads.

Likewise with podcasts, I press the jump forward button to skip ads. It's satisfactory if not perfect.

Ahh so “we are not raising the price” becomes “if you want to keep the same quality of service thats an extra 2.99/month.”

Which is capitalism speak for “we are raising the price.”

Shitheads.

[dupe]

More discussion over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37610500

Interesting that all this competition creating some sort of a reverse capitalism effect.

I flat out do not watch ads. If a platform has ads, I do not watch it full stop. I pay YouTube for no ads. If I lost that option, I would not watch YouTube. Same with all of the other streaming services. Netflix pushed it last year with preview rolls. It was barely acceptable/tolerable. But I will eagerly jettison any service that makes me pay for ads.

Heck, I even look askance at people who willingly pay money to unironically wear logos. Why do you do that? You, yes, you reading this. Why do you buy Nike clothing or Adidas track suits or Louis Vuitton anything?? Explain yourself.

It is really not so repulsive to see the poor asking for money as to see the rich asking for more money. And advertisement is the rich asking for more money.

-- G.K. Chesterton

Thanks. I forgot the exact quote, found it searching the internet on some shady quote aggregator site, but no attribution...

Presumably, the poor here asking for money is beggars literally just asking for money while advertisements are telling you about things you could get with money. It's a nice quip but it doesn't represent reality at all.

This sounds backwards to me. The way I experience it, the reality of advertisements is that they are attempts at manipulating me, and the framing as mere news about nice things is part of the trick.

You brought up my pet peeve... it's really difficult for me to shop for sports/outdoorwear. I absolutely can't stand being a walking billboard. The worst part is I'm paying to be one. grrrr.

I try to find clothing that has no logos or logos that are easily removed (Eddie Bauer, for example). It's a pain, though.

The article pretty clearly states that there's an ad free tier for an extra $3 a month.

Yup. The other way to view this story is that Amazon is raising the price of Prime by $3/month and introducing a new product, Prime with Ads, that will be $3/month less than Prime.

The most relevant, succinct pair of comments

cheers!

I buy Nike running shoes because they are cheap, durable and comfortable, I don't actually use the to run. The other obvious answer to this question is "because they are status symbols", for some people anyway.

Shoes, sure, because they do make great running shoes, and I suppose - forgive me - if one doesn't care about making a good visual impression, they are quite comfortable for everyday wear. I'm more confused by the visors and shirts and such. Any ostensible status garnered by being an ad is immediately overbalanced by the questionable taste and decisions of its wearer.

You seem to be going to great lengths to avoid confronting the fact that most people simply don't care about logos, or, if they do, are doing it to fit in with whatever crowd they're a part of.

I think the OP was more focused on basic clothing items and accessories like tee shirts with logos.

I would give their running shoes a pass as my downshifters are amazing - they make me want to run - so quite comfortable and functional. A Nike branded shirt or pants however are just decorated cloth.

Agreed.

I'm somewhat furious at Apple for having ads for their other shows before showing me what I've selected to watch on Apple TV+. Is there any way to disable that?

I actually don’t mind this - there skippable, not disruptive to the show itself, and sometimes I learn about a new to me show I want to watch.

On tvOS:

Settings -> Accessibility -> Vision -> Motion -> Auto-Play Video Previews -> Off

It actually seems to work. Amazingly well hidden, I must say. Bravo.

-> Accessibility -> Vision -> Motion ->

Agreed, no other reason other than to make it harder to find, shameful.

I wonder are we thinking about the same thing - I assumed the original poster was referring to the pre-roll trailers that play ahead of an episode of a TV show or film. I tried this setting but unfortunately it doesn't seem to remove those... does it do that for you?

I was thinking about those pre-roll trailers, yes. It seemed to remove them for me, but perhaps it was a random false "negative".

Awesome! Thank you!

I don't suppose that there's a way to do something comparable for Netflix auto-previews? I'm about to give up on them permanently because of that....

It's signaling. Wearing prominent logos sends yourself and others a message that you have the disposable income to pay twice as much for a version of the thing that has a special picture on it.

Yes, agreed. It still does not explain the practice in a way that makes sense to me. There are so many and much better ways to signal disposable wealth. To me it immediately signals "more money than sense".

Honest question. Where you buy your clothes from? As much as I would like to buy clothes without logos, they are not easy to find where I live.

I live in Finland. My favorite place to get sportswear and just daily wear is H&M. No logos. My favorite design house is Makia. Really amazing stuff. https://makia.com/ but if it has a big-assed Makia logo I don't buy it.

When I lived in New York there were so many options it was hard to choose, but I'd check out used clothing boutiques for fun things.

You may be interested -- Karhu is from Finland and makes minimally branded sneakers

Thanks for the tip!

FWIW, in the US, H&M is known for fast-fashion, garbage-tier clothing. I've heard the brand is better outside the US, though.

I keep hearing people say this, but the few things I bought there lasted many years.

If I lived in the US in a place that didn't have many good stores around I'd buy from retailers online and try out different things. I've had luck with https://www.uniqlo.com

Hmm. You may be right. Here is the men's pants section on the Finnish site https://www2.hm.com/fi_fi/miesten/osta-tuotteen-mukaan/housu...

Equivalent items do generally look better, to me at least, compared to the US

https://www2.hm.com/en_us/men/products/pants.html

Equivalent prices, too.

For example, compare the "cargo joggers" Finland https://www2.hm.com/fi_fi/productpage.1002227020.html

to the equivalent item from the US store https://www2.hm.com/en_us/productpage.1002227011.html

To me the one available from the Finnish store has a better cut and seems to be made of a thicker material.

I think there are multiple sides to this. Some people legitimately do not care whether or not they wear branding or at least prefer to be assured of reliability of the clothing fit and quality. This approach isn't necessarily more expensive either. Something from Nike, Adias, UnderArmor sold at a discount, say at Nordstrom Rack, is superior in quality to the destined-for-landfill clothing of H&M and Primark.

I don't like branding either. For normal cotton wear, it's largely Uniqlo peppered with more unique pieces from minimally branded designers. For sportswear I tend to purchase from Lululemon because it's high quality and minimally branded. However, I understand it would be much cheaper to buy a bunch of discount Nike, Adias, or New Balance clothing. So I don't necessarily associate overt branding with disposable wealth per-se and I would say it depends on the brand and the context the clothing is being worn (but maybe that's only because of my understanding of brand differences). I would assume someone wearing all Lululemon to be more wealthy than someone wearing all Adidas even though it's less branding.

That said, certain designer brands serve only to be a status symbol like Gucci, LV, Supreme, Kenzo, Bathing Ape, Off-White, Balenziaga..the list goes on. Hell, at least if someone is driving a Mercedes or BMW they're getting a well built car, there's almost no excuse to pay more than $50 for a T-shirt just because it's from Fendi or Maison Kitsune.

As we pointed out in other comments, sneakers are an exception and it's almost impossible to find decent sneakers without branding and this probably has to do with the economies of scale.

> There are so many and much better ways to signal disposable wealth.

These are not mutually-exclusive options.

I mean, for clothing it is. I do not associate logos with wealth. I've seen plenty of people who have very little money wearing logos, but none wearing Loro Piana.

That's because Loro Piana T-shirts don't have the logo on them. They do, however, cost many hundreds of dollars [1] so if your eye is discerning enough to spot one you can be sure the person wearing it comes from serious money. It's similar for other high-end lines like Hermes. To spot them you have to be in the know. Indeed, the ability to spot these well-disguised high-end products is itself social signalling among the extreme high end of wealth. (The same phenomenon exists in other Veblen goods, like wine.)

Louis Vuitton, on the other hand, famously has its logo all over its products [2]. But even there you kind of have to know what you're looking for. It doesn't jump out at you the way a Nike logo does.

---

[1] https://us.loropiana.com/en/p/man/polo-and-t-shirts/soft-t-s...

[2] https://us.louisvuitton.com/eng-us/products/monogram-gradien...

I think we're talking past / agreeing with each other? Anyway, there are such amazing clothes out there in all price ranges, and people can look so good in them that I feel if people are wearing logos they haven't "read the user's manual". Just aren't even trying.

I know my attitude puts some people off, and I really do understand why, but it's not out of class snobbery, it's that I find advertising so visually repulsive.

> To me it immediately signals "more money than sense".

There is an amount of money one could have that no amount of sense could make up for.

In reality flagrant wealth is often tied to poor financial decisions that have lead to a lack of actual wealth.

For certain items it is part of the cost for the quality of good being procured at a given price point. I’m sure there are no-label options of equal quality and comfort, but the process of finding those options is a much greater (time) cost than the item itself is worth to me.

In a different context, if an artisan knows they are the best (by a large margin) and put their mark on every item produced, few seeking the artisan for their quality would stop using that artisan due to the mark as the alternative would be inferior goods. Same thing but much bigger scale, with a dash of marketing and broken trust (brand acquisitions followed by bad products) thrown in.

I would understand if the choice were good quality with logo versus questionable crapshoot with no logo. That's not usually the option, though. Perhaps you can't just look at clothing and see whether it is quality or not? Look at the stitching and materials, for instance? I happily pay more for good quality, no-logo than, frankly, logo with middling quality.

Good luck checking out the stitching on Amazon. Even if you can see it in a picture, the item in the picture might not be the one you’re getting.

And good luck finding “no brand” options in a Brick and Mortar store.

I wear some brands, but I buy them at the discount/clearance store, I'm not directly looking at buying specific brands, most of the time. However, in the case of some brands (e.g. Vans in my case) I just... genuinely enjoy their stuff. Is it that weird to have preferences?

Do Vans have logos? I wear a pair of white Vans in Summer.

Most have the logo on the tongue and behind the heel too. Some designs have it on the shoe too. They also have clothing and accessories where the logo can be rather prominent.

Find me an unbranded pair of basketball shorts that will last 10 years, have consistent sizing, and cost less than $20 at an outlet and I’ll gladly buy them.

I could gamble on “YAWHOHOMELIFE Men's Running Workout Shorts Training Gym Athletic Joggers Sweat Short Pants Quick Dry Breathable with Zip Pockets”, or pay like $5 more for a little white embroidered check mark and the aforementioned benefits without needing to trial a bunch of junk from companies that won’t exist in a year.

This is a false dichotomy. Your choice is to pay extra for a logo, or pay less for equivalent quality but no logo. You choose logo. Why?

Because, as he said, it's NOT necessarily equivalent quality. Yes, often it is, but also quite often it's utter crap that falls apart.

For these particular type of products - and I'm not claiming this is true in all product categories! - that logo does in fact mean it is a quality, well tested product.

Is your statement not a false dichotomy?

I like 1 particular brand of backpack with a slightly prominent logo on it.

I do not believe there is an equivalent quality made by a brand without the logo I buy.

Even if this were the case (it's not), there's still a time cost - I have to find the brand without the logo that's the same quality. I buy athletic shorts maybe once every 2-3 years almost always on Black Friday. I know Nike shorts will be high quality, and I know they'll fit. Wading through the many non-logo brands, trying them on, returning the ones that are bad, etc. might take me several hours to save tens of dollars.

The point here is that you're misunderstanding why the logo matters. I don't care if there's a logo on my shorts or not - I care what the logo represents, which is a brand that consistently produces high-quality goods. I'm willing to pay more for that, especially when it saves me time shopping.

Learn to recognize quality by sight, particularly by stitching and materials, not logo.

Logos are not emblematic of quality, but of good marketing (shoes aside - Nike makes good sneakers).

Do you ever buy anything online? You are taking this really self-righteous, “explain yourself” attitude while seemingly not understanding that you are the one who is odd.

Yeah, any truly talented couturier can simply lick the monitor to get a sense of the product they're looking at.

If you take the time to understand what makes a quality shoe, it will save you time and money and embarrassment (like, you wouldn't be caught dead wearing Common Projects and would be embarrassed for someone wearing them). No need to rely on logos, which is weakly correlated to quality.

Check this channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/RoseAnvil

> you wouldn't be caught dead wearing Common Projects and would be embarrassed for someone wearing them

Y'know, you seem more focused on logos and their importance than anybody else here. I would never been embarrassed for someone wearing a certain kind of shoe. I'm not judging people based on logos, since what brand of shoe someone else is wearing has absolutely no impact on my life.

For athletic shoes, I wear Mizunos. Went to a good running store once, spent an hour with the old grizzled guy there until I found a shoe I liked, and I've stuck with the brand ever since. They've got a big logo on the side, but again, I don't care about that; I care about the fact that I know the shoe will be high quality and fit well.

> No need to rely on logos, which is weakly correlated to quality.

No, that's a made up fact that is wrong. Brands tend to be pretty consistent in their quality over time, especially those that have been around a while.

> Check this channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/RoseAnvil

I'm not going to check that channel because, again, the point here is that I don't want to spend a bunch of time learning about how shoes are made. I just want to buy a good quality shoe (or short, or whatever) and brand is a fine proxy for that. The amount of money I spend buying a reputable brand is well worth it given the time I save by not watching videos like whatever the one you linked is.

Well sure, they have identified that people wearing logos is strange and they don’t like it. Why wouldn’t they be more focused on logos than someone who hasn’t noticed this? It is kind of hard to notice given how common it is, and I think one has to be at least slightly detached from the zeitgeist to really notice the strangeness.

> No, that's a made up fact that is wrong. Brands tend to be pretty consistent in their quality over time, especially those that have been around a while

You said you use logos as a proxy for quality because you don't have time to understand how to evaluate quality, nor learn what brands have quality but no logos. There is an inconsistency there. How would you know quality if "does it have a logo?" is how you evaluate it?

> The amount of money I spend buying a reputable brand is well worth it given the time I save

Do you save time and money though, for real? Clothing is literally the thing that touches your body the overwhelming majority of your time and clothed is the only way the vast majority of people will ever see you. Isn't it worth taking an afternoon or a weekend and learning the fundamentals of how to look good? I mean if you want to spend a lot of money on a reputable brand and be sure of quality, try https://www.jcrew.com or if you want to be adventurous https://makia.com/

Alright, internet stranger, I'm sorry to have upset you. If you genuinely love Adidas track suits and the Nike swoop on your hat and the LV on your bag, then fly that flag high and proud! No one can stop you.

Why are you so angry about clothes? You seem to have huge empathy troubles.

Please don't cross into personal attack on HN. We ban accounts that do that.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site to heart, we'd be grateful.

Please don't do flamewars or tit-for-tat spats on HN and especially please don't cross into personal attack. We're trying for just the opposite here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

You're right. My apologies to the community and @idopmstuff

I buy whatever sneakers are currently on sale at Costco when I need new ones. There is usually a logo, I don’t think anyone looks at me askance.

Your solution is to spend hours upon hours of research and spend more money on a product to avoid a logo, which most people actually don’t ever notice or care about.

Why would someone be embarrassed about common projects?

Did not expect a reference to that viral common projects vid on here haha. Though I did snatch a decently used pair of achilles for $60 and have been my go to for the last three years (the soles r now smooth as a rock so I have been wearing them less out of caution). But I absolutely love those shoes: ridiculously comfortable, easy to clean, go with literally everything.

Now I can’t say they’re worth $450 or whatever. And no idea if they’re better than Koio’s—had I found a used pair of those for cheaper, I’d own those instead. So with all things, YMMV. I agree with the sentiment of “don’t equate brand/price with quality” tho

You could replace the example with cars, the point is more obvious IMO. Try buying a car with no logo.

You'll find one, but it probably won't be the car that you wanted the most nor the one that fitted your needs the best.

What I've found is that "serious" equipment tends to have subdued branding, or at least has some options like that.

I have a pair of basketball shorts that are still going strong after something like 12 years. They're Nike, but the logo is black on black, so barely visible if you don't look for it. Ditto for the basketball shoes. The logo is barely visible since it's the same color as the shoe. The shoes are somewhat recognizable, though, because of the air thing at the heel.

Decathlon (French sports brand) also has gym shorts that are subdued. Small black logo on dark green cloth. They're also cheaper than the Nike shorts, but do seem flimsier. Their "running" t-shirts are great and have options with barely visible branding.

Now, motorcycling gear is a whole different story... For some reason, it's very hard to find something that doesn't look like a freaking billboard.

re: motorcycle gear: Rev'it has some pretty neutral branded options, but not inexpensive... I've had good luck with the quality and fit.

Cycling gear goes the opposite direction. Decathlon is great, but they have a weird fetish for a really intense shade of blue.

Similarly high end consumer brands like Gucci don't blast their labels on their high end products. The cheap stuff is cheap because you become a walking billboard. The expensive stuff is expensive because you just paid for quality. That's even within one company so your point is even more extreme across an industry.

Dior and Louis Vuitton love putting their logos all over their products, especially accessories. I think it cheapens the brand, but i'm not their marketing person.

Even with those if you sort their products by price the higher cost ones have a subtler logo because you're right, it does cheapen the product. The higher cost/higher end from these brands are basically a separate company with a shared name.

The lower cost ones have the logo because that's how the people you're around will know. The higher cost ones don't have the logo because the people around you will recognize quality.

Seriously. I was trying to find socks without a logo. Just simple black ankle socks, made of mostly cotton. IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE! As you said, the only options are cheaply manufactured stuff online.

MUJI socks are comfortable and well made. And no logo, ever.

Logos on shoes are useful. Here's how I used to buy shoes:

1. Go to a Payless ShoeSource store.

2. Find the sneaker (AKA trainers, tennis shoes, kicks, takkies, sportex, and many other names depending on where you are in the world) aisle.

3. Look at the logo on the shoes I'm wearing.

4. If they have the same shoes in my size, and I don't see any others that are noticeably less expensive, buy those shoes again.

5. If they no longer have the same shoes or there are shoes that are noticeably less expensive, try on shoes to find out what they have that is comfortable and ergonomic. Then pick a pair and buy them.

I say "used to" because after 40 years of buying shoes that way Payless closed. When the announced they were going to close I went to the two local Payless stores and bought all the comfortable ergonomic sneakers in my size. I have not yet settled on a new shoe buying strategy.

Payless filed for bankruptcy in 2019 and hasn't had a brick and mortar store in years. It begs the question: how often are you buying in a physical store?

You can opt out of ads for an additional fee. I don’t want ads either. I’ll figure out which platforms I’ll pay the no-fee level and cut some. I do have a small password sharing friend group tho — the total costs of all the streaming networks we like is getting stupid.

> I flat out do not watch ads. If a platform has ads, I do not watch it full stop. I pay YouTube for no ads. If I lost that option, I would not watch YouTube. Same with all of the other streaming services. Netflix pushed it last year with preview rolls. It was barely acceptable/tolerable. But I will eagerly jettison any service that makes me pay for ads.

Well, Amazon will include an ad-free option that you can pay more for.

I think it makes sense to think of this is a price hike for the current service, combined with a new ad subsidized service offering.

They probably realized that a price hike with no alternative would cost subscriptions, and just shoving existing customers into the new worse service at the old price point would retain them longer.

Algorithmic ads (AA) vs plain old ads (POS).

Most people I stumble upon wearing logos due it for signaling. The logos send signals like "I can afford this", or "I'm into sports". As a side effect, they're walking billboards for the brands, but that's just that: a side effect.

> I flat out do not watch ads. If a platform has ads, I do not watch it full stop. I pay YouTube for no ads.

Great. Now you can pay 3 dollars for no ads on Prime Video if you want it too.

Did this simple take have to be embedded in so much judgement and moral grandstanding?

For 50 years of my life, my dad always finalized a deal for a new car with one last requirement: the car must be free of all dealership logos (back then the dealership glued - or in some instances screwed - the dealership placard/logo onto the back trunk of the car). He was nasty about it and it always made me cringe. But they also always complied.

We still do this today. It's not that uncommon an ask. Get it added as a sales note on the contract, and don't accept delivery unless they have complied. We tend to have heavily branded number plate holders and window stickers.

> I pay YouTube for no ads

Except you still do get ads. With every single major YouTube video dropping a "now to talk about our sponsor" segment.

True, but these are almost always very easily skippable.

SponsorBlock is an amazing tool to stop this. I’m constantly surprised at how well it works.

Had a rich girlfriend when young. Her family loved LV luggage because it lasted forever and looked perfect.

When I got rich, I bought a bunch of it for my family a long time ago and it looks to be in mint condition now, decades later. It’s also super easy to recognize on the luggage carousel. Never regretted it.

Other than that I have to admit I never pay to advertise anything. I live on a farm and dress like a plumber, so I never actually match the luggage.

> I flat out do not watch ads

You must not have lived before the Internet or streaming video.

There used be this thing called Cable TV, where every few minutes the show was interrupted to show several 30 second commercials. You could not skip them.

There was no amount of money you could pay to avoid this horror. Only the strongest of humans had what it took to go without. The rest of us were brainwashed into buying detergent.

I don't watch any video content with ads. Every time I try Hulu again, I quickly get so fed up that I quit whatever that show is before that episode is over. Or movie, or whatever.

I'm happy to pay a premium price for not having ads on Prime, or AppleTV, or Disney+, YouTube, etc.... And if there's stuff out there that is not available ad-free, then I just don't watch it.

I also run my browsers with all ad-blocking features and add-ons turned up as high as possible.

And I don't wear branded clothing. At least, not obviously branded clothing -- there might be small tags or logos discreetly displayed, but nothing that is readable by anyone who isn't standing close enough to me to shake my hand.

This is dumb. I have been subscribed to Prime for almost a decade now. I wish there was a tier that was lower cost and didn't include Prime Video as I never use it nor have any plans to use it. They justified Prime price increases by adding all these fringe "benefits" and now they're charging extra for those benefits, and the price of Prime keeps rising YoY. No thanks.

> I wish there was a tier that was lower cost and didn't include Prime Video as I never use it nor have any plans to use it.

That’s pretty close to what they’re doing here. Now you’re no longer subsidising an ad-free video service if you don’t use it.

> No action is required for Prime members

While I understand why it needs to be stated, it was such a funny line in the middle of this announcement.

This is also one of these cases where it goes out in US and some select western countries first, and they will shape the evolution of the product before it hits the rest of the world.

I'm pretty much hoping there's a big uproar in the first countries, because otherwise it's enough of a pain that I'd be out of Prime for good (video is the only part barely justifying the price for me now).

PS: This feels like the same shakedown as Youtube prime: we're paying to not getting bullied, and there's no frame of reference on how much it should be priced as they're not selling a product, but a protection.

Ah yes, the classic shakedown where companies sell products for money. How dare they.

"pay for less ads" is a product in the sense that ad blockers or piehole style network filtering devices are products.

It's not a product when it's implemented by the same company that injects the ads in the first place.

It’s pay with ads or pay with cash. Which is what everyone always says they want.

Ads completely detract from the user experience watching movies. Amazon should know this.

And you should know they have an ad-free option.

They raised the price of Prime $36/year, but you can opt out by having ads in video.

Not exactly. It’s $2.99 per month. So pay that when there is something good to watch on Prime Video, then remove it.

Though I’m hoping that will work, will see when if actually happens.

Why would it not work? I've done the same with other streaming services.

It definitely should.

I just don’t know if Amazon will insist on it being only annual or not if you have annual Prime subs. I didn’t see details regarding that in the press release.

TLDR: Amazon prime video is introducing ads. Ad free will be $2.99 extra per month.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com