Hacker News Reader

Comment by bunkat | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

Prime is better than ever for me too. I almost always get things the next day nowdays, even frequently for weekend orders (Saturday orders arriving Monday).

The one hiccup was that the first thing they tried to send me on a Sunday got lost, but they handled it with great customer service and next-day shipped me a replacement during the week. And since then the few things I've had scheduled for Sunday have been fine, too.

I'm in a big city, though. Maybe it's gotten worse for people in less densely populated areas that aren't so near their warehouses?

---

The videos service is a mess UI-wise compared to its competitors, but considering how much free shipping I take advantage of I can't complain. But Marco certainly a point that the bundling (and branding, and messaging, and discoverability) is pretty bad. It works serviceably on my Kindle Fire and Samsung TV, but is a clear step down from the competitors in terms of interface, app availability, polish, etc.

> free Amazon Prime videos

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

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.

You're missing the point of the post: those videos are not free, and for the many people who don't want them they're the reason Prime shipping is more expensive than it needs to be.

Yea, I love Prime videos. The author here is extrapolating about the entire Prime subscribership based on his personal experiences. That's a terrible way to write an article.

I know, right. He should keep that kind of stuff on his personal blog.

I'd love to try it out, but unfortunately they don't support a lot of devices (eg: android, chromecast, or linux). Out of all of my devices, I can watch Netflix on 6, and Amazon Video on 1 (my bluray player that I very rarely use). If they truly want Amazon Video to be a compelling alternative to Netflix, they need to start supporting more devices, and stop the embargo against android devices that's a poor attempt to prop up Kindle sales.

I absolutely love the prime service, and it has not become worse for me here in California. They had to start charging us tax but all it really meant was that we had closer and closer distribution centers. My overall service, in that regard, has only become better in the last few years. I use AP at least once a week between work and home purchases... can't say I have ever used the video stuff, though.

They're not free.

Of course not. You have to pay $99 to get them.

So why do people go along with Amazon's claim they are free?

Because they are using the word "free" in a different (but obvious) way than you are: their meaning is "no extra cost, once you've paid the yearly fee". That's reasonable.

Surely that applies to everything about prime - shipping is 'free' after you've paid the fee.

So that means it's all 'free' despite costing $100 just as a Tesla Model S is free after you've paid the $70,000 fee, and a Mac Pro is also free after you've paid the $2,999.

Perfectly reasonable.

Those are inapt comparisons. How about this: I go to Costco and see a 24-pack of toilet paper. The price displayed is $7.99. I go to the checkout and pay $7.99 and take the toilet paper home.

I wouldn't have been able to make the purchase without having previously paid for a Costco membership, so the "true" cost of the toilet paper is more than $7.99. That said, would anyone reasonably contend with the statement "I got this toilet paper for $7.99"?

Similarly, those videos are free _for members_, in the sense that they can be used at no further cost.

Sure - but you haven't addressed the point that everything about amazon prime works this way but calling all the benefits 'free' is surely misleading.

Equally if I set up a Mac Pro club where I charge $3500 annual membership, and you get a free Mac Pro, nobody would be fooled into calling that Mac Pro 'free'.

That's precisely the point I addressed. The "Mac Pro club" example isn't relevant here because it's a membership that results in the delivery of a single product at a single time. There's a reason nobody structures membership deals like that.

Amazon Prime is a flat membership fee, after which you receive a number of unmetered benefits. Some of those benefits include products that would normally cost money being available for no additional cost. The use of the word "free" to describe offers like that is unremarkable.

It may be unremarkable, but that doesn't make it honest.

Nothing you get from prime is actually 'free'. Unmetered is honest, 'included' would be honest. 'Free' is not.

Another example would be broadband with no cap. We call that 'unmetered' not 'free', for a reason.

Yeah he did address the point. The Costco example is apt.

Are people not understanding the concept of membership? There are _countless_ examples of membership, both online and off, in which perks of said membership are touted as "free".

Golf clubs offer free food/drinks/carts. Costco as mentioned offers free unlimited-discounts/samples/eye-testing. etc...

"Free" has at this point become an idiomatic expression, which, when used in the context of a membership perk, effectively means

"You've paid for unlimited use of this perk and it's no additional charge over the cost of your membership"

In all of my time using Amazon I've never felt the intention to mislead me into thinking I would have these videos free if I hadn't paid for Prime... In all of their advertisements/video-descriptions it is explicitly mentioned somewhere on the page that this video is "prime"... The 'free video' section is even labelled "Prime Instant Video".

Whether you're getting free drinks at the Golf Club or watching free videos in Amazon Prime, it would take a mental invalid to not realize the inherent cost of that 'free' item, and the fact that you already paid for access to it.

> Whether you're getting free drinks at the Golf Club or watching free videos in Amazon Prime, it would take a mental invalid to not realize the inherent cost of that 'free' item, and the fact that you already paid for access to it.

I suggest you do some actual research into behavioral economics.

There are other streaming videos on amazon that you still need to pay for, even if you aren't a Prime member. The "free" amazon prime videos are the ones that are $0 extra if you are Prime, instead of $1.99 or whatever.

No, the Tesla only gets you one thing, one time: a car.

For those of us (I'm guessing the majority) who already buy Amazon Prime simply for the benefit of unlimited 2-day shipping, any additional features come at no cost.

I agree it's not the same as a pure definition of 'free', but for many of us it's effectively the same.

What about the people who buy it for the streaming video? Does that make shipping 'free'?

Perhaps a better word here is 'bonus'

Perhaps the statement was intended this way:

"Shipping is 'free' [for Amazon Prime members]."

That is a factual statement, even under a very strict definition of the word "free". And I think it corresponds to the original poster's intent. Obviously, it costs money to become an Amazon Prime member, but for such members the shipping is, indeed, free.

I don't use Prime video, but I'll support people who are happy to use it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com