[pfisch]

I'm confused. Do you think you were owed no ads indefinitely? They can't change what the membership offers ever?

So if they stopped letting you watch their new content because you had an old no ads membership would that be ok?

[tra3]

Yup. They can’t change the contract unilaterally.

Remember when Netflix inttroduced ads they added a lower tier to go along with it.

[pfisch]

But you are paying to restart the subscription every month/year. They can't change it then?

[grepex]

At the very least they could not increase prices while simultaneously putting ads.

[kxrm]

Yep, the cable industry used to do this. Add more ads but increase fees to viewers. Streaming is the new cable.

[pfisch]

I agree it sucks, but I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

[tombert]

Not the person you're replying to, but it just feels like rent-seeking. Amazon is already a gigantic corporation, pretty much everyone spends lots and lots of money on Amazon, it just felt like a way to try and squeeze more money out of their existing customers.

ETA:

I mean, I'm sure there is some exception to this, but generally speaking everyone hates ads. Part of the reason that the whole "cable cutting" thing happened was because everyone hated paying a lot of money to some cable company just to be bombarded with advertisements. At least that's a big reason as to why I did it.

Now all these media companies realized that they can start shoving ads at us again and people will keep paying.

Obviously I'm not entitled to having media at a specific price indefinitely, but I'm perfectly allowed to not like it when companies engage in rent-seeking bullshit.

[peddling-brink]

But have you considered the shareholders? The line must go up.

Cynicism aside, I wish there was a happy medium where companies could just _make money_ and not always have to make _even more money_.