Re: Amazon Prime -- Anyone use it?
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:50 am
I accidentally used Prime because they make it too easy to accidentally select it.
I was not amused.

That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
The online retailer on Thursday unveiled on its website and app new "virtual Dash buttons," essentially one-click buy buttons that it's placed on its home page and in a new "Your Dash Buttons" section on its site. The feature is only available for Amazon Prime members.
The name for this feature comes from Amazon's physical Dash buttons, which customers can place around their homes to quickly reorder paper towels or Slim Jims.
...
Amazon created the sets of Dash buttons based on the items a customer orders the most, but you can add or delete Dash buttons to create your own set of easily clickable items. Competitor Jet.com, which is owned by Walmart, offers its own version of this feature with its "easy reorder" section, but you may have to click three or even four times before completing an order.
...
Next week, Amazon said, it plans to add more than 50 new Dash button devices to its current line of over 200.
Yeah, cripes.Moliere wrote:The next version will cause a purchase to happen if you just look at the button.
Amazon should have a parental control setting to be able to block yourself from buying stuff at 2AM.Giles Habibula wrote:Yeah, cripes.Moliere wrote:The next version will cause a purchase to happen if you just look at the button.
As if it wasn't already effortless to buy stuff at Amazon.
I have never once bought something at Amazon and wished it would have been easier.
Too bad we don't have something like that for children that tweet at 2am.em2nought wrote:Amazon should have a parental control setting to be able to block yourself from buying stuff at 2AM.Giles Habibula wrote:Yeah, cripes.Moliere wrote:The next version will cause a purchase to happen if you just look at the button.
As if it wasn't already effortless to buy stuff at Amazon.
I have never once bought something at Amazon and wished it would have been easier.
The National Football League has reached a deal to stream 10 Thursday night games with Amazon.com Inc. AMZN, +1.72% , the online retailer that is aggressively trying to position itself as a premier source of entertainment content.
The one-year agreement is valued at around $50 million, according to people familiar with the matter. That price tag represents a fivefold increase over the NFL’s agreement with Twitter Inc. TWTR, -1.01% for the same number of games last season.
I never would have thought that you, of all people, were unaware of the spectacle that is Troma.hepcat wrote:So digging deeper and deeper into the Amazon Prime video selection can really get disturbing. Lesson of the day: if it says Troma, don't even watch the trailer.
Ok, I gotta admit that was funny!Carpet_pissr wrote:Too bad we don't have something like that for children that tweet at 2am.em2nought wrote:Amazon should have a parental control setting to be able to block yourself from buying stuff at 2AM.Giles Habibula wrote:Yeah, cripes.Moliere wrote:The next version will cause a purchase to happen if you just look at the button.
As if it wasn't already effortless to buy stuff at Amazon.
I have never once bought something at Amazon and wished it would have been easier.
I honestly thought they'd folded after such hits as Toxic Avenger and Nuke 'em High. But they're apparently still going strong. And they've gone from just tasteless to "My God, is that really...OH MY GOD!".Isgrimnur wrote:I never would have thought that you, of all people, were unaware of the spectacle that is Troma.hepcat wrote:So digging deeper and deeper into the Amazon Prime video selection can really get disturbing. Lesson of the day: if it says Troma, don't even watch the trailer.
You should expand your horizons.
I hear ya. My fear is that they'll eventually be so scattered that folks will just go back to cable in order to have one place to go for all their entertainment. They need to get their act together.Blackhawk wrote:Streaming video is getting worse and worse. There are so many services out there now that are pulling (or holding) their content away from the larger services that it is getting harder to find what you want unless you are willing to pay for a large number of subscriptions. It's getting to the point that the number of subscriptions you need for current content is going to end up costing more than the cable bills people left behind for those services.
Still not sure why, with all of the mixed bags out there, nobody has yet tried a true ala carte service. I can abide by a higher cost-per-channel; I'd be happy with 15 channels if those channels are exactly what I want and it would still be cheaper over all than, say, paying Sling $30 for 6 of those channels, Hulu $50 for another 6, and still be disappointingly SOL on the other 3.Blackhawk wrote:Streaming video is getting worse and worse. There are so many services out there now that are pulling (or holding) their content away from the larger services that it is getting harder to find what you want unless you are willing to pay for a large number of subscriptions. It's getting to the point that the number of subscriptions you need for current content is going to end up costing more than the cable bills people left behind for those services.
On the flip side, there are more and more content providers making really good stuff--AMC, Netflix, Amazon, etc in addition to the old stalwarts. This became a lot less frustrating for me once I changed my mindset on content availability. I'm not going to have immediate access to everything I want without paying a premium (as has always been the case). I've adjusted my outlook to accept this, and to be happy with the situation that I can pick one or a couple of sources for far less than I was paying before (eg $9.99 + $7.99 for Netflix/Hulu as one example, plus Amazon Prime which I'd pay for anyway vs $50 or $70 or whatever a decent cable package used to cost). That and an effectively-free-per-month antenna get me 80%-90% of what I want. Then I can spend some portion of the difference b/t that $18 and $50-$70 to fill the gaps by renting, buying, or temporarily subscribing to extra services to get me to 95%-99% of what I want, and still come out ahead. Most months, I spend $0 on the gaps, and on an annual basis I'm generally ahead by hundreds of dollars vs the old status quo.Blackhawk wrote:Streaming video is getting worse and worse. There are so many services out there now that are pulling (or holding) their content away from the larger services that it is getting harder to find what you want unless you are willing to pay for a large number of subscriptions. It's getting to the point that the number of subscriptions you need for current content is going to end up costing more than the cable bills people left behind for those services.
The answer is 'because the content providers won't allow it.' Virtually all content providers (sans, say, Netflix and Amazon) are parts of much larger conglomerates, most of whom own many different content producers of varying levels of popularity and success and many of whom also own content delivery channels (eg Comcast/NBCUniversal). Those conglomerates are going to bundle their winners with their losers, and will favor their own delivery channels.Jeff V wrote:Still not sure why, with all of the mixed bags out there, nobody has yet tried a true ala carte service. I can abide by a higher cost-per-channel; I'd be happy with 15 channels if those channels are exactly what I want and it would still be cheaper over all than, say, paying Sling $30 for 6 of those channels, Hulu $50 for another 6, and still be disappointingly SOL on the other 3.
That's actually the major part of why everyone coming out with their "original shows" is pissing me off. I don't care how great those shows are, that's not why I got a Netflix subscription (I haven't had time to watch any of their original shows anyway, I have way too many older shows that I'm still trying to catch up on). The more money Netflix invests in their original content, the more willing they are to let contracts with major studios go - since they are basically becoming their own "network". Which means more existing prior content that's not available for streaming on their site anymore.Blackhawk wrote:Streaming video is getting worse and worse. There are so many services out there now that are pulling (or holding) their content away from the larger services that it is getting harder to find what you want unless you are willing to pay for a large number of subscriptions. It's getting to the point that the number of subscriptions you need for current content is going to end up costing more than the cable bills people left behind for those services.
The problem for them is this is exactly why people are cutting the cord and/or going with smaller packages. They don't want all the crap the content providers are forcing on them, so they are creating their own a la carte. They really need to wake up and offer a la carte or consumers will continue to drift away and do it themselves by various means.Zaxxon wrote:The answer is 'because the content providers won't allow it.' Virtually all content providers (sans, say, Netflix and Amazon) are parts of much larger conglomerates, most of whom own many different content producers of varying levels of popularity and success and many of whom also own content delivery channels (eg Comcast/NBCUniversal). Those conglomerates are going to bundle their winners with their losers, and will favor their own delivery channels.
Eventually this will crumble. People won't be able to afford all these individual streaming services and the revenue just won't be there. I think in the end, consumers will get choice but the content providers will have to be dragged there, kicking and screaming.Blackhawk wrote:Streaming video is getting worse and worse. There are so many services out there now that are pulling (or holding) their content away from the larger services that it is getting harder to find what you want unless you are willing to pay for a large number of subscriptions. It's getting to the point that the number of subscriptions you need for current content is going to end up costing more than the cable bills people left behind for those services.
Unfortunately, it exists, and its name is BitTorrent, and as long as it is so much less hostile to consumers than the networks, the networks will never regain that portion of lost income. Netflix didn't take the world by storm when it did because it had an amazing show or two, it took the world by storm because it was more convenient and affordable than the alternative.Grifman wrote:
What we need is a Steam of streaming
Except Steam's content is limited too. Electronic Arts, *cough*Grifman wrote:What we need is a Steam of streaming
And I kinda "accidentally" rediscovered games I bought on GOG that I *almost* rebought on STEAM.Moliere wrote:Except Steam's content is limited too. Electronic Arts, *cough*Grifman wrote:What we need is a Steam of streaming
When Brian Krebs is getting snookered, you know it's bad.Hacks of Amazon seller accounts aren’t exactly new, but they’ve increased dramatically in recent weeks, the Wall Street Journal reports.
It works about the same way so many other hacks and breaches do: Usernames or email addresses and passwords that were stolen in some other breach are sold by those hackers to a whole next wave of would-be fraudsters who then use them to gain access to those users’ accounts on other sites.
Once a huckster has access to an Amazon account, they start using it for good old-fashioned fraud in one of two different ways. For active accounts, they change the bank deposit information and start raking in someone else’s cash. For largely inactive accounts, they create a whole bunch of non-existent merchandise listings to rake in the cash from the “sales” while they can.
Amazon sellers are becoming a target for pretty obvious reasons: There are lots of them, and they make lots of money to steal. One New York-based lawyer who represents Amazon sellers told the WSJ that more than a dozen of his clients have reported hacks, and many of them lost about half of their monthly sales ($15,000 to $100,000) as a result.
The consensus in Iqaluit seems to be that everyone with a credit card has an Amazon Prime membership. That's because people can often find groceries cheaper online than in local stores, despite government food subsidy programs.
"Amazon Prime has done more toward elevating the standard of living of my family than any territorial or federal program. Full stop. Period," a local principal, who declined to speak further, said on Facebook.
Amazon Cuts Whole Foods Prices as Much as 43% on First Daystessier wrote:Amazon announced today it's buying Whole Foods for $13.7 billion. That might expand their pantry offerings a bit.