Europeans will be able to unsubscribe from Prime with two clicks(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Europeans will be able to unsubscribe from Prime with two clicks
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/04/uk-subscribers-will-soon-be-able-to-leave-amazon-prime-in-two-clicks
130 comments
Companies will generally stop keeping records if this is the case.
Doubt it. Companies already have a "don't put your shady shit in writing" training and yet we see e-mails, often from high-ranking executives who really should know better, that are talking openly about the stuff that you'd expect companies to not keep records about.
It's also hard to work (collaborate) without keeping records, especially in a big international company.
It's also hard to work (collaborate) without keeping records, especially in a big international company.
But it will happen, just like people in government who hide what they do. FBI agents use personal cell phones to communicate. A Secretary of State used a personal email server for communications. The Freedom of Information Act has accelerated these not stopped them.
This stuff has a back and forth to it, but I really doubt people are documenting less stuff today than they did in say the 1920’s. Workers have less to high over these decisions than the people making them so there is often low level smoking guns.
And sure, several Secretaries of State used private e-mail severs, but there was also significant backlash over the practice. Again I doubt things are less documented today than before computers became the norm.
And sure, several Secretaries of State used private e-mail severs, but there was also significant backlash over the practice. Again I doubt things are less documented today than before computers became the norm.
These policies usually get put in place once the company gets burned in court.
Just do like a parking garage — if you’ve lost your ticket, fine for the worst case.
I once used a car park to store my car for several days, without taking it out, and it was cheaper to lose my ticket and pay the fine vs paying the full amount. Because the fine was the 24hr price, vs the actual duration of 5-6 days.
Was this before "automated" car parks or they don't have that where you live? Where I live, all car parks automatically registers every single car that enters, and if I lose my ticket, I get a "fine" (extra cost) + the duration I was parked, as they'll just lookup when I arrived via the license plate.
Why do they even have tickets if they can look up when you entered?
If you have the ticket you can "self-checkout" by going to the machine to pay, not involving others. If you don't, you need to speak with the person who "manages" the parking lot, the person who sits in the little booth.
Some cars also have (something like) a bank/credit card attached to their front windows near the top, those people can just drive out and the payment is automatic right before the barrier that blocks the exit.
Some cars also have (something like) a bank/credit card attached to their front windows near the top, those people can just drive out and the payment is automatic right before the barrier that blocks the exit.
It's an easier UI. I visited a car park recently that had switched to ticketless operation, and now in order to pay, you have to enter your car license number using the on-screen keyboard. It's not exactly hard, but it's an order of magnitude harder than 'insert ticket, insert payment card'.
so they can charge you a fee for lost tickets :)
Most of them let you prepay before you leave to keep the flow of traffic moving, but I figure you could look up the fee by tag too since they already record it. lol.
This was in London last year. I've used a mixture but more often than not they are just dumb issue the ticket at a barrier and let you in type car parks. Need the same ticket to raise the barrier on the way out, after paying.
Not set up with automatic license plate reading cameras (ANPR or whatever the UK calls it).
Not set up with automatic license plate reading cameras (ANPR or whatever the UK calls it).
Then fine them. Imagine if financial companies (like banks) could just conveniently not chose to store records.
Records of what?
It's not like there's a Dark Pattern Brainstorming meeting every Tuesday at 2pm. Big companies being evil is an emergent phenomenon. Nobody needs to be told explicitly that the offboarding flow should be as irritating as possible; all it takes is ICs understanding the business and realizing that they will be rewarded for positively impacting the bottom line and making their boss look good.
It's not like there's a Dark Pattern Brainstorming meeting every Tuesday at 2pm. Big companies being evil is an emergent phenomenon. Nobody needs to be told explicitly that the offboarding flow should be as irritating as possible; all it takes is ICs understanding the business and realizing that they will be rewarded for positively impacting the bottom line and making their boss look good.
> Records of what?
What parent in this very thread said...
> There needs to be a Freedom of Information Act which applies to large companies, requiring them to record all the decisions they make, the goals they set, and the metrics they use to achieve them.
What parent in this very thread said...
> There needs to be a Freedom of Information Act which applies to large companies, requiring them to record all the decisions they make, the goals they set, and the metrics they use to achieve them.
It needs to be even more standardized. So far in fact, that it could be part of a API, that could be handled by software, so that a robot could cancel the contract for the user. User should be able to create and cancel contracts via automated negotiation.
I always thought that all govt processes — high to low — should have an API for filing paperwork, with a publically available "wirk queue" that anyone could query. The govt would be mandated to use its own APIs, and motion in the queue would require publically available information.
It always ends up looking like a snazzier version of Brazil, in my head.
It always ends up looking like a snazzier version of Brazil, in my head.
I assume you're referring to how AWS got started?
In Germany it just became law three days ago that if company allows to sign up to any service online, they also have to offer an easy-to-find way that allows to cancel the service online.
No more writing a letter, sending a fax or calling a phone to cancel a service or subscription that you signed up to online.
No more writing a letter, sending a fax or calling a phone to cancel a service or subscription that you signed up to online.
Am i the only one that feels we shouldn't need this law at all?
I call a company, inform them I want to cancell, and they keep taking money off my card, they should be prosecuted for theft.
I don't get to demand that all companies must use my custom online form when they need payment from me, so why should they get to make such demands?
Why did our legal system enable this behaviour all.
I call a company, inform them I want to cancell, and they keep taking money off my card, they should be prosecuted for theft.
I don't get to demand that all companies must use my custom online form when they need payment from me, so why should they get to make such demands?
Why did our legal system enable this behaviour all.
The point of the law is that you don't have to call. If you signed up online, you can cancel online, without talking to anyone.
California has a similar law, and it's saved me a lot of time and stress over the last few years.
By the way, you are free to demand that all companies use your custom online form when they need payment from you - as long as you get them to agree to it in advance. However, I doubt if many companies would do business with you unless you were paying them a lot of money.
California has a similar law, and it's saved me a lot of time and stress over the last few years.
By the way, you are free to demand that all companies use your custom online form when they need payment from you - as long as you get them to agree to it in advance. However, I doubt if many companies would do business with you unless you were paying them a lot of money.
> I don't get to demand that all companies must use my custom online form when they need payment from me, so why should they get to make such demands?
Fun fact, companies literally do this to each other. You have to login to some weird SAP-based vendor portal to submit an invoice.
Fun fact, companies literally do this to each other. You have to login to some weird SAP-based vendor portal to submit an invoice.
> Why did our legal system enable this behaviour all.
Because there wasn't a law against it. How else would you expect the legal system to prevent it?
Because there wasn't a law against it. How else would you expect the legal system to prevent it?
With a more general law that recognizes that consent is required before you take things from someone, and that the practical ability to take something doesn’t imply consent. I assume most places have something like that already.
What it really happens is that they will refuse to cancel and will put you in a public defaulters list. And then your insurance will start billing more than double overnight, for example, until you surrender.
Big companies always have leverage over small people. This is why the law was necessary.
Big companies always have leverage over small people. This is why the law was necessary.
You always have the option to send a letter. You might also be able to do the phone call, technically, but good luck proving it. With both the call and an e-mail, they can claim that it could be spoofed too, so they "need" a signature (nevermind that there is nothing to check the signature against, the system works because most people aren't griefers cancelling other people's subscriptions).
This law means they have to provide an online form. That's necessary because without the law, they simply have to do nothing to deny you the most convenient option to cancel.
This law means they have to provide an online form. That's necessary because without the law, they simply have to do nothing to deny you the most convenient option to cancel.
You can just dispute it with your card. Then you get the big companies to fight each other for you.
[deleted]
Damn, i should start canceling my tv contract…
Thanks. Can you post a link to the news?
>No more writing a letter, sending a fax or calling a phone to cancel a service or subscription that you signed up to online.
That's why I preferred Apple subscriptions to normal magazine subscriptions. Apple is a one click cancel. An old school subscription is writing a letter.
That's why I preferred Apple subscriptions to normal magazine subscriptions. Apple is a one click cancel. An old school subscription is writing a letter.
A small bonus props to apple, it reminds you if you've got a subscription to an app when you delete it from your device
Writing a letter would be pretty easy.
It involves enough steps (write letter, print letter, obtain and pack envelope, obtain and attach postage, go to mailbox) that it discourages people. Each of those steps is also an opportunity to forget.
Maybe I should get into the habit of hand-writing those. Probably less work than the digital variant to be honest (if you keep it short) and a lot more annoying for the receiving company deciphering that handwriting.
Maybe I should get into the habit of hand-writing those. Probably less work than the digital variant to be honest (if you keep it short) and a lot more annoying for the receiving company deciphering that handwriting.
It depends. If you are in a office environment with access to all the materials needed then yes.
But if not then in the worst case you have to find somewhere to print the letter, sign it, then find or buy an envelope and postage stamps, and finally drop the letter off.
But if not then in the worst case you have to find somewhere to print the letter, sign it, then find or buy an envelope and postage stamps, and finally drop the letter off.
I just realized that both you and me seem to have considered "print the letter" an absolute hard requirement, ignoring the fact that handwriting exists (and honestly, for a short letter like "Hereby I terminate my subscription, ID 12345, Name, Signature" it might actually be easier/faster).
It's especially important in Germany, where many services can (at least in pre-corona times) be only cancelled by snail mail or fax.
Yep. It's a big deal because of how common it was.
In Germany, email is not considered as "in writing", and that's why so many things must still be sent by post. Most of the official bureaucracy is still done this way.
In Germany, email is not considered as "in writing", and that's why so many things must still be sent by post. Most of the official bureaucracy is still done this way.
It's interesting that this is highlighted in a British paper, as this is due to EU regulations that the UK will soon not be bound by. And the British government has already announced that they are ready to "seize the benefits of Brexit" by cutting down on such business hostile regulations as privacy [0] and human rights [1].
I would guess that this change will be rolled back in the UK as soon as it becomes legal.
[0]https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-data-laws-to-boost-br...
[1]https://theconversation.com/why-uk-approach-to-replacing-the...
I would guess that this change will be rolled back in the UK as soon as it becomes legal.
[0]https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-data-laws-to-boost-br...
[1]https://theconversation.com/why-uk-approach-to-replacing-the...
It’s an article from the Remain-leaning Guardian, so not too surprising. Now if it was from the Daily Mail…
Being able to easily unsubscribe from something a human right now?
> The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force just over 20 years ago in October 2000, vastly improving protections for human rights in common law, statute, EU and international law
Q: For whom?
Q: For whom?
People the British government don't like and who they have subjected to torture and extra-judicial killings, the biggest example being people in Northern Ireland opposing Union with Great Britain.
thats not the biggest example. the list is quite long and it wont even make the first page.
Oh?
Keep in mind this isn't about all their violations, but the ones that were still ongoing in significant numbers around the year 2000.
Keep in mind this isn't about all their violations, but the ones that were still ongoing in significant numbers around the year 2000.
Human rights apply to all humans, but of course putting them in law mainly benefit the people who otherwise wouldn't have them respected. Anyone disadvantaged in society, in general.
I'm trying to understand what you're trying to get at. Do you believe the wrong people get the wrong rights by the UK subscribing to the Human Rights Act? Do yoy believe the HRA isn't enough? I'd love to know!
I was asking in good faith in response to the parent writing about the HRA "vastly improving protections".
From wikipedia:
"Many rights established under the Human Rights Act 1998 were already protected under UK law"[0]
Genuinely curious who we think has benefited most from the protections afforded by the act, and why they weren't protected beforehand?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998
From wikipedia:
"Many rights established under the Human Rights Act 1998 were already protected under UK law"[0]
Genuinely curious who we think has benefited most from the protections afforded by the act, and why they weren't protected beforehand?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998
For humans, it’s right there in the name /s
I went to McDonald's the other day to buy a McBurger using their kiosk.
I didn't count, but it seemed like it took 20 clicks to just by a burger, with screen after screen after screen. I'm sure McDonald's play-tested this a lot, but I'm baffled as to how they managed to converge on this monstrosity.
It's also unclear which button to pick to pay. There's no "check out", "pay", "shopping cart", button.
I didn't count, but it seemed like it took 20 clicks to just by a burger, with screen after screen after screen. I'm sure McDonald's play-tested this a lot, but I'm baffled as to how they managed to converge on this monstrosity.
It's also unclear which button to pick to pay. There's no "check out", "pay", "shopping cart", button.
> I'm sure McDonald's play-tested this a lot,
I'm not. At the point someone stands in front of the device, they've already made a decision and they're unlikely to bail just due to bad UX, and I can totally see someone who isn't aware of UX as a concept simply not optimizing.
They want a digital ordering system, this is a digital ordering system, it seems to do the job (fewer cashiers)... the fact that people actively avoid going back to McD because they don't want to deal with that abomination doesn't show up on that person's stats.
In case anyone from McD reads this: Since those machines popped up I avoid going specifically because I hate dealing with them. Before the machines, I walked in, stood in a relatively short queue, "one cheeseburger please", receive a burger, pay (often cash) and go. Now, I first spend a ridiculous amount of time dealing with the crappy machine, then wait forever for my food.
I'm not. At the point someone stands in front of the device, they've already made a decision and they're unlikely to bail just due to bad UX, and I can totally see someone who isn't aware of UX as a concept simply not optimizing.
They want a digital ordering system, this is a digital ordering system, it seems to do the job (fewer cashiers)... the fact that people actively avoid going back to McD because they don't want to deal with that abomination doesn't show up on that person's stats.
In case anyone from McD reads this: Since those machines popped up I avoid going specifically because I hate dealing with them. Before the machines, I walked in, stood in a relatively short queue, "one cheeseburger please", receive a burger, pay (often cash) and go. Now, I first spend a ridiculous amount of time dealing with the crappy machine, then wait forever for my food.
Tbh it's the opposite for me. No more dealing with barely-understandable ghetto-slang from bored teenagers, no more saying "no" to umpteen attempts to "go large" or "do you want fries with that", no more queueing behind someone who wants a burger without a burger - tap tap tap and it's done.
Let's be honest - some retail jobs need the human element, but ordering a burger is not one of them.
The one complaint I have about the machines is that they run out of paper waaay too often, and they don't tell you in advance, so you often end up in a situation where you've paid but you technically have no way to prove it. The best approach at this point is to order through the app.
Let's be honest - some retail jobs need the human element, but ordering a burger is not one of them.
The one complaint I have about the machines is that they run out of paper waaay too often, and they don't tell you in advance, so you often end up in a situation where you've paid but you technically have no way to prove it. The best approach at this point is to order through the app.
I hate all of these machines, their UI pattern seems to be to pester you about things that are easy to fix, and to only ask after destructive actions (like collect your money then have a warning popup they can't fulfill a request).
I've bailed due to that bad UX when stepping into a McDonald's attached to a gas station. All I wanted was fries and a pop, and it took more than the 15 seconds I allotted to figuring it out. The line was long, so I left, figuring that it was some timely divine intervention to resist my unhealthy temptation.
Same.
Went to some fast food, tried to order with a crappy machine and left for something else.
I like the idea of using a machine over talking with someone and my ideal experience would be a restaurant full of robots; but the machine should be well designed
I like the idea of using a machine over talking with someone and my ideal experience would be a restaurant full of robots; but the machine should be well designed
I refuse to use them. If there is not a human working to take orders, I leave.
I like them because now nobody can stop me from making silly complicated orders. Except, of course, the person who decides to not actually fulfill half of it.
> I'm sure McDonald's play-tested this a lot
They must have made some serious effort, but it is also a pretty complex problem (they’re trying to address literally everyone in reading age) and McDonald is not known for pouring money into solid customer interfaces. I haven’t tried in a while but their mobile app was even more of a sluggish, hostile at every corner, trash experience.
I kinda feel like they went in from a “we replace the cashier” mindset, and not a return to first principles of why the customer came to that place, and how to satisfy that goal.
PS: also people just adapt. I had coworkers just remember step by step the screen sequence to their usual orders, and they basically blindly tapped the screen only registering the page changes. If McDonald was to change the menu tree now I’d imagine them getting pissed in reaction.
They must have made some serious effort, but it is also a pretty complex problem (they’re trying to address literally everyone in reading age) and McDonald is not known for pouring money into solid customer interfaces. I haven’t tried in a while but their mobile app was even more of a sluggish, hostile at every corner, trash experience.
I kinda feel like they went in from a “we replace the cashier” mindset, and not a return to first principles of why the customer came to that place, and how to satisfy that goal.
PS: also people just adapt. I had coworkers just remember step by step the screen sequence to their usual orders, and they basically blindly tapped the screen only registering the page changes. If McDonald was to change the menu tree now I’d imagine them getting pissed in reaction.
20 seems to be on the high side for me. I used the machines before, and based on what I remember it should be:
1. start
2. burgers section
3. scroll down to hamburger (if it already isn't there already)
4. choose the burger you want
5. no, I want just the burger
6. add to order
7. view order
8. pay
9. credit card
maybe add a few more if there's more upsell screens near the end, but nowhere near 20.
1. start
2. burgers section
3. scroll down to hamburger (if it already isn't there already)
4. choose the burger you want
5. no, I want just the burger
6. add to order
7. view order
8. pay
9. credit card
maybe add a few more if there's more upsell screens near the end, but nowhere near 20.
What grinds my gears is the slow transitions between each step. Like, it takes a couple of seconds to do anything. But you also forgot all the upsells.
Choose burger -> wait for screen -> choose unmodified -> wait for screen -> choose just burger, no menu -> wait for screen -> no, I don't also want to add a doughnut -> wait for screen to go back to main screen -> start checkout -> no, I don't want to add X to my order -> wait -> confirm order -> select pay now -> try to beep my card but it doesn't work -> look at screen and see I have to select "card" (but it's the only option wtf make me choose?)
Choose burger -> wait for screen -> choose unmodified -> wait for screen -> choose just burger, no menu -> wait for screen -> no, I don't also want to add a doughnut -> wait for screen to go back to main screen -> start checkout -> no, I don't want to add X to my order -> wait -> confirm order -> select pay now -> try to beep my card but it doesn't work -> look at screen and see I have to select "card" (but it's the only option wtf make me choose?)
Agree with this, I happened to get to experience this today again as well.
The transitions really seem to take their time. Combined with the number of "pages" you need to get through as well, makes it an experience that feels a bit slow.
I get the sense that these visual page transitions are becoming quite a thing, also with modern self checkout counters in supermarkets.
But who knows, perhaps they are trying to hide some kind of background loading action.
The transitions really seem to take their time. Combined with the number of "pages" you need to get through as well, makes it an experience that feels a bit slow.
I get the sense that these visual page transitions are becoming quite a thing, also with modern self checkout counters in supermarkets.
But who knows, perhaps they are trying to hide some kind of background loading action.
The top 10 sellers should be available with one click/tap. Would they need to license that from Amazon? Then do it. THey can afford it.
Big Mac, fries, and Coke should take me no longer to order on the screen than to say it verbally.
Big Mac, fries, and Coke should take me no longer to order on the screen than to say it verbally.
I suspect there's a minimum time to order so that people are waiting to order rather than waiting for their food, so the kitchen doesn't get overrun.
That doesn't make sense IMO.
The only benefit it would have is smoothing out spikes, but I think you'd rather have people wait for food they've already paid for than turn around because the queue for even ordering is too long.
The only benefit it would have is smoothing out spikes, but I think you'd rather have people wait for food they've already paid for than turn around because the queue for even ordering is too long.
In a fast food establishment such as McDonald's customers are very sensitive to wait times. This may lead you to the conclusion that we then want to quickly rush all customers through ordering and then take as long as necessary to make the food. Unfortunately, customers hate waiting after ordering more than they hate waiting before ordering. If a customer walks in and sees either no line or a very short line to order, the customer will think, "oh it will be no more then five minutes, I'll be in and out". If there is actually a 45 minute wait after ordering, then yes you just scored on sale. However, the customer will now feel tricked, having been let down on the promise of quick; the customer is now late back from lunch and has a bad feeling as they leave. This does not convert to more future sales.
Smoothing out the spikes is exactly what you want to be doing. The drive-thru has this built in. Customers come through in a queue and can easily see how long they will have to wait by counting cars. It makes a lot of sense to implement something similar with the self-serve kiosks.
I work at a fast food establishment with self-serve kiosks. When we are understaffed (as we often are nowadays) and we are busy, we will turn off some of the kiosks rather than let orders build up. We would much rather lose a few customers today than lose these customers forever as they have to wait 45 minutes for their food because we rushed them through ordering without proper queue management.
Smoothing out the spikes is exactly what you want to be doing. The drive-thru has this built in. Customers come through in a queue and can easily see how long they will have to wait by counting cars. It makes a lot of sense to implement something similar with the self-serve kiosks.
I work at a fast food establishment with self-serve kiosks. When we are understaffed (as we often are nowadays) and we are busy, we will turn off some of the kiosks rather than let orders build up. We would much rather lose a few customers today than lose these customers forever as they have to wait 45 minutes for their food because we rushed them through ordering without proper queue management.
Waiting 45 minutes for food at a "fast food" restaurant? You're doing something very, very wrong.
Fun fact, in Austria this was law for many years now. You can unsubscribe to almost any service on onlinekuendigen.at. To unsubscribe from prime you just fill this out: https://www.online-kuendigen.at/amazon-prime-mitgliedschaft
I love their cookie banner at the bottom:
"We don't use any spy-cookies so we don't have an obnoxious pop-up covering half the screen. Do you like that? [Yes] or [Yes]"
That said, this seems to be a private initiative that simply helps you send letters/e-mails, not some official setup.
"We don't use any spy-cookies so we don't have an obnoxious pop-up covering half the screen. Do you like that? [Yes] or [Yes]"
That said, this seems to be a private initiative that simply helps you send letters/e-mails, not some official setup.
The website is operated by a private person. The law however is pretty clear that a company needs to accept a signed notice of termination in any form and a court ruled that accepting that email works and nobody actually needs to read that email, the SMTP receipt works.
So what that website does is it collects email addresses for companies and support systems, provides a template and lets you sign with the Austrian digital signature (or just a scribble on the screen). Then it sends it for you. If they don't respond they follow up automatically and tell you how to automatically file a complaint with the regulator.
I have been cancelling a lot of services this way and never had an issue.
So what that website does is it collects email addresses for companies and support systems, provides a template and lets you sign with the Austrian digital signature (or just a scribble on the screen). Then it sends it for you. If they don't respond they follow up automatically and tell you how to automatically file a complaint with the regulator.
I have been cancelling a lot of services this way and never had an issue.
Germany has similar services. In my opinion, they're just a band-aid
The service doesn’t matter as much as the law and the enforcement. This does not require me to hope a company plays ball.
I've unsubscribed from Prime twice now, and both times the only reason it took so long is that I couldn't believe they didn't have a simple "suspend subscription" option and kept hunting around for it assuming I was just going blind...
In both cases I fully expected to re-subscribe once life circumstances changed and/or a new season of a certain show was released. Surely it would be useful for Amazon to know the unsubscription was temporary...
It could be worse. You've still got your Amazon account, right?
Compare to Rackspace. To stop getting billed there you have to cancel your account.
If I ever need some short term cloud resources my first stops would be places that I've already got cloud resources and places where I no longer currently have anything but still have an account. In other words, places where I already know something about how to use their offerings, and merely have to log in and start configuring.
By making me delete my account Rackspace has guaranteed I'll only be looking at them when a project's hosting is going to be expensive that I need to check out all the major providers to find which one has the best deal.
I'm not sure if Rackspace intended this behavior or if it was an accidental consequence of another change. It used to be that if you got rid of all your hosts and storage and other paid services your billing would go to $0/month.
At some point they added a $5/month support fee, and that billed even if you weren't using any services. Cancelling the account then became the only way to stop getting billed.
When I cancelled I got some sort of survey asking why I cancelled and I explained that it was to stop that $5/month fee, so it is possible that if that was just an unintended consequence of the new fee they've fixed it.
Compare to Rackspace. To stop getting billed there you have to cancel your account.
If I ever need some short term cloud resources my first stops would be places that I've already got cloud resources and places where I no longer currently have anything but still have an account. In other words, places where I already know something about how to use their offerings, and merely have to log in and start configuring.
By making me delete my account Rackspace has guaranteed I'll only be looking at them when a project's hosting is going to be expensive that I need to check out all the major providers to find which one has the best deal.
I'm not sure if Rackspace intended this behavior or if it was an accidental consequence of another change. It used to be that if you got rid of all your hosts and storage and other paid services your billing would go to $0/month.
At some point they added a $5/month support fee, and that billed even if you weren't using any services. Cancelling the account then became the only way to stop getting billed.
When I cancelled I got some sort of survey asking why I cancelled and I explained that it was to stop that $5/month fee, so it is possible that if that was just an unintended consequence of the new fee they've fixed it.
Now unbundle delivery from movies/series/stuff and I'll be a member again.
It feels incredibly anticompetitive they were able to bundle Prime Video with Prime Delivery. Amazon have significant market power in online commerce, and for them to use that muscle into online video is ridiculous.
It’s almost exactly like when Rockefeller managed to use strategic rail infrastructure to attack and intimidate oil competitors until the entire industry became monopolized and had to be dismantled. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That's the conventional narrative. But if you read "Titan" by Chernow, it's substantially different.
Rockefeller never had a monopoly. He was accused and convicted not of having a monopoly, but anti-competitive behavior. Also, during the long trial, his market share kept slipping, and he was unable to stop the slide.
His competitors had never been vanquished, and had figured out how to compete with Standard Oil.
https://www.amazon.com/Titan-Life-John-Rockefeller-Sr/dp/140...
What's ironic about the book is Chernow reaches the standard conclusions that you wrote, but his actual text says the opposite. I suspect that Chernow's preconceived notions about Standard Oil were so strong he was not convinced by his own research and narrative of what actually happened.
Rockefeller never had a monopoly. He was accused and convicted not of having a monopoly, but anti-competitive behavior. Also, during the long trial, his market share kept slipping, and he was unable to stop the slide.
His competitors had never been vanquished, and had figured out how to compete with Standard Oil.
https://www.amazon.com/Titan-Life-John-Rockefeller-Sr/dp/140...
What's ironic about the book is Chernow reaches the standard conclusions that you wrote, but his actual text says the opposite. I suspect that Chernow's preconceived notions about Standard Oil were so strong he was not convinced by his own research and narrative of what actually happened.
That’s super interesting. I’m not familiar with the book - but the point about the monopoly doesn’t surprise me. Things are never that simple. From a legal standpoint no one actually reaches a full monopoly unless it is a government instituted/regulated monopoly, no? Like, I mean monopoly as a pursued ideal and total victory state for a business, but not as an achievable goal.
My point mostly related to Amazon - they’re really not a monopoly, but they’re definitely strategically pursuing a direction which left unrestrained would give them that monopoly. In this specific example it is Amazon using their AWS cloud infrastructure to bundle video streaming into Prime to then create a mix that strangles competitors. In the case of Standard Oil what I remember were strategic investments into directly unprofitable rail infrastructure and then SO using that to exert pressure on smaller oil competitors to force them to sell at a loss. I’m no expert but I think this is what makes anti-trust so difficult to prove reliably.
My point mostly related to Amazon - they’re really not a monopoly, but they’re definitely strategically pursuing a direction which left unrestrained would give them that monopoly. In this specific example it is Amazon using their AWS cloud infrastructure to bundle video streaming into Prime to then create a mix that strangles competitors. In the case of Standard Oil what I remember were strategic investments into directly unprofitable rail infrastructure and then SO using that to exert pressure on smaller oil competitors to force them to sell at a loss. I’m no expert but I think this is what makes anti-trust so difficult to prove reliably.
There's lots of different kinds of monopoly, they can be natural or created by government, but they don't require government intervention, more the lack of intervention can create an effective monopoly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_monopoly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercive_monopoly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementary_monopoly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_monopoly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercive_monopoly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementary_monopoly
A few years ago Walmart was the unstoppable monopoly.
Was Walmart not pursuing anti-competitive strategies though? And does it still not do so in certain local markets?
The point the anti-trust people are repeating over and over is that anti-trust has been broken since the early 1980’s. So, this means huge chunks of the economy and many enormous conglomerates competing in it are themselves fortresses because lax anti-trust enforcement. In that worldview it doesn’t matter whether it’s Amazon or Walmart… or RadioShack or whatever. We literally can’t imagine another world because these conditions go as far as most of us can remember.
The point the anti-trust people are repeating over and over is that anti-trust has been broken since the early 1980’s. So, this means huge chunks of the economy and many enormous conglomerates competing in it are themselves fortresses because lax anti-trust enforcement. In that worldview it doesn’t matter whether it’s Amazon or Walmart… or RadioShack or whatever. We literally can’t imagine another world because these conditions go as far as most of us can remember.
> The point the anti-trust people are repeating over and over is that anti-trust has been broken since the early 1980’s.
And yet an endless stream of unstoppable monopolies have collapsed or been humbled of their own accord since 1980.
IBM, Cisco Systems, Intel, Kodak, GE, GM, Microsoft, KMart, Lotus, etc.
And yet an endless stream of unstoppable monopolies have collapsed or been humbled of their own accord since 1980.
IBM, Cisco Systems, Intel, Kodak, GE, GM, Microsoft, KMart, Lotus, etc.
> That the de facto monopolies tend to collapse doesn't preclude the damage they incur on society/competitors whilst they're at their peak/stagnating.
That's what they earned by providing value. In a pure free market monopolies are hard to keep up for long.
Unless you can bribe politicians to create regulations and slow competitors, it will be hard to stop younger, fresher and better rivals.
The larger a company, the more inefficient it becomes and the more prone to be dethroned.
That's what they earned by providing value. In a pure free market monopolies are hard to keep up for long.
Unless you can bribe politicians to create regulations and slow competitors, it will be hard to stop younger, fresher and better rivals.
The larger a company, the more inefficient it becomes and the more prone to be dethroned.
That the de facto monopolies tend to collapse doesn't preclude the damage they incur on society/competitors whilst they're at their peak/stagnating.
The damage you refer to is simply free markets being a chaotic system. Creative destruction is part of it.
A steady state of communism is worse for people. History amply shows that.
But yeah, I noticed you moving the goal posts :-)
A steady state of communism is worse for people. History amply shows that.
But yeah, I noticed you moving the goal posts :-)
I don't see what the discussion has to do with communism unless you consider anything but the laissez-faire approach to be so. I felt that the main point of my comment was that we need to engage in "Creative destruction" earlier in the lifecycle of these de facto monopolies in order to encourage more innovation and healthier markets by cutting back on rent seeking and anti-competitive behaviour. Allowing Intel/IBM/Microsoft to coast by on rents for years while maintaining market dominance by strangling likely competitors via acquisitions seems like the worst possible approach.
> The damage you refer to is simply free markets being a chaotic system.
That damage has real effects on society. Markets are a tool we shape in order to benefit society. Take restrictions on anti-competitive behaviours, the 40 hour work week, or outlawing child labour as examples of how we've moulded that tool to improve society while keeping it useful.
> The damage you refer to is simply free markets being a chaotic system.
That damage has real effects on society. Markets are a tool we shape in order to benefit society. Take restrictions on anti-competitive behaviours, the 40 hour work week, or outlawing child labour as examples of how we've moulded that tool to improve society while keeping it useful.
Child labor is not covered by free market ideas because children are not consenting adults.
Consider this: free market capitalism enabled child labor laws. The reason is simple. Children had to work because non-free market societies did not produce enough surplus to make it possible for them to not work.
Free market capitalism also enabled 40 hour week laws.
Heck, it wasn't until around 1800 or so that free market agriculture produced enough food to eliminate the constant specter of famine that preceded it, and still haunts every non-free market agriculture system.
Consider this: free market capitalism enabled child labor laws. The reason is simple. Children had to work because non-free market societies did not produce enough surplus to make it possible for them to not work.
Free market capitalism also enabled 40 hour week laws.
Heck, it wasn't until around 1800 or so that free market agriculture produced enough food to eliminate the constant specter of famine that preceded it, and still haunts every non-free market agriculture system.
Was breaking up AT&T communism? The benefits for consumers in the following few years were massive.
I don’t think we need to suffer obvious business monopolies for years until a new paradigm shows up. Who benefits from that except the monopolists?
I don’t think we need to suffer obvious business monopolies for years until a new paradigm shows up. Who benefits from that except the monopolists?
AT&T was a monopoly established by the government.
I assumed Prime Video is just a loss leader to get you subscribing. Isn't the real benefit to them that they've convinced you to pay for next day delivery in advance, so you are discouraged from shopping around and end up spending way more at Amazon?
I mean, yes, prepaying for delivery encourages people to buy more things from Amazon. But that's not anticompetitive. What's IMO anticompetitive is the vertical bundling of these unrelated services, especially because they're so big in commerce.
You speculate that Prime Video is a loss leader, and that would make it an even bigger an anticompetitive threat to the rest of the streaming market.
You speculate that Prime Video is a loss leader, and that would make it an even bigger an anticompetitive threat to the rest of the streaming market.
I'm honestly surprised they kept going with this for so long. I expected them to do this for two or three years tops, but it seems to work out I guess?
I signed up for Amazon student after I finished college (still had access to a mail account and didn't know about the program before, or maybe it didn't exist yet) so I got prime for 25€ for a couple years. I watched one show on prime and never used it for music. Only really wanted the free and faster shipping. As soon as student ended I unsubscribed as it wasn't worth 45€ to me.
I signed up for Amazon student after I finished college (still had access to a mail account and didn't know about the program before, or maybe it didn't exist yet) so I got prime for 25€ for a couple years. I watched one show on prime and never used it for music. Only really wanted the free and faster shipping. As soon as student ended I unsubscribed as it wasn't worth 45€ to me.
I think it's because if unbundled it would collectively cost a lot more, and nobody actually uses everything (or even more than one, maybe two) much anyway, so it's sort of a costless value-add to bundle them. 'Huh yeah maybe I'll use that occasionally.'
I'm sure they'll have run focus groups or whatever with proposed unbundled pricing to see which services people would pay for and how it stacks up.
I'm sure they'll have run focus groups or whatever with proposed unbundled pricing to see which services people would pay for and how it stacks up.
There's huge value to them in being the only people who know how many people subscribe for the video and how many people subscribe for the shipping. In every vertical they can negotiate using the full Prime subscriber numbers, not the "number of people who have ever played a single Prime Video show".
I feel like I read titles like
>Europeans will be able to avoid X
where X is some internet/tech/privacy related mess
way too often.
where are US lawmakers/bureaucracy?
why things like seems to be forced mostly by EU lawmakers/bureaucracy?
>Europeans will be able to avoid X
where X is some internet/tech/privacy related mess
way too often.
where are US lawmakers/bureaucracy?
why things like seems to be forced mostly by EU lawmakers/bureaucracy?
It is easier in Europe to have people-friendly politicians because companies can’t get away so often with buying them. It is both the laws and the culture.
Case in point, Stefan Löfven, who was Sweden’s prime minister until a few months ago, traveled today in the same coach class airplane I used. I don’t know if he could have afforded/used something better, but politicians in private airplanes gift the press a field day.
So democracy in some parts of Europe is a little bit more the business of the people than the business of the businesses.
Case in point, Stefan Löfven, who was Sweden’s prime minister until a few months ago, traveled today in the same coach class airplane I used. I don’t know if he could have afforded/used something better, but politicians in private airplanes gift the press a field day.
So democracy in some parts of Europe is a little bit more the business of the people than the business of the businesses.
You have two parties, and they are the same in each state.
Each country in Europe has three to five main parties plus a lot of minor parties. They are mostly independent and the ideological range is much wider.
When is their own lifestyle what is in risk, politicians do care.
Each country in Europe has three to five main parties plus a lot of minor parties. They are mostly independent and the ideological range is much wider.
When is their own lifestyle what is in risk, politicians do care.
Mostly because you're uninformed https://twitter.com/arjie/status/1538011050636783616?s=20&t=...
They're uninformed because California has protections? I had to call to cancel a newspaper subscription (last time a try to support local news) and send an email to cancel a gym membership recently, both of which were signed up for online. Or am I also merely uninformed about the mandatory cancellation processes I've gone through?
The EU needs to prove they're doing something so people don't think about how much they're diluting the euro and stealing from the masses.
If the resulting regulations makes it even harder for small businesses to keep up with all the red tape, entrenching big American businesses in their position - that's even better.
The US government sucks as well in different ways, but nobody is seriously threatening to leave (especially because of all that money spent every year on the army).
If the resulting regulations makes it even harder for small businesses to keep up with all the red tape, entrenching big American businesses in their position - that's even better.
The US government sucks as well in different ways, but nobody is seriously threatening to leave (especially because of all that money spent every year on the army).
There was a time where I unsubscribed from Prime and every single purchase flow then included the following screen where you had to confirm that you really don't want to have Amazon Prime and just buy it as a regular customer.
Regulation in these areas is really very much needed.
https://annoying.technology/posts/81a1c96e0cebfd64/
Regulation in these areas is really very much needed.
https://annoying.technology/posts/81a1c96e0cebfd64/
They also passive-agressively set the default to a paid shipping option for non-Prime, so every order you have to manually pick the free shipping option. It's very obnoxious, especially combined with the multiple "sign up for Prime" pitch attempts.
But they won't because it's a freaking good service. Human rights atrocities aside, it's very convenient.
It's two clicks, but the second button you have to click will be bouncing around the screen like a 900mph DVD screensaver logo
Amazon patented the one-click purchase, but now the EU strikes back with the two-click unsubscribe.
They patented the wrong thing!
They patented the wrong thing!
They need this for the New York Times
Wish it was possible with The Times.
The New York Times also has this issue, funnily enough.
I just let it lapse when my credit card number had to be changed.
That doesn't always work. The major credit card companies have updater services which are support by most major payment processors which as long as the underlying account has not changed will provide merchants who have the card on-file notifications of card number changes and expiration date changes.
Some issuing banks don't participate but most of the major issuers do.
At the small place I work this is delightfully old fashioned. There's an HTTPS API we can use to submit cards we want to check. The submission format consists of one line per card, with each line being formatted as a bunch of space-padded fields. It would be right at home on a punched card being feed to some FORTRAN or COBOL code on an IBM 360.
There's another API to get responses. We poll that once a day. Responses are in a similar punched card like format, containing one line for each card. The time for a given card's response to show up varies from one day to several. There is no "there will be no response" response.
I think the big companies get a more modern interface. I've had a couple of occasions where I needed to have my current card cancelled and a new one issued, and almost as soon as I got off the phone with the bank I've gotten a notice on my phone that the old card in Apple Wallet has been updated.
Some issuing banks don't participate but most of the major issuers do.
At the small place I work this is delightfully old fashioned. There's an HTTPS API we can use to submit cards we want to check. The submission format consists of one line per card, with each line being formatted as a bunch of space-padded fields. It would be right at home on a punched card being feed to some FORTRAN or COBOL code on an IBM 360.
There's another API to get responses. We poll that once a day. Responses are in a similar punched card like format, containing one line for each card. The time for a given card's response to show up varies from one day to several. There is no "there will be no response" response.
I think the big companies get a more modern interface. I've had a couple of occasions where I needed to have my current card cancelled and a new one issued, and almost as soon as I got off the phone with the bank I've gotten a notice on my phone that the old card in Apple Wallet has been updated.
Speaking about that... I was very surprised that when my card expired and I got a new one, which has the same number, a different expiry date, and a new security code on the back, all I had to give Amazon was the new expiry date, not the security code...
Economist too. Online subscribe...phone in during office hours to unsub.
I've been a Prime member since 2005 and I guess will remain until I die. I think I average about one order per day, so I bow to my corporate overlords.
As I found out, it is impossible to unsubscribe from Prime if you are banned from Amazon.
What are the two clicks, and where do they start?
It looks like it takes five or six clicks right now for me, and I'd only count one of those unreasonable.
From the account page, I have to click Prime, click Manage to get a menu, click End Membership, then twice I have to click Cancel to confirm.
If they combined it to one confirmation page I would say it's fine. But that's still four clicks, or five if you start on a random page.
It looks like it takes five or six clicks right now for me, and I'd only count one of those unreasonable.
From the account page, I have to click Prime, click Manage to get a menu, click End Membership, then twice I have to click Cancel to confirm.
If they combined it to one confirmation page I would say it's fine. But that's still four clicks, or five if you start on a random page.
I'm in Europe, I can unsubscribe with 3-4 clicks, depending on how you count:
1. Click user icon in top right hand corner (I would not count this one)
2. Click "Account & Settings"
3. Click "End membership"
4. Click "End on {Month} {Day}, 2022"
Two clicks will also be nice, but not sure there was a problem that needed fixing. Maybe it is worse in some parts of Europe than others, or maybe I get a different menu because I'm an immigrant to Europe and not a European.
I have also done it many times before and the process was more or less the same, prime just simply does not have enough content to subscribe for more than one month at a time, so I always cancel immediately after subscribing.
1. Click user icon in top right hand corner (I would not count this one)
2. Click "Account & Settings"
3. Click "End membership"
4. Click "End on {Month} {Day}, 2022"
Two clicks will also be nice, but not sure there was a problem that needed fixing. Maybe it is worse in some parts of Europe than others, or maybe I get a different menu because I'm an immigrant to Europe and not a European.
I have also done it many times before and the process was more or less the same, prime just simply does not have enough content to subscribe for more than one month at a time, so I always cancel immediately after subscribing.
I’m in America and it’s six clicks but pretty straightforward nonetheless:
1. Click “account”
2. Click “Manage Prime Membership”
3. Click “Manage Membership”
4. In the drop down click “manage membership” (ok, this is a bit silly, but no misdirection so far)
5. Click “end membership”
6. Click “cancel my benefits”
I could see an argument to be made that step 5 should be the last step. But it took me less than 20 seconds to figure out how to cancel my Prime membership even though I’ve never done it before.
All that said, I also appreciate the argument by EU regulators that a subscription cancel flow should only be 2-3 clicks at the most.
1. Click “account”
2. Click “Manage Prime Membership”
3. Click “Manage Membership”
4. In the drop down click “manage membership” (ok, this is a bit silly, but no misdirection so far)
5. Click “end membership”
6. Click “cancel my benefits”
I could see an argument to be made that step 5 should be the last step. But it took me less than 20 seconds to figure out how to cancel my Prime membership even though I’ve never done it before.
All that said, I also appreciate the argument by EU regulators that a subscription cancel flow should only be 2-3 clicks at the most.
There are (where) a bunch of scummy companies (dating sites, magazine subscriptions, ISPs) that have (had) an easy onboarding process, but you needed an notarised letter written with your own blood, send to them only on at full moon to end the subscription.
If we only now could get the cheaper mobile plans new customers get, that would be nice. I really hate to ask once a year "Can I get the new plan?" "No, ok I will cancel my plan." Only to wait for their call back where they give me the cheaper/upgraded plan.
If we only now could get the cheaper mobile plans new customers get, that would be nice. I really hate to ask once a year "Can I get the new plan?" "No, ok I will cancel my plan." Only to wait for their call back where they give me the cheaper/upgraded plan.
I'd almost respect them more if they said "Okay, you got us, we deliberately added as many complicated steps as possible to minimise the number of people who successfully cancelled".
There needs to be a Freedom of Information Act which applies to large companies, requiring them to record all the decisions they make, the goals they set, and the metrics they use to achieve them.
Of course most of the data will be commercially sensitive, but if a company refuses on those grounds, the requester should be able to appeal to an ombudsman who will check whether there is a public interest in disclosure, or whether the data needs to be sent to the relevant regulator for further investigation.
Requesters would have to pay some fee for such an appeal (perhaps 100 x minimum hourly wage) which would be paid back double if the appeal was upheld. This could create the right sort of incentives for whistleblowers, and the appeal fee could be crowdfunded to make it more affordable.