Amazon may raise Prime prices.

[johnnyb]

Originally Posted by crich70

There is a wide difference between owning a private plane and being able to afford extra perks in something like Amazon Prime. !st of all it's a difference between a self made want and something that is (supposed) to be available to all who can afford it. That is AP is something made available by a company not something that a very small percentage of people can afford in the 1st place. I mean besides the plane you would have fuel, upkeep in the form of repairs, housing for the plane when not in use, license, and I don't know what else that you would be responsible for. With AP on the other hand it's just a matter of paying the fee to access the extra features. Even at $79.00 a year that is too much for me as I wouldn't know I'd have the extra to pay for it when the bill renewed in the following year. Limited income means just that. And if it goes higher then it is even more unlikely that I can afford it. So yes I think it would be discriminatory even if they didn't mean it to be. It's basically saying that if you are of a particular social level you can have what others who are less fortunate than you can't have. i.e. the rich get things that are denied to the poor.

I like how you hold a company that is already quite customer-friendly responsible for not being a social welfare institution. If you want one of these, you should really consider voting for those that promise their kinds of services, but to expect a company to do that is to be under the illusion that „self made man liberalist charity“ can replace (institutionalised) solidarity...

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by crich70

i.e. the rich get things that are denied to the poor.

That's pretty much the definition of rich and poor.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by crich70

And what of those who can afford it now but won't be able to if they raise the price higher? Isn't that discrimination against them?

"Discrimination," by itself, is perfectly legal. All it means is favoring one person (or thing) over another. Everyone does this, probably multiple times a day. If you give your brother $20 and don't give a homeless man $20, you are discriminating against him by favoring your family. If you hire someone qualified to work at your business over someone non-qualified, you are discriminating against the nonqualified. If a college gives a scholarship to someone who is really smart and doesn't give one to someone who is not, they are discriminating against the less intelligent. If you date interesting people and do not date uninteresting people, you are discriminating against the uninteresting. If you have affairs with married women but not with unmarried people, you are discriminating against single women. (Or if you date exclusively men but not women, you are discriminating against people with one or the other sexual preference).

All of that is fine, common, and perfectly legal. Discrimination only becomes an issue when a business or the government favors or disfavors people based on a few prohibited criteria. (Note that in most cases you are free to discriminate against people in your private life even for those reasons. Although it's bad and you should stop.) So a business can discriminate against someone who is unqualified, but not against someone who is black. A restaurant can refuse to serve drunks, but can't refuse to serve women. And a retailer can refuse to sell products to people who won't meet its asking price, but can't refuse to sell to people who have a different religion. (Note that you have a similar right to work for the company that offers you $40k/year and not for the company that offers $20k...even if $20k is all that they can afford and they *really need* your skills.)

So, returning to Amazon, it's not inaccurate to say that by charging $120 for AP, they are discriminating against people who can't afford $120. But that is a completely permissible form of discrimination, and no different from their current practice, where they are discriminating against people who can't afford $80 for AP.

[sadievan]

Originally Posted by CRussel

I've had Amazon Prime for years. At the current price, it's a no-brainer for me. And even at $20 more, it's likely to be a no-brainer. At $40 more? Pushing it. But I'll bet they can find a way to make it still make sense.

Yes, sometimes they fail in their 2-day. But it's pretty rare. And they real advantage is that just about everything I buy ships 2-day, since I will rarely buy anything that isn't Prime eligible. The lending library for books? I've read 4 or 5, but nothing I really cared about one way or another. Certainly not a compelling reason. The videos? Oh, yeah. I use that a lot.

I'm similar to you. I got prime when I bought my first Kindle Fire as a promotion and never cancelled it. I usually buy Prime eligible. Haven't used the lending library much but do watch the videos. At $79 it's affordable. I would even still keep Prime at $20 more. Not sure if I would keep it at $40 more. That would be a large increase and not even sure that Amazon would do an increase that large. My thinking is they would probably keep it more in the $20 range. At least I hope.

[sadievan]

Originally Posted by crich70

There is a wide difference between owning a private plane and being able to afford extra perks in something like Amazon Prime. !st of all it's a difference between a self made want and something that is (supposed) to be available to all who can afford it. That is AP is something made available by a company not something that a very small percentage of people can afford in the 1st place. I mean besides the plane you would have fuel, upkeep in the form of repairs, housing for the plane when not in use, license, and I don't know what else that you would be responsible for. With AP on the other hand it's just a matter of paying the fee to access the extra features. Even at $79.00 a year that is too much for me as I wouldn't know I'd have the extra to pay for it when the bill renewed in the following year. Limited income means just that. And if it goes higher then it is even more unlikely that I can afford it. So yes I think it would be discriminatory even if they didn't mean it to be. It's basically saying that if you are of a particular social level you can have what others who are less fortunate than you can't have. i.e. the rich get things that are denied to the poor.

Amazon Prime is a subscription service. Same principle as Netflix, Hulu, Audible, certain libraries (out of state), warehouse clubs, cable tv, internet, etc. Do you view those as discriminatory also?

[Barbara1955]

My son still has his college email... Does that mean he can get Prime Student? What are the Perks? Mainly interested in Movies....

[sadievan]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

No one has any inherent right to be able to afford all the things they WANT to buy. Period.

I tell my husband he is not supporting me in the Style I WANT to become accustomed to. He's not buying it.

[soondai]

Even a 20 dollar hike will be the end for me. I just don't order much physical stuff. Used to when our daughter was in diapers. Never use the free kindle library. Do most of my streaming off google and netflix since I got a chromecast.

Probably time for me to cancel whether or not the price changes.

[BenG]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The whole "discrimination" and "possible lawsuit" discussion RE raising the price of Amazon Prime is silly. There's absolutely no point in continuing it. No one has any inherent right to be able to afford all the things they WANT to buy. Period.

I can no longer justify the price of a pound of bacon. I miss having it, but I'm not being discriminated against (even though it may feel like it when I'm making my lettuce & tomato sandwiches).

And at what point would the price be considered non-discriminatory? Should they give it away, because some people have no extra money?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by BenG

And at what point would the price be considered non-discriminatory? Should they give it away, because some people have no extra money?

I don't think so, no. But then I don't have any issues with them raising or lowering prices as their business changes.

[BearMountainBooks]

I see a poll coming along here soon...!

[BenG]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I don't think so, no. But then I don't have any issues with them raising or lowering prices as their business changes.

Yes, if they were going to do charity work, I'd rather them give food to the hungry or pay the heating bills for people who can't afford it.

[theducks]

Why prime?
I usually go for the standard free shipping (slower delivery) shipping. Making the threshold is not to difficult

I want hard copies of Music and video, so I care less about the streaming or cloud (turned OFF on my K4's). Ship it to me.

[sirmaru]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I see a poll coming along here soon...!

I will NOT post a poll this time. I've posted too many as it is.

Personally, I hope they wait for the increase until Drone Same Day deliveries are available (POSSIBLY Jan, 2015) and then have a Prime Air for $ 120. I'd go for that.

Then folks could choose between Amazon Prime and Amazon Prime Air.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by Catlady

What's disconcerting though is that they already raised the minimum for non-Prime customers to get free shipping.

$40 is a 50 percent jump--that's huge.

A 50% jump is indeed hefty, if that is what they do. They've even whittled away some of the perks of Prime shipping, by including many items as "Add-on" items that require being part of a minimum order even if you're a Prime member. Granted, ordering a $3 toothbrush and getting it delivered second-day air, tax free at the time, always seemed a little odd to me.