Amazon may raise Prime prices.

[bullet]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I can't afford my own private plane. Cessna is discriminating against me because I can't afford their high prices.

I have the tame problem but with Gulfstream.

Q: How do you catch a tame rabbit?
A: Easy, unique up on him.
Q: How to you catch a tame, unique rabbit?
A: Tame way, unique up on him.

Sorry to be so silly, but I now feel better.

[Jessica Lares]

Originally Posted by Katie1

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

It comes with Instant Video access and Lending Library, yeah.

[Kumabjorn]

On a personal level I would like to see discrimination against bland or average looking women revoked. We need dates too.

[crich70]

Some may think it's silly if they can afford the higher price or if they don't want AP but it does seem as if the poor guys get priced out of being able to afford things sometimes. That was the point I was trying to make. And I couldn't think of a better term than discrimination (based on economics) to fit the situation. After all there may be some who can afford it (barely) at $79.00 who will find it impossible to do so at $100.00 +. I've never been able to afford it (though it looks interesting) even at the current price so I know I won't be able to do so if they raise it up either.

[Historiann]

I finally signed up for prime and I've enjoyed the convenience-- but not enough to pay more for it. Because I have it and therefore have paid for shipping in advance, I buy a lot more from amazon than I used to. Without it, I'm more likely to shop around and reduce the amount of money I spend with them.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by crich70

Some may think it's silly if they can afford the higher price or if they don't want AP but it does seem as if the poor guys get priced out of being able to afford things sometimes. That was the point I was trying to make. And I couldn't think of a better term than discrimination (based on economics) to fit the situation. After all there may be some who can afford it (barely) at $79.00 who will find it impossible to do so at $100.00 +. I've never been able to afford it (though it looks interesting) even at the current price so I know I won't be able to do so if they raise it up either.

You're milking it now. All the biters have bitten, don't you think?

[xg4bx]

I've never particularly thought the service was worth it but I actually would consider it if it came with a monthly charge rather than one bulk payment. I pay for Netflix, Hulu, and I paid for Xbox Live for several years so $7-$8 a month wouldn't break me.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by crich70

Some may think it's silly if they can afford the higher price or if they don't want AP but it does seem as if the poor guys get priced out of being able to afford things sometimes. That was the point I was trying to make. And I couldn't think of a better term than discrimination (based on economics) to fit the situation. After all there may be some who can afford it (barely) at $79.00 who will find it impossible to do so at $100.00 +. I've never been able to afford it (though it looks interesting) even at the current price so I know I won't be able to do so if they raise it up either.

That's not an Amazon thing, that's a business thing. As has already been said, it is pretty much the definition of poor: that you can't afford things. It is hardly within the scope of a business to provide things to people who can't afford it, that is what we call welfare.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

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.

I wonder if they might consider doing something like creating two levels of Prime--offer 3-5-day standard shipping and keep the current price (or perhaps a minimal increase), and charge a higher membership fee for Prime with 2-day shipping.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I wonder if they might consider doing something like creating two levels of Prime--offer 3-5-day standard shipping and keep the current price (or perhaps a minimal increase), and charge a higher membership fee for Prime with 2-day shipping.

They kind of do that already--you get free 3 to 5 day shipping on some items if you get to 35 dollars of qualifying merchandize. It's usually about 5 days, but I've had things get to me in 3. So I think the "bottom" tier is those of us who combine a bunch of items and get to 35 dollars and get 'free shipping.'

Someone mentioned on another thread that people most interested in prime are those who want to stream video. In other words, the free shipping is less and less of the reason people are signing up (of course Amazon isn't saying this, this is forums/individuals). Since I don't even watch TV or movies, I have no idea if this is the case, but I've seen that thrown around a bit other places and at least one person who wrote in on my blog when I did a poll mentioned she carries prime for the video.

[stormcloude]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I wonder if they might consider doing something like creating two levels of Prime--offer 3-5-day standard shipping and keep the current price (or perhaps a minimal increase), and charge a higher membership fee for Prime with 2-day shipping.

Wonder what they're gonna charge for their "drone" shipping.

[crich70]

Even if it isn't discrimination according to the law the result is the same. Some people who could afford it won't be able to and those who might want it but already found it outside their ability to afford are still left out in the cold.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by crich70

Even if it isn't discrimination according to the law the result is the same. Some people who could afford it won't be able to and those who might want it but already found it outside their ability to afford are still left out in the cold.

Where's your source for the claim that it is illegal to charge more than people can afford for your product?

[crich70]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

That's not an Amazon thing, that's a business thing. As has already been said, it is pretty much the definition of poor: that you can't afford things. It is hardly within the scope of a business to provide things to people who can't afford it, that is what we call welfare.

Most of the customers fit in the category of not being able to afford those little extra things though. And if it weren't for all those little customers who buys things stores wouldn't be able to offer extra perks to the rich customers. It's not the rich customer who spends several $100 bucks once or twice a year who keeps the doors open, but the average person who spends $5-$10 here and there multiplied times thousands who do so. I don't know if anyone will go the route of trying to actually prove that raising the price for AP is discriminatory or not, but I'm sure there are those who will feel they are being cheated of the chance to have it as it will be too expensive either for them to get or for them to keep. A program named Boxee went in much the same way a few yrs back. The developers used to offer their program as a downloadable computer program that a person could use to watch media either on the computer or online, and they received feedback from the users on how it did and what problems they had in order to help make it a better program. Then they started to develop a set top box form of the program. Then they decided that it was too much work to keep the version for computer up and running and pretty much abandoned the users who had the computer download version. Not an exact example but similar in that some people got left behind. For that matter mobipocket (which is owned by Amazon) did something of the sort as far as support for the 1st ereader I had (Franklin ebookman). They decided to stop supporting it which made any new books I'd buy from them unable to be opened on the device. Hmm. seems to be an Amazon habit forming.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Where's your source for the claim that it is illegal to charge more than people can afford for your product?

If a sizable portion of the public can't get something because of the price being too high isn't it on a parallel of not being able to go somewhere because of other things they can't change like ethnic origin or skin color? I don't know if it fits the legal definition of the term as most people think of it or not, but it seems that way to me as a layman. I mean it's illegal to not rent to someone based on their job for example if I understand right or based on their race, or if they have a physical handicap so is it that far a stretch to say that raising the price of a service which makes it impossible for someone to afford it (if they want it) or so they no longer can (if they had already had it) amounts to the same thing? I'm not a lawyer but it does sound that way to me. If anyone here at MR is a lawyer and can clarify what the difference is feel free.