![]() ![]() They could probably afford to lose 2-3 prime subs for every additional unlimited subscriber and still have a net profit. A prime sub is around the same price as an unlimited sub. Some people will pay for the unlimited so that’s growth of the revenue for the platform. People who stop using a perk of the subscription are reducing overheads but revenue stays the same. Existing Prime subs aren’t going away in droves. ![]() I doubt anyone is going to give up the TV, Movies, free delivery, games access, over a music subscription change that was already limited to a subset of the service anyway. The number of people who will ditch prime completely over the music changes are insignificant. A slight bump in price would have had me fork over the extra to get the full experience.įrom a business perspective though it makes sense.Īn unlimited subscriber is worth additional revenue.Ī prime subscriber using a free tier is a cost I agree with you - from a consumer perspective. And so many existing customers will not commit some mass exodus from their service like they are now. If I am not mistaken here that will meet the current status quo, give them even more money as it encourages them to purchase prime (because prime has more benefits than just Amazon music unlimited). ![]() The free Spotify mobile version they made for the rest of us peasants can be for the people who want to use it but have no prime subscription. So the ultimate solution would be for amazon to give Amazon music unlimited to the existing prime members as an added perk of owning prime for only and I mean ONLY a SLIGHT increase in the subscription payment. The extra 9 dollars is enough to turn me off and most others from what I am seeing. There is no way they needed this change to "Increase value of unlimited". Prime is a monthly subscription so they are constantly making more and more and more and more money. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |