Amazon slashes 4K video prices in apparent reaction to iTunes 4K deals

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 25
    LOL...good luck trying to find something relatively new and relatively good for a "slashed price" in 4K. For example, the first 8 movies shown in the 'Popular Movies' section of 'Rent or Buy' don't even offer a 4K version for download, much less a bargain price.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 25
    irelandireland Posts: 17,801member

    I don't WANT streaming. I want to purchase and store my content locally.
    And some people want pocket watches. Go figure.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 25
    irelandireland Posts: 17,801member
    Wait, why should Apple be Netflix? Apple makes insane profit selling hardware is its ecosystem. Netflix makes a smaller amount of money streaming content to anybody. Why does Apple need to be Netflix?
    I mean, and I figured it was obvious, that the position and mindshare Netflix has regarding video streaming in the world today should be Apple's position. Apple didn't see it coming the way it did and they should. I blame Cue, but not entirely. As regarding Apple's profit as a company. It has nothing to do with this conversation. If an oil company was making twice the profit of Apple and oil supplies were plentiful for centuries to come I'd still not want Apple to be an oil company. Quit thinking like a shareholder, it ruins most design and product conversations and doesn't interest me in the least. As Gruber said recently and I agree, most people think the ATV Remote is Ok, someone people hate it and he doesn't personally know anyone who loves it: that's a series product design problem. People love AirPods because they were well conceived and well executed, people think the opposite of that remote for obvious reason—you'd best not defend Apple to legit criticism. It only makes you sound either gullible or a shareholder and either are nothing to do with product design. Gawd....
    edited September 2017
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 25
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,727member
    sog35 said:
    WRONG. Example: fake solar glasses. Many were being shipped directly from Amazon warehouses.

    So if Amazon sold fake solar glasses that could PERMANANTLY blind you, what's stopping them from selling other less dangerous fake goods? Nothing at all.

    Amazon takes close to ZERO reponsibility for fake goods sold on their site and shipped from their warehouses. Shameful.
    If individually notifying every customer who bought a pair not to use them for eclipse viewing, pulling all existing stock as soon as there was an inkling that the supplier may not have complied with ISO standards despite marking the glasses as such, and automatically refunding every purchaser is your example of taking "close to zero responsibility for fake goods" I think you could have found a better one. In this case IMO Amazon took full responsibility as they should have.

    FWIW policing 10's of millions of products ranging from media to software to electronics to home goods to vehicle repair items, many shipped directly from vendors rather than Amazon warehouses, has got to be a near-impossible task. Heck Apple and Google have problems keeping fake or useless apps out or their stores, and Apple claims to vet every one of them.  
    edited September 2017
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.