If it helps, one of main arguments of the antitrust lawsuit against Amazon that the Biden administration opened was that Amazon routinely, actually, costs you money because they use their platform to offer more expensive options in your searches first and other means: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power (I’m not sure if that link with detail or with a much clarity as wherever I first read it but I can’t recall where I originally read it 3 or so months ago, I’m afraid).
The only major advantage that I’ll fully admit Prime has is speed of delivery; I admit I do use it when our cats run out of food and I dropped the ball on making sure we had more or I need filters for our air purifiers that just noted they need new ones.
But, even if you can find cheaper versions on Amazon, it can become easy to fall for the setup of their site if you use it by default all the time.
First I’m hearing but that doesn’t surprise me; it’s probably better than most companies you could give your money to but, in any way they could, they don’t do anything truly groundbreaking such that I can justify to myself giving money rather than just keeping said money in my pocket (and, in turn, much more likely to go to mutual aid, charities, non-profits, or coöperatively-owned or union-banned businesses).
They could have done a more traditional coöp, open-sourced their infrastructure (even if it was just the app.!), or really emphasized a particular stance or message they as a company would stand by…but they haven’t done any of those. They basically are just offering up YouTube but as a streaming service. But that doesn’t solve the myriad of issues that make a streaming service a business that (like most businesses) prey on their customers.