Amazon removes Dolby Vision and Atmos from Prime Video unless you pay to go ad-free

[midian182]

WTF?! Amazon has given people another reason to love the company. After introducing ads on January 29 to Prime Video subscribers who don't pay more, it has now been revealed that those who won't hand over the extra $2.99 per month also lose access to Dolby Vision HDR and Dolby Atmos surround sound support. Curiously, the loss of these features is something Amazon previously failed to reveal.

The discovery of the lost features was first noticed by German tech publication 4K Filme over the weekend and has since been confirmed by Amazon.

Forbes tested the Dolby Vision/Dolby Atmos-encoded 'Jack Ryan' TV series to find out if the features were missing. While the TV itself showed popups confirming that the content was playing in Dolby Vision HDR and Dolby Atmos on the ad-free tier, the standard tier with ads only supported HDR10+ and Dolby Digital 5.1.

Jack Ryan, now with ads and missing Dolby Vision/Atmos - unless you pay extra

Amazon has confirmed the change, but it hasn't explained its reasons for the decision. As with everything in life, it's likely related to money: Amazon has to pay licensing fees to Dolby Laboratories, while HDR10+ is a free and open alternative.

Amazon Prime Video started supporting Dolby Vision in 2016, but it dropped support a year later in favor of HDR10+. The streaming service brought Dolby Vision back for select content in 2022.

What appears especially devious on Amazon's part is the fact that it never told anyone about these features being removed for those on the standard ad tier. Forbes notes that what's even worse is that viewing the video header information for Jack Ryan on an account with ads shows it has Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos support, yet neither feature appears in the program unless you upgrade to the ad-free tier.

A recent report claimed that Amazon is unlikely to lose Prime subscribers over the introduction of ads to Prime Video, given that so many people use it for the shopping and shipping perks.

There are, however, plenty of people angry about the introduction of ads to the service, and have filed a $5 million proposed class action lawsuit against the company in California. It claims Amazon breached its contract and violated state consumer protection laws on behalf of users who saw their subscriptions change. The removal of the Dolby features could give the plaintiffs' arguments more weight.

Just weeks before Amazon introduced ads to subscribers, it confirmed that it would be laying off hundreds of employees across its Prime Video and MGM Studios divisions.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/101868-amazon-removes-dolby-vision-atmos-prime-video-subscribers.html

 

[yRaz]

Do people realize that this will never end? Corporations, atleast in the US, have a legal obligation to the share holders to make as much money as possible. Why invest in a company if you don't see your stock price grow or get paid dividends?

So they increased prices and made an incentive to buy the higher teir service. They will wait awhile, then do it again.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

The downside of renting rather than owning things.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Do people realize that this will never end? Corporations, atleast in the US, have a legal obligation to the share holders to make as much money as possible. Why invest in a company if you don't see your stock price grow or get paid dividends?

So they increased prices and made an incentive to buy the higher teir service. They will wait awhile, then do it again.

Why do people keep parroting this like it's fact? If this were true, the heads of every Disney board member would have rolled years ago.

It's simple greed, nothing more. Consooomer sheep have shown time and time again they will pay more for this stuff. Why not keep upping the price?

This just adds more justification for my cancelling of my membership this month. I'm not paying for substandard service.

 

[fluffydroid]

Amazon should have made public announcements in advance about removing Dolby Vision and Atmos.

 

[RudyBob]

I don't care. Currently I am watching "Annette" It's in black and white and the sound is horrid. The ads are a pain but what are ya gonna do? Nothing. Move along and worry about something real

 

[yRaz]

Why do people keep parroting this like it's fact? If this were true, the heads of every Disney board member would have rolled years ago.

It's simple greed, nothing more. Consooomer sheep have shown time and time again they will pay more for this stuff. Why not keep upping the price?

This just adds more justification for my cancelling of my membership this month. I'm not paying for substandard service.

Well, look at Disney, since their stock is in free fall Bob Igar has cut the pay of several people while reducing the budgets of some projects while canceling others all together. What really needs to happen is the shareholders need to hold a vote to have Kathleen Kennedy removed

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Well, look at Disney, since their stock is in free fall Bob Igar has cut the pay of several people while reducing the budgets of some projects while canceling others all together. What really needs to happen is the shareholders need to hold a vote to have Kathleen Kennedy removed

Ok, cutting budgets is the natural response to a poor fiscal year.

This has nothing to do with my response though. You said it was their LEGAL requirement to increase value, no matter what. If that is the case, where are the criminal/civil charges for these board members, who have overseen a dramatic loss of shareholder value for the last 3 years?

The very fact that KK still has a job should tell you that the "legal obligation" isnt interpreted the way you think it is, and is not a blanket reason for why companies squeeze customers for more money.

 

[yRaz]

Ok, cutting budgets is the natural response to a poor fiscal year.

This has nothing to do with my response though. You said it was their LEGAL requirement to increase value, no matter what. If that is the case, where are the criminal/civil charges for these board members, who have overseen a dramatic loss of shareholder value for the last 3 years?

The very fact that KK still has a job should tell you that the "legal obligation" isnt interpreted the way you think it is, and is not a blanket reason for why companies squeeze customers for more money.

It's called Fiduciary Responsibility

 

[atomicgirl]

It's simple greed, nothing more. Consooomer sheep have shown time and time again they will pay more for this stuff. Why not keep upping the price?

Years ago, I would've agreed with this. Today, not so much.

Is it really consumer sheep, or the fact that there's now a new class of people with so-called "FU money" who are snatching the market away from the average person? I think that's the real problem. I have seen this trend over and over again where companies ditched average consumers in favor of New Rich. The logic is, "Why cater to working class and middle class shlubs when we can just cater to trust fund babies and New Rich influencers, who have more money than they know what do do with?"

 

[The Talking Tech]

Nothing like the high seas to be free

 

[dangh]

Anything as a service aims to get used hooked, become dependent, and continue bleeding more and more money. It is always just a dollar or two more, here, there, and there, or for super hot pro version a bit more! To indicate you are special. Special kind of a sheep.
Ownership, not subscribing, is still the only way to have control and avoiding being a tool. Or subscribing with a goal in mind knowing you're being used.

 

[umeng2002]

My last two large computer purchases were not on Amazon.

 

[Skjorn]

That article said it great, Amazon likely won't lose subs over this because so many are there for the shipping and shopping.

This is what Amazon used to be now they've bundled so much crap with Prime that the majority of people never use so they can justify constant price hikes.
I'd love to see a Prime Classic tier that's like just shopping and shipping and not all the other useless stuff.

 

[Endymio]

I have seen this trend over and over again where companies ditched average consumers in favor of New Rich. The logic is, "Why cater to working class and middle class shlubs...

So your contention is only the Nouveau Riche "trust fund babies" can afford an extra $2.99 per month? Poor middle class schlubs, to afford to buy formula for baby, will then be forced to watch Jack Ryan without the Dolby surround sound?

My god, the horror!

 

[Endymio]

It's called Fiduciary Responsibility

Exactly so. And economists have shown time and time again that allowing producers to maximize their profits while simultaneously allowing consumers to maximize their utility on a free market generates the greatest good for the most people.

Unfortunately, the math behind this though not complex is too much for those with five-minute attention spans. So occasionally the people make the horrendous mistake of implementing a socialist-style alternative, which generally gives them the consumer paradises we see in places like Cuba, North Korea, or the former Soviet Republics.

 

[toooooot]

That is really not cool. I understand ads, but now they are removing features.
Just wait till they lower resolution to 720p and then leave only mono 128kpsp sound.
They did not just introduced ads, they are set on forcing anyone to pay if they still want to use prime for watching videos.

 

[atomicgirl]

So your contention is only the Nouveau Riche "trust fund babies" can afford an extra $2.99 per month? Poor middle class schlubs, to afford to buy formula for baby, will then be forced to watch Jack Ryan without the Dolby surround sound?

My god, the horror!

I'm not responding to any more of your posts. Have a nice day.

 

[atomicgirl]

Well, look at Disney, since their stock is in free fall Bob Igar has cut the pay of several people while reducing the budgets of some projects while canceling others all together. What really needs to happen is the shareholders need to hold a vote to have Kathleen Kennedy removed

Why does Kathleen Kennedy need to be removed? Because 20 year old hatebaiters from UK, Canada and Australia on YouTube, who know nothing about her, the goings-on at Hollywood or even the American movie industry decided to single her out? You realize that the hatebaiters that you apparently listen to and whose words you take as gospel truth have absolutely no idea who she is, how much of an influence she has or who is behind all the decisions at Disney are trolls passing themselves off as "insiders"?

I mean, seriously--gotta love the internet, where delusional people who have no idea what they're talking about have a voice. People like Kathleen Kennedy, George Lucas, Kevin Smith and all of these other favorite targets of hatebaiters have been in the industry decades before all of you were in diapers. She was the producer of everything from E.T. and Alive to Jurassic Park, but she needs to be removed? Because a pimply-faced, bottom feeding YouTuber told you?

 

[Endymio]

Why does Kathleen Kennedy need to be removed? Because 20 year old hatebaiters decided to single her out?

Actually, it was because she single-handedly nearly destroyed Lucasfilms -- and shareholders began to revolt. She went several years without producing a single film -- then vomited up "Dial of Destiny" -- one of the most expensive films ever made ... and one the biggest flops in film history.

I'm not responding to any more of your posts. Have a nice day.

When one stakes out an absurdly melodramatic position on a public forum, they can expect to see it repudiated. Intelligent people either refute the objections, or accept them as correct. Only the zealots pull up their pants and go home.

 

[yRaz]

Why does Kathleen Kennedy need to be removed? Because 20 year old hatebaiters from UK, Canada and Australia on YouTube, who know nothing about her, the goings-on at Hollywood or even the American movie industry decided to single her out? You realize that the hatebaiters that you apparently listen to and whose words you take as gospel truth have absolutely no idea who she is, how much of an influence she has or who is behind all the decisions at Disney are trolls passing themselves off as "insiders"?

I mean, seriously--gotta love the internet, where delusional people who have no idea what they're talking about have a voice. People like Kathleen Kennedy, George Lucas, Kevin Smith and all of these other favorite targets of hatebaiters have been in the industry decades before all of you were in diapers. She was the producer of everything from E.T. and Alive to Jurassic Park, but she needs to be removed? Because a pimply-faced, bottom feeding YouTuber told you?

George Lucas is no longer part of Lucas films, you can ask Kathleen Kennedy why

 

[Mr Majestyk]

People are surprised by the actions of a company called scAmazon.

 

[atomicgirl]

George Lucas is no longer part of Lucas films, you can ask Kathleen Kennedy why

No. You, as an industry insider in Hollywood, tell us what happened. You're the insider. You know George Lucas and Kathleen Kennedy in a professional capacity, because you work in the innermost ranks of the movie industry and have for decades. So, tell us what Kathleen Kennedy has to do with Lucas not being part of Lucas films anymore. Let's hear it.

 

[m3tavision]

No. You, as an industry insider in Hollywood, tell us what happened. You're the insider. You know George Lucas and Kathleen Kennedy in a professional capacity, because you work in the innermost ranks of the movie industry and have for decades. So, tell us what Kathleen Kennedy has to do with Lucas not being part of Lucas films anymore. Let's hear it.

You pretend to live a life behind a firewall and don't know or pretend that You (yourself) can never find out. So Sarcasm..?

That is 100% illustrative of what Endymio was saying.


I sold my 20 years of holding in the fall off 2019 after I found myself NOT enjoying Disney movies anymore. Their Animated Characters are now tied too closely with Celeb "Voice-actors" and Movies are no longer about stories, but about the Celebrities/Drama that nobody cares about.

Disney needs to clean house.

 

[atomicgirl]

You pretend to live a life behind a firewall and don't know or pretend that You (yourself) can never find out. So Sarcasm..?

I didn't ask you a question. I asked someone else a question. Respond to questions being asked of you, not of some other poster, lest you want to be accused of being a sock or part of a "team" of posters whose job it is to derail discussions. It's really looking to be that way, considering that this story is about Amazon and not Disney or Kathleen Kennedy.