In message , at 12:29:04
on Wed, 5 Oct 2016, David Cantrell remarked:

If you just order stuff to be delivered I don't see the point of Prime.
Isn't it like buying your groceries online?

It's not quite the same. For my Amazon deliveries I don't really care
when they show up as long as it's sometime within the next week or two.

Whereas I tend to order stuff that I really do need in a hurry, usually
because the local High Street has come up blank.
--
Roland Perry

On 2016-10-05 12:37:27 +0000, Roland Perry said:

Whereas I tend to order stuff that I really do need in a hurry, usually
because the local High Street has come up blank.

As do I, or because it's quicker and easier to order online than have
to go and walk round a horribly busy shopping centre in my lunch
break[1].

[1] Yes, I do take one. Yes, a proper one. I'd rather work an hour on
the end of the day than not do so - working a solid 8 hours really saps
my performance in the afternoon.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 01:36:02PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:36:16
on Wed, 5 Oct 2016, David Cantrell remarked:
Prime is faster, there's also their free postage offering.
Yes, but if you don't order often the membership fee is fairly hefty.
The membership fee is worth it for the streaming TV/movie service.
not if you already have more TV that you can watch without a streaming
service
It's not the hours of programming available, but the quality.
I don't care what the quality is like if I don't have the time to watch
it, or if I have better things to do with my time.
YMMV

And that was my point. Peoples' preferences differ. I said that Prime
didn't look like a good deal if you weren't interested in the video
service. You are asserting that the video service THAT I'M NOT
INTERESTED IN makes it worth paying for.

but I use my limited TV-watching time on good quality programming,

So do I. It does not follow that Prime is worth paying for. This may
come as a surprise to you, but there is plenty of good quality
programming available elsewhere.

Also note that the definition of "good quality programming" differs from
person to person. Just because Amazon's offering closely matches your
preferences doesn't mean that it matches everyones' preferences.
Because, as you said, YMMV.

Once Amazon start carrying substantial numbers of documentaries *on
subjects I find interesting* and they start carrying current rugby
matches then I might consider promoting them from "slightly more
interesting than watching paint dry" to "quality programming worth
paying for".

--
David Cantrell | semi-evolved ape-thing

Irregular English:
you have anecdotes; they have data; I have proof

In message , at 13:38:20
on Thu, 6 Oct 2016, David Cantrell remarked:
Prime is faster, there's also their free postage offering.
Yes, but if you don't order often the membership fee is fairly hefty.
The membership fee is worth it for the streaming TV/movie service.
not if you already have more TV that you can watch without a streaming
service
It's not the hours of programming available, but the quality.
I don't care what the quality is like if I don't have the time to watch
it, or if I have better things to do with my time.
YMMV

And that was my point. Peoples' preferences differ. I said that Prime
didn't look like a good deal if you weren't interested in the video
service. You are asserting that the video service THAT I'M NOT
INTERESTED IN makes it worth paying for.

but I use my limited TV-watching time on good quality programming,

So do I. It does not follow that Prime is worth paying for. This may
come as a surprise to you, but there is plenty of good quality
programming available elsewhere.

Also note that the definition of "good quality programming" differs from
person to person. Just because Amazon's offering closely matches your
preferences doesn't mean that it matches everyones' preferences.
Because, as you said, YMMV.

Once Amazon start carrying substantial numbers of documentaries *on
subjects I find interesting* and they start carrying current rugby
matches then I might consider promoting them from "slightly more
interesting than watching paint dry" to "quality programming worth
paying for".

I would pay extra for TV channels (in whatever guise) which agreed not
to show any sport at all. Good documentaries are hard to find. What I
like are what are termed in the trade "Police procedural dramas".
Anything from Inspector Morse, to Person of Interest.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 18:11:28 on Tue, 27 Sep
2016, Roland Perry remarked:

[Aldi]

A smaller range of products *can* be a good thing, provided it is very
well selected, which by and large it is.

Their product range is extremely unpredictable. Only yesterday I went
in to buy something they've had for sale for a few months, and they've
obviously churned their stock in that [soft drinks] aisle from "Summer"
to "Autumn" and it's no longer available.

They also never stock quite a few really basic things (sour cream is
something I think is on that list, and yet they sell lots of 'other'
Tex-Mex stuff).

I almost didn't find frozen Yorkshire puddings there yesterday, but they
do have two types (neither of them the home-bake variety).
--
Roland Perry

tim... wrote:
came into my in box via my linkedin account

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-...jared-carmel-2

posted without comment (for now)

Uber's latest figures suggest that its UK business is growing fast, and
modestly profitable (though it may be exporting some of its UK profits to
lower tax domains, just as other US multinationals do):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/10/uber-drivers-racked-up-115m-of-fares-in-the-uk-last-year---doubl/

Quote:

Uber’s growing popularity has been confirmed after new accounts revealed
the taxi technology’s drivers billed more than £100m in UK fares last year,
leading to a doubling of profits at its parent company.

Uber London, the taxi app’s UK holding company, recorded a profit before
tax of £1.83m, up 105pc on the prior year, on the back of revenue that more
than doubled.

Accounts filed at Companies House show that Uber generated sales of £23.3m
in the year to December 2015, up from £11.34m. The sales figure reflects
only Uber’s share of fares for trips booked on its app.

Although Uber’s exact revenue split is not known, it is believed Uber gives
approximately 80pc of any fare to the driver, retaining 20pc for itself.

Based on that understanding and Uber’s £23m take, the company’s network of
drivers did some £115m of business in the UK last year, the majority of
which is thought to have been in the capital.

However sources indicated that due to the complicated nature of Uber's
multi-national accounts structure, the actual figure will be higher than
that.

The scale of growth in the business, which only began trading in London
four years ago, is reflected in the amount of cash it now holds on its
balance sheet £5.6m at the end of 2015, against £3.5m a year earlier.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:
came into my in box via my linkedin account

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uber-...jared-carmel-2

posted without comment (for now)

Uber's latest figures suggest that its UK business is growing fast, and
modestly profitable (though it may be exporting some of its UK profits to
lower tax domains, just as other US multinationals do):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/10/uber-drivers-racked-up-115m-of-fares-in-the-uk-last-year---doubl/

Quote:

Uber’s growing popularity has been confirmed after new accounts revealed
the taxi technology’s drivers billed more than £100m in UK fares last
year,
leading to a doubling of profits at its parent company.

Uber London, the taxi app’s UK holding company, recorded a profit before
tax of £1.83m, up 105pc on the prior year, on the back of revenue that
more
than doubled.

Accounts filed at Companies House show that Uber generated sales of £23.3m
in the year to December 2015, up from £11.34m. The sales figure reflects
only Uber’s share of fares for trips booked on its app.

Although Uber’s exact revenue split is not known, it is believed Uber
gives
approximately 80pc of any fare to the driver, retaining 20pc for itself.

Based on that understanding and Uber’s £23m take, the company’s network of
drivers did some £115m of business in the UK last year, the majority of
which is thought to have been in the capital.


From

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...in-London.html

Uber claims "more than 15,000 drivers in London"

so that's a turnover of 7600 each?

That's before expenses.

Before fuel costs

before paying financing costs for the car.

Something doesn't add up

tim

In message , at 18:49:16 on Tue, 11 Oct
2016, tim... remarked:

Uber claims "more than 15,000 drivers in London"

so that's a turnover of 7600 each?

That's before expenses.

Before fuel costs

before paying financing costs for the car.

Something doesn't add up

Forgotten the subsidy so soon?
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:49:16 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016,
tim... remarked:

Uber claims "more than 15,000 drivers in London"

so that's a turnover of 7600 each?

That's before expenses.

Before fuel costs

before paying financing costs for the car.

Something doesn't add up

Forgotten the subsidy so soon?

They no longer pay a subsidy in London (apparently)

And you made your comment like it was me who introduced the issue of subsidy
to the thread. It wasn't


tim

In message , at 19:53:13 on Tue, 11 Oct
2016, tim... remarked:
Uber claims "more than 15,000 drivers in London"

so that's a turnover of 7600 each?

That's before expenses.

Before fuel costs

before paying financing costs for the car.

Something doesn't add up

Forgotten the subsidy so soon?

They no longer pay a subsidy in London (apparently)

Citation required.

And you made your comment like it was me who introduced the issue of
subsidy to the thread. It wasn't

Indeed, you were the one denying it ever existed.
--
Roland Perry