Something strange is going on with Amazon Prime Video. A report from news site Cord Busters originally claimed that the tech giant quietly pulled the plug on the service in the United Kingdom. If you head over to Amazon Prime’s UK page, you’ll notice that Prime Video isn’t among the list of plans near the bottom. All you see are Prime Monthly and Prime Annuals. The same thing is happening on the American website. Scroll down to the “Choose Your Plan” section and it’s not there.
As it turns out, Prime Video continues to exist although it’s being obscured. If you go down to the bottom of the UK website, you’ll find Prime Video listed among the other subscription plans with a direct link to sign up. This isn’t the case with the US page, however. There isn’t a clear indicator of Prime Video’s availability in the States; not a cornered-off section or even a small hint. Luckily, the subscription’s signup page is still live if you know where to look or if you have a link. The cost of the subscription hasn’t changed. It’s still $8.99/£5.99 a month.
On the Amazon mobile app, it’s featured more prominently. Prime Video is tucked away in the settings menu behind a single expandable tab and it’s still available for download from app stores. All seems good, right? Not exactly, as on mobile, we couldn’t purchase Prime Video by itself. Instead, we were being pushed to buy the regular Amazon Prime plan at $14.99 a month. There was no option for the cheaper service.
Amounting problems
We don’t know what to make of this. On one hand, it may be the start of a new effort to drive up more revenue. By hiding or possibly even ending the service, the platform could be forcing people to purchase the more expensive Amazon Prime if they want to watch shows like Fallout. It’s entirely possible. Back in late January 29, Prime Video introduced an ad-supported plan as the new base service which understandably annoyed a lot of people. They had to cough up an extra $2.99/£2.99 a month to get rid of commercials.
However, the sudden disappearance of Prime Video could be the cause of recent bugs. Recently, people have begun to notice weird problems with the service. Second episodes for certain shows are coming out before the first, audio for entire languages is missing, and translation errors are just some of the issues viewers have run into.
We’re leaning towards the glitches as the source of Prime Video’s disappearance. Amazon has reportedly disputed Cord Busters’ claim in a statement to Engadget saying Prime Video is “still available in the US as a standalone… subscription.” Hopefully, this will remain the case. It’s currently one of the cheaper streaming options out there as compared to the other major services. The whole situation could be a bug or bad code wreaking havoc. But something tells us there’s more to this story.
If you’re looking for something to watch over the weekend, check out TechRadar’s latest roundup of the seven newest movies and shows on Netflix, Prime Video, and Max.
Get the hottest deals available in your inbox plus news, reviews, opinion, analysis and more from the TechRadar team.
Save $50 on various configurations of 15-inch MacBook Air. Photo: Apple
Within weeks of going on sale, Apple’s 15-inch MacBook Air is available with a sweet $50 discount. The deal knocks the price of the entry-level configuration down to $1,249.
You can score a similar $50 discount on the 15-inch Air with M3 chip in 512GB and 16GB configurations.
This post contains affiliate links. Cult of Mac may earn a commission when you use our links to buy items.
Despite being the world’s slimmest 15-inch laptop, the MacBook Air packs a punch. That’s due to its powerful M3 chip, packing an 8-core CPU and a 10-core GPU. Apple claims the new Air is “up to 60 percent faster than the model with the M1 chip and up to 13x faster than the fastest Intel-based MacBook Air.”
The graphics performance has also received a significant boost, with support for mesh shading and ray-tracing. Apple’s M3 chip also ships with a dedicated AVI decoder, making the machine much more efficient at streaming videos from Netflix and YouTube.
With a 16-core Neural Engine, Apple says the 15-inch MacBook Air is “the world’s best consumer laptop for AI.”
Unlike the M1 and M2 Air, the M3 model supports dual external displays. The only limitation is that the second monitor works only when the MacBook’s lid is closed. Still, this is a useful addition, ensuring the MacBook Air can become your portable workhorse while on the go.
Save $50 on the 15-inch MacBook Air with M3 chip
The 15-inch MacBook Air costs the same as its predecessor, $1,299. However, if you order the machine from Amazon right away, you can save $50. A similar discount is available on other configurations of the machine.
The Easter bunny is bringing something very special this year, with a massive 25% off our favourite hybrid mattress in the Simba sale. This huge saving is excellent news for anyone who wants to start their spring cleaning by getting rid of their old mattress and boosting their sleep.
We recently awarded the Simba Hybrid Original the number one spot in our best hybrid mattress guide, and if you take a look at our Simba Hybrid Original mattress review, it’s easy to see why. Our tester described the Simba Hybrid Original as “one of the most comfortable mattresses [they’d] ever had”, praising how it offered just the right amount of support and softness while still delivering top quality temperature regulation and motion isolation.
Simba mattress sales have undergone a bit of a shake-up recently and we’re not seeing the same number of deals we used to. So if you want to save big on a bed from one of the best mattress brands in the UK, I recommend taking a close look at this Simba sale. Read on to find out why the Simba Hybrid Original mattress is my top pick…
Buy it if…
✅ You like to move around in the night: There’s a bit of bounce to the Simba Hybrid Original mattress, which makes it easier to switch sides and move around (the mattress won’t hold onto you in the way a softer foam can). And the medium-firm feel surface suits a range of positions, so if you’re restless, you feel supported no matter how you’re lying.
✅ You share a bed: Hybrid mattresses aren’t always known for their motion isolation, but the Simba Hybrid Original actually performs pretty well in this category – if your partner moves around, your sleep shouldn’t be disrupted. And with edge-to-edge support, two people can stretch out on the bed without it starting to sink at the sides.
✅ You want to save: Simba sales are no longer the permanent presence they once were, so act now if you want a discount on a high quality mattress. When this 25% off sale is over, we don’t know when the next one will come along.
Don’t buy it if…
❌ You like to sink into the bed: Although there’s an upper layer of foam to the Simba Hybrid Original, it doesn’t off the sink-in feel of an all-foam bed. If you like a bed that hugs you in your sleep, take a look at our Emma Original mattress review. There’s also 20% off the Emma Original right now.
❌ You’re a lightweight side sleeper: The Simba Hybrid Original suits a lot of sleep styles, but lightweight side sleepers isn’t one of them, unfortunately. If this is you, consider a bed with a softer sleep surface. In our Brook + Wilde Elite mattress review, we noted this luxury hybrid suits everyone, because you can pick a firmness. Save 40% in the Brook + Wilde spring sale.
❌ You want.a more sustainable bed: Simba is a certified B Corp, and the Hybrid Original has been designed to use minimal foam to limit its carbon footprint. However, if you want a mattress that prioritizes natural materials, consider the recently-launched Simba Earth range. Combining traditional materials with the latest technology, the Simba Earth Source mattress is the most affordable option, and there’s 25% off.
SpaceX’s Falcon 9 has become a workhorse of the private satellite launch vehicle market.Credit: Associated Press/Alamy
Who Owns the Moon? In Defence of Humanity’s Common Interests in SpaceA. C. Grayling Oneworld Publications (2024)
The Moon seems to be back on everyone’s radar. NASA’s Artemis mission is expected to shuttle humans back to the lunar surface before the end of this decade. In the past year, Japan and India have successfully landed rovers there; Luna 25, a Russian effort almost half a century after the nation’s last, almost made it, but crash landed.
Several non-state actors are also stepping into the fray, with the space-exploration company Intuitive Machines, based in Houston, Texas, last month becoming the first private firm to complete a lunar touchdown — a feat that sent the company’s stock price soaring.
The fallout and consequences of this renewed clamour for the Moon is the subject of UK philosopher A. C. Grayling’s latest book. In Who owns the Moon?, Grayling explores one facet behind the interest in Earth’s pockmarked neighbour — a quest for resources.
Japanese Moon-lander unexpectedly survives the lunar night
India’s mission, for instance, was squarely aimed at exploring the Moon’s southern pole — a probable storehouse of frozen water, which could be converted into oxygen and rocket fuel. Grayling warns that human greed and national rivalries could set off a lunar ‘gold rush’ once the investment and engineering barriers to extracting extraterrestrial materials are surmounted. He calls for an urgent re-examination of the laws that govern space exploration.
Who owns the Moon — and perhaps more broadly, who owns outer space — is a complex, legally loaded question that has been asked since the space age commenced. Although a layperson might assume that there are no laws governing the exploration of the cosmos, international agreements, such as the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, do exist. Grayling’s contention is that such arrangements, negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations, are essentially cold war-era arms-control pacts, focusing primarily on prohibiting nuclear weapons in outer space and preventing any single country from claiming sovereignty over celestial bodies.
Trillion-dollar industry
Although this agreement has staved off major conflicts in space over the past nearly 60 years, the nature of space exploration has changed remarkably since then. For starters, private firms are now able to exert substantial influence on government-run space programmes. Private actors such as the US spacecraft manufacturer SpaceX, based in Hawthorne, California, already own a majority of the low Earth orbiting satellites. In 2022, the author states, the space industry was estimated to be worth US$350 billion and is projected to grow to more than one trillion dollars over the next two decades. Under these circumstances, the presence of intentionally vague and ambiguous terminology in existing international agreements — such as outer space being a “province of all mankind” held for the “common interest” — leaves room for misinterpretation.
If lunar bases end up becoming a reality, the existing legal framework will need an update. Without a bold new global consensus, Grayling predicts, a space ‘wild west’ is going to emerge.
In the absence of a concerted global dialogue, individual countries are pushing ahead with their own laws, such as the US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015. Similar laws are being written or enacted in India, Japan, China and Russia.
Peace in space
Drawing on observations made by the UN’s Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, Grayling writes that space law is getting more fragmented, thereby increasing the potential for conflict. An international regime that gives general guidance on most space-related matters — supplemented by a set of multilateral institutions that can support enforcement and adjudication — is imperative, he writes. Individual states can then focus on domestic licensing regimes for globally agreed activities. Whether one will come before the other is still an open question, but the signals point to domestic regimes moving faster than global governance.
The book’s main contribution is perhaps its chapters that document historical precedents, which offer lessons on how to set up mechanisms to facilitate global cooperation. According to some, the 1959 Antarctic Treaty is a shining example of a multi-party agreement that has kept narrow national interests at bay. However, it is important to point out that several signatories continue to maintain territorial claims. The law of the sea, a set of international agreements on the commercial exploitation of the oceans and the deep-sea bed, offers another template. However, these examples cited by Grayling do not necessarily transpose readily to outer space.
Last month, Intuitive Machine’s Odysseus became the first module manufactured by a private firm to land on the Moon.Credit: Zuma Press/Alamy
For instance, the law of the sea is the product of hundreds of years of negotiation and power tussles between diverse competing actors — a body of collective knowledge that is unavailable to a young field such as space exploration. And Grayling doesn’t discuss the analogies with international environmental law, which would have been more relevant. For most of human history, the planet wasn’t conceived of as an environment, although today it is. A profound legal reimagination is taking place as a result. If outer space is set to become a part of our immediate environment, then there could be lessons to learn from the ongoing climate change-induced reconsideration of the nature of resource exploitation here on Earth.
Without an overarching governance structure, disputes in space can be hard to deal with. Currently, when a conflict arises between two space-faring nations, not only does the vagueness of international space law ensure that there is no clear process to engage in consultation, there is also no mechanism to pin accountability. This is clearly a choice exercised by the currently dominant players who can, as a result, interpret the phrase ‘freedom of outer space’ in any way they choose.
The 1972 Space Liability Convention — a treaty that is pressed into service in case of injury to persons or damage to property owing to space-related activities — has been officially invoked just once, when a Soviet satellite deposited radioactive debris in Canadian territory in 1978. The Soviets had to pay Can$3 million (at the time around US$2.5 million) to settle the dispute.
Soon, such conflicts might spill over, as our conception of ‘damages’ expands to potentially include activities that harm the common environment that lies beyond national boundaries. Grayling repeatedly invokes the late-nineteenth century’s Scramble for Africa as a cautionary tale of what might happen if humanity’s worst instincts are let loose. At the very least, Grayling writes, our successors in the second half of this century and beyond will not be able to say: “no one warned us; no one reminded us of what history shows could so easily go wrong when it is considerations of money and power that alone drive events”.
The next generation
It is precisely to enable such wider debate that I focus so much of my effort and outreach on building the capabilities of African youth in the domain of space governance. According to the World Economic Forum, more than 40% of the global youth population will be African by the end of this decade. They are an important stakeholder, and they are the custodians of our collective space future.
When I was a trainee lawyer working for the Nigerian space agency nearly 17 years ago, my area of specialization was the application of international environmental law to space debris. Today, space junk is a global and increasingly mainstream concern. This is why genuine international cooperation is essential. The best ideas can come from anywhere. Diversity should build trust.
Simulated Mars mission ‘returns’ to Earth
Looking ahead, if I can indulge in some crystal-ball gazing, it seems likely that institutional and state governance mechanisms for managing the Moon — and outer space — will become a priority area in the coming years. Usually, such international arrangements tend to arise when there is a real risk of conflict. Despite the prevailing narrative about a second space race, there is currently little appetite for international dialogue on space-related matters that limits the freedom of the dominant actors. But this could change. What happens when the middle powers rise?
International space law is unique because the state is directly responsible and liable for all activities undertaken by its citizens, including those in the private sector. Given that some private space firms have more wealth and power than do many space-venturing nations, the scrutiny on these non-state actors will only increase.
Any future dispute-resolution mechanisms must balance inclusivity and justice, and acknowledge that space commercialization is a deep national security concern for many states. What happens in outer space should inextricably be linked to developmental debates on Earth. Otherwise, although space might nominally be for the ‘benefit of all’ — as per the Outer Space Treaty — a select few nations or companies could indulge in rapacious over-exploitation. So, we need to seriously ponder who will benefit and what will comprise the common interest.
Although Grayling does not address all these concerns in depth, Who Owns the Moon? is still an important introductory text on the issues and challenges that humanity will have to confront as it ventures to the Moon and beyond.