Why it costs so much to hire films on Amazon when companies like Blockbuster had to have staff, locations, and physical films and charged less??? Why isn't streaming films cheaper as there are so many fewer physical costs?
PP gave a good response. Just want to add that 'streaming' (ie via monthly subscription) and hiring (buying or renting a digital film one at a time) are two different business models. Streaming as many films as you like for a monthly cost of usually under a tenner is great value. Hiring one at a time is more expensive. This is for a few reasons. Amazon wants you to subscribe to Prime as then they can rely on your monthly sub and sell you lots of other services so obviously they want it to look great value. As a PP alludes to, a new film is not going to be on Netflix or free on Prime until at least a year or two after release so the newer films will cost you more to rent or buy individually.
Another issue is that cinemas took a pounding in lockdown and audiences haven't returned to the cinema in anywhere near the pre-covid numbers so film distributors need the digital release of a film to make up the shortfall. Films aren't getting cheaper to make. Box office and DVD sales used to make up a huge part of the revenue for making and marketing a £100m film. With smaller box office and no retail DVD, the money needs to come from somewhere.
(BORING ANSWER SORRY)