

Amazon caves in, will remove ads from Kindle Fire for $15 fee - molecule
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/amazon-backtracks-will-remove-ads-from-kindle-fire-for-15-fee/

======
yajoe
Amazon didn't cave, this was just miscommunication with a few shills weighing
in to create FUD. There was always going to be a way to opt-out. Amazon wants
to make customers happy.

How to think of LCD ads: <http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=4490562>

How ads work: <http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=4490590>

~~~
tzs
How is this not caving? Amazon explicitly confirmed to both CNET and Engadget
that there would be no option to opt out of the ads. Then a bunch of negative
stories appear, and now Amazon says there will be a way to opt out. That's
pretty much a textbook example of caving.

~~~
f055
I find all these stories weird, since on the day of the keynote I went to
check buying options for Kindle Fire and there was definitely a way to buy it
without "special offers", at $15-20 more the original price. What gives?

------
Spooky23
Caves? I bet $15 is more valuable than the ads for most users. I wouldn't
characterize this as Amazon "caving" in!

~~~
batgaijin
Letting people opt out of seeing your advertising makes your advertising worth
much much less. The people who don't mind spending $15 to not see ads are
basically the perfect demographic for expensive stuff.

Also, screw Amazon.

~~~
joelrunyon
Is the last part of your comment really necessary? The first half of your
comment was perfectly fine as it was.

~~~
batgaijin
Paying to remove advertising is a slippery slope. I will not tell my children
about the era of 'premium electronics' that didn't scream advertising when you
weren't actively using them.

~~~
pook1e
So that warrants a 'Screw Amazon'. Really?

Amazon is subsidizing the cost of the device through the advertisements.
Google subsidizes the cost of email through advertisements. AT&T subsidizes
the cost of cell phones through contracts.

I don't understand. Why is subsidizing a device with advertisements suddenly
evil?

~~~
butterfi
You're assuming that because the device is subsidized, that this is somehow a
value for the consumer. Cellular service companies don't subsidize phones
because its good for the consumer, they do it to lock users into a service
they might otherwise move away from for better terms and conditions. This is
more valuable to the service then the consumer.

This is a calculated move on Amazon's part to build a lucrative ad network.
This isn't evil per se, but it's certainly not in my best interest as a
consumer. Personally, I've done a fair bit to cut down the number of ads I see
in a day -- I dropped my cable TV because the number and frequency of ads
lowered my enjoyment of the programming. I've stopped buying gas at stations
that blare ads from their gas pumps. So, I certainly wouldn't buy a device
that wants to charge me extra to not see ads. Out time and attention is more
valuable then the shells and trinkets being offered by these companies.

~~~
ams6110
Most consumers prefer to get a free/lower cost phone in exchange for a
contract commitment. Whether the "value" to the consumer stands up to scrutiny
in financial terms is not really important; most consumers like it, thus it is
a value to them.

------
cypher517
This makes sense because the product is free so of course it would need to be
supported by ads. Oh, wait...

~~~
crag
Really. I mean, now I have to pay to not receive ads on a product I already
paid for?

~~~
mikedouglas
Yeah, someone should alert the newspapers. Oh wait...

~~~
dillona
Are you suggesting we should look to newspapers for sustainable business
models?

~~~
yo-mf
Are you suggesting there are no major online content publications and blogs
that do not have ads plastered all over their sites like print-based media?

~~~
dillona
Not that I pay for.

I'm not paying for a product with ads (especially intrusive ones) in it.

~~~
1123581321
Why do you think ads are so expensive? If an eighty dollar Kindle has ads, you
think the Kindle should be free, so the ads are worth $-80 to you. I don't see
an economic justification; is it a personal grudge against advertisers?

~~~
dillona
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

I never said the Kindle should be free. I see no issue with paying for it, and
I even pay extra for the ones without ads. This is because, as I said, I do
not personally want to pay for a product that also contains advertisements.

~~~
1123581321
What is a Kindle with ads worth to you? I assumed you meant it was worth $0
which is not the case.

------
veyron
(not a kindle owner) Can someone with a kindle explain exactly how the ads
work and why they would be offensive? From what I heard they just show up when
you aren't using the device.

~~~
nickm12
I don't know how the things work on the Fire, but in the ad supported e-ink
kindles the ads are fairly unobtrusive. They appear on the rotating
"screensaver" images (so you see them when you first pick up and start to use
the device) and also as a banner on the home screen. They don't appear when
you're reading books or otherwise using your Kindle. The ads I've seen were
pretty tasteful too. No "one weird trick" belly fat ads or stuff like that.

~~~
Tichy
I only had a Kindle Touch for a brief time but I seem to remember that there
were some ads that I thought were not so great for kids. The kindle would just
lie around in the flat, so kids would get their hands on it, too. Not so great
in that they featured some mildly erotic or violent images (I don't remember
exactly unfortunately - it certainly wasn't that big a concern, but it is
worrying since you can not control what images will appear).

------
billpg
Don't think of it as a fee. Think of it as a $15 discount in exchange for
having the ads.

------
A1kmm
The problem with making a business model rest on paying to remove anti-
features in a product is that once you have sold the product, you don't own it
any more, and you are inviting competitors to remove the anti-features for a
lower price.

Expect competitors who will sell, say, a $10 program that will disable the ads
by rooting the phone and installing an alternate image without the anti-
features.

~~~
d0de
At the $15 price point, the only other price point Amazon should worry about
is $0.

I would imagine few people would go through the hassle and risk of finding and
trusting a third party software to remove the ads to save $5 or $10

------
tednaleid
I think this is a smart move on Amazon's part (even if they feel slightly
forced into it). I currently own a 3rd gen kindle touch with ads and
preordered a "paperwhite" kindle with ads earlier this week.

It's quite likely that I would have never bought either kindle if I didn't
know that I'd have the option, after purchase, to pay the difference and get
rid of the ads. This way, I can see how bad they are and judge for myself if
I'd rather go ad free.

Having this option on the latest Kindle fire would make me more likely to
purchase the version with ads initially, as it's a lower price and I know I've
got an "out".

In the ~9 months that I've owned the kindle, the ads haven't been offensive or
obtrusive so I've never bothered to get rid of them (and I refuse to watch
cable TV because the ads bother me too much).

------
denzil_correa
I see no mention of the duration for which this fee is paid for. Is this $15
fee per year, per month or lifetime?

~~~
pook1e
I assume it's the same as the Kindle, where you pay a one time premium on the
device.

------
salman89
Does a $15 fee mean that Amazon puts the value of ads for a customer over the
lifetime of the product $15?

------
edderly
Strange, I ordered a Paperwhite on Thursday and they charged extra for
'without special offers' (which I opted for). I'd assume that they would do a
similar thing with the Fire.

~~~
sliverstorm
What this is, is the option to remove "special offers" from a device with
them, after purchase.

