Amazon Allows Eliminating Ads on Kindle - Is this idiotic?

[Renegade]

Saw this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/10/kindle-ads-remove-amazon-disable-turn-off_n_1868955.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Kindle Ads Can Be Removed: Amazon Will Let You Disable Them -- As Long As You Pay

Amazon.com, in an apparent switch in its pricing policy, said over the weekend that it will allow purchasers of its new Kindle Fire tablets to pay $15 extra to turn off advertisements that are built into the devices.

To me, this seems completely idiotic from a developer perspective. Why would I want to develop software for a Kindle if Amazon destroys that revenue source?

As a user, I think it's great.

From a business perspective, it sounds to me like Kindle ads are a failure.

I don't develop for the Kindle, so I have no vested interest, but man... Sounds like their developers got sold out.

Then again, maybe I'm missing something?

[cthorpe]

As far as I can tell, it only removes the ads that appear on the lock screen.  It won't remove ads that are part of apps that the end user installs from the Amazon market.



C

[40hz]

From a business perspective, it sounds to me like Kindle ads are a failure.

Bingo! I think that's it exactly. If the Kindle ads were selling like hotcakes they wouldn't be looking to get some bogus 'protection' money from Kindle owners. And the fact they seem not to be worried about prejudicing themselves with advertisers by providing such a blocking option further suggests they haven't been selling very many of these ads. Sure sounds like an effort to save face, and maybe make a little money on the way out.

Then again didn't the telcos make a small fortune selling "unpublished" and "unlisted" number services?

(Too bad they made an even bigger fortune later on when they started selling "Enhanced Caller-ID" and other "services" to get around it.)

[Stoic Joker]

Then again, maybe I'm missing something?

It's an exercise to see if people really are cheaper than they are annoyed by - Holly Crap!! You just gotta buy one of these way kewl widgets - interruptions.

[mouser]

This was an inevitable and welcome flip-flop.  It was just insanely evil to not give owners a way of opting out of the lock screen ads, which are absolutely obnoxious.  It was crazy that they thought they could get away with not providing an option to disable those.  Gave me a very distinct impression that they were trying to lower the bar on what kind of advertising cram-down-throat techniques they can force people to get used to.  We need to start objecting to this crap before it becomes the accepted norm.

Renegade: As cthorpe points out, this has nothing to do with removing ads from inside apps, which developers would care about.

[iphigenie]

Think of what an ad on the screen saver implies: it implies that when I am not using my device, and it is perhaps on the coffee table or my desk at work, it is broadcasting ads. And because up to now screensavers have always been personal choices, it is communicating to people around that I endorse this brand.

There is implicit endorsement assigned to something shown on a personal screen. That's why advertisers should jump on this for the short time it will work, and that's why people should run away from it in horror. But then people "like" a brand on facebook just for a chance to win a freebie, even though it will push an ad (with endorsement!) on all their friends feeds, so perhaps I am the only one horrified by being hijacked to promote brands I might object to.

If I am not, there will be a lawsuit "kindle showed ads I object to on religious grounds" or "kindle on my desk showed ad that could have got me fired"... it will happen

[IainB]

I'm not sure I understand what the issue is here.
There was already a "special offers" screensaver-advert standard Kindle you could buy at a pretty cheap price, as opposed to a slightly more expensive non-ads standard Kindle. The ads presumably subsidised the cheaper price. Consumer choice. I tried to buy the screensaver-advert standard Kindle from Amazon (it was cheaper), but they would only sell it for delivery in the US (I was in NZ). So I got a non-ads standard Kindle from Amazon, and it was still cheaper than buying it from my local retailer in NZ.

I wouldn't have cared about the adverts. They were non-intrusive, and did not interfere with the reading experience - at least, not according to the detailed reviews that I read anyway.

The recent new twist seems to be that Amazon are effectively offering the same choice with a newer model of Kindle, or something - except you buy it by default with screensaver-adverts and pay a bit more to disable them. If the adverts offend you or anyone else, then you could (say) either turn it off, or leave it on but turned onto its face.

I thought this screensaver-advert idea was quite a good way of getting the Kindle into the market for people to read books with and at what was probably a knockdown price. Not a lot different to FREE commercial TV advertising/funding really. Same kind of principle, no?

[wraith808]

Think of what an ad on the screen saver implies: it implies that when I am not using my device, and it is perhaps on the coffee table or my desk at work, it is broadcasting ads. And because up to now screensavers have always been personal choices, it is communicating to people around that I endorse this brand.

There is implicit endorsement assigned to something shown on a personal screen. That's why advertisers should jump on this for the short time it will work, and that's why people should run away from it in horror. But then people "like" a brand on facebook just for a chance to win a freebie, even though it will push an ad (with endorsement!) on all their friends feeds, so perhaps I am the only one horrified by being hijacked to promote brands I might object to.

If I am not, there will be a lawsuit "kindle showed ads I object to on religious grounds" or "kindle on my desk showed ad that could have got me fired"... it will happen

The thing is, you agree to it when you agree to buy a subsidized device.  The same as people object to and have sued over termination fees for cellular service, but are in the same boat.  You get a discount- you pay for it in another way.  TANSTAAFL.

[iphigenie]

It's not clear at all when you look at the product page that you are getting the product at a discount in exchange for getting ads.

On the UK page there is(was, when i last looked, i havent checked this week) no mention of ads - and the price is not that different from other readers or android tablets. It doesn't appear all that subsidised and you'd think that the "you must buy ebooks on amazon" tie-in is already enough to justify the subsidy.

[IainB]

Here's an older Goodereader review of the earlier Kindle WiFi (with keyboard) + special offers, from 2011:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b3CCakMUM0

The one I looked at reviews of and then tried to buy was the newer Kindle, Wi-Fi, 6” E Ink Display with special offers (Google that and you get lots of informative hits and reviews), from Amazon.com, price US$79.00, but it was only for sale in the US.

The one I ended up buying was the newer Kindle, Wi-Fi, 6” E Ink Display (but without special offers), from Amazon.com, price US$109.00 (P&P was $12.00 extra).

So this special offers thing has been going on for over a year, with a price differential as described - i.e., significantly cheaper if you buy the special offers Kindle. Most of the reviews seemed to think it was a good deal and that Amazon were probably using it as a loss-leader.

As I wrote above:

...the adverts...were non-intrusive, and did not interfere with the reading experience - at least, not according to the detailed reviews that I read anyway.

Nor did I see in the reviews or other comments that I read that any protests/objections to the special offers scheme, and I certainly had no objections, which is why I wrote above:

I'm not sure I understand what the issue is here.

[Renegade]

The thing is, you agree to it when you agree to buy a subsidized device.  The same as people object to and have sued over termination fees for cellular service, but are in the same boat.  You get a discount- you pay for it in another way.  TANSTAAFL.

Seems to me that it's a bit of an issue of clear disclosure.

We see the same kind of "hiding" of the facts all over the place:

• Douchewads selling Audacity on eBay
• Non-labeling of GMO food (Sorry, but a half-jellyfish tomato isn't a "tomato")
• Obfuscating toxins in food with numbers (Hell Red #666)
• Telcos offering "Unlimited" bandwidth (1pt font text disclaimer that "unlimited = more bits than you can individually count out loud in an hour")
• etc.
• etc.
• etc.

(Examples meant to be semi-humourous.)

There are MANY more examples out there.

It's not clear at all when you look at the product page that you are getting the product at a discount in exchange for getting ads.

On the UK page there is(was, when i last looked, i havent checked this week) no mention of ads - and the price is not that different from other readers or android tablets. It doesn't appear all that subsidised and you'd think that the "you must buy ebooks on amazon" tie-in is already enough to justify the subsidy.

Unsurprising. 

When I first got to Australia, I thought that there would be better consumer protection laws for labeling and disclosure. Wrong. The same kinds of deception go on here. I was quite disappointed.

Anyways, that's a bit drifting.

[wraith808]

Seems pretty clear to me looking at it.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007HCCNJU

Screen Cap:
No Offers


Offers


Not sure if the UK one is different, but it's right next to the price.  If the buyer is going to pimp themselves for $20, I don't have much sympathy for them after the fact.

[Renegade]

Seems pretty clear to me looking at it.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007HCCNJU

Screen Cap:
No Offers (see attachment in previous post)
Offers (see attachment in previous post)
Not sure if the UK one is different, but it's right next to the price.  If the buyer is going to pimp themselves for $20, I don't have much sympathy for them after the fact.

That's one of the problems... Complete obfuscation. A "special offer" is an ad. It's simply dishonest to say otherwise.

Language should be clear and unambiguous. That is far from it.

But... It is par for the course.

[Renegade]

Just FYI - Similarly, I don't have much sympathy for people that change their minds afterwards, but provided that they are properly informed beforehand.