Amazon caves in, will remove ads from Kindle Fire for $15 fee(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Amazon caves in, will remove ads from Kindle Fire for $15 fee
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/amazon-backtracks-will-remove-ads-from-kindle-fire-for-15-fee/
58 comments
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.
I know about the stories and how looking at them for narrative looks like a change in POR, but who from Amazon confirmed it? They never named names because controversy sells more eyeballs. And because of them we had to make opt-out more prominent. It makes me wonder about all the other stories I read.
I'm on the engineering team that makes KSO, and we have had opt-out throughout the release.
I'm on the engineering team that makes KSO, and we have had opt-out throughout the release.
I don't see it as caving because removing ads for cash is already the case at Amazon.
For existing ad supported Kindles, you can pay to have the ads removed. The cost, for my mom's older subsidized Kindle 3 model, is $20. So the newer, more expensive Fire's will be a bit cheaper to go ad-free.
Interestingly enough, there's an option I hadn't noticed before for activating ads on my unsubsidized Kindle. However, I don't get any sort of cash or freebie for doing so.
For existing ad supported Kindles, you can pay to have the ads removed. The cost, for my mom's older subsidized Kindle 3 model, is $20. So the newer, more expensive Fire's will be a bit cheaper to go ad-free.
Interestingly enough, there's an option I hadn't noticed before for activating ads on my unsubsidized Kindle. However, I don't get any sort of cash or freebie for doing so.
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?
[deleted]
Caves? I bet $15 is more valuable than the ads for most users. I wouldn't characterize this as Amazon "caving" in!
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.
Also, screw Amazon.
Is the last part of your comment really necessary? The first half of your comment was perfectly fine as it was.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
kindle fire is free (as in free beer)?
It's a $69 electronic device. It's hardly a "premium electronic device.'
I know it's en vogue to scream "screw this company" when upset with it (re: the recent paypal incident), but given Amazon's broad range of products and services, saying "screw amazon" over a $69 device is a pretty heavy indictment.
I know it's en vogue to scream "screw this company" when upset with it (re: the recent paypal incident), but given Amazon's broad range of products and services, saying "screw amazon" over a $69 device is a pretty heavy indictment.
This announcement is about the Kindle Fire, not the Kindle. Kindle Fire is their line of $159 to $499 Android tablets.
wrong. The people most receptive to ads, are the ones who aren't bothered/irritated by them.
Letting people opt out of advertising for a fee, will just remove the small minority of people who would never click on ads anyway. A win-win.
Letting people opt out of advertising for a fee, will just remove the small minority of people who would never click on ads anyway. A win-win.
He never said, "the people most receptive to ads"- he said, "the perfect demographic for expensive stuff".
He is suggesting that people who have they money and desire to pay for something that makes their lives a bit more pleasant are the kind of people advertisers wish to get their ads in front of the most.
Not all advertising is about clicks- tv advertisement was built around getting information in front of eyeballs.
He is suggesting that people who have they money and desire to pay for something that makes their lives a bit more pleasant are the kind of people advertisers wish to get their ads in front of the most.
Not all advertising is about clicks- tv advertisement was built around getting information in front of eyeballs.
For an individual person to generate 15 dollars of ad revenue based on clicks and impressions, they would have to be pretty active, ad-wise. I think, on average across a whole system of advertising, Amazon will probably gain monetarily, not to mention the user satisfaction.
The target customer for a product like that has a genuine hate on for those ads... if it's worth it to them, it's worth it to Amazon, in my opinion.
The target customer for a product like that has a genuine hate on for those ads... if it's worth it to them, it's worth it to Amazon, in my opinion.
No we are not, we just ignore adverts anyway!
A good point badly made. If you don't like it don't buy it.
and the whole publicity will let the users know about the special opt out offer..
This makes sense because the product is free so of course it would need to be supported by ads. Oh, wait...
The product is discounted compared to other devices in it's range and they did that by showing ads on the lock screen that is often unused by users. In the past Amazon's kindle ads have been quite tasteful and non-intrusive.
Really. I mean, now I have to pay to not receive ads on a product I already paid for?
Yeah, someone should alert the newspapers. Oh wait...
This is a worthy point. Newspapers are also products that you buy (typically, for the higher end ones at least) that are also supported by ads. Other such products exist, such as cable television, dvds and movie tickets with pre-roll ads, hulu plus, etc.
Are you suggesting we should look to newspapers for sustainable business models?
Yeah, because newspapers are just dying out because they sold papers with advertisements. Nothing to do with that web thing, right?
BTW can we drop the sarcasm? Doesn't seem like there's any reason you can't sell a product subsidised for advertising.
BTW can we drop the sarcasm? Doesn't seem like there's any reason you can't sell a product subsidised for advertising.
Just because newspapers are not doing well in general does not ipso facto make all every facet of their business model wrong.
Dying industries are usually doing things 80% or 90% right - otherwise how did they become the powerhouses of old? But it's the 10% or 20% that's changed from their heyday that's killing them.
I don't even have an opinion of ads on the Kindle Fire. I just think the argument you're making is fallacious.
Dying industries are usually doing things 80% or 90% right - otherwise how did they become the powerhouses of old? But it's the 10% or 20% that's changed from their heyday that's killing them.
I don't even have an opinion of ads on the Kindle Fire. I just think the argument you're making is fallacious.
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?
Not that I pay for.
I'm not paying for a product with ads (especially intrusive ones) in it.
I'm not paying for a product with ads (especially intrusive ones) in it.
So you've never bought a newspaper or magazine? Bought a ticket for a sports competition? Pay for a TV subscription? Watched a film with product placement in it? Ever seen product advertising in an aeroplane?
Ever bought a paperback book? They all come with adverts for other book at the back, loose-leaf inserts etc.
The concept of partly subsidizing the cost with additional advertising is hardly a new business idea. It would seem almost impossible to never pay for a product with ads as you claim.
Ever bought a paperback book? They all come with adverts for other book at the back, loose-leaf inserts etc.
The concept of partly subsidizing the cost with additional advertising is hardly a new business idea. It would seem almost impossible to never pay for a product with ads as you claim.
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?
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.
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.
What is a Kindle with ads worth to you? I assumed you meant it was worth $0 which is not the case.
Not quite. It's more of a perception problem.
What Amazon did was say the following: "You can buy our hardware, and deal with the ads. You can pay us even more money to get a better experience."
That is a bad message for subsidised hardware. The real cost is hidden behind a 'pay us more money for a better experience'.
Instead, what they should have done was say the following: "Our hardware costs $X, but you can get it even cheaper if you agree to minimally intrusive advertisements!" And on this route, you can also offer the option to 'buy' off advertisements as well. Make this part easy. Don't piss off the user.
They should have turned that negative into a positive. Make it the users choice to opt in to ads.
What Amazon did was say the following: "You can buy our hardware, and deal with the ads. You can pay us even more money to get a better experience."
That is a bad message for subsidised hardware. The real cost is hidden behind a 'pay us more money for a better experience'.
Instead, what they should have done was say the following: "Our hardware costs $X, but you can get it even cheaper if you agree to minimally intrusive advertisements!" And on this route, you can also offer the option to 'buy' off advertisements as well. Make this part easy. Don't piss off the user.
They should have turned that negative into a positive. Make it the users choice to opt in to ads.
Newspapers have been around for much longer than any dot coms. How many dot coms do you think will be around in 200 years?
And TV
Amazon started making cheaper versions of kindles that were subsidized by adds. They added it as an option to drive prices down as much as possible. My guess is that the add supported versions were so popular that they wanted to stop selling the more expensive option.
It was still a bad idea not to have an option.
It was still a bad idea not to have an option.
One perspective is you pay to have the adverts removed; the other is Amazon sells an optional lower-price kindle at cost and subsidizes it with advertising.
[deleted]
[deleted]
(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.
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.
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).
Because someone of us are sick of seeing ads. (Kindle owner but mine isn't ad supported).
The banner on the home screen is pretty annoying.
I barely notice it, especially since, reading books, I rarely visit the home screen.
Don't think of it as a fee. Think of it as a $15 discount in exchange for having the ads.
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.
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.
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
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
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).
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).
I see no mention of the duration for which this fee is paid for. Is this $15 fee per year, per month or lifetime?
I assume it's the same as the Kindle, where you pay a one time premium on the device.
Does a $15 fee mean that Amazon puts the value of ads for a customer over the lifetime of the product $15?
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.
What this is, is the option to remove "special offers" from a device with them, after purchase.
How to think of LCD ads: http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=4490562
How ads work: http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=4490590