Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Advertising Businesses Handhelds Portables

No Opt-Out For Ads On New Kindle Fires 383

Posted by Soulskill
from the aside-from-not-buying-one,-anyway dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Lost amid the announcements for Amazon's new tablets and e-readers was the news that their latest Kindle Fire tablets would include advertisements. So-called 'Special Offers' would place ads on the devices' lock screens in a similar fashion to the lowest price Kindle e-readers. However, on the e-readers, you had the option to 'buy out' the ads by simply paying the difference in price between the cheaper device and the regular version. But Amazon has no confirmed there is no way to opt out of the ads on the new Kindle Fire tablets." Update: 09/09 03:02 GMT by S : Reader Aoreias sends words that Amazon has now changed its mind. A spokesman announced that users will have the ability to opt-out for a fee of $15.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

No Opt-Out For Ads On New Kindle Fires

Comments Filter:
  • by NixieBunny (859050) on Saturday September 08, 2012 @03:52PM (#41275363) Homepage
    Ads will take over the world. We'll have to jailbreak our devices with illicit ad-blocking software.
  • by Gonoff (88518) on Saturday September 08, 2012 @03:54PM (#41275377)
    I think this will help Google Nexus sales. I am not aware they come with built in adware.
  • by goombah99 (560566) on Saturday September 08, 2012 @04:02PM (#41275437)

    I wonder if they will accept ads for ipads.

  • Sure you can! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Snaller (147050) on Saturday September 08, 2012 @04:03PM (#41275447) Journal

    Don't buy it

  • Except that... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Saturday September 08, 2012 @04:04PM (#41275451)
    Google doesn't want you to opt out of ads on the Nexus, because a lot of their income comes from ads.
  • by nurb432 (527695) on Saturday September 08, 2012 @04:08PM (#41275493) Homepage Journal

    Give them an inch, they will take a mile. This is similar to the trial balloon where they were optional, and if no one protests they are mandatory, expect more intrusive ones the next round.

  • Re:Nook touch FTW (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Isaac-1 (233099) on Saturday September 08, 2012 @04:11PM (#41275511)

    Look at the new Kindle Paperwhite introduced with the new Fire, but not getting any press

  • by kheldan (1460303) on Saturday September 08, 2012 @04:15PM (#41275531) Journal
    I'll continue to stick to printed books, thank you very much. They can't edit them, delete them, or plaster ads all over them once I own them, can they?
  • by jcr (53032) <jcr@nOspAm.mac.com> on Saturday September 08, 2012 @04:25PM (#41275607) Journal

    I have no intention of buying a device that won't let me remove the ads, but for those who do, I think there might be a brisk business for a router that can block ad servers, along with a nice user-friendly UI to control it.

    -jcr

  • by teg (97890) on Saturday September 08, 2012 @04:37PM (#41275675) Homepage

    I think this will help Google Nexus sales. I am not aware they come with built in adware.

    From a 30000 ft view, Android is just an ad delivery mechanism. If you zoom in, it's a mobile OS, but it's sole job is to enable delivery of Google's ad service to users from it's customers. And as always, you are Google's product, not their customer.

    Now, I use google mail, google docs, google talk and chrome... but I know they're doing this to sell me.

  • Re:Will? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fm6 (162816) on Saturday September 08, 2012 @04:38PM (#41275683) Homepage Journal

    ven some of your clothing is most likely a walking ad..

    You're referring to the logos on brand-name clothing? That's not an ad, that's part of the product. People want to display these logos, so people will know how cool they are.

    In China, where logos used without authorization are the norm, you'll often see clothes displaying multiple logos from competing companies.

  • by msauve (701917) on Saturday September 08, 2012 @05:05PM (#41275843)
    "you are being forced to take the adds on something that you payed for in entirety."

    Do you work for Amazon, so you have some special insight into their pricing decisions? Because, common sense would say that if they didn't have ads, it would cost more, as with the Kindles which offer that option.
  • It's opt-in (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fuzzums (250400) on Saturday September 08, 2012 @05:19PM (#41275919) Homepage

    "there is no way to opt out of the ads on the new Kindle Fire tablets"

    Actually, you opt-in by buying that tablet.
    Your opt-out option is not buying that tablet.

    Easy.

  • by amiga3D (567632) on Saturday September 08, 2012 @05:31PM (#41276019)

    I don't see where they're coming from at all. They make money when they sell the device although admittedly not much. They make money when they sell the ebooks to you for damn near what it costs to get a hardcover delivered to your house. Greedy Bastards need to quit.

  • by ultranova (717540) on Saturday September 08, 2012 @06:00PM (#41276195)

    I wonder why ads bother people so much.

    Ads lower the signal-to-noise ratio by saturating the environment with irrelevant misinformation. Even if every ad was 100% honest and trustworthy, they would still distract you from more relevant inputs. But of course they are typically extremely dishonest and manipulative.

    Furthermore, ads perpetuate the idea that life's purpose is to work your ass of so you can consume an endless stream of useless (and sometimes actively harmful) crap. They do their part in making people waste their lives chasing after a winning lottery ticket for the benefit of the 1% at the top who run the lottery. They feed various neurosis and addictions to manipulate people into spending their hard-earned cash to try and fix imaginary problems by illogical means of buying an unrelated product.

    An ad campaign is basically information warfare. People disliking them is simply their self-protection instincts at work.

  • by ljw1004 (764174) on Saturday September 08, 2012 @08:26PM (#41276977)

    It bothers me that overt $2000/person/year is spent on adertising in the US per inhabitant, i.e. including all babies, children, adults. That's a huge waste, a kind of regressive tax.

    Also, ads to me are an unwanted intrusion into my personal space. They're forcing their way into my perception and consciousness. I'd rather keep those two things clear for what's more valuable to me.

  • by pla (258480) on Saturday September 08, 2012 @08:28PM (#41276995) Journal
    What hint would that be, that you want the site to be run by magic pixies that don't have any server costs, don't have any bandwidth costs and don't have any costs creating the content?

    Nice strawman, but I have my own website. And not a crappy LiveJournal blog, but a real, live, actual website. Costs me a whopping $10 a year.

    Does YouTube differ somewhat from my own website? Sure it does! Do I, however, give the least fuck about whether or not Google makes a profit on a collection of content provided for free by its community

    Nope.


    See the disconnect here? People will provide content. The internet existed before its "monetization". Advertisers want to cash in on us, but honestly, we have very little use for them.

    Google may have a use for them. I... Do not.
  • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Saturday September 08, 2012 @10:00PM (#41277387)

    Nice strawman, but I have my own website. And not a crappy LiveJournal blog, but a real, live, actual website. Costs me a whopping $10 a year.

    Yeah, I know quite a few people too who run their own website. Some even have their own actual business website. You know why it costs you $10 a year? Because no one visits it. A popular website can easily run a grand in monthly hosting costs. At that point, you either make sure your business can support the site as a marketing expense, or you make money off of each person visiting the site.

    People will provide content. But they will provide it only for as long as doing so doesn't bankrupt them.

White dwarf seeks red giant for binary relationship.

Working...