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