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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Also, screw Amazon.