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.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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.

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.