Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon Underground

amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 139 posts

Re: Amazon Underground

#71

Post by mangeletti »

austenallred wrote: post #64
aiiane wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not mentioning ads at all in an announcement about a service that adds ads to apps to replace the fee isn't being sneaky?

I don't think so. Facebook doesn't say "This is free with ads!" It says it's free to use. It just so happens that ads are byproduct of using it. It's pretty obvious in the documentation and on every page except for the original product announcement that it's ad supported, but I don't expect Amazon to use a bunch of their 200-word product announcement to justify why there are ads. The important point is that it's free…

Well, "free" means there is no consideration on the part of the party receiving what would be deemed as a gift. Looking at ads and having your data sold is not free by any means.

Re: Amazon Underground

#72

Post by ohazi »

modeless wrote: post #22
sigmar wrote: post #12

Took me a minute to find out what "actually free" means: https://developer.amazon.com/public/solutions/underground/do... "Interstitial Advertisements When a user launches an Amazon Underground app for the first time, a welcome message in the form of an interstitial ad plays. In subsequent times that a user either launches or resumes the app, paid interstitial ads will also sometimes play." Interesting. So amazon deal…

Finally, someone figures out the real reason Amazon is doing this. Thank you for doing the job all the journalists reporting on the press release failed to do.

No, the real reason Amazon is doing this is that they want to get the Amazon App Store onto Google and carrier branded Android phones. It's a fight for survival and relevance against Google Play.

Re: Amazon Underground

#73

Post by austenallred »

mangeletti wrote: post #71
austenallred wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. Facebook doesn't say "This is free with ads!" It says it's free to use. It just so happens that ads are byproduct of using it. It's pretty obvious in the documentation and on every page except for the original product announcement that it's ad supported, but I don't expect Amazon to use a bunch of their 200-word product announcement to justify why there are ads. The important point is that it's free…

Well, "free" means there is no consideration on the part of the party receiving what would be deemed as a gift. Looking at ads and having your data sold is not free by any means.

It doesn't mean that at all. Free (gratis), by definition, means you don't have to pay for anything. You don't spend dollars. Watching TV is free. Using Google and Facebook are free. You download free apps from the app store. And those all have ads.

If you want to repurpose the word to mean "free with no ads" you can do that, but you can't expect others to hold to that definition.

Re: Amazon Underground

#74

Post by imglorp »

sigmar wrote: post #12

Took me a minute to find out what "actually free" means: https://developer.amazon.com/public/solutions/underground/do... "Interstitial Advertisements When a user launches an Amazon Underground app for the first time, a welcome message in the form of an interstitial ad plays. In subsequent times that a user either launches or resumes the app, paid interstitial ads will also sometimes play." Interesting. So amazon deal…

Is that it, just ads, or is the app also keeping an eye on the user?

Re: Amazon Underground

#75

Post by Steko »

eloff wrote: post #3

I see this as hugely superior to the freemium model, both from the perspective of the user and the app developers. App developers no longer need to cripple their apps and sell in-app band-aids to make money. The developers of the more entertaining and engaging apps will make more money. End users no longer spend a bunch of time on a game only to find out they need to pay to advance to the next part, or bypass some ar…

If interstitial ads were superior to the freemium model the market would already reflect that but it doesn't. The freemium model has just become a silly bogeyman in these discussions. Yes it can be abusive, yes it can be implemented horribly, just like any other pricing system. OTOH freemium is often best for both developers (differential pricing maximizes revenue) as well as users (rich whales are happy to pay, others are happy to be subsidized by them).

Re: Amazon Underground

#77

Post by aiiane »

austenallred wrote: post #64
aiiane wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not mentioning ads at all in an announcement about a service that adds ads to apps to replace the fee isn't being sneaky?

I don't think so. Facebook doesn't say "This is free with ads!" It says it's free to use. It just so happens that ads are byproduct of using it. It's pretty obvious in the documentation and on every page except for the original product announcement that it's ad supported, but I don't expect Amazon to use a bunch of their 200-word product announcement to justify why there are ads. The important point is that it's free…

There's a difference between telling a lie and being sneaky. Amazon didn't lie about this, it's true. But they definitely spent a lot of time implying that you'd be getting the same app you'd get elsewhere, just for free. Whether or not you consider the addition of ads to qualify as the same app or not is another question.

Re: Amazon Underground

#78

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

austenallred wrote: post #73
mangeletti wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, "free" means there is no consideration on the part of the party receiving what would be deemed as a gift. Looking at ads and having your data sold is not free by any means.

It doesn't mean that at all. Free (gratis), by definition, means you don't have to pay for anything. You don't spend dollars. Watching TV is free. Using Google and Facebook are free. You download free apps from the app store. And those all have ads. If you want to repurpose the word to mean "free with no ads" you can do that, but you can't expect others to hold to that definition.

So you think the Free Software Foundation should really be called the Ad-Supported Software Foundation?

"Free" and "ad-supported" mean completely different things, and always have done.

Re: Amazon Underground

#79

Post by austenallred »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #78
austenallred wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't mean that at all. Free (gratis), by definition, means you don't have to pay for anything. You don't spend dollars. Watching TV is free. Using Google and Facebook are free. You download free apps from the app store. And those all have ads. If you want to repurpose the word to mean "free with no ads" you can do that, but you can't expect others to hold to that definition.

So you think the Free Software Foundation should really be called the Ad-Supported Software Foundation? "Free" and "ad-supported" mean completely different things, and always have done.

> "Free" and "ad-supported" mean completely different things, and always have done.

"Free" in the context Amazon is using it (what Richard Stallman would refer to as Gratis) means that I do not have to pay money for something. That is a literal economic/dictionary definition.

Therefore, ad-supported in this context is a subset of "Free," as is any other form of non-monetary subsidization. So long as the end user is not paying, it is free.

The Free Software Foundation is free, but not ad-supported (though it strives to be free both in the sense "libre" (open/available) and "gratis" (not costing dollars).

Re: Amazon Underground

#80

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

biot wrote: post #76

I got an email from Microsoft today with this kind of "letter". See https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNSgnyfWEAAvd9J.jpg:large I hope this doesn't become a trend, like using a picture of laminate flooring as a website background was a number of years back.

This actively discriminates against people who find certain typefaces difficult, those using assistive technologies, and those using mobile devices. It's also not machine-friendly, so search engines can't index it and Ctrl+F doesn't work.

There's probably plenty of other reasons people can give for why plaintext is better.

I wish people wouldn't do this. It's not even necessary to get the desired effect. CSS has had rotation, custom fonts, custom backgrounds and such for a long time.

Post reply on HN