6 ms·

Of course there are ads. Amazon never implied that there wouldn't be. This isn't Amazon trying to be sneaky. The opening lines say that everything is free and d

Of course there are ads. Amazon never implied that there wouldn't be. This isn't Amazon trying to be sneaky. The opening lines say that everything is free and developers get paid according to use. How did you expect that would happen? It has to be subsidized in some way, and in the context of an app store that means ads. When you download an app in the app store it says "free" not "free with ads" because you don't have to pay any money for it. It's still, technically, free.

aiiane 11y ago
Not mentioning ads at all in an announcement about a service that adds ads to apps to replace the fee isn't being sneaky?
- austenallred 11y ago
  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, meaning I don't pay for it with dollars. When is the last time a free product shouted "BTW it's only free because of ads?!" I felt like it was implied, and I don't expect marketing to be like, "And here are the tradeoffs you have to make and that you might not like." When you download an app from the current app store (Apple or Google) it says "Free," even if the app includes ads. I don't feel slighted one bit.
  - mangeletti 11y ago
    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.
    - austenallred 11y ago
      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.
      - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
        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.
        austenallred 11y ago
        > "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).
        TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
        No, "ad supported" is not a subset of free. If you show ads you're costing your users brain cycles and creating distraction and friction. The cost isn't monetary, but it's still a real indirect cost. If it wasn't a real cost, ad-blockers would hardly be as popular as they are - and the ad industry wouldn't be quite so worried about them. IMO the idea that anyone can believe the two models are identical from the user's point of view is not encouraging.
        personjerry 11y ago
  - aiiane 11y ago
    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.
modeless 11y ago
Oh, I definitely expected ads, I'm not surprised at all, and I don't think Amazon is being excessively sneaky (though it would be nice if this information was more prominent on their developer pages). I'm mostly disappointed in the authors of the multiple news articles I saw about this [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] for parroting Amazon's "Free Apps" PR without doing enough research to find out about the ads Amazon is using to pay for the deal. [1] http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/26/amazon-underground-is-an-android-app-store-with-only-actually-free-apps/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/26/amazon-underground-is-an-an... [2] http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/08/amazons-new-games-and-apps-store-free-for-users-12%C2%A2-an-hour-for-devs/ http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/08/amazons-new-games-and-... [3] http://www.engadget.com/2015/08/26/amazon-underground-free-apps/ http://www.engadget.com/2015/08/26/amazon-underground-free-a... [4] http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2490149,00.asp http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2490149,00.asp [5] http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/26/9210071/amazon-underground-free-apps http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/26/9210071/amazon-underground...
- sigmar 11y ago
  Wow. Those links are pretty damning. Ars mentioned there are ads in the Underground app itself, but didn't mention anything about ads being added to apps. Techcrunch only mentions ads in explaining how previous app revenue models used banner ads. The Verge doesn't mention ads at all. Embarrassing.

aiiane 11y ago

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

austenallred 11y ago
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, meaning I don't pay for it with dollars. When is the last time a free product shouted "BTW it's only free because of ads?!" I felt like it was implied, and I don't expect marketing to be like, "And here are the tradeoffs you have to make and that you might not like." When you download an app from the current app store (Apple or Google) it says "Free," even if the app includes ads. I don't feel slighted one bit.
- mangeletti 11y ago
  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.
  - austenallred 11y ago
    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.
    - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
      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.
      - austenallred 11y ago
        > "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).
        TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
        No, "ad supported" is not a subset of free. If you show ads you're costing your users brain cycles and creating distraction and friction. The cost isn't monetary, but it's still a real indirect cost. If it wasn't a real cost, ad-blockers would hardly be as popular as they are - and the ad industry wouldn't be quite so worried about them. IMO the idea that anyone can believe the two models are identical from the user's point of view is not encouraging.
      - personjerry 11y ago
- aiiane 11y ago
  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.

modeless 11y ago

Oh, I definitely expected ads, I'm not surprised at all, and I don't think Amazon is being excessively sneaky (though it would be nice if this information was more prominent on their developer pages). I'm mostly disappointed in the authors of the multiple news articles I saw about this [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] for parroting Amazon's "Free Apps" PR without doing enough research to find out about the ads Amazon is using to pay for the deal. [1] http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/26/amazon-underground-is-an-android-app-store-with-only-actually-free-apps/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/26/amazon-underground-is-an-an... [2] http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/08/amazons-new-games-and-apps-store-free-for-users-12%C2%A2-an-hour-for-devs/ http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/08/amazons-new-games-and-... [3] http://www.engadget.com/2015/08/26/amazon-underground-free-apps/ http://www.engadget.com/2015/08/26/amazon-underground-free-a... [4] http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2490149,00.asp http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2490149,00.asp [5] http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/26/9210071/amazon-underground-free-apps http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/26/9210071/amazon-underground...

sigmar 11y ago
Wow. Those links are pretty damning. Ars mentioned there are ads in the Underground app itself, but didn't mention anything about ads being added to apps. Techcrunch only mentions ads in explaining how previous app revenue models used banner ads. The Verge doesn't mention ads at all. Embarrassing.