3 ms·
I see this as a purely defensive stance should they want to enable in-app purchases in the future. As Apple has discovered, they get accused of being greedy wh
by teyc 16y ago
I see this as a purely defensive stance should they want to enable in-app purchases in the future.
As Apple has discovered, they get accused of being greedy when they force developers to go through the app store for In-App purchases.
Perhaps Amazon, by clearly indicating that this device is subsidized by future sales (ads, in this case), makes it easier for them to explain to the customer why they'd like more control over the device. (i.e. the customer doesn't completely own the device).
- drdaeman 16y ago> the customer doesn't completely own the device Is this legally possible? (Except for the obvious software part)
- teyc 16y agoYou made me think again. Thanks. There are a few ways Amazon can go with this: 1. They have a non-legal but persuasive claim that the unit was subsidized and the sale of the unit might include shrink wrap rules against tampering against the advertising module (and a wide claim on all other modules/business models). 2. Even when the open source community will eventually work out how to circumvent it, Amazon might hope that people would rather not void their warranty etc. 3. #1 is not entirely settled and is still in litigation (see http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118005513?refCatId=14 http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118005513?refCatId=14)