4 ms·
It's offensive that they considered _forcing_ Kindle owners to purchase a minimum amount of books per month.
by jonursenbach 17y ago
It's offensive that they considered _forcing_ Kindle owners to purchase a minimum amount of books per month.
- mrkurt 17y agoReally? It's offensive that they considered a plan that would subsidize hardware with required book purchases? I'm glad they didn't go that route, but it would have been stupid of them to not think about it.
- jonursenbach 17y agoIf they're forcing you to purchase a certain amount of books, and you don't, your hardware would most likely get turned off; meaning that you are really leasing it. Which is complete bullshit.
- mrkurt 17y agoMaybe that's one of the reasons they didn't go that route? The subsidized cell phone business model can suck for consumers (sorta the point Bezos was making), but requiring a minimum book purchase is still something some people might go for. I have no idea how they'd implement it, but I suspect you'd pay a monthly fee that "earned" you X number of books. You'd hope they wouldn't let you "forget to buy enough" and thus lose your Kindle service.
- prospero 17y agoDoes your cell phone turn off if you don't use the full allotment of minutes?
- amalcon 17y agoIt does if I don't pay for the ones I don't use.
- bdr 17y agoIt would make more sense for them to charge you $(X-Y) if you only bought $Y worth of goods in the month.
- mlinsey 17y agoErr...I would expect that this wouldn't have been implemented this way. It most likely would have worked like Audible: a set monthly subscription fee, and you would get a set amount of "Kindle credits" to spend in the Kindle store every month.