Waterstone's Customers Complain About Ads on Kindles

[JMcEntegart]

Users aren't happy about the retailer's custom content appearing on their devices.

Waterstone's Customers Complain About Ads on Kindles : Read more

 

[randomizer]

We apologise that we've altered the product from the manufacturer's specifications without telling you. It is our view that promoting our business is not advertising, and we hope that you are not bothered by static images that change because we're not removing them.

 

[Gundam288]

[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]We apologise that we've altered the product from the manufacturer's specifications without telling you. It is our view that promoting our business is not advertising, and we hope that you are not bothered by static images that change because we're not removing them.[/citation]
"until we get sued."

 

[assasin32]

I would try to return it under the whole idea that it was open box and I bought NEW. As I doubt amazon gave them the green light to do this. If that doesn't work hopefully I paid by credit card and just tell my credit card company to dispute it for that reason, if the store doesn't like it they can have the product back as it sounds like they bought something new and ad-free and what they got was something that was tampered with that comes with ads.

 

[tolham]

wait, so people are complaining that the screen saver is a logo for company X instead of company Y? and they're calling it an advertisement as if the amazon logo isn't?



"One mentions that she cannot unsubscribe from the Waterstones blog, which suggests all Waterstones-purchased Kindles also carry permanent subscriptions to the retailer's blog."

not that's a legit complaint. consumers should have the option to opt-out.

 

[igot1forya]

Rooted! - Problem solved!

 

[Guest]

http://www.howtogeek.com/125944/kindle-paperwhite-jailbroken-ready-for-custom-screensavers/

 

[freggo]

[citation][nom]tolham[/nom]wait, so people are complaining that the screen saver is a logo for company X instead of company Y? and they're calling it an advertisement as if the amazon logo isn't?".[/citation]

Imagine you have AT&T service and get yourself an iPhone (yuck).
But instead of an Apple it has an AT&T logo on it (we are not talking the sponsored version but the full price version).

 

[freggo]

"Waterstones says the screensaver doesn't constitute advertising"

It is called Brand reinforcement. Yes, that's a form of advertising; why would they bother doing it otherwise!

 

[tolham]

[quotemsg=9435437,9,200562]Imagine you have AT&T service and get yourself an iPhone (yuck).
But instead of an Apple it has an AT&T logo on it (we are not talking the sponsored version but the full price version).[/quotemsg]
ok, i imagined that and i don't see the problem. both the apple and the at&t logos are logos of huge corporations that are integral to the product. there is no difference except for a slight aesthetic that has 0 effect on functionality or design. this is a frivolous complaint.


here's realistic example for you to mull over. i have a lumia 920 with at&t. when the phone boots up, it consecutively displays the att logo, nokia logo and the windows logo. this has no 0 effect on my ability to use the phone. there is no problem whatsoever. getting back to the kindle in question, a corporate logo as the screensaver has 0 effect on the product. a corporate logo is a corporate logo. it makes 0 difference if it's for waterstone, amazon, apple, microsoft, samsung, ben&jerry's, nike, or honda. this is a frivolous complaint.

 

[tolham]

[quotemsg=9435442,10,200562]"Waterstones says the screensaver doesn't constitute advertising"

It is called Brand reinforcement. Yes, that's a form of advertising; why would they bother doing it otherwise![/quotemsg]
and it would still be brand reinforcement if the device displayed the amazon logo isntead, so that's a moot point. this is a frivolous complaint.

 

[JamesSneed]

[quotemsg=9435472,11,263712]and it would still be brand reinforcement if the device displayed the amazon logo isntead, so that's a moot point. this is a frivolous complaint.[/quotemsg]

Exactly. The product has also been tampered with someone other than the manufacturer, Amazon. If they didn't get Amazons permissions to do this I fully expect Amazon to lay down some lawyer love.

 

[kyuuketsuki]

[citation][nom]tolham[/nom]and it would still be brand reinforcement if the device displayed the amazon logo isntead, so that's a moot point. this is a frivolous complaint.[/citation]Wrong. This isn't about displaying a logo. It's about a non-removable *ad* as the screensaver. These were full-priced devices, not the discounted, subsidized-by-advertising-on-the-screensaver devices. There shouldn't be non-removable, non-circumventable advertising on the product, period.

 

[tolham]

[quotemsg=9435536,13,96459]Wrong. This isn't about displaying a logo. It's about a non-removable *ad* as the screensaver. These were full-priced devices, not the discounted, subsidized-by-advertising-on-the-screensaver devices. There shouldn't be non-removable, non-circumventable advertising on the product, period.[/quotemsg]
the case itself is covered in logos. if a logo is an ad, then the product fails your qualifier of non-removable, non-circumventable advertising on the product before even turning it on.

 

[gm0n3y]

While this would piss me off as well, I don't see how this is any different than what many retailers do with PCs, phones, etc. How many times have you heard people complain about the carrier's crap on their phones? I don't think they have a legal leg to stand on. That being said, I would still return the product and just order from another site that doesn't pull this kind of crap.