[fragsworth]

I'm sure they already know this, but here's something to think about: Advertisers will pay far less for ads that can only be seen by users who couldn't afford the $15 to hide them.

The users who saved their $15 can't afford (or won't pay for) as much stuff.

[bromley]

I'm not sure that's necessarily true. On the web, it's often the less savvy users that convert best in response to advertising. For example, a lot of money is made online selling payday loans, ringtone-related subscription-billing junk, and 'magic' tooth-whitening and weight-loss formulas. Ignorant, poor people are often the most easily monetized, and I'm guessing they're often the least likely to value their time enough to pay $15 to avoid ads.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think it's as straightforward as you indicated.

[WalterBright]

Eh, I can afford the no-ad premium. But I prefer the ad one, as sometimes they are interesting, and they are always more interesting than the wretched Amazon screensaver pics.

Also, the ads are not on the media itself, nor do they interrupt it. They are not intrusive, and do not bother me.

[nodata]

That's lazy reasoning.

I know lots of people that have >$500 dollar phones, who refuse to spend any money on apps. They only install free apps - it doesn't matter if a one buck app will save them time or money, they want free apps and only free apps.