Alexa celebrity voices discontinued - Amazon not offering automatic refunds

[David Hieber]

I paid 99 cents for the Alexa Samuel L. Jackson voice back in 2020, it's been great!  But today, Alexa told me that it was no longer available and to contact Customer Service, so I did.

 

After FINALLY getting a chat window, the CSR explained they can only look back a year, so I was asked to provide the order number from 2020.  Then the CSR acknowledged that I bought a "deprecated" item, and no refund was offered since there is only a 30-day return window to evaluate and return any defective item.

 

You know I only paid .99 cents for the voice, but why didn't Amazon refund people's purchase if they take same purchases away?  Does Amazon need the .99 cents still?  Some people paid up to $5 for the celebrity voices, and all those voices have now been silenced.  It was sold as an Alexa skill, I figured it would have been available as long as Alexa answered, but someone decided to kill that program I guess, and let all of us suckers stand there holding empty bags!

 

I did FINALLY get a refund after a long complaint session.  But it's not about the money, it's more about the principal of the Seattle douchebags taking out $$$$ then revoking it without so much as an email or kiss on the check even!

 

I'm so sorry to rant, but I felt this was a poor way for Amazon to handle this, and wondered if anyone else was aware or angry this is even happening?

 

Thanks for reading & good day!

[Levent]

Not a whole lot of people would bother to get their refund even for $5 that is probably what Amazon counts on as well. I personally would have taken a regular breath and moved on.

[OhioYJ]

12 minutes ago, David Hieber said:

people's purchase

That's the issue, you considered it a purchase. With a digital item you don't "own" anything. 

[da na]

Surprised they even gave you your 99c back

[Middcore]

I guess your time has no value. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 hour ago, David Hieber said:

You know I only paid .99 cents for the voice, but why didn't Amazon refund people's purchase rent if they take same purchases away?

Rent. People's rent. Whatever companies may try to tell you, don't listen to them: if it depends on a connection to their server to work, you're not purchasing, you're renting. A very strange kind of rent indeed, where you know how much you're paying but not for how long.

 

It's good that you got your money back, so you learned the lesson for free. Now use it in your next purchase rent decision.

 

(Btw, the Alexa device itself? Also rented)

[David Hieber]

50 minutes ago, OhioYJ said:

That's the issue, you considered it a purchase. With a digital item you don't "own" anything. 

I figured that, as with other digital purchases I've made, I was entitled to a sort-of "lifetime license" for the use of the Alexa skill that was developed & sold by Amazon.  This isn't a 3rd party vendor that closed up shop & shut down their servers.  If one "buys" a digital movie from Amazon, you expect that film to be there on-demand, and not get a notice that your content was "deprecated".

I see your point about digital vs. physical possession, but I also I think there is a need for Amazon to be more transparent about the longevity of said Alexa skills.  Had I known that this was a 3.8-year license that would end I would have nothing to complain about, but this seemed different to me.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

6 minutes ago, David Hieber said:

I figured that, as with other digital purchases I've made, I was entitled to a sort-of "lifetime license" for the use of the Alexa skill that was developed & sold by Amazon.  This isn't a 3rd party vendor that closed up shop & shut down their servers.  If one "buys" a digital movie from Amazon, you expect that film to be there on-demand, and not get a notice that your content was "deprecated".

It has happened time and time again, across platforms, vendors... The expectation you mentioned is based on a trust that virtually everyone has betrayed or failed to earn. Music disappears from someone's catalogue. Games get downgraded through updates. Hardware gets remotely bricked. Not to mention the endless stream of dead games.

Luckily, you happen to encounter it in a $1 item that you got back.

[David Hieber]

Okay, I hear you and have also been there before with wasted money on software, content, licenses, etc.

 

But in this article by the Verge, there is mention of a refund:  "Amazon spokesperson Eric Sveum says in a statement to The Verge. “Customers will be able to continue using these voices for a limited time, and can contact our customer service team for a refund.”  However, when I did contact a CSR, they offered no such thing immediately and gave me the "30-day" window story.

 

Amazon knows who purchased & activated the skill, why not make this easier to get a refund?  I wouldn't have anything to post about if they had graciously refunded the price as the Amazon spokesperson said when talking to the Verge, but they did not offer anything at all.  FWIW I did not have to quote the article to get my refund, and I have the chat transcript although I debated about posting it here.

[Kisai]

3 hours ago, David Hieber said:

I paid 99 cents for the Alexa Samuel L. Jackson voice back in 2020, it's been great!  But today, Alexa told me that it was no longer available and to contact Customer Service, so I did.

 

You will own nothing, and like it.

 

In this case, I have a feeling these "celebrity voice"'s for Alexa are under the gun in the SAG-AFTRA union dispute over the use of AI. So Amazon might be trying to proactively not get into trouble by removing unauthorized (or flimsy licensed) voice packages.

 

I see the same happening for TTS.monster and a some other websites that let you use celebrity and character voices without permission.

 

That said, I'm also not disappointed if they do remove it. This was already a niche product, and if the celebrity actors get their way, there simply will be ZERO permission to use AI celebrity voices without paying them likely the same rate as hiring them in the first place. (eg $2000/hr)

 

[Mark Kaine]

11 hours ago, OhioYJ said:

That's the issue, you considered it a purchase. With a digital item you don't "own" anything. 

agreed,  but the problem is really they're allowed to call it a "purchase" when it actually isn't...

 

 

you don't "purchase a rent", that's not a thing!