Apple's Subscription Plans Walking a Fine Line

• Report this Comment On February 16, 2011, at 9:12 PM, MKArch wrote:

  http://support.vzw.com/faqs/iphone/iphone_faq.html

  <<<How much will iPhone 4 cost?

  iPhone 4 will be available from Verizon Wireless for $199.99 for the 16GB model, and $299.99 for the 32GB model, with a new 2-year agreement. iPhone 4 will also be available for purchase from Verizon Wireless at full retail price - $649.99 for the 16GB model, and $749.99 for the 32GB model. Note: Activation on a month-to-month agreement is required when purchasing iPhone 4 at full retail price.>>>

  **************************************************************

  I don't agree anyone buys an iPhone for the apps, IMHO they buy an iPhone so that when they whip it out everyone around them knows they can afford to pay big bucks for a cell phone. It also look cool. I'll take Apple over Netflix in a heartbeat in a battle for customer loyalty. What's Netflix appeal other than cheap?

• Report this Comment On February 16, 2011, at 9:25 PM, xmmj wrote:

  What's Netflix appeal other than cheap?

  Netflix has a great service. Additionally, they have absolutely awesome customer service. You call them, they fix your problem - and with a smile!

• Report this Comment On February 16, 2011, at 10:40 PM, xmmj wrote:

  This article has a really good premise - walking the fine line.

  I appreciate Apple's comment - "If we bring the customer than we get paid." I also appreciate their desire to protect the users' personal data.

  There is also the point that if they had printed a copy of the periodical, then they would have to pay the news stand operator a commission.

  On the other hand, a 30% commission on sales is really rather high in the end. Perhaps more fair would be something like 30% first year subscription and 10% thereafter.

• Report this Comment On February 17, 2011, at 4:56 AM, Henry3Dogg wrote:

  "In this Fool's view, the power in this struggle lies firmly with content providers like Netflix, Sirius XM, and The Wall Street Journal who make the iPhone, and iPad in particular, more attractive."

  Netflix isn't a content provider, it's a content distributer. Apple and the underlying content providers will eventually settle on a deal that meets their needs. Until then the Netflix bubble represents the value of Netfix's ability to let Apple and Google distribute that for which they don't have direct agreements.

  There is no stability in that situation for Netflix, and no reason why they would continue to take any significant cut in delivery of the underlying content, via Apple.

  Sirius XM adds a little value to the content that it distributes, but otherwise it's situation is worse as it is just one of many radio stations. It may be big in the USA, but few care about it outside.

  The Wall Street Journal is a true content provider. But one of thousands round the world. In three months time, many will be using Apple's subscription service, but some won't. But their content will still be available to iDevice users via their web pages. So users aren't going to choose their device based on whether there is an app for that paper.

  Bottom line, there are far more content providers than platform owners. Unless the content providers trust their competitors enough, en masse, to act as an illegal cartel, then it looks to me like the power lies with the 2 platform owners. Apple remains substantially the stronger for selling content, so Google gets to charge less, for now. Amd unless, of couse, Samsung, Motorola, HTC, or AT&T, Verizon, O2 want to fight them for the Android cut.

  Of couse The Motley Fool is a content provider, so it can't really claim to take an objective view.

Add your comment.