Bobcat
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ | reply to Anorexorcist
Re: [OOL] Optimum Ultra Reviews! Post em here!
Wow, a $335 fee is one way to cut back on demand. |
|
JDolan
@optonline.net
| said by Bobcat  :Wow, a $335 fee is one way to cut back on demand. I finally agree with you.
Why not just charge 129.00 per month? |
|
Anonymous Coward
@optonline.net
| reply to Bobcat
said by Bobcat :Wow, a $335 fee is one way to cut back on demand. It certainly assures that primarily *businesses* are ordering the service, not individuals.
E.g. it ensures that not every damn Usenet/P2P leecher (or uploader) orders it and brings the house down on his node with their legally questionable activities - activities that simply are not happening in a business context, for multiple reasons 
It's also a good way to throttle demand during the startup phase of a new service: the last they want is a hundred techs having to go out on a service call for something that is brand-new to them, with probably plenty of opportunity to screw it up. A not unsubstantial part of that is probably related to some sort of manual step that prevents the service from being self-install today.
So, if you want to ride the cutting edge, and this certainly qualifies, $300 means nothing to you. If it does, you're not on the cutting edge, and you're not an early adopter:
The 4GB iPhone was HOW much when it first came out, if your memory isn't faulting you after just 2 short years? FOUR HUNDRED NINETYNINE BUCKS! Holy crap! It was the most expensive phone, ever! 2 months later, Apple dropped the 4GB version and made the 8GB iPhone standard - and dropped the price for that from $599(!) to $399. Fast forward 18 months, and now we're looking at $199. And those were *still* prices subsidized by monthly service fees.
So stop bitchin' - you want that iPhone^W101Mbps, you know where to get it. |
|
sbalea
join:2009-05-11
Old Bridge, NJ
| said by Anonymous Coward :E.g. it ensures that not every damn Usenet/P2P leecher (or uploader) orders it and brings the house down on his node with their legally questionable activities - activities that simply are not happening in a business context, for multiple reasons It's also a good way to throttle demand during the startup phase of a new service: the last they want is a hundred techs having to go out on a service call for something that is brand-new to them, with probably plenty of opportunity to screw it up. A not unsubstantial part of that is probably related to some sort of manual step that prevents the service from being self-install today. All of this is certainly possible. It could also mean they're trying to maximize profits at the expense of the early adopters. I wouldn't be surprised to see the fee go down little by little in the following months. This way, they capture all people who are willing to pay at a certain level. It's called "skimming the market" in business speak. |
|
