reply to elray
Re: Why not?
said by elray:Amazon did deals with 1st Sprint and then later AT&T to let the Kindle Reader(not the new Fire tablet which is WiFi only) download data and prepaid a fee to the carrier that Amazon ate on behalf of the customer. Amazon, of course, expected to sell things to their customers to cover their data transfer costs to the carriers.
Isn't this what Amazon already did with the Kindle?
I guess AT&T could plan on doing similar deals for other devices that use LIMITED amounts of predictable data as opposed to laptops and smartphones. Extending that kind of deal to SPECIFIC apps on a smartphone could work in some unusual instances. I would really have to read AT&T's thoughts about what kind of apps might fit in to that kind of thinking before deciding if it would work or not.
So far, I haven't found any other sources of Donovan's interview that aren't behind the WSJ paywall, to see if he elaborated on what types of apps he was thinking about.
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
This could open up a huge can of worms, however. Use "approved" "sanctioned" "partner" apps or pay more.
You could see how this could extend to well.... everything. Browsers, everything. Then in turn the apps makers have to charge more to customers to cover their payola deals.
You could even have "exclusive" contracts like only being able to use certain apps on certain ISP's..... basically the companies would move into a position of being able to tell the users what they will use and how--- of course you could still use whatever you wish... but pay astronomically more for it under such a model.
This could be used to to squeeze independents or third parties completely out of business. It could also potentially lead to the internet being sold the same way PayTV is.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini