Thanks for the reply. With all due respect, I think there’s a flaw in your logic.

You seem to argue that one can get content for free and that, therefore, the subscription model for content does not make sense. Why expect to be able to charge for content when there is adequate alternative content available for free?

So let’s apply this logic to your iPhone example. There are plenty of mobile phones that can be had for free. I have a great one, the HTC Touch, that more than meets my needs. It’s included in my plan. You can have it for free too. Yet you want to pay for an iPhone. You might argue that the iPhone is more functional, or elegant, or fun — but from a utilitarian point of view I could probably show you how my free HTC Touch can do almost anything the paid iPhone can do.

The point is that you want an iPhone because it appeals to you in certain ways and you feel it meets your needs better than any alternative. This may be true, or you may have been persuaded by good marketing.

Phones are free. Yet this reality did not dissuade Apple from marketing a phone that one must pay for. Nor are you arguing that the model for paid phones is dead.

The same can be said for content. You yourself pay for some content. Many other people are willing to pay for content that meets their needs in some way, or that has some brand cachet, even though there may be perfectly acceptable free alternatives.

Yet Jeff Jarvis, a lifelong content guy, is willing to accept that there is a model for selling mobile phones, but is not willing to accept that the same reasoning can be applied to content and that the same methods can be used to persuade people to pay for content.

Do you see the contradiction?

Kind regards,
Evan Rudowski

This idea could be applied to home computer and entertainment equipment, as well.

Other ideas:

Could include insurance for loss or theft.

Could include storage of configuration information for each gadget, in case of loss.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

The same was true of mainframe computers, although the upgrade option was not so important since model changes happened infrequently.

These days many firms “buy” PC’s in a deal that will swap them out every few years for new models. Microsoft is working hard to convince firms to subscribe to software rather than buy it. I think they are having mixed results.

As many more people lease cars we see a transition away from the idea of ownership and the accumulation of assets to a pay-as-you-go lifestyle. This allows people to enjoy the products now even though they don’t have the savings to “buy” them. The result seems to be that people enter into old age with less accumulated capital to use during retirement. This has allowed the spending boom to continue and pushed the consequences into the future.

Borrowing and renting have disguised the impoverishment of the working classes. I don’t think the long range results will be pleasant.

I just looked up the Ford Options plan. It looks pretty much like a lease to me. What am I missing?
Thanks

http://www.thegreenergrass.org/2008/02/linc-lifecycle-concept-phone.html

Nice try. But I pay for iPhones. I don’t pay for content. Therefore, I don’t need a subscription to something I don’t pay for. (In the rare cases where I do pay — the Times in print, the Journal online — I do subscribe. And through RSS, I subscribe to many free sites. But that’s not a paid business model).

Rosenblum,

Don’t they ever wear out? And I’ve seen your black jackets. Very fashionable.

Roberto,

Do you have any links for the handbooks? And cars?

Could I subscribe to Stephen King?

I love the idea of subscribing to a gadget. I love my new Flip camera, and I might want a new one every time they improve this thing.

Just to make sure I understand — you think it is a great idea to sell “subscriptions” to devices, or carpeting, or clothing. But you think it is a lousy idea to sell subscriptions to content.

I must be missing something!

Best wishes,
Evan Rudowski

The idea is cool. I have seen it applied to hand bags, textbooks (www.chegg.com), cars (more as a private club).

Of course do call me if you decide to start a company

Ciao
Roberto

I first saw this concept proposed in Don Pepper’s and Martha Rogers’ groundbreaking book, “The One-to-One Future” except in their scenario they suggested “car subscriptions”, not gadgets.

“Gadget subscriptions” are a more likely scenario as the logistics are more reasonable – it’s a lot easier to FedEx an iPhone than a Prius.

Regards,

-jf.

– 
John Federico
http://www.newrules.com