June 11, 2009 1:55 PM PDT

The iPhone is a subscription

by Adam Richardson
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 1 comment

The NYT’s Bits Blog spells out how the pricing for the iPhone basically turns it into a subscription, at least for people who want to upgrade their phone regularly. With the new prices and GS model announced Monday, there are now three tiers, as described by Bits:

  • The $199-every-two-years plan. That gives you the base model of the most current phone hardware every two years. You have to suffer a year of jealousy when others have the newest phone and you don’t. There is a similar $299-every-two-years plan for the higher capacity phone.
  • The $399-every-year plan (with an introductory rate of $199 the first year only). For four times the effective annual cost, you get the base model as soon as it comes out. Premium users may gravitate to the $499-a-year plan ($299 to start out) to be sure of having the very best model.
  • The new $99-every-two-years plan, if you want to have last year’s model and keep it for two years. As I wrote Monday, this may go down to a $0-every-two-years plan next year.

Given that the average consumer gets a new cellphone every 18 months, this isn’t really different from what’s been going on for years, it’s just that the price-point is far higher. But it’s not out of line for other smartphones, and if anything Apple has been pushing prices down in the category — for launch prices at least. BlackBerry and Palm both had to launch the Storm and Pre, respectively, at the $200 pricepoint, or they wouldn’t stand a chance against the iPhone.

The difference is that in the past launch prices quickly dropped, sometimes to free, whereas Apple keeps them consistent throughout the life of a product generation. So while it puts pressure on competitors for their launch prices, it also opens the door for them to drop their prices over time, perhaps significantly undercutting the iPhone.

And for the record, I sympathize with a commenter on the Bits Blog post that it’s unfortunate that so many see resource-intensive products like cellphones as disposable on such a frequent basis. Granted, they get beat up a lot being handheld and portable, but upgrading is by far the most common reason. I have to plead guilty as charged here too, though I generally hang on to a phone for more like 3 years (my Sony Ericsson has a cracked screen, but otherwise I still use it).]

Adam Richardson is the director of product strategy at Frog Design, where he guides strategy engagements for Frog's international roster of clients, envisioning and creating new products, consumer electronics, and digital experiences. Adam combines a background in industrial design, interaction design, and sociology, and he spends most of his time on convergent designs that combine hardware, software, service, brand, and retail. He writes and speaks extensively on design, business, culture, and technology, and he runs his own Richardsona blog. Adam is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET.
Recent posts from Matter/Anti-Matter
The future will be...
Time for marketing innovation 2.0
A new way to see the Internet: the Google Chrome videos
Tracking deforestation in real time
"The people have tweeted": the Trident Layers ad
Tracking deforestation in real time
What good is design research?
The logic behind the consumer device economy
Add a Comment (Log in or register)
by jasoncronkhite June 23, 2009 8:59 PM PDT
Adam,

Interesting post and yeah, phones pretty much have been a subscription business when you consider the frequency of upgrades. I worked for at&t wireless a number of years and it was always interesting to see consumers react to pricing for the latest greatest gadgets with the already subsidized pricing structures with term commitments. This is an issue that the carriers still need to work on to make it easier for the consumer to understand.

For me, I wish there was a lease option where I could grab a new device every year and have electronic maintenance/upgrades every quarter. I personally would be willing to pay a bit more per month but I doubt the carriers would go for this since it burdeons them with more capital outlay for handsets. Yet, I haven't done the math - it could work, it may even net the carrier more with finance and service fees?

I know a few of my geek friends would go for this as well. A HAAS model of sorts (Hardware or Handset-As-A-Service).

Cheers,
Jason
Reply to this comment
advertisement

15 sites that went kaput in 2009

Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.

Top 10 news stories of the decade

Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.

About Matter/Anti-Matter

Tim Leberecht and Adam Richardson both work for Frog Design, a consulting firm specialized in designing innovative products and services for Fortune 500 clients. On the Matter / Anti-Matter blog, they engage in a debate around questions they face day-to-day in their work, using convergence/divergence as a lens through which to look at the pressing issues in business, culture, and technology. What makes a successful convergent product or a successful divergent innovation? Is convergence a myth that users don't really care about, or is the current state of convergence just not satisfying enough for them to embrace? How much divergence of innovation is good, and when does it just become confusing? How do you stay on top of people's ever changing needs and wants?

They are members of the CNET Blog Network and are not employees of CNET.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Matter/Anti-Matter topics

advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right