4 ms·
Or better yet, some sort of dynamic pricing when, say, you're on a crowded subway platform. You'd really want solid software integration for that, though, so th
by MBlume 12y ago
Or better yet, some sort of dynamic pricing when, say, you're on a crowded subway platform. You'd really want solid software integration for that, though, so the user isn't unpleasantly surprised by it.
- mentat 12y agoType "2.5" to accept surge pricing.
- eli 12y agoBut I want my email and push notifications to happen the background without paying extra. Unless it's been a while, then I probably am willing to pay extra. Seems awfully tricky.
- Dylan16807 12y agoDoesn't seem too tricky to me. Email and push notifications are almost zero data; go ahead and let them pay full price. Download updates and podcasts at 4AM. Maybe ask before doing interactive high-bandwidth things, depends on user preference.
- rhino369 12y agoI think customers would be pissed about never knowing when data will suddenly surge in price, even if you warn them. It would also kill the user experience. And stuff like background updates and push messages would be a pain. I'm sure the usage pattern is steady enough to make a pretty good model.
- saidajigumi 12y agoI have a lot of problems with surge pricing in general, not the least of which (in this example) is that it creates two classes of 'net users: those with enough disposable income to probably not care about surge pricing ever and those for whom it's a burden. Yes, that's a reflection on larger societal issues, but it's still there. Worse, surge pricing is often a distraction for nearly everyone. IMO, it's not ethical to implement surge pricing without allowing a user some mechanism to opt-out of it and to understand why they aren't getting bandwidth at that time. But having put that stake in the ground, the UX now requires that the user waste mental decision energy on ... business bullshit[1]. Last not far from least, it aligns the incentives of carriers against providing enough coverage to handle capacity. We're learning how to handle higher density wireless scenarios (cf. articles on stadium and other heavy-use event network systems). Would we rather incentivize trickle-down of these systems into high-traffic public areas (e.g. commuter zones), or just further line the pockets of a few near-monopolist carriers at our own expense? [1] This relates to why users rightly don't like metered billing -- it creates decision pressure. A payment structure that alleviates use of decision energy is a value add.
- maxerickson 12y agoHow do you feel about services that require $650 phones? Also, discounts when network utilization is low?
- untog 12y agoHow do you feel about services that require $650 phones? Broadly speaking, few do. There are a lot of cheap Android phones out there.
- maxerickson 12y agoThis service requires a $650 phone.
- derefr 12y agoIt does for now. Whether or not the tech filters down into other products, this exact phone won't still be $650 in two years.
- untog 12y agoSure, but there's no reason it will always be the case. It makes sense to start with a limited number of hardware devices, and only ones under your control.
- maxerickson 12y agoYeah, I'm not confused about that. But the comment I replied to was concerned that some users of the service might have more disposable income than others, which is an odd thing to bring to the table when discussing a convenience service that has a $650 entry price (I don't have a smartphone, so I'm not being a ridiculous hypocrite describing it that way). I'm pretty skeptical of price controls, I never expect them to do me any good. The argument presented there is that surge pricing is bad because some people can't afford it. The other side of the coin is that if you ban surge pricing, you make it more difficult to charge less at other times.