

Digital subscription costs are bleeding consumers dry - anigbrowl
http://gizmodo.com/5448321/the-subscription-war-youre-bleeding-to-death

======
samdk
There's a ton of overlap here.

3G (or equivalent) on four devices. (And if you have 3G on four devices,
there's absolutely no reason to be paying for mobile WiFi hotspots).

And then there are five different services for streaming video.

And then a land-line phone.

If you're paying anywhere close to the $738 they estimate as the maximum it's
only because you're not paying any attention to what you're paying for.

------
pyre
> _You've got your smartphone bill, your cable bill, your home broadband bill.
> Those are unavoidable expenses—there's not much you can do about them._

I don't have a smartphone or cable. Calling them 'unavoidable' is a dubious
claim.

~~~
lbrandy
Sentences make more sense in context. In this case, the context is under the
tongue-in-cheek reference to the "well-equipped greek" which is someone who,
presumably, wants to have all the "must-have" gadgets. For someone who
considers that list of gadgets "must-have", I'd argue that both cable and
smart-phones are certainly at the very top of the list.

Your point, then, is that you aren't one of those "well-equipped geeks" who
must subscribe to everything. Neither am I (is anyone?). Neither of those bits
of information undermine the point he is trying to make.

~~~
potatolicious
Not to mention that paying for a 3G data plan with almost any carrier in the
US also entitles you to a whole network of WiFi hotspots with no additional
charge.

Oh, and I still don't get why cable television is required these days - every
show I follow is available online at substantially lower total cost than
paying for 200 channels I'll never watch.

------
bonsaitree
Utter pablum. Slow news day? Ethically dubious journalist?

What consumer buys so many duplicative services?

Here's a piece of advice. Don't buy services that overlap in functionality.
Don't buy items you can't afford to use. Consider the total cost of ownership.

The entire tone of this article is one of yellow "jurinalistic bias" and does
not reflect accurate market research on consumer behavior let alone consumer
need.

The author comes across as little more than a petty financially irresponsible,
and technically ignorant, whiner.

------
physcab
This is such a dumb article. The author makes it seem like our hands are tied
and we are forced to pay such high fees. No, I'm sorry, those are the fees
_you_ have to pay for all those services since _you_ chose all of them in the
first place. Consumers have choice and they will pay for the products they
desire as they fit in the realm of their--atleast theorectical--budget.

------
josefresco
When I saw the low-end of the range was $208 for all that stuff (80% of which
I don't have) my first thought was "how cheap!".

I pay more than $208/month for just 2 of those services.

Who pays for a navigation app?

------
pavel_lishin
They finally lost me when they said that $738 - the highest calculated
possibility - was nearly a thousand.

Shit costs money. Oh no.

~~~
brown9-2
I can't imagine someone subscribing to each and every one of these:

* Unlimited voice, text and data on a smartphone

* Netbook data plan

* A "slate" (no clue what this is) 3G data plan

* Home internet

* Mobile internet for a laptop

* Wi-fi hotspot access

Oh, and a home landline.

Sounds more like someone thought up a headline they wanted to write and then
came up with the data to back it.

~~~
potatolicious
A "slate" is the new class of touchscreen tablet devices expected to emerge
Apple's announcement next week.

The journalist here doesn't seem to understand that a "slate" owner is
unlikely to own a netbook at the same time. Nor does he apparently understand
that unlimited data on a smartphone entitles you to ubiquitous free WiFi (in
the US anyways), so your netbook/slate data plan is entirely unnecessary,
especially when considering tethering capabilities of the phone you're
_already_ using.

~~~
brown9-2
I think that they do understand it, but they're ignoring logic for purpose of
the article's premise.

------
sabat
I wouldn't subscribe to this many things, but it seems pretty clear: if I'm
_that_ into all this stuff, then it'll be worth the money and I'll find a way
to pay it. If it's _not_ worth it to me, then I'll cancel a bunch of them.

Nothing to see here, move along. (BTW: who the heck pays money to watch shows
on Hulu?)

~~~
berntb
>>who the heck pays money to watch shows on Hulu?

I would. I'm outside the US and don't like waiting for e.g. Big Bang Theory
(if that is on Hulu, I can't even get that far.)

~~~
pavel_lishin
Isn't part of the point of watching shows online separating yourself from a
schedule? Hell, a lot of times I'll wait until a season of a show is over to
watch it, so I doni't have to wait for upcoming episodes.

~~~
pyre
Some shows are good enough that you want to watch the episode when they come
out. Watching it online still separates you from the schedule though. If the
show airs at 8pm, you don't have to watch it at 8pm, you can watch it when you
have time. But there's a difference between a couple of hours/days and a
couple of months (maybe waiting for a dvd release to buy it, or for a local
station to rebroadcast for your country).

