"What's the connection with the iPad, you ask? Well, here's how I see it: an iPad in itself allows you to do very little. Sure, it has some desktop substitution apps pre-loaded, but that's definitely not in itself a reason to buy it. It's expensive too, nearly $500. But the fact is that you're buying an enabler for future apps and services, online or offline, more than you're buying a self-contained device.
In that sense, it's not all that different from a super-high-speed broadband connection. In itself, it has no value, it's the huge potential of applications, services and content that it allows you to access or use that generates its value. And yet service providers around the world (Nordics excepted) seem convinced that there is no way end-users would be willing to pay a significant set-up fee.
And yet think about how better the business model would look if end-users were willing to pay $500 for the connection? In most dense urban areas (which are about the only areas potentially targeted, at least in the Western World) , that would cut the costs by half or more. Isn't that worth exploring different models of ownership or at least of usage?"
I wonder if there is any consideration of this in our UFB projects?
"end-users to pay part of the cost of deployment to their home as a set-up fee."
- Fiberevolution: 1 FTTH connection = 2 iPads (view on Google Sidewiki)