Bypass geo-restricted streaming services for $35

[iMore.com]

Disappointed when you can't get access to your favorite streaming services when travelling or using public Wi-Fi? Getflix is your solution — get a lifetime subscription today for only $35!

Full story from the iMore Blog...

 

[anony_mouse]

What is the business rationale for giving away the service with a 96% discount?

 

[SwitchBeach]

Is iMore actually encouraging bypassing restrictions like this?

 

[Rob Phillips]

SMH. Where’s the integrity in this article?

 

[Just_Me_D]

iMore.com is just reiterating what the advertised service is promoting. I went to the actual service’s website and read it - it’s in the second sentence therein....

 

[SwitchBeach]

Yeah, but should iMore even be advertising (much less selling) this?

 

[anony_mouse]

Once again - why is this service being offered with a 96% discount? This sounds fishy.

 

[comiken205]

Once again - why is this service being offered with a 96% discount? This sounds fishy.

Maybe to get people to try it and get in board. Then when people start getting wind of the service they started raising prices back to normal.

 

[anony_mouse]

Maybe to get people to try it and get in board. Then when people start getting wind of the service they started raising prices back to normal.

You would expect that but this is a 96% discount on a 30 year licence to the service.

Does anyone expect this service to still be relevant, and this company to still be around, in 30 years' time?

 

[Tartarus]

Maybe to get people to try it and get in board. Then when people start getting wind of the service they started raising prices back to normal.

If they are gonna raise the price, that will be for people who just subscribe after the raise. Current subscribers will not be affected by that choice.

You would expect that but this is a 96% discount on a 30 year licence to the service.

Does anyone expect this service to still be relevant, and this company to still be around, in 30 years' time?

Even if they were to stop after three years. That’s less than a dollar per month you’d have paid for the service.
Is that a breach of contract by them, sure it is, but is it something to lose sleep over? I doubt it.

 

[Just_Me_D]

Yeah, but should iMore even be advertising (much less selling) this?

A couple of years ago, I would have said no, but this is the new iMore and part of its focus is generating revenue through advertisements. We’ve all seen the changes to the site’s design, the focus on Pokémon Go and Nintendo Switch as well as viewed the various displayed ads. Some would say that Millennials are now the target audience....

 

[Just_Me_D]

You would expect that but this is a 96% discount on a 30 year licence to the service.

Does anyone expect this service to still be relevant, and this company to still be around, in 30 years' time?

That’s the point! Attract customers now, and even if they go out of business 3 years from now, the customer would not be too upset about it because they didn’t spend a great deal of money for the service and will have felt they’ve used their money’s worth. Furthermore, the selling company would have gotten paid upfront. Think about it. Let’s say a VPN service is now charging $20 for a lifetime membership and 1 million customers signed up. That’s $20 million dollars the service has just maid, and depending on the country of origin, $20 million could be like $40 million. It’s a win-win situation, in my opinion.

 

[anony_mouse]

That’s the point! Attract customers now, and even if they go out of business 3 years from now, the customer would not be too upset about it because they didn’t spend a great deal of money for the service and will have felt they’ve used their money’s worth. Furthermore, the selling company would have gotten paid upfront. Think about it. Let’s say a VPN service is now charging $20 for a lifetime membership and 1 million customers signed up. That’s $20 million dollars the service has just maid, and depending on the country of origin, $20 million could be like $40 million. It’s a win-win situation, in my opinion.

Indeed, they have just made $20 million. But they are now liable for *30 years* of service. That has serious costs. Unless you are implying that they are not intending to provide the service for the contracted 30 years? I'm certainly not claiming that - that's a serious, possibly criminal, allegation.

 

[Just_Me_D]

Indeed, they have just made $20 million. But they are now liable for *30 years* of service. That has serious costs. Unless you are implying that they are not intending to provide the service for the contracted 30 years? I'm certainly not claiming that - that's a serious, possibly criminal, allegation.

You and I both know what I’m saying. In no way am I’m implying anything illegal. They are liable up and to the point they are no longer in business. If they are bought out by another company then that company typically assumes the responsibility. There are always exceptions, and I’m sure those things are listed in their TOS.

 

[anony_mouse]

You and I both know what I’m saying. In no way am I’m implying anything illegal. They are liable up and to the point they are no longer in business. If they are bought out by another company then that company typically assumes the responsibility. There are always exceptions, and I’m sure those things are listed in their TOS.

It seems to me that you are saying it's OK for a company to contract to provide a service for a period of time, but have no plan in place to do so despite taking customers' money. I'm sure that's not what you're trying to say though, so hence my questions.

If a theoretical company's business plan involved selling 10 year subscriptions at a price that could only fund the contracted service for 2 years, and didn't have a plan in place to fund the service for the remaining 8 years, but yet the directors took a salary, bonuses, dividends, etc during that time, that would be dodgy, right?

Obviously I'm not suggesting this is the case with this company or product.

 

[Just_Me_D]

It seems to me that you are saying it's OK for a company to contract to provide a service for a period of time, but have no plan in place to do so despite taking customers' money. I'm sure that's not what you're trying to say though, so hence my questions.

If a theoretical company's business plan involved selling 10 year subscriptions at a price that could only fund the contracted service for 2 years, and didn't have a plan in place to fund the service for the remaining 8 years, but yet the directors took a salary, bonuses, dividends, etc during that time, that would be dodgy, right?

Obviously I'm not suggesting this is the case with this company or product.

In the manner you have put it suggests an intent and would definitely be fraudulent.

 

[Tartarus]

It seems to me that you are saying it's OK for a company to contract to provide a service for a period of time, but have no plan in place to do so despite taking customers' money. I'm sure that's not what you're trying to say though, so hence my questions.

If a theoretical company's business plan involved selling 10 year subscriptions at a price that could only fund the contracted service for 2 years, and didn't have a plan in place to fund the service for the remaining 8 years, but yet the directors took a salary, bonuses, dividends, etc during that time, that would be dodgy, right?

Obviously I'm not suggesting this is the case with this company or product.

This company has started with the premise to exist for more than 30 years, hence the offering of that service for that time period. If they were to be forced to stop because nobody else other than the discounted subscribers used their service, that’s a risk of the business.
If because of technological evolution their service becomes obsolete, forcing them to close, that’s a risk of the business.

There is nothing dodgy about this.

But if they were to charge people and simply vanish, that’s where the FBI and SEC is for.

I don’t get your stance in this. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

[anony_mouse]

I don’t get your stance in this. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

My stance on this is that I am very suspicious of a service offered with a *96% discount*. That suggests the original price is far too high, or that the new price is far too low.

You might give a very large discount on, say, some very old smartphones that you want to clear out of a stockroom and sell them below cost, on the grounds that no-one would pay more. It might have been better not to buy those smartphones in the first place, but what's done is done and it's better to get something for them than nothing.

Pricing a service is a different matter as a service implies ongoing liabilities for the lifetime of the contract. Obviously I'm not suggesting anything dodgy here, but I am curious how a *96% discount* can be offered. How were the original and new prices calculated? Are you not also curious?

 

[Just_Me_D]

Numerous factors can affect price. There have been a good deal of VPN competitors who have offered similar discounts for a period of time and have garnered a good deal of customers. This particular service would like to do the same. It’s not fishy. It’s business. Furthermore, where VPN usage was typically dominated in corporate settings have now spread to typical consumer use. VPN services are a dime a dozen these days and that is another reason for the reduction in price.

 

[Tartarus]

My stance on this is that I am very suspicious of a service offered with a *96% discount*. That suggests the original price is far too high, or that the new price is far too low.

You might give a very large discount on, say, some very old smartphones that you want to clear out of a stockroom and sell them below cost, on the grounds that no-one would pay more. It might have been better not to buy those smartphones in the first place, but what's done is done and it's better to get something for them than nothing.

Pricing a service is a different matter as a service implies ongoing liabilities for the lifetime of the contract. Obviously I'm not suggesting anything dodgy here, but I am curious how a *96% discount* can be offered. How were the original and new prices calculated? Are you not also curious?

That discount is to make their name heard. The more people use it, the more people you’ll have making mouth-to-mouth advertising for you.
A lot of startups start with a low price and increase it if they have made themselves known to the world.

Like Just_Me_D said, it’s all about business.