This is starting to frustrate me now.
In the UK, as I'm sure elsewhere, if you subscribe to a mobile plan, a TV subscription, a broadband connection - you get the hardware to consume that content for free - be it a mobile phone, a satellite dish, a modem/laptop.
Why are magazines/newspapers/books etc think that they are in some privileged position to bleed me of all my money, only to show me more adverts? This is just counter intuitive and an insult to customers.
I have a subscription to both GQ and Wired. I pay them a monthly fee for good writing, articles and photography. I don't pay them for delivery, glossy paper and the mountain of junk mail - but I understand that that's what the best method is.
Why now, as a subscriber, am I expected to pay for the means of delivery, AS WELL AS pay again for the same content, albiet with some moving images.
Conde Nast have an opportunity to totally corner the magazine market while slash their delivery costs. They should be writing me to me saying "Hi, here's a choice for you. You can continue to receive your magazine subscription via post as normal - or we'll send you an iPad for free and you can move to our digital subscription. Or pay £2 extra for postage and get both. Your call".
Instead I get - "Hey, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE drop 500 notes on a delivery device so we can charge you twice for the same content, expose you to more of other magazines, show you more adverts and make you pay double. You have to, because, like, we're all in trouble if you don't."
This is just rude in my eyes, an insult to long term subscribers and a backwards business model.
f