SeeTheLight

Akamai: Why Charge More for Streaming Video Delivery vs. HTTP Delivery?

Wow, should akamai follow the lead of all its competitors? Your "vision" seems to assume that "streaming" versus "http download" are the same and should be priced similarly. An example:

Let's say a small competitor owns a gas station and it decides to price its premium gas at the same price as its regular gas. Other stations follow suit. Should the market leader follow suit? Depends on how elastic the demand for their product is. If they have loyalty and some perceived difference then no. If is truly a commodity and people will switch to the other companies, then yes.

Akamai probably thinks that they have a perceived difference. They might be right, they might be wrong. Time will tell. I own the shares, but more because they are the market leader rather than their pricing strategy. I assume that if their pricing strategy results in declining market share they will match.

You obviously know that streaming is "more" expensive as stated in a post above, I assume since you work for streamingMedia.com that you know the benefits of streaming over HTTP delivery. I am surprised that you wouldn't realize that selling the premium product at a lower price is simply a way to try to gain market share against a market leader. Econ 101 really, a VP should know that.

Also, as a VP. I am surprised you get so easily rattled by comments to your posts, with the credentials on your bio, you'd think you'd be above a cat fight, doesn't look good on you.

Cheers.