“The cost of smart phones is considerably higher than feature phones for which the early termination fees were created years ago at $175,” said Verizon spokesman Jim Gerace. He added that the new $350 ETF declines by $10 per month through the life of the contract and customers can avoid it by buying their devices off contract and paying full retail price.

An interesting move for Verizon (VZ), which just last year agreed to pay $21 million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed by California consumers over the very early-termination fees it is now increasing. The plaintiffs in the suit alleged that Verizon’s ETFs were illegal under California law and that they were designed to unfairly lock consumers into long-term contracts and prevent them from switching carriers. When Verizon settled the suit, it denied any wrongdoing, insisting that early-termination fees are simply a means of recovering legitimate costs. And to some extent Verizon does have a point.

Full retail price for the Motorola’s (MOT) new Droid is $559.99. With a two-year contract, Verizon sells the handset for $199.99. Theoretically, that’s a $359.99 subsidy (I have no idea at what price Verizon purchases Droid from Motorola). So if Verizon allowed subscribers to break their contract after a month without paying an early-termination fee, the company would stand to lose money. And subscribers who did so could subsequently sell the device online and potentially make a profit, though a small one.

So it’s certainly understandable that Verizon and other carriers want to protect the subsidies they dole out for these new smart phones. And as noted earlier, Verizon’s new ETF drops by $10 each month a subscriber remains under contract. But at this rate, subscribers are still bound to pay a $110 termination fee in the 23rd month of a two-year contract. The contract is nearly over, the subscriber obligation to Verizon almost fulfilled, yet the company can still slap its customers with nearly a third of the full ETF if they break it at that time.

By month 23 of a two-year contract, does Verizon really stand to lose $110 if subscribers decide to switch carriers? Doesn’t seem likely if subscribers can walk away just a month later without consequence, taking their handsets with them.

Since Verizon is pro-rating the ETF, why isn’t it doing so in such a way that it zeroes out by the end of the contract?

And isn’t the fast pace of innovation in the smart-phone sector such that prices–for both component and device–are dropping so quickly that high ETFs aren’t really justified? Remember, you can get Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone for $99 today. When the iPhone debuted in 2007, it commanded a price of $499/$599, depending on model.

I’ve put those same questions to Verizon and will update here when I hear back. In the meantime, here’s what Consumers Union policy analyst Joel Kelsey has to say on the matter: “When people want to switch wireless services, the biggest cost they face is early termination fees. These fees are designed to lock people into long-term contracts and stop them from getting better deals. Early-termination fees make the marketplace less competitive. Verizon’s move is painful proof that it’s time for lawmakers to crack down on these fees.”

UPDATE: Verizon Wireless spokesperson Nancy Stark offers the following answers to the questions I posed above:

Your first question regarding the balance at month 23 or 24 assumes that, at that point, we have recovered all of our subsidy and up-front costs for every device. That simply is not so.

On your second question, while the pace of innovation plays a role in prices coming down somewhat, it also plays a role in driving up costs as more and more complexity that customers want is added to phones–from premium HTML browsers to high-resolution MP cameras with optical zoom; videoplayers; music players; dual processor chipsets; WiFi; very high display resolution, operating systems such as BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, Palm, Android–ALL with the added value (vs a desktop) of mobility, and ALL in one tiny device that ALSO allows you to talk to anyone from anywhere. phew! (by comparison, I recently paid $200 for a camera and all it can do is take pictures, and it has only middle of the road capabilities.)

But getting back to ETFs specifically. The most important point is that Verizon Wireless customers do not have to have an ETF at all if they do not want to. ETFs allow customers to have it either way: They can have no ETF and pay full retail for their device. OR, they can get a greatly discounted device by having an ETF.

The Japanese company’s share of the portable music player market rose to 43 percent, surpassing Apple’s 42.1 percent and ending the iPod’s 241-week run as Japan’s top portable media player.

A noteworthy victory for the Japanese electronics giant, but one that says more about just how far the once great company has fallen than anything else. That it took Sony (SNE) this long to unseat Apple (AAPL) in its home market is astonishing–all the more so given the vast success of the Walkman and the mindshare it once commanded.

And one could argue that Sony hasn’t actually beaten Apple at all. BCN’s survey didn’t include the iPhone because it views that device as a phone. But obviously, it’s an iPod as well–BCN notes that the handset has clearly cannibalized iPod sales. Had BCN classified the iPhone as the media player that it is, Apple would almost certainly have maintained its lead over Sony in the Japanese market.

Blu-ray is a bag of hurt.

– Apple CEO Steve Jobs, Oct. 2008

2009 may prove to be the year that Blu-ray caught on. Sales of the high-definition DVD players–sluggish throughout 2008–are surging in 2009. According to the latest metrics from the NPD Group sales of standalone Blu-ray disc players in the United States rose 72 percent from the first quarter of 2008, driven by an increasing awareness of the technology. As NPD notes in its report, Blu-ray disc video technology is moving further into the mainstream. Consumer awareness of Blu-ray in the United States has grown 90 percent, and purchase intent is up as well. Six percent of the people NPD spoke to said they would be “extremely or very likely” to buy a player in the next six months. Apparently now that the average selling price has plummeted 34 percent–from $393 in Q1 2008 to $261 in Q1 2009–consumers find it easier to get past the “my current DVD player is good enough” barrier.

“The rising penetration of high-definition televisions and lower Blu-ray player prices are broadening the format’s market opportunity,” Ross Rubin, director of industry analysis at NPD, said in a statement. “Even as options expand for accessing movies digitally, Blu-ray is carrying forward the widespread appeal of DVD into the high-definition marketplace.”

That said, Blu-ray titles are still being dramatically outsold by DVD–though sales are rising quickly.

[Image Credit: The Onion]

YouTube’s latest API offerings allow anyone building a Web site or software application that is connected to the Internet to upload videos straight to YouTube; let users comment, rate and favorite the videos; and customize and control the Flash player in which the videos are played. This can be used in conjunction with the existing APIs, which launched last year and which provide the ability to view videos on other sites and to search for videos on YouTube.

“The enhancements to the YouTube APIs and Tools offering are free and easy to use, giving YouTube users yet another way to engage the world of video and actively participate in the YouTube community wherever they are, whenever they want.”

Of course, these enhancements also give YouTube and, by extension, Google (GOOG), another way to engage the world of advertising. In the API’s terms of service, YouTube reserves the right to serve ads through a publisher’s API Client, but prohibits publishers from selling their own. Two relevant excerpts from the TOS:

I. Definitions
“API Data” means any data or content, including but not limited to YouTube video content, obtained from YouTube using any YouTube API, including advertising content that YouTube may, in its sole discretion, provide along with or insert in data or content obtained from YouTube using the YouTube API.”

4. Commercial Use. You agree not to use the YouTube API for any prohibited commercial uses, which include the following actions taken without YouTube’s express approval:

• the sale of the YouTube API, API Data, YouTube video content or related services, or access to any of the foregoing;
• use of the YouTube API for the primary purpose of deriving revenues from your API Client, such as advertising or subscription revenue or the sale of copies of the API Client;
• the sale of advertising, sponsorships or promotions targeted to, within or on the API Client or YouTube video content.

Ah. So that’s how it is: YouTube doesn’t just broadcast you, it broadcasts advertisements as well.

UPDATE: YouTube product manager Jim Patterson tells TechCrunch that the API is open to YouTube Partners, who will share in the advertising generated by their players.

We are not introducing any fundamentally new way to monetize. Any video that is uploaded through our API is treated exactly as on YouTube.com. In general if a video is uploaded to YouTube, in some cases we serve ads into that on YouTube.com. When people embed those we reserve rights to serve ads in the future.”