PDA

View Full Version : iPod touch 'upgrade'


MagicWok
Jan 15, 2008, 11:42 AM
$20 to pay for apps that the iPhone already has (Mail/Stocks/Weather etc).

Whilst iPhone gets a slew of updates for free.

Hmmm - no Apple. I will be sticking to my free, no risk option of Jailbreaking still. Not convinced on that one minor thing.

$20 isn't alot, but it is still an amount - and I personally don't feel I should have to spend any more on a device than I already have bought! Even if the update was $1, why should Touch buyers have to shell out yet more money on a device they've already bought, and some would argue was handicapped in the beginning not having these apps.

It's the principles see.

(Prepared to be flamed for my principles, but I stand by them)

JPT
Jan 15, 2008, 11:47 AM
I bet the new iPod Touches comes with the upgrade free of charge...

supercooled
Jan 15, 2008, 11:49 AM
I bet the new iPod Touches comes with the upgrade free of charge...

Like how computers bought wihtin 15 days of Leopard's release have to pay a "nominal" fee of $9.99 to upgrade. Thanks Apple, but no thanks.

dukebound85
Jan 15, 2008, 11:52 AM
i personally am dissapointed. more reason to jailbreak as i havent yet

stikeymo
Jan 15, 2008, 12:03 PM
A load of bollocks. Screw this, I'll be jailbreaking out of principle and my own depths of stingeyness.

SamIchi
Jan 15, 2008, 12:04 PM
What is this jailbreaking term you guys are referring to?

iMouseHD
Jan 15, 2008, 12:05 PM
What is this jailbreaking term you guys are referring to?

Seriously?

Short answer it will save you 20 bucks.

I agree I am disappointed in this.

Maldini
Jan 15, 2008, 12:06 PM
So its like an iPhone but without the phone :cool:

Fast Shadow
Jan 15, 2008, 12:08 PM
Isn't the charging for upgrades issue a legal requirement? I read that Apple has to charge for these upgrades due to a provision in Sarbanes-Oxley.

CopyChief
Jan 15, 2008, 12:10 PM
I will say that to get all of these apps for $20, on the surface, seems like a good deal in terms of the functionality they offer for the dollar.

At the same time, look what they've done with the Apple TV - that's quite a software upgrade. And it's FREE.

Now, I've already got the iPhone apps on my iPod. And before the keynote, suspecting they'd be released with 1.1.3, I thought that maybe I'd give the rest of the apps up for an Apple-sanctioned solution, smoothing the way to the SDK releases.

Now I'm staying put.

Hello.there
Jan 15, 2008, 12:27 PM
I honestly thought Steve was being amusing when he mentioned the $20 'upgrade'. Comical. So, do you think should I now un-jailbreak my iPod Touch and then re-jailbreak it after sending the $20 cheque to Apple? Ooooh, that's a tough decision.

MagicWok
Jan 15, 2008, 12:34 PM
Isn't the charging for upgrades issue a legal requirement? I read that Apple has to charge for these upgrades due to a provision in Sarbanes-Oxley.

I don't see why it's legal requirement that Apple have to charge customers anything. If they want to do it for free, they can. Just as they have done with the iPhone.

And what of earth is Sarbanes-Oxley? lol

ed: I'm honestly not seething about this. It's a small but prominent point I believe, and just a bit silly to charge and doesn't convince me to un-jailbreak and go from 1.11 to 1.13 or whatever. I love Scumm games too much :P lol

supercooled
Jan 15, 2008, 12:36 PM
I don't see why it's legal requirement that Apple have to charge customers anything. If they want to do it for free, they can. Just as they have done with the iPhone.

And what of earth is Sarbanes-Oxley? lol

MagicWok, meet Google.com.

lol :rolleyes:

coolant113
Jan 15, 2008, 12:36 PM
i think it is ok that they charge for the new software.. because the money will defray the cost of all the developmental costs of new apps.:apple::apple:

Klaxons2012
Jan 15, 2008, 12:38 PM
I don't think the iPhone updates were a big deal, I think iPhone owners paid the premium to recieve those updates for free to be honest. Steve doesn't want to shell out another $100 a pop to appease that crowd.

The real injustice is with the AppleTV crowd getting that slew of updates for free. That's the equivalent of getting a new product for free. The Touch updates are nominal really and can be handled by web based apps.

Avatar74
Jan 15, 2008, 12:53 PM
I disagree with the general negativity here... for a reason...

Apple doesn't sell technical specs. They sell a user experience.

The additional functionality for iPod touch come at a premium because it wasn't part of the original package to begin with.

In the case of iPhone, users PAID a premium in advance for future functionality that was to be expected. Same with AppleTV... it was always noted that additional functionality would come at no additional cost.

Furthermore, original AppleTV owners have paid a premium price for which charging US extra (me included) does not make sense since what we were given was barely functional to begin with. Also, the rentals may be subsidizing part of the cost of application development.

That's another point... any software that is a portal to purchases would pay for itself over time. Any software that is not a portal to purchases does NOT pay for itself over time.

Sarbanes-Oxeley rules aside, Apple's pricing strategy here is dependent upon what user experience was sold to you when you purchased the device.

You have every right not to buy the software, and I'm not saying that in a derogatory tone.

I'm just trying to explain that pricing isn't strictly about manufacturing or development cost. Demand, expectations, guarantees, and accounting regulations do all play a part in this and I suspect Apple will get the $20.

If what you really wanted at the time iPod touch came out, you could have bought an iPhone. The fact that the features are available now for a price... Apple's not screwing you, they're charging exactly what they ought to charge to give you added functionality that the original retail price did not promise.

JPT
Jan 15, 2008, 12:57 PM
I bet the new iPod Touches comes with the upgrade free of charge...


Well... I was right! It comes free with new iPod Touches.

ghall
Jan 15, 2008, 01:00 PM
I think it's sad that they're doing that. It's very pathetic. $20 for 4 programs that people who buy the iPod touch from here on out will get for free. They're going to get a huge backlash, as anyone who would buy that is crazy.

IJ Reilly
Jan 15, 2008, 01:21 PM
Isn't the charging for upgrades issue a legal requirement? I read that Apple has to charge for these upgrades due to a provision in Sarbanes-Oxley.

Essentially, yes. The same issue cropped up with activating Wireless-N on Macs which were shipped with the capability before it was supported. Not everyone apparently agrees, but evidently adding features to previously sold products can be seen to create accounting issues.

One thing is clear: The iPod hackers are now going down a blind alley -- some willingly, it seems.

IJ Reilly
Jan 15, 2008, 01:23 PM
I think it's sad that they're doing that. It's very pathetic. $20 for 4 programs that people who buy the iPod touch from here on out will get for free. They're going to get a huge backlash, as anyone who would buy that is crazy.

I'll buy it. But then, everybody knows I'm completely off my rocker.

JPT
Jan 15, 2008, 01:44 PM
Essentially, yes. The same issue cropped up with activating Wireless-N on Macs which were shipped with the capability before it was supported. Not everyone apparently agrees, but evidently adding features to previously sold products can be seen to create accounting issues.

One thing is clear: The iPod hackers are now going down a blind alley -- some willingly, it seems.


What about the iPhone and ATV updates then? Those are free.

MovieCutter
Jan 15, 2008, 01:46 PM
A bitching thread I actually agree with. Novel idea....

Osarkon
Jan 15, 2008, 01:54 PM
I'll buy it. But then, everybody knows I'm completely off my rocker.

I'd buy it as well (if I had an iPod Touch). It's essentially $5 per program, that's not at all bad if you ask me.

mentat
Jan 15, 2008, 02:00 PM
The standard 1.1.3 update is, compared to the iPhone update only half an update.

You do not get the option for example to rearange your home screen, or to add links to your home screen. The only wat to get those is to buy the update.

I personaly have no problem with paying 17 euro's for it, it improves the user expirence and makes sure that your iPod is compatible with all apple stuff (the upcoming SDK based programs)

IJ Reilly
Jan 15, 2008, 02:07 PM
What about the iPhone and ATV updates then? Those are free.

I don't claim any special knowledge of accounting or the reporting laws. I am only recalling the same situation as it occurred with the Wireless-N activations. Apple charged $5.00 for activating that feature in the hardware, for reasons that were said to be related to accounting. I remember some saying that they thought Apple's bean counters were being too conservative in their judgement then, but keep in mind that they've recently spent a lot of time under the SEC's microscope, so this may the reason why.

mrgreen4242
Jan 15, 2008, 02:07 PM
Isn't the charging for upgrades issue a legal requirement? I read that Apple has to charge for these upgrades due to a provision in Sarbanes-Oxley.
No. See todays iPhone and ATV updates.
i think it is ok that they charge for the new software.. because the money will defray the cost of all the developmental costs of new apps.:apple::apple:
There was no new development here. They copied apps they've already written onto a new device. The iPhone and ATV did get newly written code, though, but with no charge.
Essentially, yes. The same issue cropped up with activating Wireless-N on Macs which were shipped with the capability before it was supported. Not everyone apparently agrees, but evidently adding features to previously sold products can be seen to create accounting issues.

One thing is clear: The iPod hackers are now going down a blind alley -- some willingly, it seems.
Seems to not be a problem with other updates. They add features to products all the time with no charge, including today. It's a money grab, plain and simple.

If they had made new applications... Mail Plus, a better contact book, an improved text editor, etc. and called them the PDA Pro Suite or something and simply offered them for sale to touch and iPhone owners who wanted them (and kept the "basic" apps off the iPod touch all together - if you want these apps on the touch you have to get the "Pro" version) no one would have complained.

But their actions are pretty rotten in my, and many others, opinion.

Domofloge
Jan 15, 2008, 02:08 PM
I bet the new iPod Touches comes with the upgrade free of charge...

They do... :mad:

sonofmof
Jan 15, 2008, 02:10 PM
1 simple word... gutted.

I bought a 16gb iPod Touch only last week, and love it.

if they don't reverse this, it simply pushes earlier adopters like me to jailbreak, which is something I would not normally condone.

mrgreen4242
Jan 15, 2008, 02:10 PM
The standard 1.1.3 update is, compared to the iPhone update only half an update.

You do not get the option for example to rearange your home screen, or to add links to your home screen. The only wat to get those is to buy the update.

I personaly have no problem with paying 17 euro's for it, it improves the user expirence and makes sure that your iPod is compatible with all apple stuff (the upcoming SDK based programs)

That plainly confirms this is not an accounting issue. You pay for that feature with a touch and get it for free with the iPhone.

This is going to be a big, big deal for Apple. I really think some people here (and apparently in Apple HQ) seriously underestimating how this is going to bite Apple in the butt in the next couple of weeks.

I predict refunds and this being turned into a free update within a month.

IJ Reilly
Jan 15, 2008, 02:19 PM
That plainly confirms this is not an accounting issue. You pay for that feature with a touch and get it for free with the iPhone.

No, it doesn't confirm anything at all. Claiming to know something for certain when you really can't know it for certain, doesn't make much sense.

byeehaaw
Jan 15, 2008, 02:22 PM
jailbreak and install those 3rd party apps! :D:D

mrgreen4242
Jan 15, 2008, 02:26 PM
No, it doesn't confirm anything at all. Claiming to know something for certain when you really can't know it for certain, doesn't make much sense.

What I'm saying is that everyone who is arguing "this is some sort of accounting thing" is obviously wrong. Apple added something to one device for free and is charging for it on another device. The feature is exactly the same, it wasn't included with one at launch, and not the other; nor was it promised on one machine and not the other. It's a new feature that some people are paying for and others aren't.

And because new touches are getting the feature free, it's also clearly not something to keep people from getting a touch over an iPhone - in fact it's the opposite. People who bought a touch already are not likely to buy an iPhone anytime soon, whereas people who wanted a PDA might have gone for an iPhone over a touch until now.

I've seen no rational, logical explanation for this other than it's a money grab. I'm disgusted by it and I don't even have a touch.

IJ Reilly
Jan 15, 2008, 02:36 PM
What I'm saying is that everyone who is arguing "this is some sort of accounting thing" is obviously wrong. Apple added something to one device for free and is charging for it on another device. The feature is exactly the same, it wasn't included with one at launch, and not the other; nor was it promised on one machine and not the other. It's a new feature that some people are paying for and others aren't.

And because new touches are getting the feature free, it's also clearly not something to keep people from getting a touch over an iPhone - in fact it's the opposite. People who bought a touch already are not likely to buy an iPhone anytime soon, whereas people who wanted a PDA might have gone for an iPhone over a touch until now.

I've seen no rational, logical explanation for this other than it's a money grab. I'm disgusted by it and I don't even have a touch.

I'm saying that it might be an "accounting thing," because of a similar fee situation with the Wireless-N activation -- which also caused wailing and moaning from some, and was attributed to Apple's interpretation of the reporting laws. You are arguing that this could not possibly be true -- based entirely on your own opinion, and nothing else that I can determine. That's certainly not enough basis to declare that everyone who thinks otherwise is "obviously wrong."

New touches are not getting the new applications "free," they are getting them "included," which is a very different thing.

Bottom line: If you don't think it's worth the money, don't buy it.

tMac85
Jan 15, 2008, 02:45 PM
if i upgrade with a jailbroken ipod what happens...

i have tried and it said it cant find my update server could not be contacted. what does this mean?

will it brick my ipod touch if i upgrade?

IJ Reilly
Jan 15, 2008, 03:31 PM
I can't respond to issues with hacked iPods, but I also got the server unavailable message the first few times I tried. Presumably Apple was overwhelmed.

pacmantech
Jan 15, 2008, 04:11 PM
You know what? Call me lazy, but I'm plunking down the money. It's completely worth my time. Those very five apps are the only reason I jailbroke my iPod Touch in the first place.

If I can have them for $20 and not have to dread going through the completely ridiculous process of jailbreaking every time there's a software update, I'm on board.

The SDK is coming out next month, and some real apps that you can really add to your iPod without ridiculous hacking will come out.

And that's just me. If you're into the process of jailbreaking and everything, and to use it as a more robust tool, I know there's a place for that and have at it...it was fun for me the first time I did it, but it was crazy work for little results.

EDIT: And I am disgusted that Apple is charging for the apps, but they had to figure the set of apps was worth $20 to some people. I think $10 would have been a much easier price point to swallow, but that's bordering on the price of a single iPod game.

deathstar
Jan 15, 2008, 04:41 PM
I'm very dissapointed. Not for the fact that paying 20$ (17.5 in my case), but for the fact that new potential customers will save 20!! and get the apps. This is a dirty way to despise all their actual customers. The ipod touch was my first apple product and before MacWorld i was thinking to buy the new macbook air and a iMac in future, but now my first product will be the last. And then people talk about Microsoft...

bye bye apple:)

matttrick
Jan 15, 2008, 04:49 PM
You know what? Call me lazy, but I'm plunking down the money. It's completely worth my time. Those very five apps are the only reason I jailbroke my iPod Touch in the first place.

If I can have them for $20 and not have to dread going through the completely ridiculous process of jailbreaking every time there's a software update, I'm on board.

The SDK is coming out next month, and some real apps that you can really add to your iPod without ridiculous hacking will come out.

And that's just me. If you're into the process of jailbreaking and everything, and to use it as a more robust tool, I know there's a place for that and have at it...it was fun for me the first time I did it, but it was crazy work for little results.

EDIT: And I am disgusted that Apple is charging for the apps, but they had to figure the set of apps was worth $20 to some people. I think $10 would have been a much easier price point to swallow, but that's bordering on the price of a single iPod game.

except all of those extra apps will cost money too. im sorry, i cannot support apple in this one bit. i don't like the idea of needing to pay to upgrade the same software on a piece of hardware that isn't a computer with a whole new OS. this is like paying to update your PSP's firmware.

IJ Reilly
Jan 15, 2008, 04:53 PM
I don't mind spending $20 for the added applications, but now that I have, I can't get them to install -- like many, many other touch owners.

volk
Jan 15, 2008, 05:07 PM
Charging for the apps is a bad PR move. This will appear to be punishment for those who picked the Touch over the iPhone. Charging would make sense if these items were altered or changed in some way to make them iPod Touch specific, but they haven't. They are simply the same exact apps the iPhone users got for free. This is moronic...Apple will take major heat over this.

vandlism
Jan 15, 2008, 05:31 PM
You know guys, developing these apps (particularly getting Google Maps location to work) isn't free. We paid for our iPod touches and that was it. Users who buy iPhones are essentially giving $10 a month to Apple through their AT&T contracts, according to some. So the iPhone users have been paying for development and we have just been reaping the benefits.

volk
Jan 15, 2008, 05:38 PM
You know guys, developing these apps (particularly getting Google Maps location to work) isn't free. We paid for our iPod touches and that was it. Users who buy iPhones are essentially giving $10 a month to Apple through their AT&T contracts, according to some. So the iPhone users have been paying for development and we have just been reaping the benefits.


That's weak. If Apple needed the money to recoup development, they would have raised the price of each Touch by $20 and included the apps from the launch. I'm an Apple fan, but this is crappy, and it's not the first time they have done something like this.

IJ Reilly
Jan 15, 2008, 06:54 PM
That's weak. If Apple needed the money to recoup development, they would have raised the price of each Touch by $20 and included the apps from the launch. I'm an Apple fan, but this is crappy, and it's not the first time they have done something like this.

Assuming this charge wasn't driven by accounting and reporting requirements (which I think it may well have been), it's still not a matter of "need" on Apple's part. The only question anyone should really be asking themselves about this software is "is it worth the money?" My answer is, "hell yes." YMMV, but I don't understand why so many people are so cheesed off by the very concept of paying for software.

Magicite
Jan 15, 2008, 07:33 PM
What I'm saying is that everyone who is arguing "this is some sort of accounting thing" is obviously wrong. Apple added something to one device for free and is charging for it on another device. The feature is exactly the same, it wasn't included with one at launch, and not the other; nor was it promised on one machine and not the other. It's a new feature that some people are paying for and others aren't.

And because new touches are getting the feature free, it's also clearly not something to keep people from getting a touch over an iPhone - in fact it's the opposite. People who bought a touch already are not likely to buy an iPhone anytime soon, whereas people who wanted a PDA might have gone for an iPhone over a touch until now.

I've seen no rational, logical explanation for this other than it's a money grab. I'm disgusted by it and I don't even have a touch.

No, this is an accounting issue. The revenue for the iPhone and Apple TV, as has been stated by Apple on several occasions, is added to Apple's coffers over a period of 24 month for this exact reason: to legally provide (in Apple's eyes, as a result of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) free updates to these devices. Some have also speculated that, at least with the iPhone, that this is also a clever way to hide the amount AT&T pays Apple for each iPhone contract.

The iPod Touch, however, does not have its revenue spread out over 24 months; it is a one-time addition to Apple's finances. Therefore, using Apple's interpretation of the S.O. Act, it cannot legally receive new functionality for free.

As mentioned by another poster, this was also the reason for the pricetag on the 802.11n software update: 802.11n-capable Macs are computed into Apple's overall revenues for the quarter in which they were purchased only.

volk
Jan 15, 2008, 07:41 PM
Assuming this charge wasn't driven by accounting and reporting requirements (which I think it may well have been), it's still not a matter of "need" on Apple's part. The only question anyone should really be asking themselves about this software is "is it worth the money?" My answer is, "hell yes." YMMV, but I don't understand why so many people are so cheesed off by the very concept of paying for software.


I would buy the accounting argument if the AppleTV had similar fees associated with its upgrade. No new hardware is activated. No special software development has been done. It's simply allowing a current product to be installed on another device. Don't think that's an issue under the SO.

You ask if it's worth the money, and I would say no. The only app of interest to me is mail. Since I use G-Mail, I certainly don't need Apple's app.

Why are people pissed? Because Apple is foolish in how they go about these things. I don't mind paying for software as a rule, but we are talking about adding to an already $400 price tag. It's like spending $45,000 on a new car, and as you're leaving, the dealer says "Oh yeah, that'll be $20 bucks for us to put the cupholders in for you." How do you respond? Sure, they can charge for that. It's not a necessity really. I still bet you get pissed.

Apple has the right to do it. They have the ability to do it. It doesn't make it a smart thing to do. People will still feel they are being punished by hidden fees because they didn't buy the iPhone.

rph105
Jan 15, 2008, 07:49 PM
I think that is ridicolous, i have to pay for an update, when other touch users that uy today get it for free, cmon mannnnn, when i bought it on release, no way, jailbreakme dot com here i come again

Also for 12.99, WHATS UP WITH THE RANDOM PRICES, Cant it be a tenner, ffs

ibwb
Jan 15, 2008, 07:53 PM
I would buy the accounting argument if the AppleTV had similar fees associated with its upgrade. No new hardware is activated. No special software development has been done. It's simply allowing a current product to be installed on another device. Don't think that's an issue under the SO.

You ask if it's worth the money, and I would say no. The only app of interest to me is mail. Since I use G-Mail, I certainly don't need Apple's app.

Why are people pissed? Because Apple is foolish in how they go about these things. I don't mind paying for software as a rule, but we are talking about adding to an already $400 price tag. It's like spending $45,000 on a new car, and as you're leaving, the dealer says "Oh yeah, that'll be $20 bucks for us to put the cupholders in for you." How do you respond? Sure, they can charge for that. It's not a necessity really. I still bet you get pissed.

They do exactly that with floor mats.

Forget the accounting issues -- may or may not be true, I don't really know. But I feel like Apple has shown that they believe in free-market capitalism, really believe, especially when it comes to entertainment-oriented products.

I like that they are up-front about it, that if you expect to get something from Apple you should expect to pay for it. iPhone users pay Apple every month through AT&T. Apple TV users paid out the nose in the first place for a product that's now quite a bit cheaper.

Microsoft is an interesting counter-example. Consider the major updates to the Zune software that were doled out for free. Sure, the update cost money to develop, but Microsoft has a Grand Corporate Strategy that involves the Zune, so they subsidize its development by overcharging faceless corporations for Office.

Maybe that seems good for the consumer in the short-term, but once the Grand Strategy moves on to the profit portion they'll need to make extra profits to make up for the early losses. And after a while of this, you're losing sight of the customer's needs and acting in the needs of your strategy.

Personally I prefer to pay for things. God bless America.

Robbadore64
Jan 15, 2008, 09:30 PM
When he said $20 I was shocked but didn't really care as I had jailbroken mine and already had the iPhone apps. But when I saw that touches now come with these apps........ are you kidding me?

I adhere to the notion that when you buy a product, you are going into it having that decision based on what the product is capable of, what it does. If it's worth that price to you, you pay it (for me it wasn't worth the added switching fee at that time). That's why when they gave consumers $100 back on the iPhone I thought that was EXTREMELY generous of Apple because if you wanted it and felt $599 was worth it, then you can't complain. Like with most tech products, early movers should expect prices to drop rapidly and not complain. The idea that you buy something and expect it's manufacturer to just continually update and improve it.......well, this is Apple so I can't say we don't expect such. But any free improvements that aren't bug fixes should be welcomed with gratitude.

I've been looking forward to what is to come with the released sdk. I bought my touch as an early x-mas gift for myself and I liked it very much. Never planned on jailbreaking it, but after a few weeks, I did a little research and saw that I could always revert it or, "virginize" back and decided to go for it. Since then I can tell you I LOVE this iPod now. I would say the 5 iPhone apps would be worth the price of a pizza, yeah, even though the Weather and Mail apps are the only ones I use, it's nice having this device be capable of what it is now.

I really just want to let people out there know that are thinking of jailbreaking, it's really not that bad of a process (took me 2 hours I think and there are some really good step by steps out there now). Looking back, I can't believe I waited as long as I did to do so. True, some of the apps you can load etc are corny, but solitaire and sodoku are worth the effort alone. http://s3.media.macrumorslive.com/f/smilies/biggrin.gifIt And later if you feel a little more adventurous you can customize the bejesus out of it if you choose to.

But seriously, I love this iPod now and it's a lot of fun to periodically check and see what is new out there from the community. It's never crashed and is just more fun to use now. I look forward to Apple producing new apps and games that I will GLADLY pay for (I paid $5 a pop for games on my old iPod, most of which were unplayable), but $20 for what those buying an iPod 34 days after me are getting for free........... yeah. I love you Steve but.......

Oh yeah, how could I forget instant messaging with jailbreak.

TPALTony
Jan 16, 2008, 12:50 AM
What about the iPhone and ATV updates then? Those are free.

Both Apple TV and iPhone are accounted for on Apples books as 2 year deferred revenue. They didn't recognize all the revenue up front.

That accounting mechanism releases them from a requirement to charge for upgrades.

Essentially, what Sarbanes Oxeley says is "If you go and give people something for free, that they were never told they were getting, and you already recognized all the revenue, then you have to account for it in your books in a way that costs you a LOT of money on your balance sheet." It's not quite, but essentially, the same thing as options backdating and to cut to the chase, not a single firm out there is gonna do that... :)

I used to have the synical view that Apple carried ATV in the 24 month model simply to hide iPhone data, since they don't break it down in the their results. Knowing how they work, my view now is that they knew they were going to do this and simply accounted accordingly from the get go. People say ATV flopped first time around. I think Apple knew it wouldn't be a big hit right away, but they could start to recoup cash to offset it's development costs, and they would get away with it because they were going to give out the eventual upgrade for free. Remember, these iTunes movie rental strings have been out in the wild for several releases now... :)

So, iPhone is accounted over 2 years, so is apple TV, and both their upgrades were free. iPod Touch is accounted for in the quarter it's sold, and it's upgrade has to cost money. They could have charged you less, but if they make it "too little" they draw attention to themselves.

And remember, NOWHERE in the iPod touch publicity did it EVER say that you were buying an upgradeable platform. You were always buying an iPod. I realize of course that this technical distinction really doesn't make anyone feel any better, but it is what I believe happened from a corporate standpoint.

be well

t

TPALTony
Jan 16, 2008, 01:09 AM
No. See todays iPhone and ATV updates.

There was no new development here. They copied apps they've already written onto a new device. The iPhone and ATV did get newly written code, though, but with no charge.

Seems to not be a problem with other updates. They add features to products all the time with no charge, including today. It's a money grab, plain and simple.

If they had made new applications... Mail Plus, a better contact book, an improved text editor, etc. and called them the PDA Pro Suite or something and simply offered them for sale to touch and iPhone owners who wanted them (and kept the "basic" apps off the iPod touch all together - if you want these apps on the touch you have to get the "Pro" version) no one would have complained.

But their actions are pretty rotten in my, and many others, opinion.

I'm sorry but you are incorrect. See my earlier posts. ATV and iPhone are accounted for in an entirely different way on Apples books.

As for OS and application updates, bug fixes are free, as those are accounted for as "making the product do what we said it would do." Updates are not. iLife 08 wasn't free if you already owned a mac, neither was Leopard. New features in the OS = charge. Actually, Apple has added some minor new features over the years, like widget manager, but that's because they can argue that it was necessary in order to make dashboard work properly.

Think back to Enron and how it collapsed. It wasn't clear on the news, but amongst other things, they declared revenue in one quarter, and the costs associated with that revenue in the next quarter. That makes the prior quarters profit look better. If Apple did not charge for upgrades on things which were NOT recognized over a 2 year time frame, then they would be required to re-state their earnings for prior quarters. Sorry, but they aren't going to do that just because you happen to be unhappy that they are charging for the upgrade to the touch, which I repeat, never claimed to have these features, and more importantly NEVER claimed to be an upgradeable application platform. It was an iPod.

After 10 years working as a consultant, believe me I've had my share of "what revenue can I recognize" conversations, and I've looked at Apple's quarterly results too so I know what they're recognizing and how.

be well

t

davidjearly
Jan 16, 2008, 03:53 AM
I wonder how many threads people are going to create about this.

I wish you would all stop complaining about the same thing.

1. You are paying for the apps only, not 1.1.3 which you can still obtain without paying via iPod software update.
2. All the other new features are included in the 1.1.3 update.
3. Apple never offered these applications as part of the package when you purchased it, so you have no right to simply complain about having to pay for applications.

It is not fair to compare iPod touch owners to iPhone owners who are getting free software updates because there is nothing in that iPhone update that isn't in the free 1.1.3 update for the iPod touch.

That being said, what bothers me, and I think this is the only legitimate complaint, is that existing iPod touch owners are being charged a premium for something new iPod touch owners get for free. I think Apple should make all iPod touch owners (including myself) pay for the 5 applications from iTunes, but get all the other features of 1.1.3 (Webclips etc...) for free.

David

cmdare
Jan 17, 2008, 12:53 PM
@ sonofmof: if theres a apple store near u, u can take it in and get the upgrade free if youve bought it in the last 2 weeks or so...:)

cmdare
Jan 17, 2008, 01:01 PM
tmac85: it will not brick it, but it will (obviously) wipe out all 3rd party apps...& it is very hard to re-downgrade to 1.1.1 (or even 1.1.2) ...

matttrick
Jan 17, 2008, 01:26 PM
I wonder how many threads people are going to create about this.

I wish you would all stop complaining about the same thing.

1. You are paying for the apps only, not 1.1.3 which you can still obtain without paying via iPod software update.
2. All the other new features are included in the 1.1.3 update.
3. Apple never offered these applications as part of the package when you purchased it, so you have no right to simply complain about having to pay for applications.

It is not fair to compare iPod touch owners to iPhone owners who are getting free software updates because there is nothing in that iPhone update that isn't in the free 1.1.3 update for the iPod touch.

That being said, what bothers me, and I think this is the only legitimate complaint, is that existing iPod touch owners are being charged a premium for something new iPod touch owners get for free. I think Apple should make all iPod touch owners (including myself) pay for the 5 applications from iTunes, but get all the other features of 1.1.3 (Webclips etc...) for free.

David

yeah well they did give it to new buyers for free, and that is a damned insult. this needs to be free just for that reason, and it was borderline before that. you should not get screwed out of a software feature for supporting apple early on. they need to stop kicking their customers in the nuts.

Bobjob186
Jan 17, 2008, 01:56 PM
Wowzers, it's sad reading this thread. You're talking about $20!!! lol, You payed 299 or 399 for the damn thing and now you're whining for $20??? Please you cheapos, I can barely get a good lunch for $20 anymore. I feel like economically this must be done by apple. You can't just keep giving free crap away, seriously. The appleTV needed the free update. The thing freaking sucked before and if they didn't give a free update then people would flip out way hard. If the upgrade was 80 bucks, then I'd be with you in crying over it. But $4 an app, come on now.

JD92
Jan 17, 2008, 04:07 PM
Wowzers, it's sad reading this thread. You're talking about $20!!! lol, You payed 299 or 399 for the damn thing and now you're whining for $20??? Please you cheapos, I can barely get a good lunch for $20 anymore. I feel like economically this must be done by apple. You can't just keep giving free crap away, seriously. The appleTV needed the free update. The thing freaking sucked before and if they didn't give a free update then people would flip out way hard. If the upgrade was 80 bucks, then I'd be with you in crying over it. But $4 an app, come on now.

Believe it or not there are actually some people in the world with iPod Touches who can't afford $20. I would recommend that before you post a post such as this in such an annoying way (i.e. 'Wowzers', the many exclamation marks and question marks) that you realise not everyone has such a financially secure existance as yours.

And the second I saw this whole $20 thing it pissed me off. It's clear the way Apple's going and I'm fine with that, but they're just going to have to go that way without me as a customer. No doubt several years from now I'll be happy I jumped out of the Apple boat when I did.

And what's this? 12 for Brits? Once again, American corporations give Brits an unfair deal. It's not just that it's a pound or two over what it should be, it's just that when you add it all up Apple's making a lot of extra profit from treating us UK folk as idiots. And obviously we are because we still pay them.

Later.

IJ Reilly
Jan 17, 2008, 04:14 PM
And what's this? 12 for Brits? Once again, American corporations give Brits an unfair deal. It's not just that it's a pound or two over what it should be, it's just that when you add it all up Apple's making a lot of extra profit from treating us UK folk as idiots. And obviously we are because we still pay them.

Once again, Brits think they earn and spend US dollars instead of GBPs. Incidentally, subtract the 17.5% VAT you pay and we don't, see what magic number results.

joeconvert
Jan 17, 2008, 04:33 PM
What I'm saying is that everyone who is arguing "this is some sort of accounting thing" is obviously wrong. Apple added something to one device for free and is charging for it on another device. The feature is exactly the same, it wasn't included with one at launch, and not the other; nor was it promised on one machine and not the other. It's a new feature that some people are paying for and others aren't.

And because new touches are getting the feature free, it's also clearly not something to keep people from getting a touch over an iPhone - in fact it's the opposite. People who bought a touch already are not likely to buy an iPhone anytime soon, whereas people who wanted a PDA might have gone for an iPhone over a touch until now.

I've seen no rational, logical explanation for this other than it's a money grab. I'm disgusted by it and I don't even have a touch.

The Apple TV and iphone are both on a subscription like accounting model. Apple does not recognize the revenue for your entire purchase of the TV or iphone in the quarter you purchased it. This allows them under their interpretation of SOX to continue to add features of the 24 month recognition period without impacting revenue recognition. There has been much debate in the industry and public accounting about Apple's conservative stance on this. My guess would be that their audit firm has recommended this practice to the companies they audit.

Additionally, what you say proves nothing... actually proves the opposite. Becasue the 1.1.3 update for the touch in fact only addresses the usability of features that were originally on the device, it is clearly intended to repair defects to stated features at the time of sale and is permissible under their revenue recognition rules without causing a restatement.

I suspect they did not include the 24 recognition period for ipods because of the high volume and the potential to seriously impact Apple's reported quarterly earnings. Plus, the ipods have traditionally not changed all much without a hardware revision.

The new touches receiving this update free is also fine under the SOX rules. The touches from Tuesday on were advertising and promised to have those features.


EDIT: Sorry for all the redundant information, but the statements of the poster I responded to really needed to be answered.

JD92
Jan 17, 2008, 04:41 PM
Once again, Brits think they earn and spend US dollars instead of GBPs. Incidentally, subtract the 17.5% VAT you pay and we don't, see what magic number results.

Aren't you clever.

Still, methinks it may be Kubuntu for my Macbook.

ynotds
Jan 18, 2008, 03:40 AM
(including 10% GST) just to experience pinch zooming with Google Maps, especially the satellite view in a country yet to officially see the iPhone, not that I'd ever want to burden my Touch with telephony.

At my age, I avoid .0 releases with the singular exception of the Touch which I preordered the day after it was announced, picked up the morning after it reached the stores and went through the 1.1.3, Quicktime 7.4 and iTunes 7.6 upgrades seemingly before Apple was quite ready, just for the privilege of paying 25 bucks as the first step on what I expect to be a long journey of adding functionality to the most important new architecture since the original Mac.

It was instantly the best toy I've ever owned and is now a lot more than that.

Cousin Dirk
Jan 18, 2008, 07:37 AM
yeah well they did give it to new buyers for free, and that is a damned insult. this needs to be free just for that reason, and it was borderline before that. you should not get screwed out of a software feature for supporting apple early on. they need to stop kicking their customers in the nuts.

Ah, see by your logic, cos I bought a PowerBook with Tiger pre-installed 2 years ago, I should be allowed to get Leopard for free because it comes free with every new Mac?

Sure, maybe $20/12.99/whatever is a bit steep, but the fact remains that if you don't want to pay it, don't get it. I've not paid for Leopard yet, that doesn't mean I'm angry at Apple for giving everyone that's bought a Mac since October Leopard for nothing.

The iPod Touch apps are an upgrade, not an update. The reason why iPhone users get software upgrades for free is because we pay a monthly fee to Apple for the privilege of using our phone in the first place.