Down with Apple's Touch "Upgrade" Fees [Archive]

aidanpendragon

Mar 6, 2008, 03:22 PM

I posted a comment on the news thread railing against Apple's new gouge-the-Touch-owners policy, but it deserves a full thread in this forum.

My initial outrage was, why the Touch and not the iPhone? As I first understood it, adding apps required a charge under Sarbanes-Oxley - but now that both devices had a common feature set, why were the Touches only getting charged?

Another reader then pointed out that the subscription basis of the iPhone exempts it from such charges; the Touch, with a one-time purchase price, is alone subject to them.

But I'm still angry. Angry because Apple could charge a buck for technicality's sake; but will probably charge at least $20 for no new apps, some added functionality, and the ability to buy SDK apps! Angry because this cost will either be required to get firmware 2.0; or if not, we'll again get stuck with a bunch of locked but space-eating features. And angry because, after paying 400 bucks, I'm again feeling like a second-class citizen.

Remember, the 802.11n enabler only costs $1.99 (and still made a big stink). Apple clearly can charge that if they wish. If they want more, I think it's to throw up barriers against people who could live with "everything-but-the-phone" & steer them towards subscription revenue.

What all this really makes me want to do is JB my Touch. I'm not the kind who'd ordinarily want to fool around with that, but Apple is driving me to it. It's like the anti-iTunes Store approach.

CPD_1

Mar 6, 2008, 03:36 PM

I'm sorry, but I paid for a particular feature set, and that's what I got. I was more than happy with the feature set I got when I bought the ipod. Did/do I want more? Yes. That doesn't mean I'm entitled to free updates so my device is constantly "current" and comparable to the newest version of it. Technology progresses over time and I realize that in a few years, my touch will become an inferior device in comparison to whatever apple has up their sleeve. In the mean time, I'm glad they give me the option of keeping up and I'm more than happy to pay $20 for a new set of features that I didn't originally purchase. I just hope that Apple takes that $20 and invests it in adding more functionality to my device.

Krafty

Mar 6, 2008, 03:50 PM

Don't iPhone users get charged anyways monthly?

CPD_1

Mar 6, 2008, 03:54 PM

Don't iPhone users get charged anyways monthly?

Yes.

Krafty

Mar 6, 2008, 03:57 PM

Yes.
Then I don't see the reason tocomplain, cause we sure as hell dont.

Don't wanna pay, then dont.

CPD_1

Mar 6, 2008, 04:02 PM

Exactly.

Sesshi

Mar 6, 2008, 04:06 PM

Meh. Given my current track record by the time June rolls around I'll probably have run over it with something, trod on it, dropped it on the train tracks or something. Time for a new one with the firmware already installed :p

ChrisBrightwell

Mar 6, 2008, 04:09 PM

My initial outrage was, why the Touch and not the iPhone? As I first understood it, adding apps required a charge under Sarbanes-Oxley - but now that both devices had a common feature set, why were the Touches only getting charged?

Same as before. They even alluded to it in the meeting. It was something along the lines of, "We account for the touch differently."

SOX is the problem. Not Apple.

intempo808

Mar 6, 2008, 04:12 PM

I'm now totally against Apple and their "lets charge the iPod Touch owners" obsession.

Its getting stupid.

I paid £200 for this. Then £12.99 for the January Upgrade, which i thought was a disgusting thing to do considering the following:

iPod Touch's shipped with the new upgrade get a £12.99/ $20.00 discount.
iPhone customers didn't get charged.
Apple is taking its customers for granted and is abusing its most important customer base, the orignal buyers

Now they're doing again!

Its starting to get ridiculous and something needs to be done.

Okay, so theres nothing that says you HAVE to buy it. But still, im outraged that they even try to charge us. We might not be paying a monthly fee like iPhone customers, but they shouldnt charge us for upgrades and not iPhone customers.

Also, i have never seen any other company charge for ugrades for anything. Dare I say it, Microsoft has NEVER charged for updates for Windows, Office or any othher products. Samsung and other MP3 companies don't charge for firmware upgrades, so why should we get ripped off by a multi-million dollar company being greedy?

Down with the charges!:mad:

Krafty

Mar 6, 2008, 04:16 PM

We might not be paying a monthly fee like iPhone customers, but they shouldnt charge us for upgrades and not iPhone customers.They dont have a choice.

squeeks

Mar 6, 2008, 04:22 PM

Also, i have never seen any other company charge for ugrades for anything. Dare I say it, Microsoft has NEVER charged for updates for Windows, Office or any othher products.

how much did ya'll who have leopard pay for x.5.2?
;)

Krafty

Mar 6, 2008, 04:24 PM

how much did ya'll who have leopard pay for x.5.2?
;)

A heart-breaking chest-throbbing neck-bracing $0.00, why do you ask ind sir?

scotty96LSC

Mar 6, 2008, 04:28 PM

Then I don't see the reason tocomplain, cause we sure as hell dont.

Don't wanna pay, then dont.
At roughly $70 a month or more to have an iPhone, I think a one-time fee is cheap. I'll pay the extra and stay monthly iPhone bill free.

Adokimus

Mar 6, 2008, 04:30 PM

Same as before. They even alluded to it in the meeting. It was something along the lines of, "We account for the touch differently."

SOX is the problem. Not Apple.

They dont have a choice.

FALSE

There is nothing in SOX requiring this. Don't believe me? I suggest you read the Act. NOTHING in it requires these fees. It is just greed, plain and simple. SOX only deals with reporting requirements, and nothing within SOX creates a requirement to charge for software updates. The fact that Apple is saying this is a lie and false advertising. What's worse is that their loyal consumer base believes them without understanding the actual SOX Act and law.

I b*tched more about it here: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=449010

theman

Mar 6, 2008, 04:32 PM

oh well, i'll just a' keep jailbreakin' along.

orpheus1120

Mar 6, 2008, 04:38 PM

Apple is getting more than just $20 per iphone customer monthly by tying iphone to AT&T. Thus by a mere bitsy $20 to upgrade for the Touch, I say you are let off the hook too kindly.

aidanpendragon

Mar 6, 2008, 04:39 PM

I'm sorry, but I paid for a particular feature set, and that's what I got. I was more than happy with the feature set I got when I bought the ipod. ...Technology progresses over time and I realize that in a few years, my touch will become an inferior device in comparison to whatever apple has up their sleeve. .

That's reasonable. Except:

-Anyone who buys a Touch gets a progressively inferior device in a matter of months or less, not years. Pretty rough given the price points.

-Are we now paying not for new features but upgrades to existing features? That's what free firmware/OS upgrades typically do. Would you like to pay, incrementally, for 10.4.1-10.4.11 (& Safari 3)?

-Worse, it's unclear whether firmware 2.0 itself will cost $$ - with no option to get the "base" for free. So now we have to pay for bug fixes, security fixes, etc.? If Microsoft did that, the Internet would collapse under all the howls of outrage. If this ends up being the case, Apple shouldn't get a pass just because "it's so great."

-Even if the firmware's free, it continues the worst problem: forced bundling of locked, for-cost apps together with bugfixes. Space is at a premium on my 16GB Touch. 1.1.3/1.1.4 ate up close to 100MB of space - for apps I don't want and won't buy. That's about 2 CDs or 1 half-hour show worth of space. There's no option for me to get "just the firmware." Imagine if you didn't want or need iWork - but it came bundled with 10.4.11, ate up space on your hard drive, and couldn't be deleted. Sounds like 2.0 firmware will continue to do the same.

Don't wanna pay, then dont.

That's fine, except again for the forced bundling and/or will we have to pay for bugfixes?

If Apple had to charge for accounting reasons, they could set some <$5 price, presumably. That they don't suggests they have less innocent motives than they protest to.

fluidedge

Mar 6, 2008, 04:43 PM

and who will pay for the developers that put in the work to make those extra apps for the ipod touch?

Jack Flash

Mar 6, 2008, 04:45 PM

and who will pay for the developers that put in the work to make those extra apps for the ipod touch?
The iPod Touch and iPhone run same software.

fluidedge

Mar 6, 2008, 04:50 PM

yeh but apple had spent bazillions on developing the interface and applications for the iphone/itouch - and you expect them to just give you a major update to the applications for free? Get real. The update had turned the iTouch from an ipod with internet into a full on contender to the blackberry, with full email.

aidanpendragon

Mar 6, 2008, 04:51 PM

At roughly $70 a month or more to have an iPhone, I think a one-time fee is cheap. I'll pay the extra and stay monthly iPhone bill free.

It's not like you don't get any other service - at rates comparable to other providers' - for that $70.

FALSE

I'm sympathetic, but would like to see a quotation from S-O or some outside analysis to back this up.

I think your best point is this: "Apple TV owners weren't charged with an upgrade fee."

Damn. The argument that "iPhone and :apple:TV are both subscription, thus amortized, thus not required by S-O" doesn't fly. Deciding to rent movies or not isn't the same as having a 2-year iPhone contract. The Apple TV case blows holes in Apple's Touch argument.

Apple is getting more than just $20 per iphone customer monthly by tying iphone to AT&T. Thus by a mere bitsy $20 to upgrade for the Touch, I say you are let off the hook too kindly.

Wow, you're right, Apple could be screwing me even more! I should be so grateful for how kindly they're letting me off the hook!

...One other point. The Steve Jobs bio iCon has a great quote where Jobs or someone at :apple: belittles music companies for wanting subscriptions, not 99 cent sales, because they're greedy: to the effect of, "some bean counter saw AOL's success and thought, 'let's get a piece of that recurring subscription revenue,' to the expense of customer & experience." I fear Apple is falling into this same trap.

Trooperof3

Mar 6, 2008, 04:57 PM

I'm in the same boat. It's BS that everytime we want to upgrade we'll have to charge. i'm suprised they don't charge more for buying songs on the Touch Itunes store.

SwiftLives

Mar 6, 2008, 05:03 PM

Jack Flash

Mar 6, 2008, 05:05 PM

The touch upgrade is the equivalent to upgrading from Tiger to Leopard. You'll be upgrading to version 2.0.

Now charging Touch users for the .1 upgrade - not cool.

The iPhone upgrades are more than likely included in the monthly fee.

Realistically, the App Store should be free for any Touch user. The other upgrades should not be $20 and who knows what they will cost.

AMessy

Mar 6, 2008, 05:09 PM

I bought an iPod Touch, then bought some applications for it. How is this any different than when I buy an Apple and have to pay for iWork? Just because some other people bought a different device and got some applications for free shouldn't concern me. People who are comparing the purchasing of applications to firmware updates are comparing apples to oranges, I don't recall paying for 1.4 for my Touch.

dejo

Mar 6, 2008, 05:14 PM

Damn. The argument that "iPhone and :apple:TV are both subscription, thus amortized, thus not required by S-O" doesn't fly. Deciding to rent movies or not isn't the same as having a 2-year iPhone contract. The Apple TV case blows holes in Apple's Touch argument.
It has nothing to do with how the users' subscribe to a service and everything to do with how Apple accounts for their revenue from the sale of the product.

villanova329

Mar 6, 2008, 05:18 PM

That's reasonable. Except:

-Anyone who buys a Touch gets a progressively inferior device in a matter of months or less, not years....

Uhhh... I bought a Santa Rosa MacBook Pro In September, and then they release the new Penryn MacBook Pro's in February, thats not years... but I'm still happy with what I have.

Your logic has no substance, why should you be entitled to free updates just because iPhone users get it for free? iPhone users are a source of continuing revenue to Apple, iPod Touch users are NOT besides hardware sales.

mojohanna

Mar 6, 2008, 05:20 PM

FALSE

There is nothing in SOX requiring this. Don't believe me? I suggest you read the Act. NOTHING in it requires these fees. It is just greed, plain and simple. SOX only deals with reporting requirements, and nothing within SOX creates a requirement to charge for software updates. The fact that Apple is saying this is a lie and false advertising. What's worse is that their loyal consumer base believes them without understanding the actual SOX Act and law.

I b*tched more about it here: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=449010

FALSE as well. It does have to do with SOX, but in an indirect way. When Apple released the iPhone it chose to account for the income over 2 years. They did this to allow for updates etc. The same holds true for the Apple TV. However, the Touch revenue does not get accounted for in the same way. It is immediately added to the ledger.
I would agree that Apple could, if it really wanted to, provide the updates free of charge. However, we would need someone with more legal expertise in this area to confirm this.

What is next? Are you going to complain that there are apps for the touch at the App Store that cost money too?

This is no different than buying a computer with Tiger on it and then paying a few months later $129 to upgrade to Leopard. No one is crying and whining "APPLE IS GREEDY" when this happens. How is the situation with the Touch any different? To put it bluntly, its NOT.

Stop comparing the touch to the iphone. They are two differnt platforms that have completely differnet audiences, revenue streams and accounting practices.

Quasiportnoy

Mar 6, 2008, 05:29 PM

Steve said that the Touch and iPhone are "accounted for differently."

This is because for every iPlan out there, Apple receives $10 monthly, so $240 in addition to the cost of the iPhone itself. This helps finance the development of everything, but I think they want to split that cost between Touch users and iPhone users.

$20-$30 instead of $240 is a deal I'll take any day.

(I think the January apps were probably priced high to help bear the brunt of the SDK update, splitting the cost evenly between the two...hopefully.)

IJ Reilly

Mar 6, 2008, 05:35 PM

Buy it or don't. Either way, deal with it. Please.

Adokimus

Mar 6, 2008, 05:40 PM

FALSE as well. It does have to do with SOX, but in an indirect way. When Apple released the iPhone it chose to account for the income over 2 years. They did this to allow for updates etc. The same holds true for the Apple TV. However, the Touch revenue does not get accounted for in the same way. It is immediately added to the ledger.
I would agree that Apple could, if it really wanted to, provide the updates free of charge. However, we would need someone with more legal expertise in this area to confirm this.

What is next? Are you going to complain that there are apps for the touch at the App Store that cost money too?

This is no different than buying a computer with Tiger on it and then paying a few months later $129 to upgrade to Leopard. No one is crying and whining "APPLE IS GREEDY" when this happens. How is the situation with the Touch any different? To put it bluntly, its NOT.

Stop comparing the touch to the iphone. They are two differnt platforms that have completely differnet audiences, revenue streams and accounting practices.

No, not false. Yes, the reasoning that Apple proclaims to be using is indirectly associated with SOX. But, what I said was true. There is nothing in SOX requiring them to charge us for this. Need someone with more legal expertise in this area to confirm this? Well, I just finished my last set of finals for law school (so, Juris Doctor) and I have a masters in accounting. Trust me, we studied SOX in both fields. Again, what I said was not false in any way.

IJ Reilly

Mar 6, 2008, 06:21 PM

No, not false. Yes, the reasoning that Apple proclaims to be using is indirectly associated with SOX. But, what I said was true. There is nothing in SOX requiring them to charge us for this. Need someone with more legal expertise in this area to confirm this? Well, I just finished my last set of finals for law school (so, Juris Doctor) and I have a masters in accounting. Trust me, we studied SOX in both fields. Again, what I said was not false in any way.

"Required?" Maybe not. But a lot of things are done which are not strictly "required" in order to avoid the appearance of doing something improper, especially where the rules are unclear or ambiguous. You seem to forget that Apple recently had the SEC all over them like a cheap suit. Perhaps they'd prefer not to give them any excuse to come snooping around again.

surferfromuk

Mar 6, 2008, 06:35 PM

HollacoptaPilot

Mar 6, 2008, 06:52 PM

ok enough crying about having to pay. For me waiting is waaaay worse than paying. I've been coming to this board for months now and all I've heard is that we will be able to get apps at the end of February and then it was March 6th. Well today is March 6th and I don't see any apps. I would pay 50 bucks per app if I could get them today. Do we really have to wait till the end of June for apps????? This is retarded. I'm sick of seeing my coworker with his jailbroken touch playing super nintendo games while I sit and wait like a chump.

Jack Flash

Mar 6, 2008, 07:43 PM

A few thousand coders all working their butts off night and day for 12 months and you don't think 'you should pay' ?

Beyond belief!

You haven't even given a good reason other than 'your angry'...

It's just the worst kind of terrible spoilt 'brat' posting I've ever seen - really, go and stamp your feet outside and Apple store and thump the pavement - maybe someone will throw you a few bucks to put you out of your pain...

Oh, get off your high horse.

If you think you should have to pay Apple for the ability to buy their programs then you need to get off your knees.

And honestly, if Apple is going on about how easy it is for developers to use their SDK (5 days to a full application having never used it before) then I sincerely doubt thousands of coders have been slaving over these products night and day.

phytonix

Mar 6, 2008, 08:03 PM

if it over $5, Apple is pathetic.

Tuta

Mar 6, 2008, 08:04 PM

Why are we penalized for realizing that the worst part of the iPhone is the phone?

Boooo.

aethelbert

Mar 6, 2008, 08:11 PM

Oh please... Why do people think that just because something exists that they deserve it for free? Buy it or don't, nobody here really cares what you don't complain.

When new editions of, say iLife, come out, are you pissed that you can't get the new one for free? You bought your device without this update. So you should be happy with it (if not, why did you buy it?). Now you can get more for a small (yeah, $20 is small compared to the $3-500 that you paid for the iPod). Apple gets income from iPhone plans for these projects. So in essense, iPhone users pay, too. Do you think that iPhone users should pay for your updates? No. If you want it, you've got to pay too. If you don't like that, TOO BAD. That's how businesses work.

ebel3003

Mar 6, 2008, 08:14 PM

Personally, I think that 2.0 *might* be free. If you think about it, whether Apple charges or not, they get paid either way. Apple is charging developers to publish their applications. Unless I'm misinterpreting their website, $99 dollars is required for independent developers to publish their applications on the "App Store", and $299 for enterprise level developers. In addition, they make 30% of whatever the developer charges for their applications.

With this in mind, I personally think that a free upgrade to 2.0 isn't out of reach. On the other hand, I don't underestimate that Apple will take the opportunity to charge users.

On another note, I personally think that charging for the "January Software Upgrade" was testing grounds to see how the touch community responds to charging for software upgrades.

Jack Flash

Mar 6, 2008, 08:15 PM

Mitch1984

Mar 6, 2008, 08:22 PM

You have World Com & Enron to blame, not Apple, read up on Sarbane Oxley and find out why Apple charge for software updates for the touch, they get away with it fir the iPhone because they recognise revenue over 24 months or something.

Also why should apple waste months of time creating a SDK that doesn't make the iPhone crash, is more resistant to hackers (because apple can pull down malicous apps) and then not charge for doing so.

Jack Flash

Mar 6, 2008, 08:30 PM

Diwata

Mar 6, 2008, 10:58 PM

aethelbert

Mar 6, 2008, 11:01 PM

It's time that Apple realizes this, that it CANNOT deceive its loyal customers forever. It will eventually caught up with the Co. & they will be sorry for it.

Come on Apple be fair to your customers!!!! Where is justice in charging the iPod touch users vis a vis iPhone users??? The Jan apps update should be downloaded free of charge NOW!
Oh please. For the millionth time in this thread, Apple makes money off of the iPhone's cellular plans. Users pay extra to get to use the iPhone. So you can pay extra to get to use what the iPhone has.

Take for instance Aperture, which was upgraded to v2 a few weeks back. Apple had a pay-upgrade so that I didn't have to buy the whole thing again. They had to develop the software, so they had to get paid. Releasing new software isn't easy to do, and it is certainly costly. If you want every possible piece of software for free that you can get for your device, go use Linux.

Jack Flash

Mar 6, 2008, 11:03 PM

Oh please. For the millionth time in this thread, Apple makes money off of the iPhone's cellular plans. Users pay extra to get to use the iPhone. So you can pay extra to get to use what the iPhone has.

But Apple isn't required to charge because of SoX. They need to be up front about it.

aethelbert

Mar 6, 2008, 11:05 PM

But Apple isn't required to charge because of SoX. They need to be up front about it.
It doesn't matter what they're required to do. Software development costs money, and they deserve to be paid for writing that software.

Jack Flash

Mar 6, 2008, 11:20 PM

It doesn't matter what they're required to do. Software development costs money, and they deserve to be paid for writing that software.

Sure, but accounting is being used as a scapegoat.

aristobrat

Mar 6, 2008, 11:40 PM

I'm sympathetic, but would like to see a quotation from S-O or some outside analysis to back this up.
OK, here's a quote from an outside analyst.

“It’s an accounting requirement that if you upgrade a device that’s not on a subscription, you have to charge,” Needham and Company financial analyst Charles Wolf said. “Apple has a choice of what to charge, but they have to charge.”
http://www.macworld.com/article/131991/2008/02/ipodtouch.html

and

According to the company’s February 1 quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, “For both Apple TV and iPhone, [Apple] indicated it may from time-to-time provide future unspecified features and additional software products free of charge to customers. Therefore, sales of Apple TV and iPhone handsets are recognized under subscription accounting in accordance with SOP No. 97-2.”
http://www.macworld.com/article/131991/2008/02/ipodtouch.html

Which all started way back when...

“The nominal distribution fee for the 802.11n software is required in order for Apple to comply with generally accepted accounting principles for revenue recognition, which generally require that we charge for significant feature enhancements, such as 802.11n, when added to previously purchased products,” said Teresa Brewer, Apple’s Mac hardware public relations manager.
http://www.macworld.com/article/54948/2007/01/80211nfee.html

aristobrat

Mar 6, 2008, 11:42 PM

Sure, but accounting is being used as a scapegoat.
So I've seen one professional quote (from that MacWorld article) that says Apple has to do it for accounting reasons and zero professional quotes that say what they're doing is just to be greedy.

On what are you basing your scapegoat comment? If you've read more than the links I've dug up, please share!!!!

flyfish29

Mar 6, 2008, 11:56 PM

Don't like it then just by an Insanely Great Zune why don't cha'?:D

Accounting rules or not, what they charge to some and not others...Apple can do what the hell they want(for the most part) in our free market society.

That being said, if the OP (or anyone else for that matter) disagree then vote with your dollars and don't support the company. I for one wouldn't be happy if I had an iPod touch, but they are the best company out there for technology gear so I will continue to vote for Apple using my dollars.

If I took some of the arguments above and applied them to buying a new car...then I should be down that someone last week bought a Subaru just like mine and they got a deal with the same dealer I purchased from. That dealer gave them (not me) "upgrades" of free maintenance for the first four years of ownership!!! I have to pay $29.99 for that next oil change and they get it for free!!! Damn them!!!:rolleyes: Guess that is life though...I teach elementary students and I tell them every day that unfortunately life is not fair no matter how much we wish it was:(.

pondie84

Mar 6, 2008, 11:56 PM

I just don't get it.

When you buy the product you're paying for what it comes with. At the time of the last update I thought to myself... are these applications that I really want? The answer was no so I didn't pay for them.

I still had the same product I'd paid for (and was happy to pay for) and didn't care in the slightest if it was 'inferior' (whatever that means) in comparison with what other people own.

We are not entitled to them giving us new features for free. Now there'd be a difference for upgrades that are just providing improvements on what you paid for (that is, music and video playback, internet functionality etc.)

New features, such as mail, are not what you paid for initially. Therefore you pay to have these features added. New buyers are buying the product in the knowledge it comes with that feature. Therefore they are entitled to that feature at whatever price Apple decides to set it at (be it $0 or $100).

snowy2004

Mar 6, 2008, 11:57 PM

While it is probable that the ability to use 3rd party apps will require the paid upgrade, has it been 100% confirmed?

Other than the apps, 2.0 will come with enterprise features, Exchange support and the App Store. But as noted in the keynote, apps can be downloaded from iTunes and synced to the touch. It is possible that 3rd party app support will be included in 2.0 lite and the App Store in the full 2.0.

On subject of the price, I will say that Apple could have went with the subscription-based accounting as they did with :apple:TV but they didn't. They might have been planning the YouTube integration or movie rentals for a while but couldn't deliver at launch and decided to make sure updates were free. As far as I heard, only it and the iPhone do and so no Macs or iPods have been made upgrade-proof and no one has yet to die from that (as far as I know).

ChrisBrightwell

Mar 7, 2008, 12:03 AM

But they don't have to charge. S&O doesn't mandate that.

Either build a case for this or ****. Please.

Presenting it as blind fact does not make it so.

Jack Flash

Mar 7, 2008, 12:11 AM

Either build a case for this or ****. Please.

Presenting it as blind fact does not make it so.

Make a case for it being so, then.

Accepting it blindly doesn't make it so.

But, here's my logic.

Microsoft completely revamped its Zune players for free.

Sony has consistently updated the PSP with new features, all for free.

LtRammstein

Mar 7, 2008, 12:28 AM

I'm soon to be iPhone Developer, and seeing what they charge for the iPod Touch, I say... Who cares?

"Mister Law" here should know that he has to prove to us, beyond a reasonable doubt, that SOX does not mandate a charge. What he lacks is the evidence.

I'm wondering if he slept through that Evidence 101 class or didn't even take it...

Besides, who cares? It's a one time fee! It's not like I'm going to see that money.

On another lighter note...

When I get my apps written, tested, and working great, I'm going to pay that $99/year and give it to everyone for free! I'm a college student, I'm poor, but I don't care, I want to show people that writing an app for the iPhone is easy and fun!

Jack Flash

Mar 7, 2008, 12:32 AM

LtRammstein

Mar 7, 2008, 12:40 AM

Pointing out exceptions doesn't mean anything or prove to what you are arguing about.

Just because you don't want to pay for an update that will come in June doesn't mean that you rant on how Apple is screwing you over.

If you want a free update buy an iPhone, or pay the ONE TIME FEE and get all the cool stuff.

I bought my iPod Touch the day after it came out, and I gladly paid for the $20 Software Upgrade. Was it worth it? Absolutely. Will the firmware update be worth about the same (or more) in June? Absolutely!

Like a few people posted here earlier, if you don't want to pay for it, jail break it and leave it at that.

Also, the PSP and Zune are subscription services with their respected companies. The iPhone is subscription to AT&T and a few other carriers. The iPod Touch is subscription to Apple. When they update the iPhone with something, and iPod Touch users want it, they have to charge it since it's not under the same subscription service.

Jack Flash

Mar 7, 2008, 12:47 AM

IJ Reilly

Mar 7, 2008, 12:51 AM

So I've seen one professional quote (from that MacWorld article) that says Apple has to do it for accounting reasons and zero professional quotes that say what they're doing is just to be greedy.

On what are you basing your scapegoat comment? If you've read more than the links I've dug up, please share!!!!

You are speaking logic. How dare you.

LtRammstein

Mar 7, 2008, 12:59 AM

I don't have the time or energy to give you attention anymore.

Prove to us that what you speak is truth instead of sitting on the sidelines.

digitalnicotine

Mar 7, 2008, 01:01 AM

So, nobody knows yet how much it will be, I take it? I trust it will be inexpensive, based solely on the wording. Since it's optional, I suppose that means nobody will be forced to purchase, and will still be able to enjoy the iPod Touch, as it was when purchased? I guess I have nothing to be upset about here, and just need to wait a bit, and see whether I find the upgrade worth the cost.

I for one, am happy that a product I already purchased can possibly be improved in functionality for a nominal fee, and I won't have to purchase a new unit just to get the upgraded features. I can't imagine how many angry posters there would be if the only way to get the new features was to buy a new iPod Touch. ;)

pondie84

Mar 7, 2008, 01:04 AM

arn

Mar 7, 2008, 01:07 AM

FALSE

There is nothing in SOX requiring this. Don't believe me? I suggest you read the Act. NOTHING in it requires these fees. It is just greed, plain and simple. SOX only deals with reporting requirements, and nothing within SOX creates a requirement to charge for software updates. The fact that Apple is saying this is a lie and false advertising. What's worse is that their loyal consumer base believes them without understanding the actual SOX Act and law.

http://www.aicpa.org/pubs/jofa/dec2007/software_revenue.htm

Apple has disclosed in quarterly filings that it recognizes revenue from its new iPhone as well as the iPod and Macintosh computers under software revenue recognition rules. Apple will record all revenue and related costs of sales from the iPhone on a straight-line basis over the two-year estimated life of this product. Historically, many hardware companies might have recognized revenue upfront, at the time of the sale, from a product similar to an iPhone. However, Apple intends to provide iPhone users with free software upgrades, necessitating the deferral of revenue under SOP 97-2.

now you can ask why apple doesn't do this for the ipod touch, but I don't see how you can insist Apple is doing this just to spike iPod Touch users, and the accounting issue is just something they made up just to screw their customers.

arn

macfan881

Mar 7, 2008, 01:19 AM

Has Apple ever added features to an iPod in the past? If so, did consumers need to pay for it?

I thought the iPod touch was intially marketed as an iPod with touch features? It wasn't my understanding it was introduced as a PDA.

If this is the case then why do people expect their iPod to be made into a PDA for free?

you are right the older ipods never got any new features and actaully if you rember the 60 and 80 gig versions with the brigher backlight and the search song feature etc those were only available on those two ipods people who had the 30 gigs were left with the same featueres they had from day one.

macfan881

Mar 7, 2008, 01:24 AM

Think we can just make one thread to wine and complain about this firmware charge stuff its geting ridiculus in these forums i see 2 other Threads about this

LtRammstein

Mar 7, 2008, 01:32 AM

Jack Flash

Mar 7, 2008, 01:41 AM

Found a comment on Slashdot that is quite good at explaining the SOx. Even though it's already explained.

SOx explained by a Slashdot regular (http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=478544&cid=22668752).

There's always this stance, too.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/the-20-ipod-touch-upgrade-really-for-legal-reasons-or-not/

Jack Flash

Mar 7, 2008, 01:44 AM

Think we can just make one thread to wine and complain about this firmware charge stuff its geting ridiculus in these forums i see 2 other Threads about this

And, well, it's a big deal and disturbing trend in computing today. Look at the Xbox 360 and PS3. You don't get the full game anymore... you have to buy the downloadable content.

delude

Mar 7, 2008, 03:06 AM

^That's true Jack, and annoying as hell. The thing is, both Microsoft and Apple know that people [n]will[/b] pay for these extras, so that's why they wont budge.

Jack Flash

Mar 7, 2008, 03:10 AM

^That's true Jack, and annoying as hell. The thing is, both Microsoft and Apple know that people [n]will[/b] pay for these extras, so that's why they wont budge.

And I understand that. I'm simply hoping this won't be another $20 update, which, I don't think ti will be.

By Apple's logic the January Sooftware Upgrade was $4.00 an app, a price that will likely be common in the AppStore. Perhaps, by Apple's logic, this will be more of a "802.1x, Push Email etc" enabler like the 802.11n enabler was on the Mac and will price it around $2.00

Markleshark

Mar 7, 2008, 04:56 AM

More than happy to pay for this, considering what it opens up to us.

Personally though, I don't much care what anyone else thinks, you don't have to buy it.

-Dark Angel-

Mar 7, 2008, 07:59 AM

Boy I can't wait for another good feature upgrade to hear users moan and groan about paying for that update. These threads always make for a good laugh.

mavis

Mar 7, 2008, 08:27 AM

Boy I can't wait for another good feature upgrade to hear users moan and groan about paying for that update. These threads always make for a good laugh.
Think different, bud. It's not necessarily a good thing to just follow along like sheep. ;)

Anyway, if this 2.0 firmware is really fantastic - if there tons of cool, free apps on iTunes, etc, then yeah - I can see myself paying for the upgrade. But I will make sure Apple loses far more money than they gain from that sale (through other means) ... Greedy pigs. :mad:

fluidedge

Mar 7, 2008, 09:02 AM

Will anyone buying an iPod Touch between now and June get the upgrade for free? Otherwise Apple have shot themselves in the foot a bit by announcing the date of release, "give us $300 now and then another $25 in 3 months. Thanks"

AdeFowler

Mar 7, 2008, 09:33 AM

Buy it or don't. Either way, deal with it. Please.

I second that.

I bought a 5th generation iPod a couple of months before the Classic came out. I'd love the new interface with Cover Flow etc., but it'll never happen, and if it did, Apple would HAVE TO charge me for it.

If you have an iPod Touch, just be grateful that Apple are making this fantastic upgrade available to you at all, but no one's forcing you to buy it.

ntrolls

Mar 7, 2008, 09:36 AM

I think the biggest screw-up is reserved to the people who bought iPod touch in countries with no iTunes online store. They cannot pay even if they wanted to. I understand that music store may be tied to all those regional copyright restrictions, but Apple should open up the software section if they are going to have one.

aidanpendragon

Mar 7, 2008, 10:14 AM

Obviously touched quite a nerve on either side with this thread...[Mr.Burns]Exxxcellent[/Burns]

You haven't even given a good reason other than 'your angry'...

I've given 2 lengthy posts about why I'm angry about locked bloatware in firmware upgrades, with no choice to decline; and/or paid firmware/bugfix upgrades (as 2.0 threatens to be). I've drawn reasonable parallels to what the Mac equivalent of this would be, which would draw tons of screaming if done. No need to rehash all that, go back & read 'em.

OK, here's a quote from an outside analyst.

According to the company’s February 1 quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, “For both Apple TV and iPhone, [Apple] indicated it may from time-to-time provide future unspecified features and additional software products free of charge to customers. Therefore, sales of Apple TV and iPhone handsets are recognized under subscription accounting in accordance with SOP No. 97-2.”

Here's the BS in this to me. It's not because the device must necessarily have recurring revenue, like iPhone contracts. They just choose to account for the Apple TV that way. But the possibility of future rentals is no more "subscription" than the possibility of future iTunes - or SDK app! - sales on the Touch. So why one but not the other?

...in fact, that Macworld quote is chicken-and-egg: makes it sound like because they decided to give free updates to Apple TV users (maybe to keep them from trashing the flop product?), therefore it's accounted as "subscription." That suggests they decided not to give free upgrades to Touch owners, therefore it's "not" subscription. May just be poorly worded on Macworld's part, but pretty damning if it's true.

That being said, if the OP (or anyone else for that matter) disagree then vote with your dollars and don't support the company.

I'm not. But I'm pissed that I have my premium space being eaten up, drip by drip, by crap I can't decline.

If you want a free update buy an iPhone, or pay the ONE TIME FEE and get all the cool stuff.

If it really was a ONE TIME FEE, not an EVERY FEW WEEKS' FEE, I might disagree less.

There's always this stance, too.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/21/the-20-ipod-touch-upgrade-really-for-legal-reasons-or-not/

I'm glad to see that folks outside the RDF also have a problem with this. And really, their argument for "why aren't Quicktime, iTunes, Safari also charged for" is pretty sound. Hell, 10.4.11 had Safari 3, why didn't Apple charge us 20 bucks for that? "OMG B/C THERE FREE" someone will no doubt say. But there's no reason, really, why January's 5 apps need not have been free, if these others can be. Downloading iTunes to a Windows PC certainly adds "significant new features," but doesn't require a charge.

...Maybe Apple will only charge $1.99 for 2.0, in which case I'll have much less of an objection. But everybody expects $20 is a floor, not a ceiling. And really, Apple charging us so we can buy apps is stupid and, again, just drives me to the JB camp.

aristobrat

Mar 7, 2008, 10:29 AM

Here's the BS in this to me. It's not because the device must necessarily have recurring revenue, like iPhone contracts. They just choose to account for the Apple TV that way. But the possibility of future rentals is no more "subscription" than the possibility of future iTunes - or SDK app! - sales on the Touch. So why one but not the other?
Apple books the revenue from the iPhone and AppleTV as a subscription. It has nothing to do with the device itself bringing in extra money after purchase.

When you buy an AppleTV for $229, instead of booking the entire $229 towards its monthly revenue, they only book 1/24th of your $229 purchase. The following month, Apple books another 1/24th of your $229. 16 months after you've purchased your AppleTV, Apple's still applying 1/24th of your $229 towards its revenues. They continue to do this until the 24th month after you've purchased your AppleTV.

From what I've read, over the period that they're booking your revenue, they're allowed to add major new functionality to the device.

...in fact, that Macworld quote is chicken-and-egg: makes it sound like because they decided to give free updates to Apple TV users (maybe to keep them from trashing the flop product?), therefore it's accounted as "subscription." That suggests they decided not to give free upgrades to Touch owners, therefore it's "not" subscription. May just be poorly worded on Macworld's part, but pretty damning if it's true.
IMO, that's EXACTLY what happened. At the time the iPod touch was released, Apple (Steve Jobs) was very adamant that the only third-party applications would have be web-based. Apple said "NO NATIVE APPLICATIONS" and was sticking to their guns when questioned about it. So yeah, I believe that they had zero plans on adding major new functionality to the iPod touch (like the 5 missing applications, or the stuff they're about to add with the June update). Apple didn't change its position about the SDK until months after the iPod touch was released, which was undoubtedly even more months after the accounting method for the touch was already chosen.

jeremy.king

Mar 7, 2008, 10:43 AM

cbrain

Mar 7, 2008, 10:45 AM

I may buy the upgrade.

cheeseadiddle

Mar 7, 2008, 11:23 AM

My initial outrage was, why the Touch and not the iPhone? As I first understood it, adding apps required a charge under Sarbanes-Oxley - but now that both devices had a common feature set, why were the Touches only getting charged?

Because Apple gets a monthly cut on the iPhone and doesn't on the Touch?

aristobrat

Mar 7, 2008, 11:39 AM

Because Apple gets a monthly cut on the iPhone and doesn't on the Touch?
No.

When you pay for an iPod touch, Apple takes the entire amount you paid and books it as revenue all at once.

When you pay for an iPhone or an AppleTV, Apple takes 1/24th of the amount you paid and books it monthly over 24 months. This allows them to add major new functionality over those 24 months.

Apple screwed up by not using the same accounting method for the touch as they did the AppleTV/iPhone. It doesn't have anything to do with AT&T royalties.

IJ Reilly

Mar 7, 2008, 11:43 AM

Apple screwed up by not using the same accounting method for the touch as they did the AppleTV/iPhone. It doesn't have anything to do with AT&T royalties.

I think it must have something to do with the fact that the iPhone is tied to a subscription plan. I can't imagine the logic of accounting for the revenue of any other type of product on a proportional basis over a two-year period.

IgnatiusTheKing

Mar 7, 2008, 11:44 AM

aidanpendragon

Mar 7, 2008, 12:03 PM

I found this to be interesting, especially the two updates.

http://jfaughnan.blogspot.com/2007/01/sarbanes-oxley-means-no-features-in.html

If you have to change realized revenues, that would mean they would be constantly restating past earnings, right? That wouldn't make a lot of sense.

Interesting. But again, "a nominal fee" - obviously people's definitions of this may vary. I'd argue $1.99 is "nominal" whereas $20 - repeatedly - is not; S-O here is just a cover to make money.

And, it doesn't explain how, as Engadget argues, iTunes, Quicktime, Safari, etc. upgrades don't amount to adding "previously unadvertised features" & thus require a charge. I'm sure if you dig through the change-logs to those updates, you'd find some significant-enough new features. I mean, if "now supports push email" is significant enough, surely something in Mac apps is too.

...Here you go:
"About iTunes 7.6 for Mac (http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/itunes76formac.html)
What’s New in this Version
Rent and download your favorite movies with iTunes on your computer or directly to your living room on Apple TV."

Something tells me "you can now rent movies" is a significant, new, previously unadvertised feature, added well after S-O took effect.

This goes on Mac hardware (and PCs!), which no one has said are accounted for over a period of time (a la Apple TV) but all at once (like the Touch). So why aren't we being charged for that? Maybe we should tell the SEC...

The only argument left is, "well, but those apps are free." Presumably an upgrade to free software - even one that adds "new, unadvertised features" can also be free? But then, why weren't the Mail etc. apps for the Touch considered free from the get-go? Then all future upgrades would also be free, etc.

One might also say that "the ability to download new applications is a new & unadvertised feature." Only if one also thinks that A. the ability to install apps on a computer (mobile or otherwise) is some kind of stunning & unexpected feature; and B. the ability itself to play games on classic iPods is a "new feature" that should be charged for - just like the ability to buy SDK apps.

...and hey, why was bringing the Touch's initial anemic Calendar feature up to snuff with the iPhone's - added new sync features! - not a charged item? It fits all the criteria!

Unless a credentialled S-O expert gets on here, I think I've found to my satisfaction that the accounting argument from Apple is largely a dodge that they use to justify charges & apply very inconsistently.

aidanpendragon

Mar 7, 2008, 12:08 PM

I think it must have something to do with the fact that the iPhone is tied to a subscription plan. I can't imagine the logic of accounting for the revenue of any other type of product on a proportional basis over a two-year period.

Nope, as others have mentioned, the Apple TV has no such subscription plan. It appears to rely on how they record the earnings, not whether there's recurring revenue or not.

There are two solutions to your problem: jailbreak or buy an iPhone. Bitching on an Internet message board isn't going to get you anywhere.

God forbid we "discuss" anything in a discussion forum. I actually think this is pretty interesting, and shoots some holes in Apple's explanation. And if you don't like this thread, hey, there's one solution to your problem: don't read Internet message boards.

IJ Reilly

Mar 7, 2008, 12:15 PM

Nope, as others have mentioned, the Apple TV has no such subscription plan. It appears to rely on how they record the earnings, not whether there's recurring revenue or not.

The Apple TV, like the iPhone, generates revenue after the initial sale. I believe this is the crucial distinction. In fact the Apple TV upgrade was specifically designed to generate revenue.

stockcerts

Mar 7, 2008, 12:19 PM

I think the $20- upgrade was more than worth the cost. Apple is in business to make money. When you buy a device like an ITouch it's not a single event. You don't have to buy any upgrades, but I'm glad Apple is making them available. Development time is expensive. I also believe that jailbreaking in order to save $20- is not smart. At some point IPhone and ITouch users that have jailbroken their units may have a brick, and I'm sure they'll complain about that. The whinning gets so old sometimes.

Thank you Apple for continuing to improve your products! I appreciate it and I love my ITouch!

aidanpendragon

Mar 7, 2008, 12:25 PM

The Apple TV, like the iPhone, generates revenue after the initial sale. I believe this is the crucial distinction. In fact the Apple TV upgrade was specifically designed to generate revenue.

I don't know how buying songs directly from iTunes Store via the Touch isn't "generating revenue after the initial sale." Also, regardless of whether Apple TV now has the capability to generate rental revenue, that's far different from the guaranteed revenue iPhone contracts bring in.

Separately, I'll say it for the third/fourth time: if I had the ability to opt-out of these upgrades and the space they take up, I'd have no reason to complain. And/or, if future firmware, bug fixes, security etc. don't require a charge - 2.0 sounds like it might - I also won't complain.

IJ Reilly

Mar 7, 2008, 12:31 PM

IgnatiusTheKing

Mar 7, 2008, 12:39 PM

Nope, as others have mentioned, the Apple TV has no such subscription plan. It appears to rely on how they record the earnings, not whether there's recurring revenue or not.

God forbid we "discuss" anything in a discussion forum. I actually think this is pretty interesting, and shoots some holes in Apple's explanation. And if you don't like this thread, hey, there's one solution to your problem: don't read Internet message boards.

Since when is constant bitching about Apple's "greed" a valid discussion?

Hackedoffer: Steve Jobs is the greediest man on earth! Apple must be stopped! Why don't they update MBPs more often? :mad:

Idontcare: It's not that bad, really. Just part of keeping up with new technology. It's actually a smart business decision on their part because they know people will pay for it.

Hackedoffer: Steve Jobs is the greediest man on earth! Apple must be stopped! Why don't they update MBPs more often? :mad:

Idontcare: You could jailbreak or buy an iPhone if you don't want to pay $20 for new software.

Hackedoffer: Steve Jobs is the greediest man on earth! Apple must be stopped! Why don't they update MBPs more often? :mad:

aidanpendragon

Mar 7, 2008, 12:39 PM

I don't know either, but obviously there must be some difference, otherwise the upgrades would be treated the same way.

I don't see why you could not opt out of upgrades. Just don't do them.

Please read the prior posts before assuming that "there must be some reason." I thought this too, but the more we discuss it, the more arbitrary it seems.

My complain, again, is that I can't opt-out of "extra" upgrades without also missing firmware updates, bugfixes, stability fixes, security patches, etc. Give me 1.1.3 or .4 without the 5 extra apps and I'd be happy. Give me the ability to buy apps without having to pay for the privilege, and I'll be happy.

rjfiske

Mar 7, 2008, 12:43 PM

Separately, I'll say it for the third/fourth time: if I had the ability to opt-out of these upgrades and the space they take up, I'd have no reason to complain. And/or, if future firmware, bug fixes, security etc. don't require a charge - 2.0 sounds like it might - I also won't complain.

As much as I disagree that the charge is a "ridiculous" charge (and if I were a Touch owner I'd happily pay it), I think your point above is a fair one. You're suggesting that if you had the option of NOT paying for the additional features of 1.1.3, you'd be ok with the charge? But since the additional features of 1.1.3 were combined with what you describe as necessary bug fixes you "had" to pay the charge simply to continue to use your iPod Touch the same way you always had been. Do I have your argument right?

If so then perhaps someone more intelligent than me can explain what bug fixes and other "necessary" things were included with 1.1.3 beyond the additional features. I'm not being facetious... if indeed Apple is charging for bug fixes in side step with new features, with no option of getting the fixes by themselves for free, I'd have a problem with this too. I didn't believe this to be the case but perhaps I had it wrong.

rjfiske

IgnatiusTheKing

Mar 7, 2008, 12:43 PM

I don't know how buying songs directly from iTunes Store via the Touch isn't "generating revenue after the initial sale." Also, regardless of whether Apple TV now has the capability to generate rental revenue, that's far different from the guaranteed revenue iPhone contracts bring in.

Separately, I'll say it for the third/fourth time: if I had the ability to opt-out of these upgrades and the space they take up, I'd have no reason to complain. And/or, if future firmware, bug fixes, security etc. don't require a charge - 2.0 sounds like it might - I also won't complain.

I don't know either, but obviously there must be some difference, otherwise the upgrades would be treated the same way.

I don't see why you could not opt out of upgrades. Just don't do them.

I think the real reason the :apple:TV update was free was because the product was a flop and without some serious changes, it was just going to die off. Take 2 makes it a more viable piece of revenue-generating technology, which means it's a smart business decision to give it to people for free so they will start spending their money on rentals and downloads.

You cannot say any of those things about the iPod touch.

goosnarrggh

Mar 7, 2008, 12:43 PM

Please read the prior posts before assuming that "there must be some reason." I thought this too, but the more we discuss it, the more arbitrary it seems.

My complain, again, is that I can't opt-out of "extra" upgrades without also missing firmware updates, bugfixes, stability fixes, security patches, etc. Give me 1.1.3 or .4 without the 5 extra apps and I'd be happy. Give me the ability to buy apps without having to pay for the privilege, and I'll be happy.

The iPod Touch bugfixes provided in 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 are both available for free without anybody needing to buy anything.

I'll say it again: The 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 updates are both free downloads. You only pay money when you want to activate the extra features that hadn't been present prior to installing the update.

Why assume that the same wouldn't be true of future firmware updates?

IgnatiusTheKing

Mar 7, 2008, 12:45 PM

My complain, again, is that I can't opt-out of "extra" upgrades without also missing firmware updates, bugfixes, stability fixes, security patches, etc. Give me 1.1.3 or .4 without the 5 extra apps and I'd be happy. Give me the ability to buy apps without having to pay for the privilege, and I'll be happy.

You didn't have to pay for 1.1.3, that was free. You had to pay for the apps at $5 a pop.

aidanpendragon

Mar 7, 2008, 12:47 PM

[lots of hot air that no one on this thread actually wrote]

If you want to troll around this thread complaining about things people didn't say, that's your business. But it's clear what the thread topic is about, so don't come in here if it offends you.

I guess I should know better than to critique anything Apple might do on this site. Part of what they sell is a seamless customer experience. I'm feeling a lot of seams. Maybe Apple users can't handle hearing this. I guess we can always rename it MacFanBoi.com?

Virgil-TB2

Mar 7, 2008, 12:48 PM

I think it's also a fair bet that the iPhone 2.0 software update will come in two flavours or at least have the enterprise features separated out as a paid "app" download. Otherwise, those who do not want to pay won't get the more minor bug-fixes and could be forever frozen out of future updates.

People are also not really thinking about why the average skateboarding dude with a Touch is going to actually *want* Cisco IP stuff, remote wiping and MS Exchange functionality.

The touch is a media player that has some internet functionality added to it. Why get upset when Apple announces that you might have to pay 20 bucks in the unlikely event that you want to add enterprise grade encryption and server functionality to your media player? WTF? :confused:

This whole thread is very dumb.

rjfiske

Mar 7, 2008, 12:48 PM

The iPod Touch bugfixes provided in 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 are both available for free without anybody needing to buy anything.

I'll say it again: The 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 updates are both free downloads. You only pay money when you want to activate the extra features that hadn't been present prior to installing the update.

Why assume that the same wouldn't be true of future firmware updates?

Yeah that's what I had remembered as well. Sorry, OP... i'm not on your side with this one if this is actually the case. You are being charged nothing for using your Touch in the same manner as when you purchased it. You ARE being charged for using your Touch with more features when you purchased it. Apple's reasons for doing so are valid as has been stated in previous posts.

rjfiske

IgnatiusTheKing

Mar 7, 2008, 12:49 PM

If you want to troll around this thread complaining about things people didn't say, that's your business. But it's clear what the thread topic is about, so don't come in here if it offends you.

I guess I should know better than to critique anything Apple might do on this site. Part of what they sell is a seamless customer experience. I'm feeling a lot of seams. Maybe Apple users can't handle hearing this. I guess we can always rename it MacFanBoi.com?

I guess you haven't read any of the other 1,000,000 threads on this exact topic (paying for upgrades) since January. Nobody is saying you can't have a discussion, but the repetitive playing of the "greed" card on every one of them is tiresome.

Jack Flash

Mar 7, 2008, 12:54 PM

I guess you haven't read any of the other 1,000,000 threads on this exact topic (paying for upgrades) since January. Nobody is saying you can't have a discussion, but the repetitive playing of the "greed" card on every one of them is tiresome.

Well, what is it? Are these significant new features or is push email and update to an app we already bought? Apple did say that updates to applications would be free through the AppStore...

aidanpendragon

Mar 7, 2008, 12:56 PM

As much as I disagree that the charge is a "ridiculous" charge (and if I were a Touch owner I'd happily pay it), I think your point above is a fair one. You're suggesting that if you had the option of NOT paying for the additional features of 1.1.3, you'd be ok with the charge? But since the additional features of 1.1.3 were combined with what you describe as necessary bug fixes you "had" to pay the charge simply to continue to use your iPod Touch the same way you always had been. Do I have your argument right?

My 1.1.3 problem is that the apps are dead-wood that take up space, and you have to download them even if you aren't going to use them. It's currently equivalent to losing 2 CDs or 1 half-hour program's worth. That's bad enough, but if this becomes habitual, it will add up. All I want is the ability to get 1.1.3 without the apps bundled it - or to buy the apps separately if I so choose.

It's still unresolved - and speculation at this point - whether the next firmware will require you to buy it just to get bugfixes. That would really be beyond the pale - even M$ would think twice.

I think the real reason the :apple:TV update was free was because the product was a flop and without some serious changes, it was just going to die off. Take 2 makes it a more viable piece of revenue-generating technology, which means it's a smart business decision to give it to people for free so they will start spending their money on rentals and downloads.

Since this is constructive, I'll engage it. I totally agree with you that it's a smart business move. It'd also be a smart business move to let me buy SDK apps without first charging me for the privilege to do so.

It doesn't seem to be a smart move to create two tiers of customer service for what are essentially the same high-priced gadget, and blame it on some accounting flim-flam. As others have said, why would you ever buy a Touch, if there will always be a better version at same cost in three weeks? This has the obsolescene curve crunched down ridiculously.

rjfiske

Mar 7, 2008, 01:03 PM

My 1.1.3 problem is that the apps are dead-wood that take up space, and you have to download them even if you aren't going to use them. It's currently equivalent to losing 2 CDs or 1 half-hour program's worth. That's bad enough, but if this becomes habitual, it will add up. All I want is the ability to get 1.1.3 without the apps bundled it - or to buy the apps separately if I so choose.

It's still unresolved - and speculation at this point - whether the next firmware will require you to buy it just to get bugfixes. That would really be beyond the pale - even M$ would think twice.

Ok fair enough, but confirm for me please... you don't have any problem with the charge for any reason other than it takes up needless storage on your Touch?

Jack Flash

Mar 7, 2008, 01:11 PM

Ok fair enough, but confirm for me please... you don't have any problem with the charge for any reason other than it takes up needless storage on your Touch?

Depends on what Apple means by 'nominal'

aidanpendragon

Mar 7, 2008, 01:12 PM

Ok fair enough, but confirm for me please... you don't have any problem with the charge for any reason other than it takes up storage on your Touch?

Right now, that's it, yes - can't get rid of the apps & free up that space. Going forward, it sounds like the firmware itself will either continue to contain such bloatware, OR be a for-cost item for Touch owners only.

So at best, even more of my space is eaten up by crap I don't want/can't use; and at worst, I have to pay if I want bugfixes, etc. everybody else gets for free.

I guess you haven't read any of the other 1,000,000 threads on this exact topic (paying for upgrades) since January. Nobody is saying you can't have a discussion, but the repetitive playing of the "greed" card on every one of them is tiresome.

I guess I can sympathize. However, I didn't join in the Jan. melee for a big reason: the Touch didn't have those 5 apps., and it wasn't advertised it should. I wish I could opt-out altogether, but it is new stuff.

This, on the other hand, promises that Touch owners get the same upgrade but have to pay for it. I think that's a bad precendent, and - for reasons discussed earlier in this thread - one whose "accounting" rationale doesn't hold up. And just because something's a smart business move doesn't mean it's also good for the customer - ask M$.

...Hey, I'll say it again - if 2.0 costs $1.99, I won't have a problem. If it's $20, problem.

dejo

Mar 7, 2008, 01:16 PM

My 1.1.3 problem is that the apps are dead-wood that take up space, and you have to download them even if you aren't going to use them.
You keep saying that even though that's not the case.
The iPod Touch bugfixes provided in 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 are both available for free without anybody needing to buy anything.

I'll say it again: The 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 updates are both free downloads. You only pay money when you want to activate the extra features that hadn't been present prior to installing the update.

You didn't have to pay for 1.1.3, that was free. You had to pay for the apps at $5 a pop.

Jack Flash

Mar 7, 2008, 01:21 PM

You keep saying that even though that's not the case.
Yes, it is the case. Why is the $20 upgrade 12kb? Because the Applications are embedded in the 1.1.3 firmware to begin with.

You pay to unlock them.

aristobrat

Mar 7, 2008, 01:27 PM

Interesting. But again, "a nominal fee" - obviously people's definitions of this may vary. I'd argue $1.99 is "nominal" whereas $20 - repeatedly - is not; S-O here is just a cover to make money.
Apple has a precedence (going back several years) of selling iPod applications for $4.99 each. I wonder how many lawsuits they would have seen if they tried to sell a bundle of 5 applications for a total of $1.99.

And, it doesn't explain how, as Engadget argues, iTunes, Quicktime, Safari, etc. upgrades don't amount to adding "previously unadvertised features" & thus require a charge.
The same thing follows with the iPod touch. How much did adding the "previously unadvertised feature" of being able to add a calender entry from the touch cost you? Nothing. Like iTunes/QuickTime/Safari updates, it was an update to an already existing program on your device.

IMO, there's a huge and obvious difference between not charging for an update to an application that was on the device when you purchased it vs. charging to add five new applications to your device that weren't there when you purchased it.

aristobrat

Mar 7, 2008, 01:32 PM

I think that's a bad precendent, and - for reasons discussed earlier in this thread - one whose "accounting" rationale doesn't hold up. And just because something's a smart business move doesn't mean it's also good for the customer - ask M$.
I bet that if Apple could redo the decision of how they account for touch revenues, they'd do it differently.

rjfiske

Mar 7, 2008, 01:32 PM

Right now, that's it, yes - can't get rid of the apps & free up that space. Going forward, it sounds like the firmware itself will either continue to contain such bloatware, OR be a for-cost item for Touch owners only.

So at best, even more of my space is eaten up by crap I don't want/can't use; and at worst, I have to pay if I want bugfixes, etc. everybody else gets for free.

I figured, and I wanted to make sure that I had your argument correct. Here's my problem:

1.) Your point above wasn't mentioned anywhere in the previous 4 pages as your main point. It might have been mentioned by you previously but if so, it was done in passing. Only now do we determine that it's actually your main, and dare I say in my nicest tone your only point. It certainly doesn't reflect the attention or the anger that you gave in your first post. You don't like the space the firmware takes up, that's understandable but doesn't deserve, in my opinion, a whole thread devoted to it or the anger behind it.

2.) You've stated repeatedly that the fee is needless for Touch owners vs. iPhone owners... but I've confirmed with you that the fee is not your issue. Why bring up the fee at all? You suspect, I'm guessing given your words above, that Apple will at some point charge you for bug fixes when it has no history of doing so previously. This argument doesn't wash with me. We can't blame Apple based on what we think they'll do in the future if they don't have a history of doing so in the past. We certainly can't call them greedy based on this foundation. Sorry.

3.) Why such anger? You bought your original Touch under certain conditions and by you downloading the updates that are "required", you're still using your Touch under those same conditions with absolutely no charge to you whatsoever.

4.) Can we confirm by someone smarter than me (preferably someone who has a Touch) that the previous required updates do indeed contain the equivalent storage as a 1/2hr program or a couple of album's worth of space? This seems like a large amount... but I suppose it's possible.

rjfiske

aidanpendragon

Mar 7, 2008, 01:37 PM

The same thing follows with the iPod touch. How much did adding the "previously unadvertised feature" of being able to add a calender entry from the touch cost you? Nothing. Like iTunes/QuickTime/Safari updates, it was an update to an already existing program on your device.

IMO, there's a huge and obvious difference between not charging for an update to an application that was on the device when you purchased it vs. charging to add five new applications to your device that weren't there when you purchased it.

Except, this 2.0 firmware adds no new apps, only updates "already existing programs" - and only Touch owners will be charged. I assume from your statement you're not OK with that.

Apple blames this on accounting - but that's BS, precisely because they didn't do the same for the Calendar update, for iTunes 7.6.1, and a host of other things.

They also blame charging $20 for the 5 apps on accounting - again BS, because the accounting laws apparently don't make that fine-grain a distinction as to what's a "previously unadvertised feature." If they just said what you did - "hey, these are new apps, so we'll sell them to you" - that would be more credible.

aristobrat

Mar 7, 2008, 01:42 PM

Except, this 2.0 firmware adds no new apps, only updates "already existing programs" - and only Touch owners will be charged. I assume from your statement you're not OK with that.
The App Store that allows you to download 3rd party applications is a new application that will be included in 2.0

aidanpendragon

Mar 7, 2008, 01:43 PM

3.) Why such anger? You bought your original Touch under certain conditions and by you downloading the updates that are "required", you're still using your Touch under those same conditions with absolutely no charge to you whatsoever.

I paid $400 for the experience of going through 4 devices, a lot of hassle from Geniues, and two months' of fruitless trips to Apple stores & on the phone, to get a device with a decent screen that wasn't all negative. I guess I feel that, after all that, this whole two-tier upgrade thing is insult to injury.

All my other posts here explain how I feel on lots of things, bad precedents going forward, etc.

4.) Can we confirm by someone smarter than me (preferably someone who has a Touch) that the previous required updates do indeed contain the equivalent storage as a 1/2hr program or a couple of album's worth of space? This seems like a large amount... but I suppose it's possible.

The 5 apps in 1.1.3 eat up about 80-100MB of useable space. I'm figuring at 4MB per song, 12 songs per CD, that's about 2 CDs. A half-hour show at the bitrates I use encodes at ~130MB, so I'm rounding up a little, but it's close.

goosnarrggh

Mar 7, 2008, 01:44 PM

Yes, it is the case. Why is the $20 upgrade 12kb? Because the Applications are embedded in the 1.1.3 firmware to begin with.

You pay to unlock them.

I really wish I had thought to be more observant while I was going through the 1.1.2 -> 1.1.3 update process.

Are you certain that the actual space available for songs on a freshly restored, empty iPod Touch running firmware version 1.1.2 is really any different than the space available for songs on a freshly restored, empty iPod Touch running firmware version 1.1.3?

I ask because I have seen a couple of webpages (and I've linked to them on these forums in the past) in which it is claimed that the iPod Touch has two distinct partitions on its Flash drive - one for the OS, and another for Media. It was claimed on that website that on an 8 GB iPod Touch, the OS partition was 300 MB, and the Media partition took up the whole remainder of the Flash drive.

Assuming for the moment that the Apps distributed with 1.1.3 were installed in the same partition as the OS, then it would follow that the extra space now being used by the Apps was actually previously untouchable by music anyway, so the new use of that space (holding the untouchable Apps) is no more harmful than the previous use (or non-use, as the case may be) of that space.

rjfiske

Mar 7, 2008, 01:59 PM

I paid $400 for the experience of going through 4 devices, a lot of hassle from Geniues, and two months' of fruitless trips to Apple stores & on the phone, to get a device with a decent screen that wasn't all negative. I guess I feel that, after all that, this whole two-tier upgrade thing is insult to injury.

Ahhhhhh.... now we're getting somewhere. Your anger resides not in this charge, but with getting a faulty device. Actually did you really go through 3 devices before getting one that worked? If so man that sucks. I'd be pissed too.

But I'll reiterate... assuming that they had given you a working Touch from the get go, there's nothing in the updates that give or take away from the Touch that you originally bought. And in contrast to what you and others have claimed, Apple is not charging you anything for using your Touch in the same manner you always have. Further they have no intention of doing so, going forward. You want to be angry at Apple for screwing up the device to begin with, I don't blame you. But your anger exposed here doesn't seem to make any sense to me personally, given what we've determined the real issue to be.

IJ Reilly

Mar 7, 2008, 02:01 PM

Please read the prior posts before assuming that "there must be some reason." I thought this too, but the more we discuss it, the more arbitrary it seems.

I have, and you started this thread as a gripe. Then, when you take a direction like this:

If you want to troll around this thread complaining about things people didn't say, that's your business. But it's clear what the thread topic is about, so don't come in here if it offends you.

I guess I should know better than to critique anything Apple might do on this site. Part of what they sell is a seamless customer experience. I'm feeling a lot of seams. Maybe Apple users can't handle hearing this. I guess we can always rename it MacFanBoi.com?

... you completely annihilate your argument because it become clear that you won't accept any evidence that you might be wrong.

dejo

Mar 7, 2008, 02:35 PM

Why is the $20 upgrade 12kb?
Very efficient coders? ;)

aidanpendragon

Mar 7, 2008, 03:01 PM

I really wish I had thought to be more observant while I was going through the 1.1.2 -> 1.1.3 update process.

Are you certain that the actual space available for songs on a freshly restored, empty iPod Touch running firmware version 1.1.2 is really any different than the space available for songs on a freshly restored, empty iPod Touch running firmware version 1.1.3?

I ask because I have seen a couple of webpages (and I've linked to them on these forums in the past) in which it is claimed that the iPod Touch has two distinct partitions on its Flash drive.

Yeah, we investigated this on another thread, and I made myself a guinea pig in going up from 1.1.2. Out of 14.84GB useable on a 1.1.2 Touch, about 20MB went to "Other." After the upgrade, this jumped to over 100MB. It counts directly against your useable space. The 5 apps are not, as I had hoped, apparently put into that 300MB OS partition.

Ahhhhhh.... now we're getting somewhere. Your anger resides not in this charge, but with getting a faulty device. Actually did you really go through 3 devices before getting one that worked? If so man that sucks. I'd be pissed too.

I'm probably more PO'd then perhaps otherwise, due to this being "yet another issue."

But, I paid an extra $100 for a 16GB because I wanted space. When upgrades contain things I don't want, can't opt-out of, and would have to pay to use (this is the trifecta) that eat into that space, I'm not happy.

Even then, I didn't start a thread on 1.1.3 because I figured this would be a one-time deal. But firmware 2.0 sounds like more of that trifecta. It's the trend & precedent I'm not happy with.

I have, and you started this thread as a gripe. Then, when you take a direction like this:

... you completely annihilate your argument because it become clear that you won't accept any evidence that you might be wrong.

That line was in reaction to a specific comment by a specific person. I've tried to constructively engage everyone here - even that poster, subsequently. I've laid out why I feel I have a legit gripe - not just "OMG :apple: SUKKXX."

Part of it is my opinion, and while I'm certainly open to arguments to the contrary, I don't think my opinion can be "wrong" per se. If anything, bits of this discussion on Sarbanes-Oxley have illuminated even more how arbitrary and BS Apple's "it's just b/c of accounting" argument is.

All that said, I'm willing to let this go until we see how much 2.0 actually costs. Again, if it's $1.99, this kvetching might be premature - although no one so far expects under $20. It still leaves the larger issues of two-tiered upgrades, paid bugfixes, and bundled apps you can't opt-out of. I would think people would not be happy there - certainly M$ would be roasted if it did the same - but I could be wrong.

hexonxonx

Mar 7, 2008, 03:41 PM

Yes, it is the case. Why is the $20 upgrade 12kb? Because the Applications are embedded in the 1.1.3 firmware to begin with.

You pay to unlock them.

Yes, that's exactly it. The code you download simply is a key to make the apps accessible.

IJ Reilly

Mar 7, 2008, 05:55 PM

Part of it is my opinion, and while I'm certainly open to arguments to the contrary, I don't think my opinion can be "wrong" per se.

And you don't see the contradiction in this statement?

joefinan

Mar 8, 2008, 04:14 AM

I've just restored my iPod and it's DELETED the software upgrade. Surely I don't have to pay for it AGAIN??

Help me please!!

allbrokeup

Mar 8, 2008, 04:34 AM

if you are on Windows:

Do a search for the folder 'Mobile Applications' and the .ipa file will be there.

On Mac OS X:

~/Library/iTunes/Mobile Applications/

Disable Auto Sync of iPod.

Click Sync

Then it should be there. :D:D:D:D

dml

Mar 8, 2008, 04:36 AM

allbrokeup

Mar 8, 2008, 04:41 AM

oh yes, and I am disgusted at yet another charge for touch users. I know where I'm getting it if it's too expensive. iTunes App Store/iTunes Updates. But if I choose to stay on 1.1.4 JB'ed its because there is only sdk support in 2.0 and nothing I would use.

allbrokeup.

Diwata

Mar 8, 2008, 04:44 AM

No, not false. Yes, the reasoning that Apple proclaims to be using is indirectly associated with SOX. But, what I said was true. There is nothing in SOX requiring them to charge us for this. Need someone with more legal expertise in this area to confirm this? Well, I just finished my last set of finals for law school (so, Juris Doctor) and I have a masters in accounting. Trust me, we studied SOX in both fields. Again, what I said was not false in any way.

Bravo Adokimus! For standing up for this, we consumers don't have to take up everything Apple rolls out setting down. Well, there are other smarter people out here that refuses to be fooled by Apple. All these arbitrary treatment to its loyal customers will backfire to them eventually.

archurban

Mar 8, 2008, 04:48 AM

mavis

Mar 8, 2008, 06:01 AM

people just don't understand why iphone users update for free. they made two years contract with AT&T and apple (a part of) for charging fee. if you don't use iphone, you have no idea how much I pay for it monthly. even you set one of three plans. so for Apple, two contract continues to bring revenue. but ipod touch is not. one time purchase. that's it because it is not a phone which you don't need contract to use. so nominal fee makes sense. if you saw iphone SDK event by streaming quicktime video, I bet Steve or another already talked about it.That's all fine and good, but you're overlooking the AppleTV people - no subscription there, yet they get free feature-loaded updates. And if you look at other companies (Microsoft's Zune, Sony's PSP) you'll see the same thing - free updates which add apps and features to those devices. The PSP is a one time purchase, as is the Zune, as is the AppleTV - so don't go preaching about how much iPhone people deserve a free upgrade because of Apple's revenue sharing deal with AT&T. That revenue sharing deal isn't the reason us Touch owners are getting screwed. The only possible reasons are 1) ignorance/shortsightedness on Apple's part or 2) pure greed. Both of which are very good reasons to be angry at Apple. ;)

AdeFowler

Mar 8, 2008, 06:04 AM

Maybe Apple users can't handle hearing this. I guess we can always rename it MacFanBoi.com?
You lost any sympathy I had for your cause right there. You come across as a spoilt 12 year old. You'll find plenty of long time members criticising Apple on MacRumors, when it's deserved. In this instance it's not.

Jack Flash

Mar 8, 2008, 01:16 PM

You lost any sympathy I had for your cause right there. You come across as a spoilt 12 year old. You'll find plenty of long time members criticising Apple on MacRumors, when it's deserved. In this instance it's not.

You think updates to applications we bought should cost money? You think we should have to buy the AppStore?

aethelbert

Mar 8, 2008, 01:22 PM

You think updates to applications we bought should cost money? You think we should have to buy the AppStore?
Dear freaking lord, that's the only thing announced about 2.0 really. You're also paying for enterprise features and anything else that could be announced before its release. You don't even really know what 2.0 will be besides the appstore, and you're already pissed because they mentioned the word "fee."

I guess they could have just kept this software to the iPhone. Then you would be able to have just what you have know.

mavis

Mar 8, 2008, 06:09 PM

Dear freaking lord, that's the only thing announced about 2.0 really. You're also paying for enterprise features and anything else that could be announced before its release. You don't even really know what 2.0 will be besides the appstore, and you're already pissed because they mentioned the word "fee."

I guess they could have just kept this software to the iPhone. Then you would be able to have just what you have know.
Way to completely skirt the point he's making. You think it's fair to charge us to access the AppStore? Last time I checked, I didn't have to pay a cover charge to go shopping - what makes Apple so friggin special?

AceFernalld

Mar 8, 2008, 06:16 PM

Summary of the situation:
Apple doesn't get constant income for touch users, so having us pay for apps that weren't essential in the first place isn't bad.
Paying for 1.1.3 = Uncool
Paying for 2.0.0 that's going to bring many more features than we've already heard about = Fine. As long as it's $30 or cheaper.

aethelbert

Mar 8, 2008, 06:21 PM

Way to completely skirt the point he's making. You think it's fair to charge us to access the AppStore? Last time I checked, I didn't have to pay a cover charge to go shopping - what makes Apple so friggin special?
I didn't skip the point. I said that one who buys 2.0 is paying for more than just the AppStore, probably even more than we know about already. You guys just see "AppStore" and "fee" and you don't bother to read or think any deeper before you come onto a forum complaining. I really find it comical to come on here to see how so many people think that they're entitled to something without any good reason. I also laugh when some twelve year old tries to explain economic laws to everyone else, which usually comes out as total crap.

mavis

Mar 8, 2008, 06:44 PM

I didn't skip the point. I said that one who buys 2.0 is paying for more than just the AppStore, probably even more than we know about already. You guys just see "AppStore" and "fee" and you don't bother to read or think any deeper before you come onto a forum complaining. I really find it comical to come on here to see how so many people think that they're entitled to something without any good reason. I also laugh when some twelve year old tries to explain economic laws to everyone else, which usually comes out as total crap.I understand your point, it's just that 12 year olds explaining economic laws are almost as amusing as Apple sheep who jump to defend every ignorant decision Apple makes.

It's clear that you're 100% sold on the idea of paying for Touch updates, but it should also be clear to you that a lot of people aren't. Apple is shooting themselves in the foot trying to nickel-and-dime us, in my case they've lost at least 15x the January app pack fee and I don't feel the least bit guilty about stealing from them. AFAIC, that's exactly what they're doing to me.

aethelbert

Mar 8, 2008, 07:56 PM

I understand your point, it's just that 12 year olds explaining economic laws are almost as amusing as Apple sheep who jump to defend every ignorant decision Apple makes.

It's clear that you're 100% sold on the idea of paying for Touch updates, but it should also be clear to you that a lot of people aren't. Apple is shooting themselves in the foot trying to nickel-and-dime us, in my case they've lost at least 15x the January app pack fee and I don't feel the least bit guilty about stealing from them. AFAIC, that's exactly what they're doing to me.
I agree, a business trying to make money is quite ignorant...

Software development isn't free, and everyone who pays deserves to get it. But you paid for the iPod... Nowhere does it say that you get free software upgrades for life. And never before did an iPod have this funcionality, so you couldn't just expect Apple to spoon feed it to you. If you want free, visualize this as an open source device. Although it sound like a great idea, it would collapse on itself. You can pay for good software (or in your case, break the law and pirate it), or you can have some terrible coder make it for you. The day that the final loophole is closed and you can't get the new features without legitimately obtaining them from Apple is a day that I will be laughing, quite hard.

aidanpendragon

Mar 8, 2008, 09:35 PM

I agree, a business trying to make money is quite ignorant...

Software development isn't free, and everyone who pays deserves to get it. But you paid for the iPod...

...ergo Touch owners deserve to get it?:confused:

There a difference between "openly trying to make money" and "charging us but blaming federal accounting laws for it." That's part of the problem.

It's not like this development isn't also being done for the iPhone. And iPhone users are getting it for free. Yes, they pay $70/month, but that's the market rate on another package of services they get: voice + data + cellular net access. Touch owners don't have the benefit of any of those.

If [monthly charge] - [services received] = a net neutral, then iPhone and Touch owners are in the same boat, overall cost-wise: the initial purchase cost of the device.

So, why is it again iPhone users *deserve* upgrades for free but Touch owners *don't*?

One then must fall back on Apple's argument - how they choose to account for the device sale, why one thing (1.1.3 apps) adds "new features" to a one-time-revenue device (Touch), even if another (iTunes 7.6.1 & video rentals) to a different one-time device (Macs) isn't counted & charged the same way - and that argument is just full of holes.

Much like they decried with music companies, Apple's got the recurring revenue bug, and wants it however they can, be it from iPhone or Touch. It's actually very like Steve, to hate & belittle a practice/idea until he adopts it as his own.

aethelbert

Mar 8, 2008, 09:53 PM

...ergo Touch owners deserve to get it?:confused:

There a difference between "openly trying to make money" and "charging us but blaming federal accounting laws for it." That's part of the problem.

It's not like this development isn't also being done for the iPhone. And iPhone users are getting it for free. Yes, they pay $70/month, but that's the market rate on another package of services they get: voice + data + cellular net access. Touch owners don't have the benefit of any of those.

If [monthly charge] - [services received] = a net neutral, then iPhone and Touch owners are in the same boat, overall cost-wise: the initial purchase cost of the device.

So, why is it again iPhone users *deserve* upgrades for free but Touch owners *don't*?

One then must fall back on Apple's argument - how they choose to account for the device sale, why one thing (1.1.3 apps) adds "new features" to a one-time-revenue device (Touch), even if another (iTunes 7.6.1 & video rentals) to a different one-time device (Macs) isn't counted & charged the same way - and that argument is just full of holes.
Buying the device is not paying for the upgrade... I said that those who pay for the upgrade deserve the software that it provides, not those who come to forums to whine about business.

Apple never blamed the federal law for charging. That was people on the forum that knew what they were talking about.

Do you seriously think that the iPhone's plans are the going rate? Hell no. People pay a premium for having the one and only iPhone... and where does that extra money go? All the way to the infinite loop. You can't seriously think that the €45 plan in Ireland is what it actually costs... Go look at what's included, it's like 1GB of data, and 175 minutes. Apple gets some of that money...

"[monthly charge] - [services received]"= ~$10

Over two years, that's $240. You're not paying that to Apple, are you? No. You're paying right when the updates come out instead of every month when your phone bill comes.

They're not gonna make it free, weather you see their reasoning or not. So stop whining over it.

Jack Flash

Mar 8, 2008, 10:52 PM

Buying the device is not paying for the upgrade... I said that those who pay for the upgrade deserve the software that it provides, not those who come to forums to whine about business.

Apple never blamed the federal law for charging. That was people on the forum that knew what they were talking about.

Do you seriously think that the iPhone's plans are the going rate? Hell no. People pay a premium for having the one and only iPhone... and where does that extra money go? All the way to the infinite loop. You can't seriously think that the €45 plan in Ireland is what it actually costs... Go look at what's included, it's like 1GB of data, and 175 minutes. Apple gets some of that money...

"[monthly charge] - [services received]"= ~$10

Over two years, that's $240. You're not paying that to Apple, are you? No. You're paying right when the updates come out instead of every month when your phone bill comes.

They're not gonna make it free, weather you see their reasoning or not. So stop whining over it.

Actually, in the SDK presentation they do in fact blame SoX for a "nominal fee's" necessity.

And stop dismissing all the counter-arguments as whining. People are bringing up many valid points against Apple's decisions but time and time again you try to write it off as childish complaining.

aethelbert

Mar 8, 2008, 11:38 PM

Actually, in the SDK presentation they do in fact blame SoX for a "nominal fee's" necessity.

And stop dismissing all the counter-arguments as whining. People are bringing up many valid points against Apple's decisions but time and time again you try to write it off as childish complaining.
No, they said that it is accounted for differently. Nothing else was mentioned. Go watch the quicktime stream. And you guys are bringing up points that are very uneducated about everything from where the iPhone subscription money goes to how business works in general.

When people don't get their high expectations met and complain about it, I, as well as most everyone else in the world, call that whining.

Jack Flash

Mar 9, 2008, 04:15 AM

No, they said that it is accounted for differently. Nothing else was mentioned. Go watch the quicktime stream. And you guys are bringing up points that are very uneducated about everything from where the iPhone subscription money goes to how business works in general.

When people don't get their high expectations met and complain about it, I, as well as most everyone else in the world, call that whining.

I'll call your thought process fanboyism, then.

mavis

Mar 9, 2008, 06:23 AM

When people don't get their high expectations met and complain about it, I, as well as most everyone else in the world, call that whining.And when people let big companies trod all over them, I call that pathetic.

Seriously, it amazes me how many Apple sheep there are, people who accept whatever decisions Apple makes as being absolutely, 100% just and fair, even when they clearly aren't. :rolleyes:

arn

Mar 9, 2008, 06:52 AM

I'll call your thought process fanboyism, then.

And when people let big companies trod all over them, I call that pathetic.

Seriously, it amazes me how many Apple sheep there are, people who accept whatever decisions Apple makes as being absolutely, 100% just and fair, even when they clearly aren't. :rolleyes:

If it bothers you this much, why don't you sell your iPod touch and buy another product? You obviously aren't satisfied with it.

I'm not being facetious. It is an option.

Regardless of whether or not its "fair" or not, or you agree with the reasoning. Let's say everyone agrees with you that Apple's just being greedy. Now what? If you truly believe it, then stop supporting a greedy company. Buy a product that gives you free updates.

Really, those are your options. I think you can assume that all major software upgrades to the iPod Touch from this point forward will cost $$. If that really bothers you, then cut your losses now.

arn

Sesshi

Mar 9, 2008, 06:58 AM

Yup. If you want the convenience of a mediocre all-in-one for people who have never been able to get their heads around a smartphone and are easily distracted by things like multitouch, you have to pay.

You do always have the option to branch out into somewhat less convenient collection of two or more devices which much better experiences in their respective niches.

mavis

Mar 9, 2008, 07:02 AM

If it bothers you this much, why don't you sell your iPod touch and buy another product? You obviously aren't satisfied with it.

I'm not being facetious. It is an option.

Regardless of whether or not its "fair" or not, or you agree with the reasoning. Let's say everyone agrees with you that Apple's just being greedy. Now what? If you truly believe it, then stop supporting a greedy company. Buy a product that gives you free updates.

Really, those are your options. I think you can assume that all major software upgrades to the iPod Touch from this point forward will cost $$. If that really bothers you, then cut your losses now.

arn

Actually, I love my Touch (at least until I can finally get an iPhone, which is what I've really wanted all along, after which I probably will never use the Touch again) but I hate the way Apple is treating their customers. As for supporting a such a greedy company, I certainly won't be giving them any more money than I absolutely have to. Hardware can't be helped. But software? Not a chance in hell they'll see a dime from me for any of their software in the future. That's how I'll stop supporting them. ;)

BTW, this is a great site you've got here. Whether you agree with my opinion on this update fiasco or not, just wanted to say thanks.

Sesshi

Mar 9, 2008, 07:08 AM

mavis

Mar 9, 2008, 07:17 AM

I don't really see the problem. Yes - companies like Cowon always add new little features through firmware updates, but these companies are well known for releasing firmware which is almost alpha. Since most of the cool new features they add are somewhat broken in any case, no-one would actually pay for it.

Sony's firmware updates never do anything but fix bugs, which is why they come out with one like once a year, if ever. This is the way a properly tested product like the Touch should be.

People do pay for software on computers and PDA's (well - impatient idiots like me at least who can't wait for torrents, apparently), so why not on the Touch, which is after all a half-assed PDA now?

Actually, Sony has released quite a few firmware updates for the PSP, all free, adding the following features over the years:

Internet Browser
Wallpaper
Custom Themes
Multiple media formats made playable/viewable
Flash player (standalone or in browser)
Playstation titles playable
Internet Radio
Skype

Quite a bit of functionality added there, wouldn't you say?

Sesshi

Mar 9, 2008, 07:23 AM

Doh, you got me - I was talking about the MP3 players :D

My point still stands regarding PDA's though. On some Windows Mobile phones, you can't even upgrade the OS to support new features - you've got to buy a new phone with a later OS installed.

mavis

Mar 9, 2008, 07:31 AM

My point still stands regarding PDA's though. On some Windows Mobile phones, you can't even upgrade the OS to support new features - you've got to buy a new phone with a later OS installed.Well, I guess it could be worse. ;)

Sesshi

Mar 9, 2008, 08:16 AM

I know. It's just impossible to get that sanctimonious yet needy-for-attention fix with a Windows Mobile machine, isn't it? :p

macfan881

Mar 9, 2008, 01:30 PM

wow this is really sad if you dont like it stop whinning about it and dont buy it plain and simple

Ubuntu

Mar 9, 2008, 01:37 PM

wow this is really sad if you dont like it stop whinning about it and dont buy it plain and simple

The most annoying thing about the update for me is that it keeps asking me to update everytime I plug my iPod in. I probably will buy the upgrade - just not at the moment. "Remind me later" does not help so much. Is there a way to turn off the ****ing reminder?

Krafty

Mar 9, 2008, 03:30 PM

Quite a bit of functionality added there, wouldn't you say? Is Apple Sony?

Jack Flash

Mar 9, 2008, 03:38 PM

Is Apple Sony?

Are they both giant electronics corporations?

Pippen Man

Mar 9, 2008, 04:03 PM

If your down with upgrade fees, then go buy an iPhone. With the January Software Upgrade, you could have had a month of AT&T coverage. (if your an existing AT&T customer)

Seriously, at least Apple updates there products. Last time I checked, the iPod nano hasn't had any software upgrades that are major.:rolleyes::apple:

Krafty

Mar 9, 2008, 04:07 PM

Are they both giant electronics corporations?But is Apple Sony?

Last time I remembered, Apple didnt make the PSP. Sony did.

If your down with upgrade fees, then go buy an iPhone. With the January Software Upgrade, you could have had a month of AT&T coverage. (if your an existing AT&T customer)
Or just dont buy anything for the touch. I mean seriously, is it THAT hard to comprehend?!

(I can already guess what the next reply will be...)

Pippen Man

Mar 9, 2008, 04:14 PM

But is Apple Sony?

Last time I remembered, Apple didnt make the PSP. Sony did.

Or just dont buy anything for the touch. I mean seriously, is it THAT hard to comprehend?!

(I can already guess what the next reply will be...)

What do you mean by not buying anything for the iPod touch? Such as Software Upgrades? If you mean by that then...

Don't by Leopard because there's going to be a new version out in a couple of years.

Don't buy a PlayStation 3 because there's going to be PlayStation 4 in a couple of years.

Or... WHY DON"T YOU JUST JAILBREAK IT! It's not that hard, and it "saves" you $20.

I enjoy how after Apple updates something, all of the people happy with the new product/software upgrade are too busy to reply on these forums because there too busy buying/downloading/enjoying them.

On the other hand, people who are "feud up" (which you can't be because your still here since after the iPhone price drop) come and bash Apple here. Lovely world we live in.. :rolleyes: :apple:

a104375

Mar 9, 2008, 04:23 PM

mavis

Mar 9, 2008, 05:01 PM

If your down with upgrade fees, then go buy an iPhone. With the January Software Upgrade, you could have had a month of AT&T coverage. (if your an existing AT&T customer)
Would love to buy an iPhone, but I can't. Not my fault.

MikeTheC

Mar 12, 2008, 04:32 PM

TheSpaz

Mar 12, 2008, 04:44 PM

I don't own an iPod Touch or an iPhone. I do, however, own three iPods, and have received (collectively) several firmware updates from Apple for them, none of which I had to pay a penny for. None of which would I have been willing to pay for merely an update to. Period.

I think the pro-Apple-charging folk here and elsewhere on the board are missing a very essential point made by this thread starter, as well as by others, and that is a grievance with Apple over paying for the same kind of updates on an Touch that would nominally be free in any other kind of context. We don't pay for updates to software (generally), nor to our OSs, nor the bundled apps on our Macs.

What is so absolutely hard for you folks to get through your heads about this? The OP and myself are not saying "We shouldn't have to pay for new apps, or new releases of apps," but "We shouldn't have to keep paying every time Apple revises their stuff."

As regards the often-sited SarbanesOxley, I really don't give a flip about that law. I don't see how it rationally could apply here, and Apple's invoking of it (or others' invoking of it on Apple's behalf) merely constitutes a cheap excuse to justify repeated bad acts.

To be technical... we don't always pay for firmware updates... the minor ones but, the BIG updates, yeah we have to pay for them... we also pay for major OS updates too... Leopard wasn't free for Tiger users now was it? Leopard has better features and it's faster but, it's still basically an enhanced version of Tiger isn't it? You guys are being babies about it... it's a small price to pay for such a great product.... nobody's forcing you to upgrade from 1.1.2.

Edit: Plus, you knew exactly what you were getting when you before you purchased the damn thing... didn't you read the specs? You got exactly what you paid for. No more, no less.

aethelbert

Mar 12, 2008, 04:49 PM

i think its kinda stupid that they keep charging for there updates to it because by the time it gets completely replaced were going to have paid more than its worth.... well i suppose you could get a iphone but you would still be paying indirectly through monthly service....
If $20 updates come out every five months, it would take 6 years and 3 months to pay more for software upgrades than even the smallest-capacity iPod touch...

IJ Reilly

Mar 12, 2008, 05:05 PM

aethelbert

Mar 12, 2008, 05:11 PM

Jack Flash

Mar 12, 2008, 05:18 PM

The problem is that they're doing more than just revising. They're giving you new stuff as well. And the last time I checked, every iPod had received free software updates to fix bugs and problems. But no other iPod in the past has really received any new features with free software updates, just bug fixes.
Gapless Playback and Games were major updates that came for free for 5th gen iPod owners.

aethelbert

Mar 12, 2008, 06:17 PM

Gapless Playback and Games were major updates that came for free for 5th gen iPod owners.
iPods had games before that, they just weren't able to be sold. This isn't really adding a new feature to the device. And the last time I checked, Apple makes money off of selling those games...

Now I do realize that you're gonna flame me about how they'll make money off of the app store, which is true. BUT, we already know of enterprise features on 2.0 and there will problably be more revealed at WWDC. But you talk like the only thing in 2.0 is the AppStore before you've even seen the beta of the damn firmware, so I'm putting on my flame jacket...

apsterling

Mar 12, 2008, 06:29 PM

wow this is really sad if you dont like it stop whinning about it and dont buy it plain and simple

And those of us tied to the iTMS?

I may go back to a standard iPod Classic, so I don't have to deal with this ************.
Of course, I'm waiting a few weeks after the SDK to see if it's worth whatever price it'll cost me.

Edit: Akonradi, the price is all fine and well for Enterprise Users, but can't they sell the Enterprise features as an activation seperately from the App Store like they did the apps, though they were included in the 1.1.3? For those of us who don't need those features?

phytonix

Mar 12, 2008, 06:35 PM

People who want to defend Apple, go ahead. I am NOT buying any of these updates unless developers stopped jailbreaking.

menthol moose

Mar 12, 2008, 07:43 PM

I don't own an iPod Touch or an iPhone. I do, however, own three iPods, and have received (collectively) several firmware updates from Apple for them, none of which I had to pay a penny for. None of which would I have been willing to pay for merely an update to. Period.

I think the pro-Apple-charging folk here and elsewhere on the board are missing a very essential point made by this thread starter, as well as by others, and that is a grievance with Apple over paying for the same kind of updates on an Touch that would nominally be free in any other kind of context. We don't pay for updates to software (generally), nor to our OSs, nor the bundled apps on our Macs.

What is so absolutely hard for you folks to get through your heads about this? The OP and myself are not saying "We shouldn't have to pay for new apps, or new releases of apps," but "We shouldn't have to keep paying every time Apple revises their stuff."

As regards the often-sited SarbanesOxley, I really don't give a flip about that law. I don't see how it rationally could apply here, and Apple's invoking of it (or others' invoking of it on Apple's behalf) merely constitutes a cheap excuse to justify repeated bad acts.The problem with this though is that you're not paying for many updates. Only one of the iPod Touch's firmware updates so far has been pay to use; the rest were free to upgrade. You're not paying for bug fixes in these firmware updates, and you can still update to 1.1.3 without buying anything; what you're paying for is new applications which were previously totally unavailable. The incremental updates to Mac OS X are similar to these bug fix only firmware updates.

The January Software upgrade is theoretically equivalent to upgrading from Tiger to Leopard. You certainly don't get new functionality from the incremental updates like 1.1.4 and 10.4.11, but you do from the paid upgrades, like Leopard and the five apps.

You aren't paying for firmware updates for the iPod touch, you're paying for additional functionality not previously offered in any way - legally. The 2.0 update is going to be largely the same; you're going to be paying for new functionality (not updates and bug fixes, though I have no doubt that there will be updates and bug fixes), such as Exchange server support, and the ability to run third-party applications.

Please tell me the problem you find with this.

Jack Flash

Mar 12, 2008, 08:19 PM

The problem with this though is that you're not paying for many updates. Only one of the iPod Touch's firmware updates so far has been pay to use; the rest were free to upgrade. You're not paying for bug fixes in these firmware updates, and you can still update to 1.1.3 without buying anything; what you're paying for is new applications which were previously totally unavailable. The incremental updates to Mac OS X are similar to these bug fix only firmware updates.

The January Software upgrade is theoretically equivalent to upgrading from Tiger to Leopard. You certainly don't get new functionality from the incremental updates like 1.1.4 and 10.4.11, but you do from the paid upgrades, like Leopard and the five apps.

You aren't paying for firmware updates for the iPod touch, you're paying for additional functionality not previously offered in any way - legally. The 2.0 update is going to be largely the same; you're going to be paying for new functionality (not updates and bug fixes, though I have no doubt that there will be updates and bug fixes), such as Exchange server support, and the ability to run third-party applications.

Please tell me the problem you find with this.

No, the January software update was nowhere near a Tiger to Leopard upgrade. If anything it was akin to buying iLife. That was fine. New Macs come with iLife, new iPod Touches come with the January Apps.

Now, firmware 2.0 consists of, from what we know, updates to those "iLife" applications and the Appstore. Are the applications that outdated that they require a new version already? Or, should Apple have included these features form the get-go?

So, given that these are minor updates to Applications we have already purchased, should we be buying the privilege to use Apple's AppStore?

cawesjmu

Aug 7, 2008, 01:14 PM

The most annoying thing about the update for me is that it keeps asking me to update everytime I plug my iPod in. I probably will buy the upgrade - just not at the moment. "Remind me later" does not help so much. Is there a way to turn off the ****ing reminder?

Anyone find the answer to this? Is there really no "don't remind me again" button? I was really hoping I was just missing it. How do I make it not remind me anymore. I know 2.0 is there, and I'll get it when I'm good and ready.

iMacmatician

Aug 7, 2008, 01:55 PM

Apple has a precedence (going back several years) of selling iPod applications for $4.99 each. I wonder how many lawsuits they would have seen if they tried to sell a bundle of 5 applications for a total of $1.99.But can't Apple charge whatever they want?

SOX is not an excuse. If Apple had to charge users for the updates, then why not charge $.99 or something? So why charge so much more?

And for those who say "don't buy it!," that's not an option. There are those who like the iPod touch more than any other comparable device, but want it to be improved. What's wrong with that?

bm5

Aug 7, 2008, 07:38 PM

I stumbled on this forum as a result of searching on ipod touch firmware upgrades. I just got off the phone with apple and frankly I'm a little pissed.

Backstory: I bought a Macbook Air (1.8,SSD) AND a Ipod touch 16gb this week. Needless to say, this was a pretty big purchase for me.

Anyways, got the macbook air setup and go and sync the ipod touch for the first time. It tells me that there is a firmware upgrade, so I go to update it and guess what, I have to pay $10!

Now $10 is not going to break me or anything, but it's the principle of the thing. Why should I have to pay $10 to "upgrade" a BRAND NEW ipod? I can kind of understand if it was purchased previously and apple was charging $10 for increased functionality, but this is a brand new unit! It should either come with the latest firmware or allow me to upgrade to it -- free. After all, I just spent a huge chunk of change for apple gear, why should I need to pay $10 more on day 1?

I'm not an fanboi (either pro or con), but simply uses computers as tools. In some instances my PCs work better, in other instances the mac. This air will primarily be used as my travel laptop. Speaking as an mostly unbiased person, I think apple needs to be careful of spoiling the image they have worked so hard to create. I see more and more media outlets starting to portray apple as the (next) evil empire as opposed to the free-spirited independent image they've worked so hard to create.

This nickel and dime stuff may end up backfiring on them.

rant off.

babyj

Aug 7, 2008, 08:08 PM

The problem you've got is that it states very clearly on the Apple website that the iPod Touch comes with the v1 software and that you have to pay for v2. If they were shipping new ones with the v2 software you'd have an argument, but they aren't so you don't.

I agree its annoying but not sure there is much you can do or say.

asskick3r

Aug 7, 2008, 09:34 PM

Then I don't see the reason tocomplain, cause we sure as hell dont.

Don't wanna pay, then dont.

Other solution: If you don't wanna pay... PIRATE! jk

But you can get 2.0 for free. Youtube it.

=Shadow=

Aug 8, 2008, 03:29 AM

The 2.0.1 FW is on Apple's website, if you know where to look.

*COUGH COUGH* (http://appldnld.apple.com.edgesuite.net/content.info.apple.com/ProtectedAsset/iPod/osx/bundles/061-4986.20080729.VftgP!/iPod1,1_2.0.1_5B108_Restore.ipsw?downloadKey=1218650525_fa5d6ed7fd9fd2667d168e54eabab25f) Um, excuse me.

Zieg3rman

Aug 8, 2008, 04:09 AM

FALSE
It is just greed, plain and simple. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=449010

Great....Did you buy the updates? If not, good. Then you can keep bitching about it. If you caved and purchased any of the updates, then please stop your bickering because Apple, like all companies, is out to maximize profit. Again, Apple, like all companies would rob you blind if they could. But that would certainly get them into a bit of legal trouble. Don't get me wrong, I love Apple and all of their products, but the fact is that they are still a large corporation looking to make a profit. It's that simple...

EDIT:

Also, assuming you do have a job, $10 for a MAJOR software update shouldn't be anymore than an hour or hour and a half of work(I make 8.50 an hour working over the summer before I go back to college in the fall) If money really is so hard to come by for you(and that is the way it is for some people) that you don't have the $10 and those $10 would break the bank if you spent them on a software update, then you SHOULDN'T HAVE A $300 PREMIUM IPOD! (I'm not yelling...) You either find the product worth the price tag or you don't. It's that simple. Don't like the price of organic milk, buy regular milk. Don't like the price of regular milk, drink water from the tap. Don't like the price of new OS updates? Don't buy them. Don't like the price of the 2.0 update? Don't buy it. Complaining isn't going to make the update free. If it did, everyone would have be using a Mac Pro and have 3 Ferraris in the garage all free of charge...

gregdrummeraz

Aug 8, 2008, 01:42 PM

I agree but also dont agree.

Just buy some apple shares... it will return what you spend with them. :D

nhyde

Aug 8, 2008, 01:56 PM

I posted a comment on the news thread railing against Apple's new gouge-the-Touch-owners policy, but it deserves a full thread in this forum.

Gouge? $20 for two updates, that is hardly gouging. Don't know about you, but getting the extra features that we did get for $20 seems well worth it.

My initial outrage was, why the Touch and not the iPhone? As I first understood it, adding apps required a charge under Sarbanes-Oxley - but now that both devices had a common feature set, why were the Touches only getting charged?

Common feature set may be true, but Apple is getting some sort of monthly royalty from AT&T, thus no need to charge them for more as they are still making money from iPhone uses. Where as the iPod had it's initial fee of $400 and that's it. (Same price as iPhone by the way)

Another reader then pointed out that the subscription basis of the iPhone exempts it from such charges; the Touch, with a one-time purchase price, is alone subject to them.

Yup, see above.

But I'm still angry. Angry because Apple could charge a buck for technicality's sake; but will probably charge at least $20 for no new apps, some added functionality, and the ability to buy SDK apps! Angry because this cost will either be required to get firmware 2.0; or if not, we'll again get stuck with a bunch of locked but space-eating features. And angry because, after paying 400 bucks, I'm again feeling like a second-class citizen.

$20 for new features is reasonable, and probably only covers the bandwidth for the update and the FREE applications you download. If Dell were to put a new processor in their Dell 1500 laptop, and you owned a Dell 1500 too, would you expect a free upgrade of the processor? Don't think so.

Remember, the 802.11n enabler only costs $1.99 (and still made a big stink). Apple clearly can charge that if they wish. If they want more, I think it's to throw up barriers against people who could live with "everything-but-the-phone" & steer them towards subscription revenue.

So the company is bad for breaking even? Dev time to develop these new features, and bandwidth probably cost $20 per person in the end, so what the complaints? Would they rather have everyone on an iPhone? Probably, but that doesn't mean they are, or have been 'gouging' the iPod users.

What all this really makes me want to do is JB my Touch. I'm not the kind who'd ordinarily want to fool around with that, but Apple is driving me to it. It's like the anti-iTunes Store approach.

Apple is not driving you to JB your iPod, your cheap wallet is.

Zieg3rman

Aug 9, 2008, 02:33 AM

I agree but also dont agree.

Just buy some apple shares... it will return what you spend with them. :D

Which is what I did when the price was at $85 just about a year ago!! :D Spent a few grand back then...still up 80-something percent :) :) :)

alchemistmuffin

Aug 9, 2008, 08:26 PM

Okay, for those who are complaining about iPhone getting free software update, and iPod touch requiring fee for update....

You do know that all iPhone owners are ACTUALLY paying for the update as well...

But instead of paying it through iTunes, they are paying it through their phone bill every month.

Yes, the contract that they sign up for when they buy an iPhone also covers the so called "free" software upgrade, when in truth, they are paying for it in their monthly bill....

So, STOP COMPLAINING, all iPhone owners are paying for the update as well through phone bill...

kdarling

Aug 10, 2008, 06:25 PM

You do know that all iPhone owners are ACTUALLY paying for the update as well...

But instead of paying it through iTunes, they are paying it through their phone bill every month.

Not the 3G owners. Apple gets paid up front, one time.

alchemistmuffin

Aug 10, 2008, 08:19 PM

Not the 3G owners. Apple gets paid up front, one time.

Yes, 3G owners are getting a subsidized phone, but when mobile carrier paid Apple up front, they also paid the fees for software upgrades, thinking that the monthly fees that subscribers pay will cover the cost of that as well...

So, although subsidized, the monthly fees still covers the software upgrades, but instead of going towards Apple, goes straight toward the mobile carrier who already paid Apple the software upgrade fees, thinking that monthly fees will cover the loss for the upgrade fees.....

So, subsidized, or not subsidized, ALL iPhone owners are still paying for the upgrades through monthly fees....

aethelbert

Aug 10, 2008, 08:48 PM

Not the 3G owners. Apple gets paid up front, one time.
Uh... yeah, Apple's still getting the money from AT&T. Now they're not revenue sharing, rather Apple is getting payments for new customers as well as large amounts from AT&T for exclusivity rights. Don't think that Apple was making more off of the 2.5G iPhone. If they're not making the same amount with the 3G, they're making more.

redsoxunixgeek

Aug 11, 2008, 12:29 AM

For those of you complaining about the price of a stinking software upgrade: here is an idea - use Linux - it is free.

The rule people are talking about so much SOX as it is GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Prinicpals)

1. The iPod Touch when sold is written to the books immediatley as revenue, it is a one time purchase that does not account for any more income.

2. the iPhone and iPhone 3G since they are on service contracts - Apple Gets a monthly check from At&T wireless for the revenue sharing, so they have continuing income.

It is all about how it shows up on the books when then Auditors come in. So Apple Charges you for product updates

Sorry

You have options

1. Dont buy the product

2. Buy the product and risk turning it into a 400.00 Brick should you decide to jail break it

3. Pay for the update

Option 3 doesnt sound so bad anymore does it?

AceFernalld

Aug 11, 2008, 02:33 AM

You lost any sympathy I had for your cause right there. You come across as a spoilt 12 year old. You'll find plenty of long time members criticising Apple on MacRumors, when it's deserved. In this instance it's not.
Hey! I'm a spoilt 12 year old, but I like to think I churn out some pretty useful posts, and I'm not a bad person :eek:

Of course, this post wasn't very useful, but I'm just saying spoilt 12 year olds aren't always all that bad :p

Evangelion

Aug 11, 2008, 02:44 AM

I posted a comment on the news thread railing against Apple's new gouge-the-Touch-owners policy, but it deserves a full thread in this forum.

My initial outrage was, why the Touch and not the iPhone?

Because iPhone costs about 10 times more to own than the touch does?

But I'm still angry.

Then don't buy it, and quit your whining. If you do buy it at the price they ask, then you obviously feel that it's worth it. So what's the problem again? That you are being offered a benefit at a price that you find reasonable?

andybno1

Aug 11, 2008, 02:52 AM

I'm against these paid for upgrades, thankfully I have never paid for either :D viva la jailbreak lol

goosnarrggh

Aug 11, 2008, 07:55 AM

For those of you complaining about the price of a stinking software upgrade: here is an idea - use Linux - it is free.
At home, I do use a combination of OS X and (primarily) Linux. Thanks very much for your permission to do so.

The rule people are talking about so much SOX as it is GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Prinicpals)

(...)

2. the iPhone and iPhone 3G since they are on service contracts - Apple Gets a monthly check from At&T wireless for the revenue sharing, so they have continuing income.
Almost. With the original iPhone, that was the case. With the iPhone 3G, there is no revenue sharing deal; Apple receives a lump-sum payment in the form of a carrier subsidy.

Apparently, GAAP doesn't impose any requirement for any actual ongoing flow of real cash from an outside entity; rather, the same feat can be performed in-house through appropriate shuffling of the books internally.

What we see here is apparently the fact that Apple is willing to shuffle the books appropriately for the iPhone 3G (and the AppleTV), but for whatever reason, they've chosen not to shuffle the books that way with the iPod Touch. Of course, however we may feel about it, they had every right to choose not to do so.

kdarling

Aug 11, 2008, 07:53 PM

Uh... yeah, Apple's still getting the money from AT&T. Now they're not revenue sharing, rather Apple is getting payments for new customers as well as large amounts from AT&T for exclusivity rights.

A lot of 3G owners aren't new to ATT.

What "large amounts" for exclusivity?

Don't think that Apple was making more off of the 2.5G iPhone. If they're not making the same amount with the 3G, they're making more.

I think Apple clearly made more from the 2.5G phone. Not only were they getting a good profit off each sale, but they were also getting monthly payments (our subsidy)... that they originally hinted was going to pay for software updates.

Now Apple is just getting the one-time (subsidized) iPhone sales profit, same as with the Touch. There's no longer an excuse for charging one for software upgrades and not the other.

goosnarrggh

Aug 12, 2008, 06:29 AM

I think Apple clearly made more from the 2.5G phone. Not only were they getting a good profit off each sale, but they were also getting monthly payments (our subsidy)... that they originally hinted was going to pay for software updates.
Maybe. Let's say Apple was making a moderate $10 per month from their revenue sharing deal with the first-generation iPhone. That adds up to $240 over the lifetime of a 2-year contract. The selling price of the first-generation 8GB iPhone was around $399. That makes a total revenue of $639 for the original iPhone. In terms of the time value of money (a dollar today has more potential than that same dollar tomorrow), their actual benefit would have been less than that.

Apple is selling the 2nd generation 8GB iPhone for $199. AT&T's no-contract price for the iPhone is supposed to be around $599 (the extra $400 likely reflects the size of the subsidy payment that AT&T would have otherwise been making to Apple).

So, Apple might be taking in as little as about $40 less in revenues with the 3G iPhone than it was with the first-generation iPhone. The 3G iPhone's estimated BOM is $173 per unit, whereas the first-generation iPhone's BOM was estimated at $226 per unit; that's a reduction of $53.

So, their per-unit revenue may have reduced by $40, but their per-unit costs were reduced by $53. That means their per-unit profits may have actually increased by $13 with the iPhone 3G.

kdarling

Aug 12, 2008, 08:22 AM

So, their per-unit revenue may have reduced by $40, but their per-unit costs were reduced by $53. That means their per-unit profits may have actually increased by $13 with the iPhone 3G.

I agree that this could be so.

In either case, Apple has no good reason to justify charging only touch owners for upgrades, when both they and 3G buyers now pay everything up front.

DesignerOnMac

Aug 12, 2008, 11:18 AM

That's reasonable. Except:

-Anyone who buys a Touch gets a progressively inferior device in a matter of months or less, not years. Pretty rough given the price points.

-Are we now paying not for new features but upgrades to existing features? That's what free firmware/OS upgrades typically do. Would you like to pay, incrementally, for 10.4.1-10.4.11 (& Safari 3)?

-Worse, it's unclear whether firmware 2.0 itself will cost $$ - with no option to get the "base" for free. So now we have to pay for bug fixes, security fixes, etc.? If Microsoft did that, the Internet would collapse under all the howls of outrage. If this ends up being the case, Apple shouldn't get a pass just because "it's so great."

-Even if the firmware's free, it continues the worst problem: forced bundling of locked, for-cost apps together with bugfixes. Space is at a premium on my 16GB Touch. 1.1.3/1.1.4 ate up close to 100MB of space - for apps I don't want and won't buy. That's about 2 CDs or 1 half-hour show worth of space. There's no option for me to get "just the firmware." Imagine if you didn't want or need iWork - but it came bundled with 10.4.11, ate up space on your hard drive, and couldn't be deleted. Sounds like 2.0 firmware will continue to do the same.

That's fine, except again for the forced bundling and/or will we have to pay for bugfixes?

If Apple had to charge for accounting reasons, they could set some <$5 price, presumably. That they don't suggests they have less innocent motives than they protest to.

I always laugh at the assertion that hardware is 'new' when purchased, or "I will wait for the next upgrade, if it is weeks away." Answers.

ANY computer or devise like the Touch is OBSOLETE WHEN YOU BUY IT, even on THE FIRST DAY! Apple and ALL other companies are already working on the NEXT whatever!!!!

Sorry, but for anyone to think their Touch or Mac will last years with the same feature set is just not understanding how the industry works.

If you buy a MBP, MB, or iMac do you expect that just because a newer model comes out that you should get the latest motherboard, DVD burner, or RAM? Replace that monitor? Or have Apple send you the ungraded parts??

Just my 2 cents!

IJ Reilly

Aug 12, 2008, 11:25 AM

In either case, Apple has no good reason to justify charging only touch owners for upgrades, when both they and 3G buyers now pay everything up front.

On and on this argument goes, despite the complete lack of evidence or logic to support it.

goosnarrggh

Aug 12, 2008, 11:41 AM

On and on this argument goes, despite the complete lack of evidence or logic to support it.

As I see it, we don't have any hard evidence to support either side of the argument. That's why I'm content to say that Apple judged the pros and cons of the situation decided that the business model they selected was best for them.

None of us outside Apple have any real idea what their reasons were.

aethelbert

Aug 12, 2008, 11:48 AM

A lot of 3G owners aren't new to ATT.

What "large amounts" for exclusivity?
Doesn't matter if they've used AT&T before. They're customers on a new contract, bringing in the same amount of money as people that are new to the service. You can't seriously believe that Apple would allow AT&T to give them less money and extend their contract for another year, can you? The subsidy is just covering the costs of the phone, which they were already making before.

But I'm betting that people will continue to bitch about having to pay $10 for new software and new features, anyway.

They make more from the iPhone, and they account and market for it that way. They're gonna charge you for future updates; complaining on this forum doesn't help the case.

IJ Reilly

Aug 12, 2008, 11:55 AM

As I see it, we don't have any hard evidence to support either side of the argument. That's why I'm content to say that Apple judged the pros and cons of the situation decided that the business model they selected was best for them.

None of us outside Apple have any real idea what their reasons were.

True, up to a point, but I don't think it's quite so simple. The argument that Apple has absolutely no justification for charging touch owners for the 2.0 update when they haven't charged iPhone owners is fundamentally lacking in logic. If it was only a matter of Apple "sticking it to iPod owners because they can," then obviously Apple could have made even more money sticking it to iPhone owners too. So this argument doesn't clear the first logical hurdle.

The second logical hurdle requires some understanding of the accounting requirements and how Apple interprets them. I agree this is at least partially unknowable, but this lack of factual evidence doesn't stop many from definitively concluding that Apple had "no good reason" for charging.

In the end, it boils down to an emotional response: Many feel the charge can't be justified because they don't like it.

mavis

Aug 12, 2008, 03:14 PM

But I'm betting that people will continue to bitch about having to pay $10 for new software and new features, anyway.You think? ;)

They're gonna charge you for future updates; complaining on this forum doesn't help the case.Somehow I doubt that complaining about other people's opinions accomplishes much, either - but that doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent for you. :rolleyes:

You're absolutely right, though - complaining about here about the update fee doesn't help - there are far more productive courses of action one can take. For example, downloading the 2.0 software update for free using your P2P software/tracker/server of choice. That's what I did, and I have no regrets - besides the launch day fiasco (which was my original motivation), I think it's ridiculous to pay for software this sh**ty (just Google 'apple logo death' if you have any questions) ...

Anyway, I'm sure the Apple apologists will have a field day with this post. Knock yourselves out; complaining about others' opinions on this forum isn't going to accomplish anything. Yet, that doesn't seem to stop anyone, does it?

metroplex

Aug 13, 2008, 01:32 PM

aethelbert

Aug 13, 2008, 01:35 PM

Somehow I doubt that complaining about other people's opinions accomplishes much, either - but that doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent for you. :rolleyes:

I wasn't complaining about opinions, or really complaining. I was trying to explain that Apple makes more money on the iPhone beyond the subsidy. Other than that, I hadn't replied to this thread in five months.

You're absolutely right, though - complaining about here about the update fee doesn't help - there are far more productive courses of action one can take. For example, downloading the 2.0 software update for free using your P2P software/tracker/server of choice. That's what I did, and I have no regrets - besides the launch day fiasco (which was my original motivation), I think it's ridiculous to pay for software this sh**ty (just Google 'apple logo death' if you have any questions) ...
Aside from the fact that you don't like to pay for software updates, why would you even want to steal 2.0? It's like stealing a cow chip from a farm. Didn't take long for me to realize from my iPhone that it's a horrible piece of software, so I've kept my iPod on 1.x.

deriko100

Aug 13, 2008, 01:38 PM

You guys do know that zibri creator of ziphone found the link were itunes downloads the firmware its this

http://snipurl.com/3b565

and free

gillybean

Aug 13, 2008, 02:08 PM

I just bought a new Touch and the firmware was 1.1.5
After using it for several days, I don't see an incentive to buy the 2.0.1 upgrade. I read an article where only a small percentage of the custom made apps received continued usage, meaning the bulk of them are junk - just like a lot of the addons for Mozilla FireFox. I don't like the idea of paying $10 for an upgrade either, so I'm sticking with 1.1.5 for now.
Upgrade is well worth it. There are some amazing apps there now.

Pandora & AOL Radio will stream all the music you want to you. Datacase turns it into a wireless drive that you can view all the content of. There are good apps out for rdesktop, ssh and VNC if you want remote access to your computer. There are also Finance Apps, To Do Apps, Sketchpad Apps, Movie Showtime Apps, Unit Conversion Apps, a nice selection of games, etc.

IJ Reilly

Aug 13, 2008, 02:43 PM

Anyway, I'm sure the Apple apologists will have a field day with this post. Knock yourselves out; complaining about others' opinions on this forum isn't going to accomplish anything. Yet, that doesn't seem to stop anyone, does it?

So, if I think stealing the update is wrong, does that makes me an "Apple apologist?"

iOrlando

Aug 13, 2008, 06:00 PM

i upgraded to 2.01 for $9.95.

I am not a big spender on apps... just a disclaimer

But i do see some of these apps being interesesting. Like the sudoku. I do think 80% of the games are really chessy and they are nice when you have 5-15 minutes to waste sometime

The best apps are those that you use with Wi-Fi. (but you pretty much cant find wifi anywhere except your house..so not sure how useful it is).

All-in-all you are paying $9.95 to avoid being totally bored.

m1stake

Aug 13, 2008, 06:02 PM

Everywhere I got has at least five wifi signals with no encryption.

mavis

Aug 13, 2008, 06:35 PM

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3G (white): Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5B108 Safari/525.20)

Anyway, I'm sure the Apple apologists will have a field day with this post. Knock yourselves out; complaining about others' opinions on this forum isn't going to accomplish anything. Yet, that doesn't seem to stop anyone, does it?

So, if I think stealing the update is wrong, does that makes me an "Apple apologist?"

Not necessarily, but then my coonent was directed at those intent on defending Apple's mistreatment of its customers. ;)

IJ Reilly

Aug 13, 2008, 06:46 PM

Not necessarily, but then my coonent was directed at those intent on defending Apple's mistreatment of its customers. ;)

Assuming of course that they feel mistreated.

Zieg3rman

Aug 13, 2008, 06:47 PM

Everywhere I got has at least five wifi signals with no encryption.

And where is that? Everything near me has encryption, except at college where the entire campus is wifi enabled :D

mavis

Aug 13, 2008, 07:31 PM

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3G (white): Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5B108 Safari/525.20)

Not necessarily, but then my coonent was directed at those intent on defending Apple's mistreatment of its customers. ;)

Assuming of course that they feel mistreated.

And judging by this thread (not to mention the number of people seeding the 2.0 software torrents) I'd say quite a few do. ;)

Bobjob186

Aug 13, 2008, 07:46 PM

It's $10...this is a joke right?? If you're crying about $10 you need to get off the computer, sell it, and get a job, because $10 can't even buy you a decent lunch.

IJ Reilly

Aug 13, 2008, 07:49 PM

And judging by this thread (not to mention the number of people seeding the 2.0 software torrents) I'd say quite a few do. ;)

Judging by the same evidence, I'd conclude that a lot of people will steal if given the opportunity.

aethelbert

Aug 13, 2008, 07:59 PM

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3G (white): Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5B108 Safari/525.20)

And judging by this thread (not to mention the number of people seeding the 2.0 software torrents) I'd say quite a few do. ;)
There are people that feel that they're being mistreated, and others that think that everything on the internet should be free/don't feel like paying $10. The latter is probably the dominant group.

mavis

Aug 13, 2008, 08:20 PM

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3G (white): Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5B108 Safari/525.20)

It's $10...this is a joke right?? If you're crying about $10 you need to get off the computer, sell it, and get a job, because $10 can't even buy you a decent lunch.

Way to miss the point entirely. :rolleyes:

I can obviously afford $10 (check my sig and my user title for evidence of that, not to mention the $200 worth of apps I've purchased from the app store so far) ... I suggest you go back and actually read through at least part of this thread to familiarize yourself with the topic, because you've obviously not done so yet. ;)

IJ Reilly

Aug 13, 2008, 08:24 PM

So did I "miss the point" too?

mavis

Aug 13, 2008, 08:36 PM

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3G (white): Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5B108 Safari/525.20)

So did I "miss the point" too?

No, you just have a different (and flawed) opinion. ;)

j/k, of course. It just annoys me when people read a thread title and decide to jump in to the discussion with what they think is a clever comment when in fact they've completely missed the point of the discussion.

IJ Reilly

Aug 13, 2008, 08:53 PM

No, you just have a different (and flawed) opinion. ;)

About thievery? Apparently.

mavis

Aug 13, 2008, 09:12 PM

About thievery? Apparently.I'm sorry, I guess I spoke too soon - you're obviously too high up on that horse of yours to see the point. This isn't about theft, it's about Apple screwing their customers over. Please take the time to read through some of the thread so that you'll (hopefully) be able to follow along.

That said, I have absolutely no qualms about stealing from Apple. They've wasted enough of my time in the past month alone (a total of forty restores on two iPhone 3Gs and an iPod Touch, due to sloppy coding) that, IMO, they owe me. That's right - they OWE me for the time I've had to waste getting their buggy products working. I couldn't care less if you agree with that or not (I've got far more important things in life to worry about than whether "IJ Reilly" agrees with my opinion!) but since you've decided to label me a thief, you should know that 1) you're absolutely right (good on ya, mate!) and 2) Apple has brought this all on themselves. Cheers.

IJ Reilly

Aug 14, 2008, 12:33 AM

I'm sorry, I guess I spoke too soon - you're obviously too high up on that horse of yours to see the point. This isn't about theft, it's about Apple screwing their customers over. Please take the time to read through some of the thread so that you'll (hopefully) be able to follow along.

That said, I have absolutely no qualms about stealing from Apple. They've wasted enough of my time in the past month alone (a total of forty restores on two iPhone 3Gs and an iPod Touch, due to sloppy coding) that, IMO, they owe me. That's right - they OWE me for the time I've had to waste getting their buggy products working. I couldn't care less if you agree with that or not (I've got far more important things in life to worry about than whether "IJ Reilly" agrees with my opinion!) but since you've decided to label me a thief, you should know that 1) you're absolutely right (good on ya, mate!) and 2) Apple has brought this all on themselves. Cheers.

I don't need to be on a "high horse" to see your ethical problems. Prone in a ditch would be plenty of altitude.

aethelbert

Aug 14, 2008, 01:01 AM

That said, I have absolutely no qualms about stealing from Apple. They've wasted enough of my time in the past month alone (a total of forty restores on two iPhone 3Gs and an iPod Touch, due to sloppy coding) that, IMO, they owe me. That's right - they OWE me for the time I've had to waste getting their buggy products working. I couldn't care less if you agree with that or not (I've got far more important things in life to worry about than whether "IJ Reilly" agrees with my opinion!) but since you've decided to label me a thief, you should know that 1) you're absolutely right (good on ya, mate!) and 2) Apple has brought this all on themselves. Cheers.
Since they obviously owe you, you should just go walk into one of their retail stores (since you've got those over there) and take something off of a shelf. Or maybe try to take a Mac Pro or 30" ACD. Then try to leave without paying. When you get caught, simply explain about how Apple owes you and that means that you can steal from them. The logic is perfect, so they'll probably let you keep whatever you want to steal.

/sarcasm

I really don't mind you having an opinion against paying the upgrade fee, but when you decide that you can just steal from a company because you think that they owe you something, my impression of you drastically changes...

mavis

Aug 14, 2008, 01:15 AM

I really don't mind you having an opinion against paying the upgrade fee, but when you decide that you can just steal from a company because you think that they owe you something, my impression of you drastically changes...As I mentioned before, your opinion of me means nothing - I certainly won't be losing any sleep over it. ;)

I don't really care if you and the other Apple apologists think it's right that I obtained the 2.0 software upgrade for free. I don't particularly think it's right that in their supreme arrogance, Apple bit off more than they could chew last month and botched it all (the MobileMe fiasco, global iPhone 3G launch with accompanying activation server failures, buggy 2.0 software release, etc) ... Apple owes me for the time I've wasted trying to get their products to work as advertised (my iPhone 3G? 34 restores. iPod Touch? 6 restores. MobileMe family pack? Connection failures, inaccessible email and webapps, etc) ... I will continue to 'steal' from Apple in whatever way I can, if only to make up for the lost time (at least 100 hours in July alone). Cheers.

goosnarrggh

Aug 14, 2008, 07:26 AM

I wasn't complaining about opinions, or really complaining. I was trying to explain that Apple makes more money on the iPhone beyond the subsidy.

That was true for the first generation iPhone. The same is not true for the iPhone 3G; there have been news releases confirming the fact that there is no ongoing revenue sharing deal in place for those units. Instead, the carrier sells the iPhone at a loss (via a subsidy) and recovers the loss during the term of the contract.

Apple receives its full payment (customer's cash plus carrier's subsidy) for the sale of its hardware, and that's it.

I'm not trying to get into a spat here, just trying to point out factual inaccuracies.

aethelbert

Aug 14, 2008, 10:51 AM

That was true for the first generation iPhone. The same is not true for the iPhone 3G; there have been news releases confirming the fact that there is no ongoing revenue sharing deal in place for those units. Instead, the carrier sells the iPhone at a loss (via a subsidy) and recovers the loss during the term of the contract.

Apple receives its full payment (customer's cash plus carrier's subsidy) for the sale of its hardware, and that's it.

I'm not trying to get into a spat here, just trying to point out factual inaccuracies.
With the subsidy, they make about the same as what they made with the sale of the first iPhone. That is not the entire income.

Yes, revenue sharing is over. But if you consider that revenue sharing means that Apple receives a direct payment out of each iPhone bill, that's obviously not the only possible way to give money to the phone manufacturer. They're most likely receiving lump payments for each customer that the carriers get, just like pretty much every other phone manufacturer. A subsidy is a loss for the carrier, not a profit for the manufacturer. Do they still make money off of the phone? Sure. But they've gotta pay for software, manufacturing, shipping, packaging, R&D, etc aside from what iSuppli tells you that the hardware costs are. It's close to the same amount that they were making a year ago for each iPhone sale, when there was revenue sharing.

In America, AT&T got an extension on their exclusivity contract a short while back. There's absolutely no way that they would get an extension right after they started paying Apple significantly less for the iPhone rights.

IJ Reilly

Aug 14, 2008, 11:22 AM

I really don't mind you having an opinion against paying the upgrade fee, but when you decide that you can just steal from a company because you think that they owe you something, my impression of you drastically changes...

Exactly. It's the sense of entitlement to own something he didn't pay for, which goes way over the line to just plain garden-variety dishonesty.

If you don't like how much a company is charging for a product, you have the option of not buying it. He and others seem to think another ethical alternative is stealing it. His defense -- is that he doesn't care what we think of his dishonesty -- takes the cake. This begins to look a lot like sociopathy.

goosnarrggh

Aug 14, 2008, 02:34 PM

With the subsidy, they make about the same as what they made with the sale of the first iPhone. That is not the entire income.
I suggest to you that that probably is Apple's entire income from the sale of an iPhone. The subsidy may be as much as $400 by some analysts' estimates. That, as I said earlier, would place Apple's wholesale price tag for an 8GB iPhone 3G at about $599, which is probably in the same neighborhood as the amount as Apple might have received over the entire life of the contract of an equivalent first generation iPhone.

A subsidy is a loss for the carrier, not a profit for the manufacturer.
I promise you, I was already aware of that distinction.

Do they still make money off of the phone? Sure. But they've gotta pay for software, manufacturing, shipping, packaging, R&D, etc aside from what iSuppli tells you that the hardware costs are.
I have first-hand experience with the process involved in financing an ongoing engineering project, and I know about the concepts of fixed costs, variable costs, and sunk costs. Thanks for the reminder, though.

It's close to the same amount that they were making a year ago for each iPhone sale, when there was revenue sharing.
iSuppli's estimate for the 3G places the parts cost for the 3G at about $50 less than the parts cost for the first-generation. That might more than balance out the loss they may have taken by increasing their wholesale price and cutting out the revenue sharing deals.

Of course, we don't know for sure what Apple's wholesale price actually is for the iPhone 3G. Nor do we know for sure exactly how much they were receiving from their revenue sharing deals for the first generation iPhone. I estimated about $10 per month, which would place the total revenue share at about $240 over a 2-year contract.

So, by my speculation, Apple used to be bringing in $399 up front, and $240 more over the following 2 years. That would have been a total of $639. But as I stated before, don't forget to depreciate the $240 from revenue sharing due to the time value of money.

Now, by my speculation, Apple is bringing in $599 up front and that's it. The 3G iPhone's parts are estimated to cost $50 less, and I'm assuming manufacturing costs are the same for an iPhone 3G as they were for a first generation iPhone. That's still a net gain of $10 for the iPhone 3G.

aethelbert

Aug 14, 2008, 02:46 PM

I suggest to you that that probably is Apple's entire income from the sale of an iPhone. The subsidy may be as much as $400 by some analysts' estimates. That, as I said earlier, would place Apple's wholesale price tag for an 8GB iPhone 3G at about $599, which is probably in the same neighborhood as the amount as Apple might have received over the entire life of the contract of an equivalent first generation iPhone.
They made $599 even when the phone itself was $599 and they had revenue sharing? interesting.

And either way, if they're still making the same amount of money from each iPhone subscription, which you seem to imply that they are, doesn't this still support the idea of free iPhone software upgrades?

mavis

Aug 14, 2008, 05:30 PM

His defense -- is that he doesn't care what we think of his dishonesty -- takes the cake. This begins to look a lot like sociopathy.Wow - that's quite a leap! Somehow I've gone from a person with questionable ethics to a thief to a sociopath. :p

The funny thing is, no matter how many accusations you let fly , it changes nothing. I still think Apple owes me for the 100+ hours I've wasted on restores since July 11th, trying to get their **** software working, and I still plan to extract that compensation from them in the best way I know how - by 'stealing' software. But if labeling me with progressively worse titles makes you happy, go ahead. As I said yesterday, it simply doesn't matter. ;)

IJ Reilly

Aug 14, 2008, 05:54 PM

You've already told us at least three times how much it "doesn't matter" what anyone thinks. You seem to assume this is an excuse of some sort for the behavior and the pride you take in it, but the repeated protests only seems to reinforce the conclusion that you've got ethical issues which you haven't reconciled. Sorry, but if you really believe what you are saying, then that's virtually a dictionary definition of sociopathy. You could look it up.

mavis

Aug 14, 2008, 06:23 PM

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3G (white): Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5B108 Safari/525.20)

You've already told us at least three times how much it "doesn't matter" what anyone thinks. You seem to assume this is an excuse of some sort for the behavior and the pride you take in it, but the repeated protests only seems to reinforce the conclusion that you've got ethical issues which you haven't reconciled. Sorry, but if you really believe what you are saying, then that's virtually a dictionary definition of sociopathy. You could look it up.

Well, apparently you've misunderstood me completely. When I say I don't care what you think of me, that's not intended as an excuse of any kind, rather, a simple statement of fact. Basically just me letting you know that the labeling and mud-flinging is a complete waste of time. But you've obviously not understood at all. I apologize for not making myself more clear! It can be challenging at times to express oneself accurately within the confines of the forum rules. What I'd really like to say to you would probably get me banned. ;)

Anyway thanks for taking such a personal interest in me. It's flattering, in a way, that you're so interested in my opinion!

iMacmatician

Aug 14, 2008, 06:46 PM

As I said yesterday, it simply doesn't matter. ;)And it "simply doesn't matter" how many hours you've "wasted," all that counts is that you steal from Apple! ;)

Like what was stated earlier, go into an Apple Store and steal a Mac. Tell them your logic and see if they agree.

IJ Reilly

Aug 14, 2008, 06:53 PM

Like what was stated earlier, go into an Apple Store and steal a Mac. Tell them your logic and see if they agree.

Or walk out of a restaurant without paying. Or stick something in your pocket in a store because they "owe you."

Obviously, we don't "understand."

mavis

Aug 14, 2008, 07:50 PM

Or walk out of a restaurant without paying. Or stick something in your pocket in a store because they "owe you."

Obviously, we don't "understand."No, you really don't. I'm actually an honest person in every area of life except 1's and 0's ... I regularly correct cashiers who give me back too much change (in fact it just happened about ten minutes ago! Seems to be a fairly regular occurrence here ... ) and I would never steal something, no matter how small - even if I knew for a fact I'd get away with it. In fact, the only tangible thing I've ever stolen in my life was two $0.05 pieces of candy from a 7/11 when I was 13 years old, which I actually went back and paid for the next day. ;)

But when it comes to downloading stuff (music/movies/TV/software), my ethics go right out the window. So, the fact that Apple (IMO) owes me for the times they've caused me to waste with the 40 restores I've done since July 11th is kind of moot, as I downloaded the 2.0 software update from Apple's servers (for free) before I knew I'd have so many problems. Anyway, you're welcome to judge me all you want - as I have said over and over again, your opinion of me means very little to anyone but yourself. Cheers.

edit: actually, that's all I have to say about this. I won't be replying to this thread anymore, as doing so is a colossal waste of time (though you're more than welcome to continue wasting your time, if you're so inclined. In closing, I don't think Apple should nickel-and-dime their customers, I don't think we should have to pay for software this unstable and incomplete, I'm glad I didn't have to pay for the update, and if you agree, torrents are your friend.

iMacmatician

Aug 14, 2008, 08:29 PM

No, you really don't. I'm actually an honest person in every area of life except 1's and 0's ... I regularly correct cashiers who give me back too much change (in fact it just happened about ten minutes ago! Seems to be a fairly regular occurrence here ... ) and I would never steal something, no matter how small - even if I knew for a fact I'd get away with it. In fact, the only tangible thing I've ever stolen in my life was two $0.05 pieces of candy from a 7/11 when I was 13 years old, which I actually went back and paid for the next day. ;)

But when it comes to downloading stuff (music/movies/TV/software), my ethics go right out the window. So, the fact that Apple (IMO) owes me for the times they've caused me to waste with the 40 restores I've done since July 11th is kind of moot, as I downloaded the 2.0 software update from Apple's servers (for free) before I knew I'd have so many problems. Anyway, you're welcome to judge me all you want - as I have said over and over again, your opinion of me means very little to anyone but yourself. Cheers.

edit: actually, that's all I have to say about this. I won't be replying to this thread anymore, as doing so is a colossal waste of time (though you're more than welcome to continue wasting your time, if you're so inclined. In closing, I don't think Apple should nickel-and-dime their customers, I don't think we should have to pay for software this unstable and incomplete, I'm glad I didn't have to pay for the update, and if you agree, torrents are your friend.Whether you agree with mavis or not, you can't argue with this post. mavis's logic is perfect, which means only one thing… we are wrong!

goosnarrggh

Aug 15, 2008, 08:27 AM

They made $599 even when the phone itself was $599 and they had revenue sharing? interesting.
Where'd you get that BS from?

Before the 3G was made available, you could buy a first generation 8GB iPhone for $399.

And either way, if they're still making the same amount of money from each iPhone subscription, which you seem to imply that they are, doesn't this still support the idea of free iPhone software upgrades?

I did not actually try to present an argument in favour or against free software upgrades; I apologize if it could have been interpreted that way. I was just trying to make sure that all the information being presented as evidence was properly qualified.

It seemed to me that it had been implied that under GAAP rules, the only reason why Apple wasn't legally prohibited from giving away its upgrades for the iPhone was the fact that they had an ongoing stream of subscription revenue for each unit. I was trying to point out that that evidence was flawed by the fact that the iPhone 3G doesn't have the same ongoing stream of subscription revenue as the first generation iPhone did.

The assertion that GAAP rules might be forcing Apple to charge for certain iPod Touch updates, while those same GAAP rules somehow don't apply to the corresponding iPhone updates, may in fact be true. I just think it's probably more due to internal procedures, rather than any requirement for an actual ongoing stream of revenue from an outside source.