3.1 only $4.95 - includes 3.0!

[mzd]

so for anyone who was waiting until 3.1 to update (me) you're getting half price! :D

[Pumapayam]

Wow, nice price drop.

Just one step away from free, but at $5 (http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/software-update.html), much better and easier to update for a small amount.

$20 back then was a ripoff, $10 was still a lot, but $5 is fair.

[pakkman781]

Is this for 2.x to 3.1, or 3.0 to 3.1? I'm not on my Macbook atm so I don't know.

[macgeek18]

Wow,almost wised I waited to get 3.0,well too late I paid 10 bucks for it.But now I can get 3.1 imediatly without waiting.

[JML42691]

Is this for 2.x to 3.1, or 3.0 to 3.1? I'm not on my Macbook atm so I don't know.
Probably anything 1.x or 2.x to 3.1, as the update from 3.0 to 3.1 is free for iPod touch users.

[mzd]

should be from 2.x and i will confirm tonight when i get home. apple's web site has the "haven't updated in a while?" blurb that mentions all the 3.0 features.

also, the new iPod touch is shipping with 3.1.

[goosnarrggh]

It's kind of funny... The early adopters among us (myself included) have paid $20 for the JSU, $10 for 2.0, and $10 for 3.0 - a total payout of $40.

Somebody who has held out at version 1.1.5, sans JSU, can now end up with the exact same software for a total payout of $5.

[1283956]

not really, i had 1.1.4? and have gone to 2 & 2.1 2.2 3.0 for free

i'm sure 3.1 wont be any differnt for my touch

[goosnarrggh]

not really, i had 1.1.4? and have gone to 2 & 2.1 2.2 3.0 for free

i'm sure 3.1 wont be any differnt

Assuming you're talking about an iPod touch and not an iPhone, that's probably because you skirted Apple's official policy by downloading 2.0 and 3.0 through unauthorized channels, or by piggybacking on somebody else's iTunes account who had already paid for their upgrades. (2.1 and 2.2 were free for everybody who already had a previous incarnation of 2.x; they were supposed to be $10 for anybody who had stuck with 1.x.)

IMO upgraders who go though unofficial channels, apparently such as you, are a separate category.

Anyway, no matter how you slice it, it's already been announced that the upgrade to 3.1 through official channels will be free for everybody who already has 3.0, so you're absolutely right, since you already have 3.0, this upgrade is going to be free for you.

[JML42691]

not really, i had 1.1.4? and have gone to 2 & 2.1 2.2 3.0 for free

i'm sure 3.1 wont be any differnt
This is the iPod, not the iPhone, the iPhone gets these updates for free, the iPod touch on the other hand has to pay for the major updates.

[Outrigger]

It's kind of funny... The early adopters among us (myself included) have paid $20 for the JSU, $10 for 2.0, and $10 for 3.0 - a total payout of $40.

Somebody who has held out at version 1.1.5, sans JSU, can now end up with the exact same software for a total payout of $5.

Its not the same if you think about it. What about the time that someone who has paid early has enjoyed all the new features vs. someone who waited? Meaning, you have to take amortization into account. I'm still on 2.xx and while I will get a better deal by waiting to get 3.1.1 for just $5, I missed out on the features vs. someone who paid when 3.0.0 debuted.

[newcronos]

Anyone else with 2.2.1 trying to get this and get an error?


"Could not purchase "". An unknown error occurred (5002).

There was an error in the iTunes Store. Please try again later.


Probably just a glitch though because so many people are updating their stuff today. I'm in no hurry, I waited for 3 months, what's a day or two more :D

[MVallee]

Glad I waited :D

[bndoarn]

it kinda pisses me off being that i just bought 3.0 on friday because i got a new iPod touch with the back to school promo. i could've just waited 6 days and got it half price.

[Nermal]

it kinda pisses me off that i just bought 3.0 on friday because i got a new iPod touch.

I feel your pain. I bought 3.0 at launch but it was so buggy that I reverted to 2.2.1 almost immediately, and decided to wait for 3.1. I contacted Apple this morning and explained that I never actually got the benefit of 3.0 and politely requested that they consider a refund of the difference (went from NZ$13.99 to NZ$4.95). Apple declined.

[Pumapayam]

I think the worst upgrade was the lame JSU for $20 that included items that should have been their all along.

I was lucky and waited it out until the 2.0 update for $10.

[leomac08]

Wow, nice price drop.

Just one step away from free, but at $5 (http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/software-update.html), much better and easier to update for a small amount.

$20 back then was a ripoff, $10 was still a lot, but $5 is fair.

hopefully apple will learn by 4.0 ipod touch users will pay $1.29 for the update. lol

then in 5.0 FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!

[alphaod]

hopefully apple will learn by 4.0 ipod touch users will pay $1.29 for the update. lol

then in 5.0 FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!

For tax reasons it can't be free, unless the law changes, but hopefully by 5.0 they have an entirely different device.

[leomac08]

For tax reasons it can't be free, unless the law changes, but hopefully by 5.0 they have an entirely different device.

then why are the updates free?:confused:(2.1, 2.2? 3.1? for existing 3.o users) for ipod touch users.

[goosnarrggh]

then why are the updates free?:confused:(2.1, 2.2? 3.1? for existing 3.o users) for ipod touch users.

It depends mainly on how Apple defines "major new features" as opposed to bug fixes and minor refinements.

Bug fixes and minor refinements are fine to give away for free because they don't constitute any significant change in functionality from the product they originally sold to you.

On the other hand, if they add major new features, according to generally accepted accounting principles, apparently they technically sold you an "incomplete" product in the first place, and they're making the product "complete" now by way of the firmware update. In order to do that, apparently they are not permitted to put their complete revenue for the sale of the product on the books until after the feature-complete product has been fully delivered.

Since Apple apparently puts the revenue for the sale of an iPod touch on their books immediately, the product is deemed to be complete upon delivery and no major new features are permitted. To get around that limitation, they can designate the the major new features as a separate product, distinct from the product they initially sold to you. But in order to do that, they apparently need a separate line of income on the books to cover those new features.

They don't need to do that for the iPhone, apparently, because they break down recognition of the money they've received for the sale of iPhones over the course of several years. (In reality, only the original iPhone 2G involved a real ongoing flow of revenue form the carrier to Apple over the course of the iPhone's contract. But apparently there is some accounting magic they can play with subsequent models of iPhones to have the same effect on the books, even if there is no real flow of dollars. They didn't use similar accounting magic with the iPod touch.) Hence the delivery of the feature-complete product can be broken out over time as well.

I'm sure there are other subtleties that are missing from my analysis, because corporate accounting seems horrendously complicated and I am not competent to understand all of it. But I hope I've got a reasonable understanding of the core issue.

[Xoradtasticxo]

I cant believe I made my dad spend 10 dollars when I could have waited *smacks my head*

[adapa]

I also bought the $10 buck version a month or so ago.
I seemed to download 3.1 for free.

I accessed the itunes store with my pod hooked up & all login's in place. At no time was there any reference to $4.95.

Of course I could get a invoice days later for the $$ but it seems to have been free.
Disclaimer; I did not read all the fine print of the TOS agreement.

eta, I was not going to lay out *another* $5 for the update!

[goosnarrggh]

I also bought the $10 buck version a month or so ago.
I seemed to download 3.1 for free.

I accessed the itunes store with my pod hooked up & all login's in place. At no time was there any reference to $4.95.

Of course I could get a invoice days later for the $$ but it seems to have been free.
Disclaimer; I did not read all the fine print of the TOS agreement.

eta, I was not going to lay out *another* $5 for the update!

Nope -- if you already bought 3.0, then 3.1 is totally free.

The olny circumstance in which you're requested to pay for 3.1 is if you're coming from any 1.x or 2.x version.

[Kadman]

It depends mainly on how Apple defines "major new features" as opposed to bug fixes and minor refinements.

Bug fixes and minor refinements are fine to give away for free because they don't constitute any significant change in functionality from the product they originally sold to you.

On the other hand, if they add major new features, according to generally accepted accounting principles, apparently they technically sold you an "incomplete" product in the first place, and they're making the product "complete" now by way of the firmware update. In order to do that, apparently they are not permitted to put their complete revenue for the sale of the product on the books until after the feature-complete product has been fully delivered.

Since Apple apparently puts the revenue for the sale of an iPod touch on their books immediately, the product is deemed to be complete upon delivery and no major new features are permitted. To get around that limitation, they can designate the the major new features as a separate product, distinct from the product they initially sold to you. But in order to do that, they apparently need a separate line of income on the books to cover those new features.

They don't need to do that for the iPhone, apparently, because they break down recognition of the money they've received for the sale of iPhones over the course of several years. (In reality, only the original iPhone 2G involved a real ongoing flow of revenue form the carrier to Apple over the course of the iPhone's contract. But apparently there is some accounting magic they can play with subsequent models of iPhones to have the same effect on the books, even if there is no real flow of dollars. They didn't use similar accounting magic with the iPod touch.) Hence the delivery of the feature-complete product can be broken out over time as well.

I'm sure there are other subtleties that are missing from my analysis, because corporate accounting seems horrendously complicated and I am not competent to understand all of it. But I hope I've got a reasonable understanding of the core issue.

This is absolutely false. Do you have proof of any of this? The comparison to the iPhone doesn't pan out either because they can (and do) sell iPhones without a contract (for a higher price). Those iPhones still have access to the free updates.

In the end there are no laws to at prohibit a company from providing free updates, even major revisions, to a product. It happens every day.

[dynamo22]

next time Apple releasing an update 2-3 months before a keynote regarding ipods, I will wait, but then again $9.95 is not going to break the bank.

[goosnarrggh]

This is absolutely false. Do you have proof of any of this? The comparison to the iPhone doesn't pan out either because they can (and do) sell iPhones without a contract (for a higher price). Those iPhones still have access to the free updates.

Apparently you didn't actually read my entire post. If you had you would have known that I already addressed that.

(In reality, only the original iPhone 2G involved a real ongoing flow of revenue form the carrier to Apple over the course of the iPhone's contract. But apparently there is some accounting magic they can play with subsequent models of iPhones to have the same effect on the books, even if there is no real flow of dollars. They didn't use similar accounting magic with the iPod touch.)

To reiterate, with the original iPhone, Apple had an ongoing flow of revenue-sharing dollars from AT&T for every iPhone sold. But with the iPhone 3G and 3GS, that flow of real dollars simply doesn't exist at all - regardless of any factors such as whether or not it was bought without a contract.

The only real dollars Apple ever sees for those sales is the one-time payment it receives on the initial date of purchase. The crux of the matter, apparently, is what Apple chooses to do with that one-time payment: Will it put the whole thing on the books all at once (like it does with the iPod touch) or will it set some of it aside and only put it on the books a few years later (like it does with the iPhone and the Apple TV).

It apparently has nothing to do with whether the customer is actually paying any ongoing flow of money into Apple, or whether or not any real flow of money is reaching Apple's coffers through any other means. It apparently has everything to do with how quickly Apple recognizes the income it has received on its financial statements.

If, like the iPod touch, it recognizes the money from the initial sale all at once, then the product must be finished and can only be improved in the future if more revenue is provided at that future time.

If, like the iPhone and the Apple TV, it doesn't recognize all of the money at once (eg. if it sets some of the money from the initial sale aside and puts off registering it on the books until some point in the future) then the product is incomplete and can still be improved in the future.

In the end there are no laws to at prohibit a company from providing free updates, even major revisions, to a product. It happens every day.

Apple claims are that it has to do with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in combination with "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles" (not really a piece of law, but rather a guide for companies to help them be transparent when reporting their performance to regulators and investors). Whether or not the law (Sarbanes-Oxley) and GAAP are really intended to be interpreted the way Apple apparently does is a secondary point. Apple has used this position repeatedly over the past few years, most notably when they claimed that they were required to charge for the 802.11n software activation patch for the fist batch of Core 2 Duo Macs.

This issue reached the front page of this website a few days ago with the news of a reduction in the percentage of initial revenue that Apple will need to set aside for future features and still comply with GAAP.
Article link (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/14/accounting-rule-change-may-affect-apples-future-earnings-reports/)

[Kadman]

Apparently you didn't actually read my entire post. If you had you would have known that I already addressed that.



To reiterate, with the original iPhone, Apple had an ongoing flow of revenue-sharing dollars from AT&T for every iPhone sold. But with the iPhone 3G and 3GS, that flow of real dollars simply doesn't exist at all - regardless of any factors such as whether or not it was bought without a contract.

The only real dollars Apple ever sees for those sales is the one-time payment it receives on the initial date of purchase. The crux of the matter, apparently, is what Apple chooses to do with that one-time payment: Will it put the whole thing on the books all at once (like it does with the iPod touch) or will it set some of it aside and only put it on the books a few years later (like it does with the iPhone and the Apple TV).

It apparently has nothing to do with whether the customer is actually paying any ongoing flow of money into Apple, or whether or not any real flow of money is reaching Apple's coffers through any other means. It apparently has everything to do with how quickly Apple recognizes the income it has received on its financial statements.

If, like the iPod touch, it recognizes the money from the initial sale all at once, then the product must be finished and can only be improved in the future if more revenue is provided at that future time.

If, like the iPhone and the Apple TV, it doesn't recognize all of the money at once (eg. if it sets some of the money from the initial sale aside and puts off registering it on the books until some point in the future) then the product is incomplete and can still be improved in the future.



Apple claims are that it has to do with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in combination with "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles" (not really a piece of law, but rather a guide for companies to help them be transparent when reporting their performance to regulators and investors). Whether or not the law (Sarbanes-Oxley) and GAAP are really intended to be interpreted the way Apple apparently does is a secondary point. Apple has used this position repeatedly over the past few years, most notably when they claimed that they were required to charge for the 802.11n software activation patch for the fist batch of Core 2 Duo Macs.

This issue reached the front page of this website a few days ago with the news of a reduction in the percentage of initial revenue that Apple will need to set aside for future features and still comply with GAAP.
Article link (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/14/accounting-rule-change-may-affect-apples-future-earnings-reports/)

I did read your entire post, I simply didn't accept "magic" as an acceptable answer as crazy as that sounds. :rolleyes:

I deal with GAAP compliance (and SOX for that matter) on a regular basis. Any claims that they are required to change are simply false and more a matter of interpretation driven by how they choose to implement their compliance strategy. I state it as such because that's exactly what happens with SOX and GAAP is that they involve verbiage that can (and does) get interpreted differently by various companies.

At the end of the day you need to look outside of Apple (hard to do for some around here) to see that many, many other companies have similar types of products and they do not charge for upgrades and/or feature enhancements. Some do, but that's more of a revenue stream decision vs a compliance issue.

[goosnarrggh]

I did read your entire post, I simply didn't accept "magic" as an acceptable answer as crazy as that sounds. :rolleyes:

I deal with GAAP compliance (and SOX for that matter) on a regular basis. Any claims that they are required to change are simply false and more a matter of interpretation driven by how they choose to implement their compliance strategy. I state it as such because that's exactly what happens with SOX and GAAP is that they involve verbiage that can (and does) get interpreted differently by various companies.

At the end of the day you need to look outside of Apple (hard to do for some around here) to see that many, many other companies have similar types of products and they do not charge for upgrades and/or feature enhancements. Some do, but that's more of a revenue stream decision vs a compliance issue.

I wholeheartedly agree that the whole problem boils down to a choice that Apple made. Indeed, you don't need to look outside Apple to find examples of devices that get free upgrades despite not having any ongoing stream of income. The examples I've cited are the Apple TV and the post-2G iPhone.

My position is that the decision was made way back when they approved their current conformance policies, and then sold their very first iPod touch and put all the revenue on the books right away instead of holding some over to account for future firmware updates.

But now that those decisions have been made, and several years of financial statements have been filed, and their conformance policies have been established, how much effort would it take for them to retroactively amend their accounting of all those original iPod touches to allow them to account for future updates without charging for them? Would there be other business impacts resulting from such amendments?

[Duffinator]

I've read many posts with people having problems with 3.1. I'm still on 2.0x, are there any reason to wait for bug fixes? I already have iTunes 9.0 downloaded.

Thanks

[mzd]

there are a few specific bugs in 3.1, specifically dealing with the new feature regarding live updating on the iPod of smart playlists. it sounded like a great feature, but it doesn't work very well. it basically screws up any smart playlists that rely on usage statistics (Recently Added, Top 25 Most Played, etc). my Recently Added playlist is now just a list of the first 100 songs on my ipod in alpha order by artist. nothing to do with date added. the Top 25 seems random, but def is not the top 25 based on play count.
that is really the biggest bug i've found so far. there is also a lot of talk about podcasts not ordering correctly. check a few threads down, and in the iPhone forum.
i skipped 3.0 so i'm not sure how buggy it was.