Apple's $0.99 FaceTime Charge Due to Accounting Requirements

[MacRumors]

When Apple released FaceTime 1.0 into the Mac App Store earlier today with a $0.99 price tag, many users were up in arms over the charge for what had been a free application during its beta phase.

As we suspected and has now been confirmed by Macworld's Dan Moren, the charge is due to an accounting requirement that has affected similar updates in the past.

Apple told me that the FaceTime $1 charge for existing Mac users is regulatory related (remember the $2 802.11n patch circa 2007?).

Moren's reference is to the software download that unlocked 802.11n capabilities that were included in certain Macs but not activated at the time of sale.

While it is not clear exactly what types of updates trigger such accounting requirements, Apple has in the past generally stated that adding significant functionality that had not been advertised as included at the time of purchase can require such minimal user payments. While Macs have long included iChat video capabilities similar in many respects to FaceTime, Apple and its accounting advisors clearly believe that a public release of FaceTime software for existing Macs represents a substantial new feature addition for which the company is required to either charge a small fee or restate its past earnings to retroactively delay recognition of a tiny slice of revenue from each past machine sale.

The new FaceTime application is included free of charge on the MacBook Pros released today, as it is an advertised feature on the new hardware, and the application will certainly continue to be free on future versions of Mac hardware.

Article Link: Apple's $0.99 FaceTime Charge Due to Accounting Requirements

 

[Frosties]

Pull the other one.

 

[leftynaut]

so whats different about this version?

 

[OllyW]

Pull the other one.

Has it got bells on?

 

[mjj122]

Wait a few months

If that is the case, I would assume that they can include it for free in Lion, given that that will be a paid upgrade anyway.

 

[MacMartyr]

Wasn't this also their excuse for charging iPod touch users for software updates?

 

[FanBoyTroll]

Of course it is for "accounting" reasons. They want their "accounts" to have my money!!! Sorry Apple, no way I am paying for this.

 

[logandzwon]

this one explains the "why," where as everyone was saying was greed to the other one. Like Apple is gonna make a bunch of money charging $.99 charging for app most people either will get free with their new computer, or already have.

 

[nagromme]

This is money-burning silliness!

But it’s my favorite kind of money-burning silliness: the kind that costs 1/5 of the mocha I’m about to drink...

Wasn't this also their excuse for charging iPod touch users for software updates?

Yes—but “excuse” implies that it isn’t true.

Apple makes far more money off of giving a seamless user experience than they ever could by grabbing .99 from some fraction of Mac owners. There’s little reason to think Apple expects the .99 to impact their bottom line, and ample reason to suggest that some weird accounting nonsense IS to blame, and that Apple would just as soon keep it free.

 

[AriX]

Haha I was right! https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/11977776/

 

[tigerstaden]

I don't understand why so many people complain about this insignificant fee.

If you can afford a MacBook Pro, you can afford an application with the price tag of 99 cents.

 

[Mister Snitch]

If that is the case, I would assume that they can include it for free in Lion, given that that will be a paid upgrade anyway.

My thoughts exactly. Anybody who doesn't feel the app is worth a buck can wait until they upgrade their OS or hardware. Then they'll get it free. 'Problem' solved. (Everything should be so easy.)

I don't understand why so many people complain about this insignificant fee.

Because they can, my friend. Because they can.

 

[Hurda]

Pay up or get lost.

 

[Frosties]

The App Store?

"Apple has in the past generally stated that adding significant functionality that had not been advertised as included at the time of purchase can require such minimal user payments."

I am waiting on the 99c charge for the App Store. When will accounting contact me for that payment?!!

 

[NightFox]

Based on when this has happened before with Apple, my own understanding is that if Apple start selling something which includes 'X' in the price, to keep the accountants happy they have to attach a value to 'X' and charge everyone else that value.

So if future iPod Touchs were to include the 'Remote' app which is currently free in the app store, they'd have to start charging for it in the app store?

Is that about it?

 

[Icestorm815]

Whenever Apple posts comments about "accounting requirements" I'm always skeptical. If that's the case, why do we get things like Safari, quicktime, xtools, etc. for free and there isn't the $0.99 charge?

 

[Steve121178]

Credit where credit is due, this is a fabulously inventive excuse to fleece people.

Please excuse me while I burst out laughing.

 

[Phil A.]

so whats different about this version?

It's the first version - the previously available download was a beta release

 

[Illusion986]

Umm what should i do pay .99 for app i might use once a year or buy a new mac...I think ill buy a new mac in 2 or 3 years

 

[notjustjay]

I don't understand why so many people complain about this insignificant fee.

If you can afford a MacBook Pro, you can afford an application with the price tag of 99 cents.

It's not about whether I can afford to spend 99 cents. I could afford to spend quite a bit more than that for software if I needed to. It's the principle of the matter.

What if they wanted to charge for software updates? 99 cents for each update. $9.99 for critical security patches. C'mon, pay up or your software might be at risk! Would you still be saying "oh, come on, you can afford it"?

They can parrot "regulatory reasons" all they want -- and it may even be true -- but does that mean every other software company that provides updates with new features is breaking some kind of accounting rule?

 

[BJMRamage]

this simple update to iChat would have been FREE. calling it a "new feature" and charging is to get more money and keep their FACETIME in more view as opposed to having both Facetime and iChat. they chose facetime for iphones and now Mac users will have to pay to use the function that would have been a tiny update to the already free iChat.

accounting is a funny reason.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

Why didn't Google have to charge Nexus One users for multi touch?

 

[vincenz]

Bah, I won't buy it. I never use it anyway.

 

[The Wedge]

Up in arms over 99 cents. Give me a break.

 

[DTphonehome]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Oh grow up people. It's 99 freaking cents. Less than a can of soda. Good God.