Prominent Accountants Blast Apple's $1.99 802.11n Upgrade Reasoning

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Jan 25, 2007.

?

How do you feel about Apple's decision to charge $1.99 for 802.11n

  1. It's Fine

    89 vote(s)
    36.8%
  2. Don't like it

    104 vote(s)
    43.0%
  3. It'd be okay if they gave an adequate explanation

    49 vote(s)
    20.2%
  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]

    Some sites have been picking up on a recent Wall Street Journal article (paid subscription required) that quoted prominent accountants disregarding Apple's stated reasons for charging $1.99 for enabling 802.11n capability on Core 2 Duo based Macs and the Mac Pro.

    A statement from Apple had previously blamed the charge on "generally accepted accounting principles", or GAAP. However, the Journal's interviewees do not agree.

    The reaction from the Mac community appears to be mixed since the formal announcement from Apple. While many were happy to see the final price drop more than half from its previously rumored $4.99 pricetag, many others were frustrated at having to pay anything for hardware capability already in their systems.
     
  2. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    #2
    Who cares?

    $1.99. Who cares? If you think that is so expensive, live without "n". You'll be just fine.

    --t
     
  3. macrumors G5

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #3
    Isn't it the case that until you get rid of all your b/g kit, you'll be "living without n" anyway?
     
  4. Editor emeritus

    longofest

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Location:
    Falls Church, VA
    #4
    Note, its not the fact that Apple is charging that the accountants are blasting, but Apple's stated reasoning.

    Us in the mac community seem to have two different beefs...

    a) we don't like the fact that they are doing it at all
    b) we don't like the reason they gave for it

    (or none of the above)
     
  5. macrumors 68020

    combatcolin

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Location:
    Northants, UK
    #5
    Seems there disagreement over whether apple need to do this, so Apple are playing safe and charging.

    Of course, you would think the obvious solution would be for Apple to talk to the regulatory body and simply ask them.

    If the defense lawyers are confused then so must be the prosecution council.
     
  6. macrumors 68040

    Gasu E.

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    Not far from Boston, MA.
    #6
    I didn't read the detailed criticisms, just the clipped quotes. But these indicate Apple is being criticized for the wrong reasons. Apple didn't say "GAAP requires us to charge something." Apple said, in effect, "if we don't charge something, GAAP may require us to consider the original product to be a partial shipment, which may require us to restate earnings." Even if Apple is right (and it is certainly a matter of opinion if they are), there is no "requirement that they charge something." Apple in any case has the option to restate earnings.
     
  7. hob
    macrumors 68020

    hob

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #7
    I really really really want some news agency to use the word dubious to describe Apple in this :p

    It does sound strange. Why charge $1.99? Why charge at all? $1.99 is such a token amount...

    That's like £1. I sneeze £1. And I'm a student!
     
  8. macrumors 68040

    synth3tik

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #8
    If I pau the $1.99 will depend on if I get the Airport, at which point 2 bucks is no big deal
     
  9. macrumors 68040

    Gasu E.

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    Not far from Boston, MA.
    #9
    Which regulatory body would that be? And what would they ask?
     
  10. hob
    macrumors 68020

    hob

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #10
    Oh, and one further point. This only affects people that bought the very very latest Mac's, and the latest Airport base station, right? I don't understand the big deal - because surely it only affects a handful of people.

    That being said, it is a little... dubious...
     
  11. macrumors 601

    Phil A.

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Location:
    Telford, UK
    #11
    If you get the new Airport base-station, you don't need to pay for the upgrade anyway because it's included in the box
     
  12. macrumors 68040

    Gasu E.

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    Not far from Boston, MA.
    #12
    Obviously because Apple thinks there is some principle involved. $1.99 just about covers their handling costs. It's preposterous to think that Apple is lying to cover up some profit-generating scheme, because there ain't no profit in this.
     
  13. macrumors regular

    Copland

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    #13
    Well, if you get the airport, you don't have to pay for the upgrade. (Edit: Woops, beat to it)

    I'm of the opinion that it's fine. I'm currently quite in the red, but I could probably find $2 on the ground if I had/wanted to.
     
  14. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    #14
    This draft n upgrade story is doing a great job of taking the focus off of the options story. Calculated?
     
  15. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    #15
    no big deal

    I really don't understand how this even is an issue. People buy a computer with certain capabilities, and presumably are happy with it. Then they get the opportunity to upgrade the software of the wireless chip for $1.99, less than most espresso drinks, and they get upset. This is just so blown out of proportion. I would have gladly paid the $4.99.
    People are writing about this because AAPL is so popular right now, and there are all the knuckle-heads that think Apple, Inc. is abusing them by 2 bucks.
    I think it is great to get n without having to buy another linksys or Apple base station right away.
     
  16. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Location:
    Chicago Area
    #16
    That's like half a Starbucks latte. Big deal.
     
  17. macrumors 601

    Diatribe

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2004
    Location:
    Back in the motherland
    #17
    Why enable 802.11n at all?

    We wouldn't have this discussion if Apple decided to just not enable it.
    Would you feel better then?
     
  18. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    #18
    Gaap...

    Having sat through more accounting classes than I care to remember, the accountants are technically right about GAAP. Like any good Accountants, they are really nitpicking what Apple is doing (which is why I really hate accounting.)

    If you remember the line from Pirates of the Carribean, GAAP is "more like guidelines."

    Yes, GAAP doesn't require you do to many things - it's not a law per say. However, businesses constantly use the guidelines to recognize revenue in a way that is positive for them. You hear about it all the time if you follow any financial news.
     
  19. macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location
    #19
    I wasn't sure what to vote this story on MR's front page. :eek:
     
  20. macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Darkplace Hospital
    #20
    I'd rather it be free, but seeing I won't be getting an N wireless router I couldn't care less :)
     
  21. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Location:
    Virginia suburbs of DC
    #21
    Why does anyone care?

    $1.99 won't even buy a cup of coffee these days, so what's the big deal?

    If someone says, "It's the principle of the thing," then I'd say, "You need to learn how to choose your fights."
     
  22. macrumors P6

    twoodcc

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Location:
    Right side of wrong
    #22
    i'd rather it be free also.....i might eventually get the N wirless router.....mainly b/c of the usb drive ......but then i won't have to pay the fee, correct?
     
  23. Moderator

    dejo

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Centennial State
    #23
    You need to shop elsewhere besides Starbucks. ;)
     
  24. macrumors 6502a

    RGunner

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Midnight Sun
    #24
    its NOT fine.

    Big business just getting bigger... all about the bottom $$.
     
  25. macrumors regular

    pale9

    #25
    pissed off at the stupid reasoning, not the $1.99

    i would not have a problem at all if apple would have simply said they will charge $x.xx for the update. not that i want to pay, but they are running a business and they can charge whatever they want (even though almost nobody charges for firmware updates).

    *however*, i hate being sold for a fool, and that is exactly what apple did by coming up with a totally bogus and stupid reason why 'they had to' charge for the update... yes, accounting rules made us do it! no, it is SOX!!!! wait, homeland security forced us to!
     

Share This Page