Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

willdenow

macrumors member
Aug 7, 2002
67
0
whole lot of cool-aid drinking here folks. i used to wonder how jim jones could get 1100 adults to agree to go belly up in the jungle. after reading the mac fanboi posts the last couple of years, i don't anymore.
 

Tyrannosaurs

macrumors member
Jan 16, 2008
55
6
Not the Mac but rather the Mac OS X that you bought!
There also seems to be some difference between fixes (including security patches) and enhancements or new functionality.

These new apps fall firmly into the new functionality category. Most patches to the OS are fixes and don't provide anything new (10.5.1 certainly didn't). Even something like the change to stacks mooted for 10.5.2 could be seen as fixing it based on what was demo-ed/promised.
 

Hattig

macrumors 65816
Jan 3, 2003
1,457
92
London, UK
if you take the iPhone apps the dot APP files and you PASTE IT in the Applications folder of the iPod Touch... they're working so... why I need to pay 20$? to don't install an SSH client on my computer and to Apple-C Apple-V ?
We are not speacking about new OS, new iLife... but about CUT AND PASTE!!!! DAMN!

Naw, we all know you're kidding us. Cut and Paste on the iPhone, indeed! :p

I agree that Apple should have let everyone share in their success by giving the applications away for free, although it's likely the 1.2 OS update will just bundle them anyway (otherwise they'd always have to have two updates for the Touch) regardless of whether or not you paid for them now.

Sarbanes-Oxley is the excuse for charging, and Apple seem to be very serious about not breaking this law. New features on the PSP, PS3 and XBox360 however aren't affected by this law, or you don't need to charge for new features and Apple is making stuff up. I think a law that effectively means you can't give your customers free upgrades in functionality is rather weird. Also why does this affect us in the UK?

However it is optional, and if you were happy with the iPod Touch at release then there shouldn't be an argument now. Pay the small fee, or not.
 
One more thing

I was curious about that one myself. I was thinking there would be either a Europe specific announcement, or a release of something huge. For all its funkiness, I wouldn't class the Air as something major. Just a nice skinny laptop. I was sorely disappointed. the only mention we got was international itunes movie rentals will not be available yet........

I think they pulled something from the keynote at the last minute

Finishing with Randy Newman!?! Come on...

I bet the record and /or movie studios pulled the pin on the pan European iTunes store or worldwide movie rentals at the last minute

Probably due to Fox and the combined iTunes/DVD

Apple are the whipping boy of the consumers who are still getting screwed by the demands of the out of touch big studios
 

nomad01

macrumors 68000
Aug 1, 2005
1,727
73
Birmingham, England
whole lot of cool-aid drinking here folks. i used to wonder how jim jones could get 1100 adults to agree to go belly up in the jungle. after reading the mac fanboi posts the last couple of years, i don't anymore.

If it bothers you so much why stick around?? You're saying that you're preaching to the perverted already so just give it up man!
 

Hattig

macrumors 65816
Jan 3, 2003
1,457
92
London, UK
The ATV is not different. And it doesn't make them a lot of money. It's loser device that will discontinued by next year. Take 3!

With the lower price and new software features it could sell more, although I am not buying one until it can do full HD video (whether or not my eyes can tell the difference, heh) and play Divx, etc. Problem is that I'll get a PS3 at some point and that can do all that, so why would I need this?

However if Apple are making a profit off the device, and a revenue stream from the movie rental stuff, they'll keep it going.
 

tremendous

macrumors 6502
Jan 16, 2008
413
1
UK? Yeah I'm OK. Stop asking.
Why does everybody assume that $20 is fair??? I bought my iPod touch because I am on a college campus and can't afford the data plan the iPhone requires. Why does Apple consider my product differently? $20 means a lot to me. Not to mention that this iPod touch thing keeps screwing me over. No apps? $20 upgrade for capability it should have had from the beginning? Apple is ubiquitous in the academic environment, but they just refuse to show me any love. If only Apple had heard of Google's mantra - don't be evil!

To put it succinctly - why is the iPod touch being treated like a bastard sibling of the iPhone instead of the brother it really is??

hold on; if it should have had these features from the beginning, why did you buy it knowing it didn't have them if this was going to be such an issue for you? You can't have it both ways.
 

deputy_doofy

macrumors 65816
Sep 11, 2002
1,455
376
I need someone to explain why the $20 is a problem at all. Too many people have been complaining that they shouldn't have to pay $20 for something that already cost them $400.

Yet, these are the same people who have no problem with iLife being $79 (or free with their next computer purchase).

My MBP cost a lot more than an iPod Touch and you don't hear me complaining one bit.

Apple cannot both succeed financially and give everything away free.
 

djgamble

macrumors 6502a
Oct 25, 2006
988
500
I personally think that this $20 is a farce in the same way that the 802.11n update ($2 or something ridiculous) for my MBP was.

I'll pay for a 2.0 upgrade, maybe even a 1.2 upgrade if it's substantial. But a 1.1.3 upgrade, what a farce! for 0.0.1 we pay $20. How much are they going to charge for 1.2? Based on $20 for every 0.0.1 I'd put it at $200 for 1.2, that's fair right?

Anyway I guess there's no point me complaining. Apple hasn't taken anything away from me and I don't want these features so will not pay $20... easy!

Instead I'm sticking with my Jailbroken 1.1.2, which has a large array of much more entertaining applications for free. God compared to maps and notes, how much is a PSX emulator, ScummVM, a GBA emulator, a multi-language dictionary (I live in Japan), a chat client, a drawing program...etc worth? Well I get them all for free.

It just makes MacWorld a bit disappointing as Apple hasn't matched the 3rd party developers in any way, and to rub it in they're charging $20 for their comparatively less than impressive efforts, while at the same time putting a meat axe to support for these superior 3rd party apps in their newly released firmware.

I say Apple shouldn't support 3rd party apps at this stage, but shouldn't actively take them away from us! Why bother spending all the man hours disabling useful hacks?
 

rspress

macrumors member
Jul 22, 2002
40
0
Northern California
How Can I Fault Apple?

How can I fault Apple for charging 20 bucks for these apps. When the iPod Touch came out I sent feedback to Apple saying they should do just that, charge 20 bucks for the apps because one way or another people would find a way to use them anyway and so would I. I did just that by jailbreaking the iPod and installing many third party apps.

Even though I have the apps but not with all the new features I will happily plunk down my 20 bucks to go legit and get the updated apps. If this spurs Apple to make more 3 party apps available for the Touch then all the better! I would love more third party apps from Apple. I have sent my wish list into Apple via the iPod Touch feedback page and so should other users. I would really like a way to run the Widgets I made for Tiger and Leopard on the Touch and since they are just HTML, CSS and Javascript this should be a whole lot easier than it is and even third parties have not gotten this right yet. A more seamless tie in with dotmac would be cool as well. Copying and pasting text is a MUST! Leopard data detectors would be nice as well.
 

lavem

macrumors member
Apr 19, 2005
80
28
This revenue generating business still bugs me. ATV gets a free update and more functionality because it is a product that is supposed to generate cash for them. But I can buy an ATV and never pay a penny for content.

Same goes for the touch, you can buy content on it and generate more revenue for them. Or you don't bother.

I think they just want to screw us over and experiment with their itunes software store at the same time.

This fool isn't biting. :p I think the majority feel the same way.
 

jayducharme

macrumors 601
Jun 22, 2006
4,513
5,925
The thick of it
I don't see how this is any different than buying a new computer with iLife '07 and then a few months later having new computers include iLife '08 for free while everyone else has to pay for it.

Now this finally makes sense to me. In the other Touch Update thread my position was that, as an early adopter, I felt punished for buying a first generation product. But this point is well taken: if you look at it as a software package along the lines of iLife and not a system update (which Apple did provide for free), the $20 fee makes perfect sense.

Perhaps Apple needed a better strategy for announcing it. If they had made the parallel between iLife and the new Touch apps, perhaps it would have gone down a bit better.

But then again, there's the nagging issue of the iPhone -- all of those users (lucky enough to be part of Apple's "subscription" model) get the upgrade for free. :confused:
 

massib80

macrumors newbie
Jan 16, 2008
8
0
and if you own an ipod touch notes, mail, maps etc. are optional software.

you didn't buy them so why do you have the right to them?

because, iPhone and iPod Touch are quite the same HARDWARE.

It's like if you buy an iMac 24 you got for free iWork, if you got iMac 20 no because 24 is more for profesional use, and the video card is faster.
 

ariel

macrumors regular
Sep 15, 2003
149
8
People are so unbelievably unreasonable these days. "It should have come with these apps in the first place." It didn't, you chose to buy it knowing there was no promise of them coming later for free. Get over it. Sheesh! I suppose you want a pony too right? :)

t

AMEN
 

rd261

macrumors regular
Sep 24, 2007
136
8
So Apple is not getting any "subscription revenue" from ipod users right? You're telling me that those of us that have spent hundreds of dollars on itunes do not contribute to apple's revenue? Ipod users have to pay for the music just like apple tv users have to pay to watch movies and iphone users have to pay to get the service. Im sorry but Im just very disappointed with Apple's decision and I cant find a reasonable excuse. Specially since you can get those app's easily and for free right now. Just imagine if apple decides to charge for every single update from now on?
 

ftaok

macrumors 603
Jan 23, 2002
6,485
1,571
East Coast
How about this perspective?

Apple will be opening up the iPod Touch and iPhone to developers in Februrary, right. If they give away free software, which is what some here are asking for, they might be accused of undercutting the 3rd party developers.

Maybe a developer wants to make a Notepad application and sell it for $2. Apple comes along and offers one for free. How would that make him feel?

I don't know, maybe I'm talkin' out my ass.

ft
 

BOSS10L

macrumors 6502a
Jan 13, 2008
588
0
Upstate NY
There not either but they are hoping you pay for it. ;)
With iLife it was easy when they went from free to pay.

"Oh its cost of CD for that large iDVD" - Then later "its just because its so darn cool and such a good deal at this price!" - well not that good of a deal compared to when it was free.

Yes apple is changing, but it has been like that. Free then pay.
Free then pay.

One day we will pay for our air. - oh macbook air. :)
Seriously, it is funny as with things like the movie rentals, one day you will have adds thrown in your movies...right at a climatic point...and then you one day will have to pay for 2 hours of adds, then some more to see a peak of a movie...and one day...well, we know what happens then. The universe explodes from the stupidity and greed. heheh

Peace

dAlen

That is because true GPS is based on sattelite tracking which is "everywhere", whereas the iPod Touch is based on Wi-Fi tracking, which isn't everywhere...yet.

I hope you mother in law enjoys it, I got one (even though it is a base model - GPS only) for the Holidays, and it's been great.
 

BOSS10L

macrumors 6502a
Jan 13, 2008
588
0
Upstate NY
Dang, you Apple people have had it too good for too long. I'm a Windows guy about to go MBP this weekend. Hop over to the M$ side of things and I'm sure you'll appreciate what you have.

Had Billy-Boy released something like this for the Zune, it would require a HW attachment, some convoluted authentication scheme, and your wallet would be at least $100 lighter.

As others have pointed out, if you think the update has value, buy it. If not, don't.

I think you mean WiFi tracking.


Thanks. I'm not awake yet. :D
 

Tyrannosaurs

macrumors member
Jan 16, 2008
55
6
because, iPhone and iPod Touch are quite the same HARDWARE.

It's like if you buy an iMac 24 you got for free iWork, if you got iMac 20 no because 24 is more for profesional use, and the video card is faster.
that's odd because i've had a really good look at my ipod touch and can't find the gsm phone or the camera. and my ipod touch has more RAM. and the iphone processor is faster. the iphone is certainly bigger, which suggests that there's something in there.

you mean they're compatible which is different.

look at it this way. the people who bought an iphone paid extra. why shouldn't they get more apps?

people who buy OS X server get stuff that's not in regular OS X. that's not because OS X Server won't run on a non-server mac. something like wikiserver on a macbook for local wiki's would be cool and, by your logic they could give it to me for free because it already exists.

but i don't expect it because OS X and OS X server are DIFFERENT PRODUCTS in the same way that the iPhone and the iPod Touch are different products.

apple bundle stuff up and flog it to us. we make the choice on whether to buy it or not and, where there are different versions, we choose which one we buy by weighing up what it offers and what it costs.

but you don't get to buy the product and then moan about the fact it doesn't do something it never claimed to do.

I think you mean WiFi tracking.

it uses both to improve accuracy.

still, in the arse end of no-where you'll still get +/- 5 miles because there won't be enough registered hotspots or masts.

Now this finally makes sense to me. In the other Touch Update thread my position was that, as an early adopter, I felt punished for buying a first generation product. But this point is well taken: if you look at it as a software package along the lines of iLife and not a system update (which Apple did provide for free), the $20 fee makes perfect sense.

Perhaps Apple needed a better strategy for announcing it. If they had made the parallel between iLife and the new Touch apps, perhaps it would have gone down a bit better.

But then again, there's the nagging issue of the iPhone -- all of those users (lucky enough to be part of Apple's "subscription" model) get the upgrade for free. :confused:
free?

have you seen the price of an iPhone and subscription plan? in the UK it comes to about £800 ($1600) over a couple of years.

the increased functionality is anything but free.

So Apple is not getting any "subscription revenue" from ipod users right? You're telling me that those of us that have spent hundreds of dollars on itunes do not contribute to apple's revenue? Ipod users have to pay for the music just like apple tv users have to pay to watch movies and iphone users have to pay to get the service. Im sorry but Im just very disappointed with Apple's decision and I cant find a reasonable excuse. Specially since you can get those app's easily and for free right now. Just imagine if apple decides to charge for every single update from now on?
i agree with your disappointment but that's no argument - it's not a subscription because there is no commitment.

i know plenty of people who have an ipod but have never spent a penny on iTunes.
 

Baron58

macrumors 6502
Feb 19, 2004
450
3
So Macs are under the subscription model? Because they get constantly updated.

No. There were not any major features added to 10.3.x or 10.4.x, nor will there be to 10.5.x. Just bugfixes and minor tweaks. Any feature that materially adds to the value of the product will be in the next (e.g. 10.6) release, which you will *pay* for, and then get bugfixes for 'free' until the next major release, and so on.

This is not Apple being mean. This is a result of the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) accounting laws.
 

SilentLoner

macrumors 65816
Dec 29, 2007
1,065
6
free?

have you seen the price of an iPhone and subscription plan? in the UK it comes to about £800 ($1600) over a couple of years.

the increased functionality is anything but free.


It riles me that people bought the ipod touch without these features, so they can buy the updates if they want but still they got a ipod touch that is exactly the same as when they first bought it. The iphone is a completely different kettle of fish as it on a subscription based service.
 

Baron58

macrumors 6502
Feb 19, 2004
450
3
Do you think the word "should" means a damn thing to Apple? (Arrogant greedy ****s that they are) Nope.

There's a lot of things that they should do but never will. Sad what's become of them.

You mean, that they've become a profitable, innovative, growing-market-share company? Yes. It's sad when success happens. :rolleyes:

What, exactly, were they before they were 'greedy ****s'? You really prefer the Apple, Inc. that made Performas, System 7.x, incompatible everything, "Sorry, a system error has occurred <bomb>", "Error Type 11", and had ~ 1% marketshare, if that?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.