iPod touch 2.0 firmware in June - get out your wallets

[aethelbert]

Truth. Apple is selling firmware. Apple is selling updates to applications. Apple is selling us the ability to give them more money in their store. Apple is nickel and diming their loyal customers and it must be stopped.

No, Apple is selling upgrades. Selling firmware would be like them selling the BIOS for their macs. And you don't even know what the hell is gonna be included in 2.0, chances are that it's gonna be a lot more than the app store, or else it would just be 1.2 or 1.1.5. You're just pissed because they offer to upgrade your device and you think that you're entitled to a free upgrade.

You saw the word "fee" and just started complaining. It doesn't matter if it costs five cents or five hundred dollars, you would likely complain either way.

 

[MattyMac]

I don't mind paying high prices for apple...always worth it.

 

[jaw04005]

Sorry, that argument is flawed.

Back in November, I bought an iPod that could have third-party apps installed for free, transforming it from an iPod into a full-featured PDA. Isn't that what you bought?

Point to me where Apple told you that your iPod touch (as you purchased it with firmware 1.x) would be able to support Apple-sanctioned applications.

You can't. You purchased your Touch based on what you "thought" would become available in the future. You took a gamble.

It would be like me purchasing a brand new Mac and six months from now Apple releasing 10.6 (a paid software upgrade). I'm supposed to be upset because Apple won't provide me with an free feature upgrade just because my new Mac has the capability to run the new operating system? No.

I'm not sure why iPod Touch users on this forum feel they deserve updates for free. Again, iPhone users are footing the majority of the bill (proportionally) for continued iPhone and Touch development.

Just for the record, I own both the Touch and iPhone. I paid the $20 upgrade for the Touch, as I wanted Mail.app. To be honest, I was shocked they even offered the January update.

I didn't purchase my Touch because I thought in the future Apple may offer the remaining iPhone applications for Touch users. I purchased it because it fit my needs with its stated feature set at the time. Clearly, I'm in the minority.

 

[legacyb4]

PS3 - the latest update added DivX support and the next upgrade should be to upgrade Blu Ray.

Zune. PSP. Those are two great examples from two great competitors.

 

[mavis]

Point to me where Apple told you that your iPod touch (as you purchased it with firmware 1.x) would be able to support Apple-sanctioned applications.

I'm insulted that you think I lack the capacity to think for myself, that I am so feeble-minded that I need Apple to spell out for me exactly what their products are capable of. I knew what I bought when I bought it, because I did the research: I bought an iPod running a mobile version of OS X (like the iPhone) which could be JB'd in about ten seconds to allow free installation of a multitude of native third party apps. Do you really think I would've thrown away $370 on an 8GB iPod otherwise? Please, give me more credit than that.

You can't. You purchased your Touch based on what you "thought" would become available in the future. You took a gamble.

What gamble? The only reason I even bought the thing was because I found out that I could easily install native, third-party apps. And I've been doing that since day one.

It would be like me purchasing a brand new Mac and six months from now Apple releasing 10.6 (a paid software upgrade). I'm supposed to be upset because Apple won't provide me with an free feature upgrade just because my new Mac has the capability to run the new operating system? No.

My favorite analogy, ever. You conveniently forgot to mention that while you couldn't get 10.6 for free, some people would. I guess that would be ok with you ...

I'm not sure why iPod Touch users on this forum feel they deserve updates for free.

Umm, maybe because other companies do this for their customers (Sony, Microsoft) and so does Apple (when they feel like it: AppleTV, iPhone, new iPod Touch buyers) ... Why should I be penalized for Apple's ignorant accounting choices? And why should I be penalized for being an early adopter?

 

[mavis]

I didn't purchase my Touch because I thought in the future Apple may offer the remaining iPhone applications for Touch users. I purchased it because it fit my needs with its stated feature set at the time.

Me too. I really wanted an iPhone, but since those aren't yet available here (or for most of the world's population, for that matter) I settled for the iPod only because I knew I could install the iPhone apps on it as well as other apps, utilities, and games ... As advertised, I thought the iPod was a colossal waste of money - $370 for an 8GB iPod? Please, give me a break. But throw jailbreaking into the mix, and suddenly it was worth every penny - no longer an overpriced iPod, but a full-featured PDA.

Clearly, I'm in the minority.

I don't know about that, I just think you need to learn to think for yourself, instead of waiting for Apple to give you the thumbs up. Think different, bud.

 

[Nexxus]

So what happens with subsequent upgrades for existing
issues if we choose not to purchase 2.0? Would it mean that we
can kiss all future upgrades/fixes goodbye?
If that's the case then we have to purchase
the upgrade in order to get current bug fixes.

 

[156457]

Sorry but I think the "I pay $X for my iPhone every month, that's why I get it free!" is seriously flawed. You pay that amount a month to get the function of a phone, text messaging and unlimited data usage outside of Wi-Fi spots. We didn't want (or couldn't afford) iPhones, so we got iPod Touches which don't include a phone and EDGE and all that. You saying "we pay this a month that a month" who gives a crap, you pay for the service to use your iPhone we don't have that so we don't pay monthly. You shouldn't get it free, because all your paying for is service. Granted a cut of the cash goes to Apple, but that has nothing to do with it, they managed fine with free updates before the iPhone. Apple have $18 billion laying around, do you think giving an iPod Touch upgrade for free would hurt them? Or if that stupid Sarbanes Oxley thing whatever it is, is a problem, then 99c (49p, mind you, probably 79p over here, poor UK!) not fricken $20! ($26 for me)

That's my say. Why should the people who have an iPod be fobbed off, but iPhone users, oh that's fine!

 

[mouchoir]

Funny that Apple has now had two chances to advertise the Touch as upgradeable but has chosen not to. Why do you think that is?

Pure. Greed.

I love my iMac, love my iPod Touch, and am dying to get an iPhone. But there's no way in HELL I'll pay those greedy bastards for iPod Touch firmware. Not when new customers get it for free, and when I'll be able to get it for free with a little JB'ing. Think different, bub.

Apple is a business. You have to stop thinking of them as your friend.

 

[mavis]

Apple is a business. You have to stop thinking of them as your friend.

I understand that Apple is a business; with $18bil in cash reserves I'd say they're not doing too badly. You're right about them not being my friend, though - in fact I'd go so far as to say they've made an enemy with this update fleecing of theirs.

 

[mouchoir]

Double post. Please delete, sorry!

 

[mouchoir]

I understand that Apple is a business; with $18bil in cash reserves I'd say they're not doing too badly. You're right about them not being my friend, though - in fact I'd go so far as to say they've made an enemy with this update fleecing of theirs.

If you understood that they were a business you would stop talking things personally.

 

[mavis]

If you understood that they were a business you would stop talking things personally.

Well, it is my money they're intent on taking, so yeah - it is personal.

 

[mouchoir]

.

 

[aethelbert]

So what happens with subsequent upgrades for existing
issues if we choose not to purchase 2.0? Would it mean that we
can kiss all future upgrades/fixes goodbye?
If that's the case then we have to purchase
the upgrade in order to get current bug fixes.

They have to give you fixes for free, like they did with 1.1.4.

You shouldn't get it free, because all your paying for is service. Granted a cut of the cash goes to Apple, but that has nothing to do with it, they managed fine with free updates before the iPhone. ($26 for me)

Then what does that cut that goes to Apple have to do with? You still get free updates, but not upgrades. That's reasonable. iPods in the past never really got new features for free. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[156457]

They have to give you fixes for free, like they did with 1.1.4.


Then what does that cut that goes to Apple have to do with? You still get free updates, but not upgrades. That's reasonable. iPods in the past never really got new features for free. You don't know what you're talking about.

Yes I do know what I'm talking about

People that say it's like 10.4 to 10.5, you have to pay, that's like me saying something like Macbook users, you need to pay for the update, Macbook Pro's, it's free!

 

[aethelbert]

Yes I do know what I'm talking about

People that say it's like 10.4 to 10.5, you have to pay, that's like me saying something like Macbook users, you need to pay for the update, Macbook Pro's, it's free!

Not at all. You have to look at the product history and how Apple gets money from each device.

 

[mavis]

Not at all. You have to look at the product history and how Apple gets money from each device.

Actually, I think what you mean to say is 'how Apple accounts for each device,' which is a different thing entirely. So the question again is, why should Touch owners be penalized for how Apple has decided to handle their accounting for this one particular product?

 

[stanton]

2.0 better come with something more than 3rd party applications

Here's my question: If Apple is using a 70/30 model for applications, does that mean we'll have to pay money for Apple to earn more money from us?
Don't get me wrong, I understand this is a business, but I've always been under the assumption that most business give things out to make money later on. Check out the following link

This to me is starting to sound like Apple is moving to a SaaS model. (Software as a Service) Basically, since they can't earn the extra float cash through AT&T, they will continue to charge little fees every now and then so that your device will stay compatible with the current trends. I guess next we'll have to lease the next OSX...

 

[aethelbert]

Actually, I think what you mean to say is 'how Apple accounts for each device,' which is a different thing entirely. So the question again is, why should Touch owners be penalized for how Apple has decided to handle their accounting for this one particular product?

How is being offered an optional upgrade a penalty?

 

[mavis]

How is being offered an optional upgrade a penalty?

Way to completely miss the point.

Being offered an upgrade (that will open the door to more revenue for Apple, BTW) is nice. Being forced to pay, while others get it for free due solely to the way Apple accounts for purchases of their products is not.

 

[aethelbert]

Way to completely miss the point.

How is asking a question missing the point? I didn't argue anything, I just asked something...

Being offered an upgrade (that will open the door to more revenue for Apple, BTW) is nice.

Yes

Being forced to pay

Who's forcing you to pay? Nobody is

while others get it for free

Yes, they get it without charge from iTunes. But they're forking over a crapload of money (some of which goes to Apple) for overpriced cell contracts. Why can't you understand this?

due solely to the way Apple accounts for purchases of their products is not

.
Or due to the fact that Apple gets money from the monthly subscriptions for the iPhone while they don't for the iPod.

Seriously, this update could have every feature under the moon and you would still be complaining if it had a $.05 price tag...

 

[hansvon]

*feebly raises hand*

Um, just curious, for how long will I be able to receive upgrades to before my 1st gen 16gb pre-January-upgrade-bought w/ January-upgrade becomes obsolete?

Like, what I mean, is how long could, say, 3rd gen or 4th gen iPod classic owners receive the firmware updates until their hardware became incompatible with whatever new functions or updates?

 

[mekopolis]

I'm just happy to hear I'll be able to get AIM on my iPod touch without jailbrekaing.

Hey does anyone know if I can use the SDK without the January Update? The iTunes store won't download the January update for me

not to burst your bubble on what AIM will be, but as it stands right now the OS will only process one application at a time, which means no multitasking or background processing...so AIM would operate much like Jive Talk right now, only working when you have focus on the app, and when you switch to another app it logs you off...hopefully AIM will be better, but i dont see how they will bypass the SDK/OS design of only processing one app at a time....only time will tell

 

[aethelbert]

*feebly raises hand*

Um, just curious, for how long will I be able to receive upgrades to before my 1st gen 16gb pre-January-upgrade-bought w/ January-upgrade becomes obsolete?

Like, what I mean, is how long could, say, 3rd gen or 4th gen iPod classic owners receive the firmware updates until their hardware became incompatible with whatever new functions or updates?

Well, they will release updates until your device is perfectly (or close to it) stable. As for upgrades, nobody knows because this is really the first product in this category that Apple has really had as successful (think back to the Newton...). It just depends on how long they use the current OS. You've got at least until summer 2009, because that's when the first iPhone contracts will be expiring and Apple promised the iPhone to be compatible with the first two years of updates/upgrades. Since they both run the same core OS, I would assume that both devices would be capable of running them at least through that date, possibly longer.

not to burst your bubble on what AIM will be, but as it stands right now the OS will only process one application at a time, which means no multitasking or background processing...so AIM would operate much like Jive Talk right now, only working when you have focus on the app, and when you switch to another app it logs you off...hopefully AIM will be better, but i dont see how they will bypass the SDK/OS design of only processing one app at a time....only time will tell

Yeah, I think that this will be fixed. All that is really needed is the ability to recieve information from the internet, because the user's status could just be uploaded if the app is idle. Then when a chat comes, the device could alert you. It shouldn't be too hard of a fix. The SMS app on the iPhone does pretty much this.