Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
If they had to charge for whatever reason, why charge $20? I think $5 or $10 would be a lot more palatable for users.

It's not a big deal, but this will now be the second time it has happened, will it be yet another $20? What if there's a 3rd upgrade down the road?

It's just a bit too much IMO, if we're going to have to re-visit this every 6 to 8 months.
 
If they had to charge for whatever reason, why charge $20? I think $5 or $10 would be a lot more palatable for users.

It's not a big deal, but this will now be the second time it has happened, will it be yet another $20? What if there's a 3rd upgrade down the road?

It's just a bit too much IMO, if we're going to have to re-visit this every 6 to 8 months.
It's too much for the forums every 6 months, yes. But if iPhone users have to pay the premium in their bills for the exact same software, iPod touch users can pay the same money for the same thing, just through different means. It's an iPod, so I don't see why people are mad that Apple's accounting sees it as an iPod...
 
If they had to charge for whatever reason, why charge $20? I think $5 or $10 would be a lot more palatable for users.

It's not a big deal, but this will now be the second time it has happened, will it be yet another $20? What if there's a 3rd upgrade down the road?

It's just a bit too much IMO, if we're going to have to re-visit this every 6 to 8 months.

As I surmised a few post ago...

My guess is that Apple considered the market for third-party apps. It Apple is going to give their apps away for a negligible amount, it might set a precedent that would limit the amount of investment that developers can put into their applications.

$20 for 5 apps ($4 each) seems reasonable for equivalent third-party apps.
 
It's too much for the forums every 6 months, yes. But if iPhone users have to pay the premium in their bills for the exact same software, iPod touch users can pay the same money for the same thing, just through different means. It's an iPod, so I don't see why people are mad that Apple's accounting sees it as an iPod...

iPod.

Hm. So an iPod is anything that plays music, right? But the Classic has games... so is it only an iPod? And the Touch runs mobile OS X so is it an iPod? What about the PSP? It runs games, movies and music... feature wise is it an iPod?

iPod is a brand name. It is not a description of a device's features.
 
It's too much for the forums every 6 months, yes. But if iPhone users have to pay the premium in their bills for the exact same software, iPod touch users can pay the same money for the same thing, just through different means. It's an iPod, so I don't see why people are mad that Apple's accounting sees it as an iPod...

Yeah, but with the iPhone you're paying for cell phone service. If you didn't have an iPhone you'd pay for a different phone anyway.

It's not that big of a deal to me-objectively $20 is okay for the apps you're getting. OTOH these are apps that were on the original iPhone, why strip them out in the first place? And other similar products have offered free upgrades, this is sort of a precedent.

I'm just glad that sooner or later when I do get an iPod Touch, I'll probably do so after the v2 firmware comes out.

As I surmised a few post ago...

My guess is that Apple considered the market for third-party apps. It Apple is going to give their apps away for a negligible amount, it might set a precedent that would limit the amount of investment that developers can put into their applications.

$20 for 5 apps ($4 each) seems reasonable for equivalent third-party apps.

Yes, it is reasonable. But these were the bundled apps on the iPhone, and it's not like anyone was developing a competing app anyway (since the SDK is a ways off yet.) And new iPod Touch's get the new stuff for free.
 
iPod.

Hm. So an iPod is anything that plays music, right? But the Classic has games... so is it only an iPod? And the Touch runs mobile OS X so is it an iPod? What about the PSP? It runs games, movies and music... feature wise is it an iPod?

iPod is a brand name. It is not a description of a device's features.
Wow... All I said is that they account for the iPod touch like every other iPod that's ever been on the market. It doesn't matter what it can do, because that progresses with technology. And what's with adding the PSP into this? It's irrelevant as:
1. We're not talking about Sony.
2. It's a different platform
3. It's not even a similar type of device...

The iPod touch an iPod, so they can account for it like every other iPod. Just because it runs Mobile OS X doesn't mean suddenly that they should just be sending you free updates every moment you desire.

Yeah, but with the iPhone you're paying for cell phone service. If you didn't have an iPhone you'd pay for a different phone anyway.
Apple gets money from the iPhone service contracts, not everything goes to AT&T... If I had another phone, I wouldn't be paying as much for the same service.

It's not that big of a deal to me-objectively $20 is okay for the apps you're getting. OTOH these are apps that were on the original iPhone, why strip them out in the first place? And other similar products have offered free upgrades, this is sort of a precedent.
The thing is, though, this is a platform (some Apple exec said this a while ago, don't remember who), not a device. When the platform gets updated, it makes sense to put it on newer devices. They could just say, "No, we won't support the old models." But they gave you the option to upgrade (note: not update) to more features. Who knows why they left it out of the original release, but nobody told them that it must go in.

Then, after that, people on forums (including this one) were specifically suggesting to Apple that they release these apps. We suggested to pay for these apps and many wrote to Apple to tell them just that... Guess what... that's what they gave us. And now people have decided that they no longer want to pay and many think that they deserve the new features for free. Some think that Apple isn't listening to its customer base here when in reality, that's just what they did.

One day, the next firmware update won't work on the very first model. And then people will decide that Apple is, once again, screwing over their early adopters. Technology changes and the new stuff costs money for veteran users while new buyers get the tech for free, and many here can't seem to accept that.
 
I don't really think that's fair.

Not to mention that it isn't even fully true. ;)

They don't let you take the ultra-cheap data or voice plans, so it is more expensive at a minimum... but the voice plan pricing is the same, and the data plan is unlimited, compared to the fairly limited data plans that are cheaper. Overall though, 20$/month for unlimited data isn't too shabby. No tethering though. :(

Apple does receive some sort of residuals from AT&T per month, though.
 
I really can't too worked up over another $20 charge later this year. Jailbreaking is something I won't consider as I don't think that's a smart move, but to each his own.
 
Explain why its not a smart move...

You weren't asking me, but what the heck.

1. Stability
2. If you are jailbreaking instead of paying for the January update and 2.0 update, you don't have legal access to the new Apple-created apps and features.
3. Potential power management issues

But that's just the issues that I considered. If you weigh them differently, then there is nothing wrong with jailbreaking itself (as long as you aren't pirating Apple's software).
 
They don't let you take the ultra-cheap data or voice plans, so it is more expensive at a minimum... but the voice plan pricing is the same, and the data plan is unlimited, compared to the fairly limited data plans that are cheaper. Overall though, 20$/month for unlimited data isn't too shabby. No tethering though. :(
I've seen plans with other carriers where you get more minutes, unlimited data, and same texting with unlimited nights and weekends for about $50-$55. So the better plan costs a bit less, as would an equivalent plan.
 
All of the accounting BS aside, the 2.0 firmware update will NOT be an "upgrade". The iPod touch and iPhone already have the ability to run 3rd party applications via "jailbreak". The 2.0 firmware is just "unlocking" this capability for "legitimate" use.

So, someone please explain to me how unlocking an already present feature is an "upgrade".

The only "new feature" the firmware will be adding is all the enterprise junk. Everything else, the units are already capable of as proven by "illegitimate" applications made by "hackers" already.

This isn't like going from Tiger to Leopard, or XP to Vista, or even XP SP1 to SP2. This is just introducing capabilities that are already present and throwing in a couple of extra features and trying to charge for it.

So by the same logic, you shouldn't have to pay going from tiger ---> leopard, because you have a computer that is already capable of running it. You're saying you don't have these features by default, but are fully capable of having them, so you shouldn't have to pay.

If a device is not able to use a feature because it is not coded into it, it is not a feature at all. I think you're mistaking capabilities for features. My macbook has the capability of having a version of Linux installed on it and being used as a server, but that doesn't mean I should receive a free version of OS X Server. Apple can't just decide to not charge for something because it has already been done illegitimately/not by them.

I'm not leaning either way in the argument for the price of the iPod Touch upgrade, but your argument, frankly, doesn't hold a drop of water.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.