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

802.11n Upgrade Fee Confirmed at $1.99

Ok, so why did I not have to pay when my ipod video went from playing 320x240 to 640x480 with a simple update?
Just after I ripped most of my music videos to 320x240 too!:confused:
 
pale9 said:
why charge anything for a simple firmware update!? i have tons of gadgets that get firmware updates that dont cost a cent. apple is starting to nickel and dime us and i dont like it one bit. has success gone to their heads? hope not.

seems like many here agree with ANYTHING apple does and find reasons, even stupid ones, to justify the company's actions.
Click to expand...

I think you should vote with your wallet and not get it. Send them a message.
 
I'm sure the fee is for accounting purposes, after all, at $1.99 each, their monetary gain is going to be close to zero.

...And all the whiners can just sit down and be quiet. You should be lucky you're getting such an upgrade in the first place, after all, at the time of purchase, you had no idea you were getting this feature.

Some of us would love to pay $1.99 and have our CD MacBooks upgraded to 802.11n. :rolleyes: :(
 
EricNau said:
I'm sure the fee is for accounting purposes, after all, at $1.99 each, their monetary gain is going to be close to zero.

...And all the whiners can just sit down and be quiet. You should be lucky you're getting such an upgrade in the first place, after all, at the time of purchase, you had no idea you were getting this feature.

Some of us would love to pay $1.99 and have our CD MacBooks upgraded to 802.11n. :rolleyes: :(
Click to expand...
I can't believe that Apple is attempting to hold me hostage like this!

I'm going to boycott this and encourage everyone else to join me!

802.11G 4 Life!

PS-And if you think this sounds stupid now you know how everyone who compained about paying $1.99 for something which is going to make things run faster and more smoothly!
 
EricNau said:
I'm sure the fee is for accounting purposes, after all, at $1.99 each, their monetary gain is going to be close to zero.

...And all the whiners can just sit down and be quiet. You should be lucky you're getting such an upgrade in the first place, after all, at the time of purchase, you had no idea you were getting this feature.

Some of us would love to pay $1.99 and have our CD MacBooks upgraded to 802.11n. :rolleyes: :(
Click to expand...

Well said.
Besides Apples has for a long time provided more capabilities than what is adverticed. They meet and exceed what they promise.
 
revman said:
Just GAAP accounting. If Apple includes hardware features that can easily be identified (e.g. n chips) and then provide a free driver upgrade at a later date, the implication is an "unspecified" software upgrade. Since this would have no standalone value then ALL revenue form the sale would have to be deferred until this was delivered to the customer. (In reality it is more tricky than this).

By charging $1.99 they estabish the value for it, which is really smart. My Oppenheimer has some clever guys on the team!

Web 1.0 to Web 1.1 is not comparable since the features of 1.1 were never released and so no implication was made.

This has been around for about 7 years, and SOX makes it much more visible
Click to expand...

So you're saying that this GAAP rule applies to features which are identifiably present and disabled? Any elaboration you can provide would be helpful, as we're having a hard time grasping the exact circumstances under which Apple would feel obligated to charge for software upgrades.
 
studiomusic said:
Ok, so why did I not have to pay when my ipod video went from playing 320x240 to 640x480 with a simple update?
Just after I ripped most of my music videos to 320x240 too!:confused:
Click to expand...

That feature was "enabled" by iTunes, a product Apple gives away.

They can give away products, just not features. Same with Boot Camp, it's a "feature" of Leopard so they can add it after the Intel Macs were released. Airport Extreme base station users will get the feature with their new base station... so they don't have to pay either. They only thing they couldn't cover is the 3rd-party access points, hence the small fee.
 
Justification

Does it justify the purchase of a new Mac? Neither of my Intel macs have the n WiFi card. Can they be upgraded? I doubt it. I'm tempted to sell my iMac on Ebay for $1200 and pick up the Core 2 duo reconditioned at Apple for $1300. The speed increase seems like it might be worth it. Of course I'll need to cough up another $180 for a new Airport too. Why quibble over a couple bucks?

Ah, progress.
 
whatever said:
I can't believe that Apple is attempting to hold me hostage like this!

I'm going to boycott this and encourage everyone else to join me!

802.11G 4 Life!

PS-And if you think this sounds stupid now you know how everyone who compained about paying $1.99 for something which is going to make things run faster and more smoothly!
Click to expand...

I think it is a democracy, if you object don't pay it is not mandatory.

If you think is worth it no matter why the charge (more money, regulatory requirement, want to be mean, etc....) is being made, then get it and get the speed increase.

Complaining here one way or the other solves nothing, vote with your wallet.
 
Correct me if i am wrong but could this be that it is a hardware upgrade not a software update?

So form here were do we go. Every time firmware is updated we have to pay?:eek:
 
I'm not sure I understand the GAAP implications of this under revenue recongition rules. If this were a service that was advertised and promised as a future deliverable, then I could understand not being able to recognize revenue until the terms for the sale were met. But if this is an unadvertised bonus they decide to throw in after the fact, I dont see how they wouldnt be in compliance with GAAP.
 
Yes, it's true

guez said:
So wait: you're telling me that for accounting purposes, Apple has to charge something for the upgrade, but that it doesn't matter what they charge? This seems like an invitation to wacky accounting. Imagine if a corporation said: "Yes, our CEO received a house in Malibu, but we SOLD it to him for 1 cent."

I have a hard time believing that this is way things work...
Click to expand...

Actually, that is quite legal. There's nothing to prevent a company from selling it's CEO a house in Malibu for 1 cent. (Other than the board of directors disapproving of that "compensation plan"). Even the government doesn't care because the CEO has to declare the fair market value of the home as taxable compensation. There's no funny money going around here.
 
theheadguy said:
Translation: "We must make more money off of loyal customers."
Click to expand...

Would you rather have purchased a computer recently that *didn't* have 802.11n? They'd surely have been in their rights to do sell you one! Or, how about they just simply refuse to release drivers for 11n for your Mac. You didn't buy it based on the promise of future upgradability.

A buck ninety-nine people. Sheesh. :confused:
 
SpaceMagic said:
I agree with Apple. $1.99 is a nominal fee and thus only counts as in accounting purposes. As they'll be selling Airport Extreme 'n' cards now as a separate product, there must be some make up for the loss that 'g' cards have suddenly transformed into 'n' cards. It's complicated but kinda makes sense to me.

Who cares anyway! I'd rather pay £1 than go buy a new airport express card. Thanks Apple I say.
Click to expand...

glad to hear you agree with Apple, I am sure SJ will make a note of it. But I agree with you, who on earth cares !!!!
 
I don't think $1.99 is a big deal at all, but I do think the principle is a bit weird, if they can charge less than that for actual products (i.e. iTunes tracks) and happily support their products online with software updates etc - why not make it a wholly symbolic 1 cent (maybe + credit card processing fee)?

Or even include a 5% discount e-voucher off your next iTunes or Apple Store purchase as part of the $1.99 fee (on condition of having bought one of the affected machines already, naturally).
 
Apple pocketed $1 Billion last quarter alone. If they have to conform to this law, then why don't they charge 1 cent like others have suggested? I agree with others who have said $1.99 won't add much to their bottom line. So why bother? Charge a symbolic 1 cent to conform with the law, and don't piss off your loyal userbase, Apple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back