sorry, I was not disputing his accuracy (I am not interested), rather his reaction, unfriendly and unwarranted.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
sorry, I was not disputing his accuracy (I am not interested), rather his reaction, unfriendly and unwarranted.
Yah right.What a load of crap. 1.99 x how many C2MBP's+iMacs+MB with pre-N?
That number will get a lot smaller when you subtract all of the people who will not buy it because they don't have a router to work with it.
is Apple shipping this upgrade on all of the new computers?
Yes, you cannot imply a future upgrade without putting a monetary value on it at the time of the sale of the original item. If you do not put an amount on it, is called an "unspecified upgrade." If the amount is known then the company takes the amount out of the original revenue and places it into "deferred revenue." This can be taken under many circumstances, but especially when the driver is available. (You can have specified upgrade rights as well).
So one way around this is to not imply the upgrade but sell it later. Disabled hardware is hard to hide! The next paragraph is probably key though.
The problem is in the implication. If the featue is considered significant this is an issue. In this case, I suspect that Apple views 'n' as key to future product compatibility and as such consider it a significant upgrade.
I'll admit this is faily conservative accounting, but I have seen worse!
Hope this helps....I can point you to the accounting guidance if you need to get some sleep
What makes you think that a symbolic payment would be conforming with the law? On the contrary; should the situation ever be examined by the SEC, then they would assume that a 1 cent payment is just taking the piss instead of conforming with the law, and everything else would be examined very very closely. Not a clever strategy.
I doubt their auditors suggested this, but I bet Oppenheimers revenue managers are all over this these days.
They are complying with the impact of EITF 00-21 and the issues relating back to SOP 97-2. Their revenue recognition policy would suggest that they wanted to stay clear of any resemblance of an unspecified upgrade. I do agree that they are sensitized right now due to the SEC being all over them. Conservative accounting, yes, but pretty typical these days.
OMG, I must choose between gaining 802.11g functionality or buying two double-cheeseburgers at McDonald's.
Absolutely bollocks. Just like how Apple charges $20-50 every time they upgrade Logic 0.1. Imagine if Apple started charging its users $2 every OSX 0.0.1 update (10.4.1 to 10.4.2, etc.).
Just like somebody stated regarding the Video iPod resolution upgrade -- the Video iPod was advertised at a lower res, now it's higher res. That update was free. This should be too.
I mean, it's only $1.99, but come on Apple... are you seriously going to waste my time checking out of your store just so I can dl a $1.99 update?
Btw, I feel the same way about QTPro, but that's $20, not a measly $2.
Just like somebody stated regarding the Video iPod resolution upgrade -- the Video iPod was advertised at a lower res, now it's higher res. That update was free. This should be too.
I mean, it's only $1.99, but come on Apple... are you seriously going to waste my time checking out of your store just so I can dl a $1.99 update?
Btw, I feel the same way about QTPro, but that's $20, not a measly $2.
It doesn't appear so on the Apple website...but I'd imagine they will once this upgrade is released or when the new Airport starts shipping in February.
I still believe that this is a stretch on the application of both EITF 00-21 and SOP 97-2. Of course, I do not know what the original treatment of revenue recognition was. Out of curiosity, revman, do you know their argument on how this case should be handled under this opinion and emerging issue? (Keep in mind that the wireless N is not a separate entity from the wireless card and wireless N capability is noted with Windows usage)(Also, customers did not purchase Wireless N machines)
As for other practices, I remember when several DVD burners were updated with dual layer capability with firmware and no additional fees were required by any of the manufacturers.
Maybe it is the old auditor in me who believes that they are always trying to play with the numbers. Then again, that is their hidden job, to keep the auditors confused.
I don't mind the $1.99, it is worth it. I mind the excuse for it.
P.S. No I am not on their audit team. I got out of that a few years ago thankfully.
They're not even remotely comparable. A new resolution is not a new feature, and any number of software updates are, as certainly they should be, free. This one is not, for any number of reasons explained multiple times by multiple people. Your computer wasn't sold to you on the understanding that it had draft-n hardware.
It's exactly the same as though you'd bought a computer with a CD-ROM drive and they came along and handed you a CD burner for free, where the CD burner didn't appear anywhere in their inventory or accounting documents. They simply can't do that. You can't give something away that you don't officially possess. If you could, I could give your car to my neighbor.
Another thought...
I'm surprised that the n enabler isn't going to be included as a feature in MacOS X 10.5 Leopard?
Wouldn't that take care of adding features/accounting?
I know n was needed for AppleTV, but since AppleTV isn't shipping till Feb, why not wait on the enabler? Bundle it with AppleTV, the new Airport Extreme, and MacOS X 10.5?
Odd...
I'm surprised that the n enabler isn't going to be included as a feature in MacOS X 10.5 Leopard?
Wouldn't that take care of adding features/accounting?
I know n was needed for AppleTV, but since AppleTV isn't shipping till Feb, why not wait on the enabler? Bundle it with AppleTV, the new Airport Extreme, and MacOS X 10.5?
Odd...
Yes I was sold a pre-N device. (OK technically I wasn't because Apple traded my original MBP with a C2MBP but ignore that, for now assume this is any other C2MBP sale.) Just because Apple didn't tell anyone that it is pre-N doesn't make the hardware not pre-N. System support != defining what hardware is in your system. Hardware is hardware. And Pre-N draft hardware is pre-N draft hardware. So if I was to build a laptop, cripple a few drivers, ship the thing, then charge people for the update, that's OK? Only Apple could ever get away with this. Anyone else would have their butts handed to them by the PC community. Frankly I expect a lawsuit out of this, even at $1.99. Apple is setting a dangerous precedent here. What next? New features for the touchpad....$5......new features via the video driver......$10....EFI update for better battery performance or ACPI power......$15
Yah only Apple could ever get away with something like this.
With respect, I don't believe that this is an accurate comparison. It is more like Apple sold me a CD-ROM that could turn into a CD-Burner and is actually a CD-Burner on Windows OS. However, I have to pay to burn on Mac OS. Accounting has nothing to do with it, unless they are capitalizing development costs for the firmware.
It is their prerogative to charge us. The cost is not excessive in my opinion. Just call it like it is.
Really? Where on the specifications on your invoice or in the product information does it mention that?
It's not about what's inside the computer, and it never was. It's about what's on paper. GAO is done with paper records, not with an inspection of each shipped product. It didn't have the hardware officially, on paper, and now it does.
As long as you didn't cripple any advertised functionality, absolutely. That's the way CPU and GPU manufacturers have been shipping their products for years.
A lawsuit for what? For giving you more than you were promised? There is no precedent here for normal, free updates to officially supported hardware, as in none, whatsoever. Any attempt to claim otherwise is misguided and wrong.
Sure it does. If they never recorded buying the CD burners, then they can't legally sell those CD burners, because according to their records, they don't own any. It doesn't have anything to do with what third-party software can or can't do with it. It doesn't have anything to do with what the hardware actually can or can't do. It has to do with reconciling public statements with records submitted under penalty of perjury.
Sure it does. If they never recorded buying the CD burners, then they can't legally sell those CD burners, because according to their records, they don't own any. It doesn't have anything to do with what third-party software can or can't do with it. It doesn't have anything to do with what the hardware actually can or can't do. It has to do with reconciling public statements with records submitted under penalty of perjury.[/QUOTE]
Well, when they recorded the CD ROM into inventory, they did record the CD-Burner. It doesn't have to say CD-Burner. It just has to be at the cost that it was originally recorded at. This is basic accounting.
1) Inventory XXX
Purchases XXX
- To record inventory
Because, in your example, tell me where they get the CD-Burners that they are trying to reconcile public statements to, since physically it is in your computer and sold to you. So as I stated before, this is impossible unless they were capitalizing the development of the firmware.
Well, when they recorded the CD ROM into inventory, they did record the CD-Burner. It doesn't have to say CD-Burner. It just has to be at the cost that it was originally recorded at. This is basic accounting.
1) Inventory XXX
Purchases XXX
- To record inventory
Because, in your example, tell me where they get the CD-Burners that they are trying to reconcile public statements to, since physically it is in your computer and sold to you. So as I stated before, this is impossible unless they were capitalizing the development of the firmware.
Perhaps you should read it again when sober, then offer others a 'translation'.
Not true.
The functionality exists in your machine when you made your purchase, it is just disabled in software. To say that it is completely non-existant, well then Apple may please refund me the difference in cost price of a wireless-G and N card please. Nobody told Apple to put a more expensive card without our permission.
It is a beginning of a slippery slope don't you think?
A better analogy would be Apple start selling "Quad" 2.66ghz Mac Pros at $4500 each. People will all whinge and moan, and comment about how you can buy a Octo xeon from Dell for the same price.
A few months later Apple announces an "upgrade" where you can buy a unlock patch from Apple at a "measly cost of $500" and "double the performance of your $4500 machine".
Wow, you are getting $4500 worth of processing power for a mere $500! Great deal!
To me, this is simply akin to Apple charging for a firmware update.
I hope this isn't the shape of things to come.
I hope this isn't the shape of things to come.
Again not true.
The $2 is for a mere collection of bits, software that should have been present in the card to start with. The $50 upgrade fee you mentioned is just a hypothetical hardware upgrade fee, you are shelling out money for a new piece of equipment.
Trouble is, we already paid for the piece of equipment when we purchase our machines. Unless Apple decided to make a loss on us for the sake of including that more expensive card (yeah like I believe that).