iPod touch $9.95 for the upgrade then.

[mavis]

Yes, alright, we get it, you don't have to repeat yourself in every single one of your posts in this thread.

Obviously you (and many others) don't get it, otherwise you wouldn't keep spreading FUD. Here are some highlights:

dont worry, iphone owners certainly pay for it through their subscriptions. it's only the Touch owners that pay a one off up front payment.

iPhone users pay the monthly bill. iPod touch users don't.

Of course, only a percentage of the monthly cell phone service bill is going to Apple (indirectly, but to pay off the loan the telco took out on the subsidy) ...

Thats the thing though, you aren't getting it for free on your iPhone. A very small part of your monthly bill goes towards the software.

Oops, looks like that one was you!

Because the iPhone users with their $100/month service plans don't have to. Duh.

than that means you would pay 60 bucks a month to use the ipod touch or what ever it is for a 2 year iphone contract.

So, yeah. I keep repeating myself because SIX times in this thread people like you have had their facts totally wrong and yet insist on arguing the point. I understand that everyone has their own opinions and that these forums are a good place to share them, but when people are basing their opinions on erroneous, outdated information I would think that getting the facts straight would be a good thing. Don't shoot the messenger.

Somewhat hypocritical how less than a day ago you were one of the people flaming The Spaz for posting about the same thing multiple times, eh?

Again with the erroneous information. This seems to be a recurring theme for you! While I'm flattered that you feel compelled to keep track of my activity on the boards, I'm afraid you should go back and re-read what I posted about TheSpaz because you're flat-out wrong. Cheers.

 

[Ivan P]

Mavis, mavis, mavis...I thought the use of '' and '' would have made it clear enough that it wasn't serious

 

[mavis]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3G (white): Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5H11 Safari/525.20)

Mavis, mavis, mavis...I thought the use of '' and '' would have made it clear enough that it wasn't serious

No worries. Next time I'm wrong about something, I'll be sure to use smilies too, so I can pass it off as a joke.

 

[Ivan P]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3G (white): Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5H11 Safari/525.20)



No worries. Next time I'm wrong about something, I'll be sure to use smilies too, so I can pass it off as a joke.

I wasn't right, I can admit that, but I don't think it's necessarily fair to use "wrong" in the sort of context where you're implying I'm some sort of idiot - I was merely restating a fact that, at the last time I checked, was indeed true. Yes, it may have changed over a year ago, but I have to stress that I don't live in the United States OR own an iPhone; therefore I have next to no reason to know about Apple's contract with AT&T, and anything that I have stated is taken from what other members have written.

So, agree? Or at least agree to disagree?

 

[mavis]

So, agree? Or at least agree to disagree?

Sounds good to me.

 

[DHarrisDBS34]

How much does Apple make off of each iPhone sold? AT&T subsidizes the original price does it not? So Apple makes more money on per iPhone than they do iPod Touch even after they don't get any of the revenue from monthly fees. $10 is not too steep a price to pay for the funcionality I will be getting from this update with my 2G Touch.

The landscape keyboards and cut/paste are great, but the bluetooth and new SDK allowing a ton of great new apps is what really drives it home for me. I hope I'll be able to maybe use voip on my Touch with a bluetooth headest. That'd be sick.

 

[goosnarrggh]

How much does Apple make off of each iPhone sold? AT&T subsidizes the original price does it not? So Apple makes more money on per iPhone than they do iPod Touch even after they don't get any of the revenue from monthly fees.

You are absolutely correct. You are also making a subtly different argument.

Others have been claiming that Apple was legally obliged to charge for the iPod touch update, and the only reason why they were permitted to give it away for the iPhone 3G was due to the supposed ongoing revenue sharing from iPhone 3G monthly fees.

It may actually be the case that Apple really is legally obliged to charge for the iPod touch update. And in the case of the original iPhone, it may very well have been the revenue sharing agreement that existed with that phone, that accounted for the legal distinction.

But starting with the introduction of the iPhone 3G, which has no such revenue sharing, the legal distinction between the iPod touch and the iPhone 3G must lie elsewhere.

$10 is not too steep a price to pay for the funcionality I will be getting from this update with my 2G Touch.

An appropriate attitude to take. Since we don't live in a world of the hypothetical (Apple should have done this or that...) all that remains is for us, as customers, to evaluate the potential benefits in the upgrade, and decide as individuals whether or not we would get enough value from those new features to justify paying the price that Apple charges for it.

 

[jbernie]

Others have been claiming that Apple was legally obliged to charge for the iPod touch update, and the only reason why they were permitted to give it away for the iPhone 3G was due to the supposed ongoing revenue sharing from iPhone 3G monthly fees.

Going back sometime, whenever the first iPod Touch update came out that cost $10, Apple made a statement in regards to how the accounting was done and that (rough wording here) the iPhone was able to get free updates as the revenue was accounted for over the life of the contract but the iPod Touch was a one time transaction and accounted for in the (quarter/year?) it was purchased.

I don't necessarily agree with their position, and would rather pay upfront (even as a seperate cost like AppleCare) for unlimited updates than pay $10 every year (for non major releases). Complaint wise I see where Apple is leaving itself open to criticism:
1) you are not able to do just a general bug fix update instead of taking a major update, you must take a paid update (major releases) to continue receiving minor updates.
2) activation of/firmware updates for existing hardware should not be a paid update (ie Bluetooth) as it would generally be viewed as a driver update as the hardware already exists

Of course, to counter this, a software update like we will see with v3.0 should be a paid update given the OS updates that change how things work and I don't really see v3.0 being any different from a major OSX "named" update (like snow leopard).

Personally I think Apple could get a better reputation from not overdoing the charges on the in between updates and focusing more on the major updates so the consumer can see value. $10 for going v1 to v2 and v2 to v3 seems resaonable, maybe $5 for anything in the middle.

 

[Master Debater]

Remember how 1.1.3 was $20? Holy Jesus.