I disagree. The new feature IS pre-installed. It is just disabled. Otherwise, you would need new hardware. Everyone who bought a C2D machine paid for an 11.n card. It's built into the cost of the hardware.
As for the software driver to "uncripple" it, as I keep pointing out, it's no different than the drivers we get in Software Update, the security patches, the upgraded functionality for the OS and software (e.g. iTunes, QuickTime).
in summary, I'm happy on the one hand that the cost is only $5 rather than having to buy a new card. On the other hand, it's ******** that we're being asked to pay period.
No, actually it's one of the laws that big business hates the most.That entire SOX thing just another one of those silly benefits to big businesses, they can always advertise something and not deliver it.
First, it's not a voluntary requirement; no one ratifies it. It's the law. Second, none of the examples you mentioned are affected by anything in this law; they're completely different circumstances. If you buy a "pre-n" wireless card, then you get the normal driver updates for free. The issue here is that "pre-n" was neither reported nor advertised. You didn't buy a pre-n card, as far as you were told "officially." If that were strictly true, you'd need to buy an upgraded card to get .11n to work, which is what Apple's accounting disclosures are designed to simulate. There's often a disconnect between the world as reported by accounting and the world as viewed by outside observers. Sarbanes-Oxley is one major facet in a system which is supposed to harmonize and rectify the 'creative accounting' but an unintended (presumably) consequence of compliance with Sarbox is that sometimes it forces some strange practices.And at any rate, SOX surely hasn't been ratified by the windows and linux community, it seems.
Someone could. But no one has.Why can not some bright individual create a "hack" that would enable the "draft n" capabilities of the wireless card? Why do we have to wait/purchase Apple's version?
They're a US company--Apple UK as far as I know isn't a separate company owned by the same parent. UK sales are reported in the US and all accounting documents include global sales and operations, so they'd still have to charge you for it. The only way around it would be if they had set up some arrangement such that Apple operates autonomously in each country, or a tax and accounting arrangement that didn't run through domestic channels (e.g. a horizontal revenue stream).Will this charge effect everyone no matter which country they come from, i am assuming that this Law is not a UK law and so Apple wouldn't be bound by it in this country. So they could give it to us Brits for free.
First, it's not a voluntary requirement; no one ratifies it. It's the law. Second, none of the examples you mentioned are affected by anything in this law; they're completely different circumstances. If you buy a "pre-n" wireless card, then you get the normal driver updates for free. The issue here is that "pre-n" was neither reported nor advertised. You didn't buy a pre-n card, as far as you were told "officially." If that were strictly true, you'd need to buy an upgraded card to get .11n to work, which is what Apple's accounting disclosures are designed to simulate. There's often a disconnect between the world as reported by accounting and the world as viewed by outside observers. Sarbanes-Oxley is one major facet in a system which is supposed to harmonize and rectify the 'creative accounting' but an unintended (presumably) consequence of compliance with Sarbox is that sometimes it forces some strange practices.
First, it's not a voluntary requirement; no one ratifies it. It's the law.
Local computer stores are not multinational corporations doing millions of dollars of transactions on a weekly or even daily basis. Corporations DO know exactly what they're buying. A wifi card is not a mundane feature. If they know the exact number, kind, and threading of every screw they order, they know the model number and protocol support of their wireless chipsets.This is just not true... Local computer stores frequently buy from big time suppliers like asi, mobel distribution, etc. They just don't have the time to tabulate all the functionalities of every given component. As a consequence, most of the time, as the reseller, they have to blindly buy items unless they do some research about it first.
Yes, but you're still missing the fundamental difference: you can't give something away that you don't report having in the first place. On paper, Apple never bought .11n wireless hardware. It can't provide that hardware to customers if it didn't have it in inventory to begin with. This whole scenario is based on the fact that the accounting paperwork is disjunct from the reality of the product.The point is, these items are updated without warning, and a new wifi card with n-functionality can replace an old SKU without any prior knowledge, and the reseller is not restricted by law to charge any extra at all, since he paid the same.
Utterly irrelevant. If you want to write your own driver to enable .11n, by all means, go for it.Using it with any software you want without reverse engineering is not against any EULA.
It's already been explained a number of times. BIOS updates do not add new hardware. BIOS ROM images can't give your Pentium II computer the ability to support Core Duo CPUs; software updates can't give your computer new hardware. If a manufacturer designs a new product to be compatible with older products, good for them. Motherboard manufacturers don't design products to be compatible with future products--they can't design for something that doesn't exist. It's not that motherboards are designed forwared, it's that CPUs are designed backwards.Maybe you can explain to me why my example of BIOS updates to motherboards won't fall into this category under SOX.
All of your examples are straightforward hardware features. This isn't about what actually exists, it's about what capabilities and purchases are reported on paper and which aren't. It's not an engineering issue or a marketing issue. It's an accounting one. They didn't mention a specific hardware purchase in their accounting disclosures, and they didn't reserve any revenue from the product to add the column later. The reason they couldn't report the n-capability from the beginning is because it would be an official disclosure that the feature existed, when, for the past several months, there was no way to use it--it was an incomplete feature.How does that not apply to the wifi cards ?
Advertising != accounting. The specifications can't magically change without announcement in accounting, only in marketing.Apple CAN stand up for the consumers by stating that the advertised features have changed without notice
Again, you can't claim a typo of this sort and frequency months after the fact. Depending on the filing requirements, there can be a limit of just a few days to revise a statement or no option at all, and more to the point, it's not a typo. It was a deliberate, protectionist move required to avoid future liability.Or, they can claim a typo, to the advertised feature
When it became possible to upgrade the feature set in those machines, Apple realized that it can't enable a hardware feature that it never reported paying for or selling. Without recognizing expenditures for the hardware component, it can't just magically introduce it for free (things appearing for "free" in accounting documents is part of the major impetus for Sarbanes-Oxley). If that's not clear, just be thankful you're neither a lawyer nor a corporate accountant.
I just finished reading all the comments on this thread and I'm wondering if the Mac Pros that have Airport Extreme cards have a "hidden" 802.11n in them that can be activated in the future?
If that was already mentioned in the thread, I must've missed it.
No problem. I certainly agree that it's ridiculous, but it makes sense if rabid Internet people can settle down long enough to look at it from the right perspective.Thank you. This is finally clear to me now. I still think it's stupid... but at least it makes sense.
I still have a question though. It's related to all this accounting and law stuff (I'm quite thankful that I'm neither a lawyer nor an accountant). Would it have been legal for apple to buy the N cards, report that they bought N and not G cards, and then sell them as only G cards knowing that they had the N capability? Had that been the case would apple have had to charge the $4.99 to cover the SOX thing?
From CNet:
Apple on Thursday confirmed reports that it plans to charge customers a fee to download software that will enable the 802.11n capability in the Wi-Fi chips found in some MacBook and MacBook Pro systems. But it won't cost $5, as many reports indicated. It will cost $1.99, and will be available on Apple's Web site, said Lynn Fox, an Apple spokeswoman.
Full story: http://news.com.com/2100-1044_3-6151281.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news
Local computer stores are not multinational corporations doing millions of dollars of transactions on a weekly or even daily basis. Corporations DO know exactly what they're buying. A wifi card is not a mundane feature. If they know the exact number, kind, and threading of every screw they order, they know the model number and protocol support of their wireless chipsets.
Yes, but you're still missing the fundamental difference: you can't give something away that you don't report having in the first place. On paper, Apple never bought .11n wireless hardware. It can't provide that hardware to customers if it didn't have it in inventory to begin with. This whole scenario is based on the fact that the accounting paperwork is disjunct from the reality of the product.
Utterly irrelevant. If you want to write your own driver to enable .11n, by all means, go for it.
It's already been explained a number of times. BIOS updates do not add new hardware. BIOS ROM images can't give your Pentium II computer the ability to support Core Duo CPUs; software updates can't give your computer new hardware. If a manufacturer designs a new product to be compatible with older products, good for them. Motherboard manufacturers don't design products to be compatible with future products--they can't design for something that doesn't exist. It's not that motherboards are designed forwared, it's that CPUs are designed backwards.
All of your examples are straightforward hardware features. This isn't about what actually exists, it's about what capabilities and purchases are reported on paper and which aren't. It's not an engineering issue or a marketing issue. It's an accounting one. They didn't mention a specific hardware purchase in their accounting disclosures, and they didn't reserve any revenue from the product to add the column later. The reason they couldn't report the n-capability from the beginning is because it would be an official disclosure that the feature existed, when, for the past several months, there was no way to use it--it was an incomplete feature.
When it became possible to upgrade the feature set in those machines, Apple realized that it can't enable a hardware feature that it never reported paying for or selling. Without recognizing expenditures for the hardware component, it can't just magically introduce it for free (things appearing for "free" in accounting documents is part of the major impetus for Sarbanes-Oxley). If that's not clear, just be thankful you're neither a lawyer nor a corporate accountant.
Not enabling the feature at all or admitting that older Macs had the capability would save Apple all this trouble, but it would leave hundreds of thousands of customers out in the cold. They're trying to serve their customers when they have no actual obligation to act on this issue at all, legal or otherwise. The Macs were advertised as having wireless b/g; they do. In fact, they gave you more than you agreed to. The $5 enabler is more than fair under the circumstances. You could have had to buy a whole new Airport card.
Advertising != accounting. The specifications can't magically change without announcement in accounting, only in marketing.
Again, you can't claim a typo of this sort and frequency months after the fact. Depending on the filing requirements, there can be a limit of just a few days to revise a statement or no option at all, and more to the point, it's not a typo. It was a deliberate, protectionist move required to avoid future liability.
What? This has nothing to do with people. It's all about records, and you can bank on the fact that their records are extremely detailed.I don't buy this. Who in the corporation know exactly this, maybe a few people in a small circle knows the hardware specs,
You paid for a wireless networking card, which was reported to support 802.11b/g modes. That's it. Anything else that may or may not be present is immaterial. If you bought a Celeron in 2002, you actually received a full-blown Pentium processor that was partially disabled, but that doesn't matter because you paid x price for y product. End of story.You are also missing a picture here, it costs x amount to make a card with a n-feature, not to mention the extra antennae required. Since they factored that into their profit margins, you have paid for it the time you bought it.
Key words: with a Windows Update for the drivers. Apple didn't supply the updated drivers, so it doesn't affect them...just as if someone wrote their own OS X drivers for these cards and released them for free, that wouldn't do anything to alter Apple's accounting situation.I ask you this, then why the same part, under windows xp using bootcamp, can support n-functionality with a windows update on drivers ? I didn't pay for anything at all there.
No, because your example doesn't address anything relevant to the discussion.You didn't get the idea. C2D support -> draft-n, CD support -> g. Swap those two things in my example, and you can start seeing how the n-update should be free.
That's not true. The only thing BIOS updates change are the recognition codes and enters the correct numbers. It does nothing to alter the hardware to make the system compatible. None of your examples adds a hardware function that was previously undisclosed.A lot of people buy pc components based on the fact they will receive future support when available, all of which are undocumented. C2D is not compatible with CD motherboards unless you do a BIOS update.
No, that is absolutely false. No wireless cards are interoperable with other standards. Each one must contain the appropriate hardware for b, g, and n. You cannot upgrade your 802.11g card to have n support, and you can't upgrade your b- only card to support the g protocol. The protocols can operate in mixed mode networks, which are three coreferential networks (a b network, a g network, and an n network), but that is not the same.whether you know this or not, but all wireless cards are also designed exactly the same way, they are backward compatible, and it is a matter of the firmware to unlock new features, or change functionality.
Because Intel released the C2D in the same socket and with the same electrical requirements and data configuration as the older design. That's like saying "these 2007 tires fit on my 2002 car! Hah!" Of course they do. They were designed to.bios updates enabled Pentium 4 motherboards to support Core 2 Duo on all socket 775 motherboards, that's a FACT
Full stop. There's the difference. All of those products shipped with draft-n drivers, draft-n hardware, and were marketed and labeled as draft-n. Apple had no drivers and made no such disclosure.This is just not true. Draft-n has been available on the windows side for a long long time in terms of drivers, routers, etc.
How old are you? This is one of the most childish rants I've seen on this site in a long time, and there are some actual children here. Don't ever attack a group of hardworking people who have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and nearly three decades of their lives getting a professional degree because some of them aren't the best examples of humanity. Can I call all black people criminals because some of them are in jail? There's a big difference between a lawyer joke and an accusatory incrimination, and you're on the wrong side of it.Yes, and both lawyers and corporate accountants are some of the worst [...]
What? This has nothing to do with people. It's all about records, and you can bank on the fact that their records are extremely detailed.
You paid for a wireless networking card, which was reported to support 802.11b/g modes. That's it. Anything else that may or may not be present is immaterial. If you bought a Celeron in 2002, you actually received a full-blown Pentium processor that was partially disabled, but that doesn't matter because you paid x price for y product. End of story.
Key words: with a Windows Update for the drivers. Apple didn't supply the updated drivers, so it doesn't affect them...just as if someone wrote their own OS X drivers for these cards and released them for free, that wouldn't do anything to alter Apple's accounting situation.
No, because your example doesn't address anything relevant to the discussion.
That's not true. The only thing BIOS updates change are the recognition codes and enters the correct numbers. It does nothing to alter the hardware to make the system compatible. None of your examples adds a hardware function that was previously undisclosed.
No, that is absolutely false. No wireless cards are interoperable with other standards. Each one must contain the appropriate hardware for b, g, and n. You cannot upgrade your 802.11g card to have n support, and you can't upgrade your b- only card to support the g protocol. The protocols can operate in mixed mode networks, which are three coreferential networks (a b network, a g network, and an n network), but that is not the same.
Because Intel released the C2D in the same socket and with the same electrical requirements and data configuration as the older design. That's like saying "these 2007 tires fit on my 2002 car! Hah!" Of course they do. They were designed to.
Full stop. There's the difference. All of those products shipped with draft-n drivers, draft-n hardware, and were marketed and labeled as draft-n. Apple had no drivers and made no such disclosure.
How old are you? This is one of the most childish rants I've seen on this site in a long time, and there are some actual children here. Don't ever attack a group of hardworking people who have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and nearly three decades of their lives getting a professional degree because some of them aren't the best examples of humanity. Can I call all black people criminals because some of them are in jail? There's a big difference between a lawyer joke and an accusatory incrimination, and you're on the wrong side of it.
Yes, but my point was, WHY CAN'T APPLE DO THAT ? They used the same intel wifi n-capable card as all other Intel chipset based wifi-enabled notebooks in the market. Everyone else already had their windows version of the "enabler" for free, what did apple have to protect a known secret for ? Unless its for profit....
I may be ignorant on this but can you please post a link to some kind of white paper that says a Dell or a HP or a Gateway computer comes with 802.11n enabled?
If you're thinking Windows XP has a "driver" for the low-level eprom firmware update needed to obtain draft-n speeds you might be wrong.
Actually, nearly all of my drivers are provided by Microsoft, with the exception of my graphics card, monitor profile, and a SCSI controller. You're just not winning here.windows update gets their drivers directly from the maker of your hardware.
It was designed to have the hardware to support draft-n. The wireless chipsets didn't magically have hardware from the future. What you call "word games" rests at the heart of law and GAO. That's the issue, and I'm sorry you keep trying and coming up empty-handed.Take that and apply it to the wifi adapters - N compatibility was undisclosed in the advent of Rev.B intel Macs, but the hardware necessary for support was already in place,
A statistic based on nothing but prejudice, and a conclusion with no logical premise.There is no wrong side. I specifically said "on average" and you didn't quote that. That is not a discriminatory statement, its a statistic.
Well, some improvement in observation and reading comprehension might be in order. You can replace Apple with any other company on Earth for this story, and I would say the exact same thing. In fact, I have, on more than one occasion, under penalty of perjury myself.I conversed with you before, you seem to just support everything apple does, by observation.
Again, Actually, nearly all of my drivers are provided by Microsoft, with the exception of my graphics card, monitor profile, and a SCSI controller. You're just not winning here.
Well, some improvement in observation and reading comprehension might be in order.
Actually, nearly all of my drivers are provided by Microsoft, with the exception of my graphics card, monitor profile, and a SCSI controller. You're just not winning here.
What you call "word games" rests at the heart of law and GAO. That's the issue, and I'm sorry you keep trying and coming up empty-handed.
Had Apple written off the draft-n spec, it would have been like selling your 2006 car with no tires and a note saying, "tires available in 2007." It's not about any secret; I would have thought at least that much would be obvious by now. Apple's accounting problems don't impact anyone else, so they're free to do whatever they want. Apple on the other hand must be internally consistent.
A statistic based on nothing but prejudice, and a conclusion with no logical premise.
Well, some improvement in observation and reading comprehension might be in order. You can replace Apple with any other company on Earth for this story, and I would say the exact same thing. In fact, I have, on more than one occasion, under penalty of perjury myself.