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.
Airport Extreme Air Disk, and 801.11n Upgrades $4.99 [Update]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is because of a fustercluck in some law this is happening. Apple uses common sense. The government does not. Full stop.
Rocketman
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?
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.
(I don't really know that much about law)
(I don't really know that much about law)
I think, to celebrate Apple's $1 Billion quarter, they should treat all C2D owners to a free 802.11n-enabler license. Not saying they are obliged, just that it would be a nice gesture. 
B
B
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.
If that was already mentioned in the thread, I must've missed it.
No, actually it's one of the laws that big business hates the most.
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.
Most laws on this scale do have unintended consequences and bizarre convolutions because the legislature has a devil-may-care attitude about its language and often passes the buck to the federal bureaucracy and the courts to figure out what exactly implementing the law involves. There are a number of legal defenses for unintended consequences, but you have to be involved in litigation to use them. Avoiding litigation and avoiding accounting red flags are understandably high-priority concerns of Apple's while the federal probe is underway.
Someone could. But no one has.
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).
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. 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. Features and functionality which are advertised are guidelines, and in no way absolute since parts fly in and out of the shops all the time and at the exact same price.
Apple sold you a computer, what features you want to make out of the computer via software is independent from the hardware which you paid most of the money for, if apple's SKU changed for the wifi card during the rev. B this or that, you still paid for that piece of hardware. Using it with any software you want without reverse engineering is not against any EULA.
Maybe you can explain to me why my example of BIOS updates to motherboards won't fall into this category under SOX. Since future updates for a popular motherboard brings features by feedback - such as extra configurations, compatibility, both of which can be prior advertised as features, but are not. Even the fact the bios is upgradable (like all rom firmware) is not advertised on any OEM computer, or motherboard. So for example then, and this is the newest trend, if I buy a motherboard supporting Core Duo, but with no advertised support for C2D, and indeed, not compatible. BUT, i can just download a BIOS update from the manufacturer and flash that in, and bam, I can put in a C2D. That is not advertised, and the manufacturer didn't even know the existence of C2D when the CD was produced.
How does that not apply to the wifi cards ?
Also, like I said earlier, there are so many ways to get around this law, using other laws. Apple CAN stand up for the consumers by stating that the advertised features have changed without notice, for the benefit of the consumers - cost to consumers =0. Or, they can claim a typo, to the advertised feature, since obviously the hardware is n-supporting. Both approaches using laws already in existence and are used often if a corporation needs to protect itself. This time, maybe for a change, use these laws for the consumers instead.
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.
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?
If you look at the cost and parts to do an Apple branded aftermarket upgrade of a MP to 802.11, you soon realize any factory equipped airport MP has the extra antennas for n installed. The antennas are more numerous.
Rocketman
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.
If Apple had reported the cards as n-ready in accounting, there are two possible steps. One, they could have marketed them as b/g (as you suggest) which would open them up to complaints that they intentionally disabled functionality if anyone found out (and Apple rumors and leaks are obviously highly sought). Two, they could have fully disclosed the n-capability in marketing, which in turn makes them vulnerable to consumer protection laws because there was, in fact, no such capability at that time (the finished feature didn't exist until a few days ago); in addition, because it's still a draft version of the spec, it was far too early to be certain that the spec wouldn't change in some significant way. If that had happened, these computers would turn out not to be compatible with the finished spec and Apple would have been royally screwed. It would have to replace everyone's Airport card for free.
So no, they would not have had Sarbox problems, but they would have had other problems of equal or greater significance. Also, as I mentioned earlier, if they had foreseen this problem, they could have reserved a few dollars from each computer sale, done the accounting internally without making headlines, and could have released the update for free.
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
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
Thanks for the link! I was peeved off with Apple because I thought that I wouldn't be able to connect to 802.11n networks with my CD MBP, but they've said otherwise (although I won't be able to take advantage of 802.11n).
I don't buy this. Who in the corporation know exactly this, maybe a few people in a small circle knows the hardware specs, rest others are products of division of labour and wouldn't even want to know this, regardless of the corporation in question. A bunch of tech's can't even repair a lot of broken equipment right (see other threads on this on this very website) just goes to show the supposed level of corporate cohesion isn't there.
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. Apple isn't going to do any more business losing money on everything they sell because they overequip them.
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. A difference in an operating system amounts to having to pay for extra features ? Apple says its a feature to run bootcamp, and a feature of bootcamp is windows xp, and a sub feature of that is the n-functionality built into the drivers available online using windows update.
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. New firmware gives components new abilities all the time, most of which are unadvertised. Region-free DVD's, the original roms are from the actual DVD rom makers. BIOS updates unlocks unspecified support. 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. You can say they are designed forward or backward, but either way, 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. They use either the PCI-E bus (newer), or the PCI bus, or the Mini-PCI bus, or the Mini-PCIE bus (new laptops). All of those are the same way designed as CPU sockets, forward or backward compatible, you pick the wording, either way, it applies to both Wifi cards and CPU's. Oh, and by the way, bios updates enabled Pentium 4 motherboards to support Core 2 Duo on all socket 775 motherboards, that's a FACT, is C2D support documented anywhere for those motherboards from the P4 era ? NO.
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. All of which uses a updateable rom for future full-n specs. AND on top of that, they don't conceive it either, it is made publicly aware that the system is capable, and updateable. Since apple uses the same hardware (intel chipsets) and same antennas, they pertain to the exact same category. Now why didn't apple advertise draft-n compatibility or upgradability ? You don't need an apple router to take advantage of that, you just need a draft-n capable router from linksys, dlink, belkin, etc. There is no NDA on this draft-n, since it already is onboard the rom on the wifi cards apple uses. How do we know ? Use that same card under windows, and voila - draft-n is recongnized and drivers are installed. If the n-spec changes to become finalized, then not only apple, but also everyone else who already uses, sells, or own a draft-n product can upgrade to final-n when the firmware arrives. I fail to see how apple needs to keep this secret when it is really not, it's out, and its in their products, and it has been in other products for about a year now.
Yes, and both lawyers and corporate accountants are some of the worst groups of greedy people on average, what's your point with that ? I think I have too much ethical thoughts to qualify. I'm glad i'm not one of those people engaged in pointless busy work and with insufficient time to actually excercise my own ethics, or else they'd probably kill themselves. They could have just advertised the wifi to be upgradeable, like everyone else who already sells wifi equipment, and avoid this entire fiasco. Then upgradeability would be a feature that costed none in accounting and still be a valid feature for advertising. It seems everyone else in the market can get this right, so why not apple ?
5$ is more than fair ? I've seen g routers more expensive than draft-n routers. That's really not a decision about fairness. The wifi card wasn't advertised, or accounted for as shareware products. Charging people for extra features in already purchased hardware using soft-locks is a very dangerous slippery slope. Only other products I know that do this on a regular basis are the cell phones, which are soft-locked to the carrier you are with. It's a disgusting market. Suddenly, all that you can do in terms of features is exactly what's advertised for the computer you bought. This can, and will be abused by profit-driven people as they see fit and can't be allowed in my opinion. Of course, if you are a shareholder, you might see different.
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.
And there goes your assumption that all of their employees everywhere has instant access to all their "records" all the time, and makes absolutely no mistakes any where, any time. hmmm....
Actually, if you remember, even back when Celeron 300A was introduced, it was also a PII with half cache disabled, why ? Because the cache had defects, does the n-portion of the wifi adapter have defects ? NO. End of the real story.
You would have to be a windows user to know that windows update gets their drivers directly from the maker of your hardware. SO, an intel WIFI adapter gets its drivers from intel, just like Apple gets their ATI drivers from ATI, and their intel drivers from intel, and not apple. Microsoft only has enough time to code basic compatibility mode drivers.
If you wish to ignore it and interpret it in a way that it doesn't...
NO, NO, NO.... I mean, say YES, and you are right, then let's change a few recognition codes to recognize the draft-n capability to make it compatible with the latest n spec. You can play word games, but BIOS updates for newer CPU's, sometimes entirely different CPU's (P4 -> C2D) are adding new hardware functions BY ENABLING THEM since they were already in place. C2D compatibility was undisclosed in the advent of 775 socket types. C2D wasn't even available, or known for. 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, and then, with the availability of an Apple N-Router, they can release a driver/firmware combo to support the N functionality by ENABLING THEM (hint: enabler). You might want to consider the Athlon 64 example as well. Boards produced for A64 long before A64 X2 came along were mostly able to be flashed to support dual core, while this was never advertised for any of the boards, since the X2 didn't exist then, nor was it disclosed to the consumers. If you can't make this kind of an analogy, then it must be personal.
I meant hardware bus protocols like PCI, and PCI-E. You can swap your mini-PCI wifi card with any other mini-pci wifi card and expect it to work just as well. That's what I was saying. Apple community isn't used to this sort of thing since well, apple wants proprietary hardware until lately. Those who will likely pay for the "enabler" are likely people who still think apple hardware is unique in some way that it is not compatible with other hardware.
Just like the N-capable firmware/driver inside the Intel 802.11n card and the G-capable firmware/driver for the Intel 802.11n card, they'll, and should fit, like 2007 tires on a 2006 car. They were DESIGNED to.
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....
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. Since when did saying a statistic become discriminatory ? I'm not using it to prove that they are inferior, i just stated it. You drew the connections, can we say, almost by a coincidence ? And I see this all the time, people associating hard working people with the words "useful" or "necessary" or anything remotely nice. Working hard isn't anything to be proud of, unless you are also working smart. You can be digging a hole all day long, but if you don't actually accomplish anything meaningful, then its just pointless busy work. Maybe you are a little out of touch with the lawschool and the lawyers. Maybe you should goto your local university/law school and ask a little bit why lawyers are lawyers, and maybe you will be surprised that they are doing it for money. Certainly that way over here. And no, I don't discriminate against my black lawyer friends, Al, in case you are reading this. The lawyers here make it no secret that they are going into patent law for money, x-law for money, y-law for money, it's all monetary and hardly ethical driven. Which goes back to my original statement - they are greedy. What else can you be if you live a career to to satisfy your intellectual, physical, and biological needs, but for monetary gains ? So, I assure you, there exist good willed individuals in the law/corporate stratosphere, but, like I said - on average.
matticus, there is no point to keep arguing like this back and forth. I conversed with you before, you seem to just support everything apple does, by observation. I'm seeing the issue from the point of view of the little guys. And indeed, Europe doesn't have an equivalent of "SOX" canada doesn't have an equivalent of "SOX", but I'm not an lawyer, so I can't go find some laws and quote them for you in the back of my head, so useful it appears these days.
[snippet]
[/snippet]
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.
[/snippet]
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.
Hey Peace,
Weren't you the one who posted the SCOOP on Rev.B iMac's having a broadcom n-capable chip because windows installation picks it up straight forward ?
I meant you can get aftermarket draft-n wifi cards as kits from, just about all wifi makers. They got their own drivers. I was talking about these BroadCom chipset mini-pciE or mini-pci cards with n-capable firmware and radio and antenna installed for a lot of the bundled intel wifi cards in the latest "centrino" CD or C2D systems. Once you download the drivers, say here:
http://drivers.softpedia.com/get/NE...eless-802-11a-b-g-n-Driver-4100155-whql.shtml
Your windows machine with undisclosed n-capable wifi suddenly becomes n-capable without paying extra cash.
http://www.broadcom.com/products/Wireless-LAN
is broadcom's site for their wireless lan including n-spec solutions. They are used in Linksys (left image on site), which has had the draft-n routers and PCI/PCIE cards for a long time (about a year now i believe).
http://www.broadcom.com/products/Wireless-LAN/802.11-Wireless-LAN-Solutions
Is not even updated to include 802.11n for the capable chipsets. So much for making it obvious what features you are buying. I believe this combined with the drivers for this series above which you can download for windows xp would violate the SOX, then again, I've been saying the opposite.
PS. My iMac is working great and sweet!!
Again, nothing to do with people. What employees have access to is irrelevant.
When these Macs shipped, there was no software to support the draft-n hardware. It was equally defective; it could not deliver the feature, so it was disabled, just like the extra cache.
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.
When these Macs shipped, there was no software to support the draft-n hardware. It was equally defective; it could not deliver the feature, so it was disabled, just like the extra cache.
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.
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.
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.
Sorry for interrupting, but this is untrue. I've nLited many a windows installs, and the drivers are not written mostly by microsoft. IDE drivers are provided by Ali, Intel, Cmd, etc, just relabelled after the install. The CPU drivers are provided by AMD and Intel in the windows world, the memory controller drivers are provided by the chipset maker. The only microsoft drivers I have come across are generic ones, no one uses those.
I suggest a lock on this thread, these replies are starting to become personal attacks, moderators ?
What the heck are you smoking here ? Microsoft only certifies them. They write drivers, true, but like I said, only compatibility stuff only. Whatever is necessary to install and run windows xp.
Exactly, pointless laws, only mindless individuals serve them anyway. All the useful ones are so drowned in a sea of pointless laws.
Hey, you can ignore anything I point out if you want. You win, the end.
Then I invite you to perform a perfect statistical study of motives behind the law school, happens to be the most expensive of all schools including medical school over here. I proposed my idea, please, prove me wrong with an impeccable logical premise and a statistically relevant conclusion. Just to remind you, my back ground is in Physics and Math, so do put in a bit of an effort. My approach was insufficient to draw a conclusive conclusion, I merely met most of the law students at my university and asked a random dozen or so their motives, since I'm into that sort of thing.
Well, I run the physics help center here, so maybe I can give you a hand with observation and comprehension ? There is no need for attacking me, that won't prove a point.