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

Apple Launches $0.99 Mac FaceTime App on Mac App Store

coopj12 said:
I can't believe how incredibly cheap most MacRumor people are. It's ninety-nine cents folks. You probably have that much change in your ashtray in your car. Oh, but wait. You probably smoke and blow close to $7.00 on a pack of cigarettes and have no issue paying for that.
Click to expand...

What an odd assumption to make. I've never smoked in my life thank you very much!🙄

And again its not about being cheap, but rather the principle.
 
I did just that...

sevenmiles said:
Couldn't have said it better. I wonder...if all the complainers here had a company that could sell a "widget" for 99 cents and knew thousands (if not more) would buy it, I'm sure they'd all just give it away for free.
Click to expand...

Actually, years ago I released a "Widget" for Konfabulator, the software that both Apple and Microsoft eventually stole their widget/gadget idea from. It was downloaded 19,232 times with a 5 star rating. I gave it away for free and continued to add features to it. It was free for the taking. It's nice to be nice, all the time.

I'm honestly considering selling my Apple stock because it's looking like another mid-90's Apple downturn is upon us. Bad decision after bad decision.
 
jmpnop said:
Its just a dollar but when Apple already charges a fortune, why pay for it again?
Its supposed to be a feature of Mac, they shouldn't charge for it.



It won't be long when Apple starts charging $1.99 for iTunes, iCal, Mail, etc🙄:apple:
Click to expand...

This is exactly how people should be looking at it.

I couldn't care less about spending a dollar on certain things in life, but Apple is really starting to embrace the whole "nickel and dime them to death" business model, and it is getting annoying.
 
Read the following paragraph, replacing the words "iPod" and "iPod touch" with "OS X".

Here's what has been happening up to this point. Apple wanted to offer iPhone users free software updates. According to a reading of certain accounting rules relating to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, items that gain significant new functionality after the sale—due to a firmware update, for instance—can't have the revenue recorded at the time of sale. The revenue is reported over a certain period of time, called subscription accounting. Since Apple planned to potentially offer new features in software updates, it records revenue from the sale if iPhones over a period of two years—the length of a standard carrier contract.

The reverse of this accounting happens for the iPod touch. Apple didn't want to stop reporting the revenue earned from sales of the iPod touch, possibly since Apple was aware it could start to eat into the revenue from click-wheel iPods. Since the company wanted to be able to report the revenue from all iPod sales all at once, Apple couldn't add significant new features to the iPod touch without charging some fee.
Click to expand...
http://www.pcworld.com/article/142272/accounting_rules_behind_ipod_touch_update_charge.html

IMO, FaceTime counts as a significant new feature, thus the charge. Bug fixes and other things released in 10.6.[whatever] updates don't add significant new feautres, thus they're free.

This is the same as the 802.11n enabler from a few years ago.
 
sevenmiles said:
Couldn't have said it better. I wonder...if all the complainers here had a company that could sell a "widget" for 99 cents and knew thousands (if not more) would buy it, I'm sure they'd all just give it away for free.
Click to expand...

You've taken it out of context, congratulations. If that company of complainers had sold the required machines for premium prices and then charged the $1 it'd be a fair comparison.
 
Just my $.99

g8orballboy said:
No one has answered my question yet... If I have a mac and 2 iphones all tied to the same apple account, can they facetime between eachother? I know i can facetime one phone with the other... but I couldn't find a way in the mac beta to call a phone, only look up an account... am I missing something?
Click to expand...

I still have the beta [which still works for now] and I can facetime call my iPhone 4 from my Mac and facetime call my Mac from my iPhone. These two devices both have the same AppleID - So my answer to you my friend is yes, you are missing something. Try the following:

In the Preferences for Facetime on your Mac, make sure you have an email address set up in the box which says "You can be reached for video calls at:" you can add more than one. Once this is set, it should "just work".

I am going to keep using this beta until it dies [if it ever does]. I'll wait for Lion, as I'm guessing it will be included in the update. As I have Facetime on my iPhone, I don't "really" need it on my Mac too, but if it was Free... meh!

BTW, you can facetime me at: youmustbefrikkinjoking@roflmao.com - I will charge you for the call though!
 
The only way they can fool people to pay 0.99 for that app is by putting it in the Pre-installed software section when you BTO.

Then again, that makes them look completely stupid
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)

Maybe you should try to iChat someone using their phone number. Or iChat someone that isn't running their iChat app. FaceTime is an always on app on the phone, and it can be set the sane way on the computer. You don't have to have buddies logged in or any of that nonsense which also applies to skype. It's more like a video phone than anything else.
 
They could be paying for any number of 3rd party licenses on existing patents for this technology or covering the cost of bandwidth needed to deliver the app to you (free downloads aren't free for the host). Be glad they are only charging a buck. 🙂
 
Seriously all this hot air because it's not free -- it's (gasp) $0.99 -- less than a bottle of coke.

Why does everything have to be free?!
 
Last edited:
I don't mind the 99 cents so much. That hurts Apple more than it hurts me. But putting out a second video chat app which is incompatible with their first one and lacks most of the features is disturbing.
 
Wahhhhh Wahhhh

Cheapskates.

If $.99 is too much, go back to school and get a decent job.

Oh yeah, that visible tattoo you just had to get to "express" yourself... it's going to limit your job options. 🙄 🙄
 
Ways to ensure something never gets adopted.
1) Make it feature poor. Check
2) Make sure it only works on wifi. Check
3) Don't make it compatible with any devices but your own. Check
4) Charge for it. Check.

jc1350 said:
and the entitlement era rolls on. 🙄

If it's something you really want/need, a one-time $1.00 price is hardly anything to complain about. If that one dollar is too steep a price for the benefit, then don't get it. Life is full of choices and trade-offs.
Click to expand...

Many won't get it and trade off for people like you is that they will find they won't be able to use it because hardly anyone will be using facetime. Free cross platform alternatives will be used instead.


Frosties said:
Next up is iwork.com beta. Look how that have taken off.
Click to expand...

For me it's not an issue of entitlement. It's why bother when Skype has HD.[/QUOTE]

I think the moral of the story here is that whenever Apple thinks they can charge for whatever the competitor offer for free, Apple's product usually ends up marginalized. No Apple can charge whatever they want and we can so no thank you in droves.
 
I do.

spazzcat said:
How many people really use facetime,other then just trying it out to see how it works?
Click to expand...

I travel for work non-stop. I live in hotels. I talk to my wife (from my MacBookPro to hers) every day via Facetime for an hour or so. Just Facetimed from my MacBookPro here at the airport to her iPhone 4 about 10 minutes ago actually.
 
BenRoethig said:
Ways to ensure something never gets adopted.
1) Make it feature poor. Check
2) Make sure it only works on wifi. Check
3) Don't make it compatible with any devices but your own. Check
4) Charge for it. Check.
Click to expand...

Make it work incredibly well when Skype sucks... drops the connection or garbles the audio. CHECK.

For me it's not an issue of entitlement. It's why bother when Skype has HD.
Click to expand...

Easy -- don't buy it. There is no need to complain. Sure, you'd install it if it were free, but who cares?
 
aristobrat said:
Read the following paragraph, replacing the words "iPod" and "iPod touch" with "OS X".

Here's what has been happening up to this point. Apple wanted to offer iPhone users free software updates. According to a reading of certain accounting rules relating to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, items that gain significant new functionality after the sale—due to a firmware update, for instance—can't have the revenue recorded at the time of sale. The revenue is reported over a certain period of time, called subscription accounting. Since Apple planned to potentially offer new features in software updates, it records revenue from the sale if iPhones over a period of two years—the length of a standard carrier contract.

The reverse of this accounting happens for the iPod touch. Apple didn't want to stop reporting the revenue earned from sales of the iPod touch, possibly since Apple was aware it could start to eat into the revenue from click-wheel iPods. Since the company wanted to be able to report the revenue from all iPod sales all at once, Apple couldn't add significant new features to the iPod touch without charging some fee.
Click to expand...

http://www.pcworld.com/article/142272/accounting_rules_behind_ipod_touch_update_charge.html

IMO, FaceTime counts as a significant new feature, thus the charge. Bug fixes and other things released in 10.6.[whatever] updates don't add significant new feautres, thus they're free.

This is the same as the 802.11n enabler from a few years ago.
Click to expand...

Well done. 207 posts before anyone remembered the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

*edit* Apologies to AriX at post 121. I missed it.

AriX said:
Oh, I'm sure this is for "accounting reasons". 😕
Click to expand...

I've been reading this thread with a growing sense of amusement at the indignation being displayed regarding this non-issue.

Many of the posters were here the last couple of times that Apple had to comply with this legislation. Are their memories really that bad?
 
Last edited:
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