iPod touch Apple Lies About Why They Charge iPod Touch Owners For Updates

[gnasher729]

Sorry, but your argument is invalid. If they are free to give away applications, then they would not have been required by law to charge for the January App Pack. Yes they did add new iPhone/iPod Touch specific features to the 2.0 upgrade, but they only added Mail, Stocks, Weather, Notes, and Maps in the January App Pack. As everyone knows, Mail, Stocks, Weather, Notes, and Maps are all applications, not physical features for the iPhone/iPod Touch, and thus not tied to the hardware, like the 802.11n MacBook update.

The difference is that the iPod Touch at that time was not capable of having individual applications installed. The result of this upgrade was a different and improved iPod; it wasn't an iPod plus separate applications but one complete product. It turned an old model iPod into the new model that Apple started selling at that time.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Read this Engadget Article on the iPod Touch upgrade and SOX:

I wasted my time clicking on this link, which is just another poorly-informed opinion and certainly no more informed than anything I've read here, and probably less than some of what I've read here. In fact, it was written in January, and the author says "we'll let you know if we find out anything else." Which, apparently, they did not.

It's not pointless, because so many people are pushing that it's a SOX thing, when clearly Apple decided to charge iPod touch owners for additional apps in January but are now providing some additional apps for free.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about the charges, I think it was good value. Clearly Apple thought the January update was a fair price for iPod touch owners so that is what they charged.

That's precisely why it's so pointless. Nobody knows the real answer, so they're venting and confusing their feelings with an informed opinion.

 

[Full-Throttle]

so they're venting and confusing their feelings with an informed opinion.

Is that English; and if it is, what on earth is it supposed to mean? Could you please clarify that poorly written statement?

Nobody knows what causes Parkinson's, so should they not try and find the cause and a cure?

 

[Loge]

The difference is that the iPod Touch at that time was not capable of having individual applications installed. The result of this upgrade was a different and improved iPod; it wasn't an iPod plus separate applications but one complete product. It turned an old model iPod into the new model that Apple started selling at that time.

It was the same hardware all along. It clearly was capable of having individual applications installed, it's just that in January, only Apple were able to provide those applications. Mail app is an application just like Remote app is an application, even if they were distributed differently.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Is that English; and if it is, what on earth is it supposed to mean? Could you please clarify that poorly written statement?

There was nothing wrong with the statement or how it was written. I said exactly what I meant to say, but to put it another way: emotions and opinions are not the same thing. I hear people expressing their frustrations and anger over Apple charging for this update. Their opinions about why Apple charged for the update seem to be informed by little else than how they feel about it.

Does that help?

 

[B. Hunter]

Grow up!

If Apple wanted to screw customers, there are plenty of other ways to make more money than charge for the 2.0 update.
For example: how about no free apps. Would you like that?

Seriously folks, get a life and stop dwelling on this issue.

 

[GamecockMac]

Grow up!

If Apple wanted to screw customers, there are plenty of other ways to make more money than charge for the 2.0 update.
For example: how about no free apps. Would you like that?

Seriously folks, get a life and stop dwelling on this issue.

Seconded.

This pitiful whining was tiresome back in January, and is even more so now.

Don't like Apple's policy for upgrading the iPod touch? Don't buy it. Simple.

 

[supercooled]

Seconded.

This pitiful whining was tiresome back in January, and is even more so now.

Don't like Apple's policy for upgrading the iPod touch? Don't buy it. Simple.

So as a consumer I do not have rights to voice an opinion? You seem to be doing that but others who have an opposing view cannot?

This is why people circumvent the system. Greedy companies who charge for something that should be free all along. I'm not that familiar with Apple's history on charging for updates but it's my opinion a company should support a product from start to the end of the products life cycle without further expense.

 

[26139]

no...

So as a consumer I do not have rights to voice an opinion? You seem to be doing that but others who have an opposing view cannot?

This is why people circumvent the system. Greedy companies who charge for something that should be free all along. I'm not that familiar with Apple's history on charging for updates but it's my opinion a company should support a product from start to the end of the products life cycle without further expense.

In this case you aren't a consumer of said item, you're a potential consumer of what you think is overpriced. You act like you're being taken advantage of, which simply isn't true.

Why should ANYTHING be free? Why should a company offer free upgrades to anything?

 

[imnotatfault]

Why should ANYTHING be free? Why should a company offer free upgrades to anything?

good faith.

 

[Gasu E.]

I
I said that people who claim apple is charging you for the 2.0 update only to comply with law are missing the fact that apple COULD have charged $0.01. The fact that they charge more shows that apple are trying to make a profit.

You're missing the point of SOX. Prior to SOX, publicly-traded companies were required by the SEC to conform to GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles); however, in practice, this compliance might be only "technical"; i.e., charging $.01 so they could say it technically "was not free". SOX was a highly ambitious attempt to enforce compliance in spirit to GAAP. So under SOX, the charge would have to be based on some "reasonable" valuation, not some arbitrary $.01. I don't know the specifics here, but SOX would have a great deal of detail on what "reasonable" meant. My experience in accounting says it could either be cost-based or market-based.

 

[Gasu E.]

Edit: Ah, I see someone already said that about the $0.01... but a lot of places "sell" things for $0.01. See: 75% of Amazon.com cellphones.

Totally different situation; this has nothing to do with "timing" of costs or revenues; one of the trickiest and stickiest problems in corporate accounting. And recall that there is another timing issue hanging over The Steve's head now, one that may be making Apple management hypersensitive.

So as a consumer I do not have rights to voice an opinion? You seem to be doing that but others who have an opposing view cannot?
.

You certainly have the rights to voice an opinion, but it would be more courteous if the $10 "whiners" started a new thread. The OP was disputing Apple's explanation. and by implication questioning the application of the accounting rules. Those of us who actually know something about business find this point worth discussing. The discussion of whether $10 is a lot of money may be worthwhile too, but as that would be of most interest to vagrants and unemployed juveniles, I suggest a new thread on how to beg for spare change might be more appropriate.

 

[26139]

hmmm...

good faith.

Good faith regarding what? Normal updates are free, why should upgrades be?

 

[pmarcovi]

Apple Charge

The only logic for any charge is to make money. Forget the accounting BS. Apple wants to make as much money as they can, and that is good for the company (an my Apple shares). Any time they release something, they study the market and decide how much people would be willing to pay, and the PR impact. It is as simple as that. It has no other logic!

 

[imnotatfault]

Good faith regarding what? Normal updates are free, why should upgrades be?

because this particular upgrade enables ipod touch users to generate more money for apple by purchasing applications at their store that they receive a portion of profits from.

i shouldn't have to spell out why a company would want to engender good faith, by the way.

 

[Gasu E.]

Greedy companies who charge for something that should be free all along. I'm not that familiar with Apple's history on charging for updates but it's my opinion a company should support a product from start to the end of the products life cycle without further expense.

Supercooled-- It's my opinion that you should feed my cat and wash my floors for free.

 

[G4DP]

Grow up!

If Apple wanted to screw customers, there are plenty of other ways to make more money than charge for the 2.0 update.
For example: how about no free apps. Would you like that?

Seriously folks, get a life and stop dwelling on this issue.

Here Here,

If your dumb enough to want it the moment it comes out then tough poo!

If your prepared to waste all that money on an iPod that scrolls then more fool you. You deserve whatever you get.

This thread is good for one thing and one thing only, a good laugh at all the three year old spitting their dummies out.

 

[IJ Reilly]

You're missing the point of SOX. Prior to SOX, publicly-traded companies were required by the SEC to conform to GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles); however, in practice, this compliance might be only "technical"; i.e., charging $.01 so they could say it technically "was not free". SOX was a highly ambitious attempt to enforce compliance in spirit to GAAP. So under SOX, the charge would have to be based on some "reasonable" valuation, not some arbitrary $.01. I don't know the specifics here, but SOX would have a great deal of detail on what "reasonable" meant. My experience in accounting says it could either be cost-based or market-based.

This is the best technical explanation of the accounting issues I've seen so far. Thanks. Of course we are still faced with other types of reasoning,

The only logic for any charge is to make money. Forget the accounting BS. Apple wants to make as much money as they can, and that is good for the company (an my Apple shares). Any time they release something, they study the market and decide how much people would be willing to pay, and the PR impact. It is as simple as that. It has no other logic!

Like I said before, some allow their feelings to trump all.

 

[jeremy.king]

It's probably cheaper now because all of the people who paid $20 covered the R&D of the initial feature set. While the cost of subsequent features is lower as less effort and developer time is needed. It's also cheaper because the app store will generate revenue as well.

 

[holmen09]

1.1.3

To me, it seems like apple should have been charging for firmware 1.1.3 . In this version of the firmware they added the ability to have links to web pages on the home screen, and the ability to move icons around by holding them down until they wiggle. That seems like a major feature addition that it did not originally ship with.

 

[4DThinker]

Apple charges us ten bucks
I agree it really sucks.
What we get for that one bill
About the same, a ten buck thrill.

Twenty bucks is what they cost.
The iPhone apps our Touch had lost.
I propose we end this feud
'Twas going rate for getting screwed.

4D

 

[GamecockMac]

This is why people circumvent the system. Greedy companies who charge for something that should be free all along. I'm not that familiar with Apple's history on charging for updates but it's my opinion a company should support a product from start to the end of the products life cycle without further expense.

Brilliant assessment. Simply brilliant.

So because that's the way you THINK companies should do business, that should just be the way it is? I guess you'd better start writing angry posts on car forums whining about how dare you have to pay for oil changes, brake pads, windshield wipers, and for that matter, gasoline for a new vehicle. Or maybe you're one of those people who thinks it's cool to "circumvent the system" that "greedy companies" have locked us into, and you just pull drive-offs at gas stations? Because, hell...they are making WAY too much money off of you, so that makes it okay.

I'd wager you've got a TON of illegally downloaded music on your iPod. Just a hunch...

 

[26139]

yes

Brilliant assessment. Simply brilliant.

So because that's the way you THINK companies should do business, that should just be the way it is? I guess you'd better start writing angry posts on car forums whining about how dare you have to pay for oil changes, brake pads, windshield wipers, and for that matter, gasoline for a new vehicle. Or maybe you're one of those people who thinks it's cool to "circumvent the system" that "greedy companies" have locked us into, and you just pull drive-offs at gas stations? Because, hell...they are making WAY too much money off of you, so that makes it okay.

I'd wager you've got a TON of illegally downloaded music on your iPod. Just a hunch...

My name is Tyler Hurst and I approve this message.

 

[clyde2801]

I think what got me a little bit is that I paid for $20 Jan update then had to pay $10 more for this one while people who never did the Jan update got it for half the price I paid and all the new stuff.
Early Adopters : $30
New Adopters: $10

not really right.

But very much Apple. Then again, unless you're a mac virgin, you should expect Apple to screw the early adopters at least a little bit. (i.e., iPhone 1.0 rebate)

 

[4DThinker]

I guess you'd better start writing angry posts on car forums whining about how dare you have to pay for oil changes, brake pads, windshield wipers, and for that matter, gasoline for a new vehicle.

Firmware/software isn't consumable. One digital master is all Apple has to make. We pay for the network access to download a digital copy of it. Comparing software to consumable car parts is illogical. I don't have a problem paying for digital copies of music. I don't have a problem paying for digital copies of apps. I do get a little irritated at having to pay for an icon before I can pay for those apps. No bank ever charged me for the credit card in my pocket, yet they had to spend money to produce each card. They do it because every purchase I make with that card makes them a few percent of the sale. Apple makes 30%, with no greater overhead than the credit card companies, yet they insist on screwing Touch owners for another 10 bucks just to get there.