Don't be factuous.
I never said things should be free but to me there is no difference between upgrades in iTunes and iPod upgrades which enable essentially the same things. SOX is, pure and simple, a load of bull scat.
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.
iPod touch Apple Lies About Why They Charge iPod Touch Owners For Updates
- Thread starter Full-Throttle
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Don't be factuous.
I never said things should be free but to me there is no difference between upgrades in iTunes and iPod upgrades which enable essentially the same things. SOX is, pure and simple, a load of bull scat.
I think the word you are seeking is facetious, and he has every reason to be.
I am sorry to report that there isn't "no difference" just because you say so.
I'm not going to get into why you feel the need to defend another person's post, but did you even bother to read it first? Here's what I was responding to:
He didn't distinguish, so why shouldn't I take what he said at face value?
And while you might pay for internet access to download updates from Apple, they had to pay development costs to create that software and for servers to host it, among other things. Just because security updates to Mac OSX and other Apple software are free (as they should be) don't expect that to translate to software that adds value/functionality to a product. Apple should be able to charge what they feel the market will bear for that type of material, because their customers don't NEED it for their products to operate in the same manner as they did the day they bought them. I'm still running 10.4 on my Apple laptop because I just didn't feel the NEED to buy Leopard, as my computer does what I want it to do, and does it well. However, I never felt that Apple OWED me a 10.5 upgrade for free. How are these iPod touch upgrades any different? Apple has also been charging for QuickTime Pro functionality for years now. Why no outcry about that? And what about the people who plan on downloading nothing but free apps from the App Store? Apple doesn't make 30% off of them, so why should they get a major software upgrade to their devices for nothing? Don't like the system Apple put in place? Then it's pretty simple, vote with your wallet and don't upgrade, but don't whine about it either and expect to get sympathy.
And why is that, I'm curious to know. Why is it lawfully permissible for Apple to give away, free of charge, iTunes 7.7 which incorporated the App Store functionality yet they [sympathizers like yourself, "the man", etc] see it fitting to charge on the iPod's end to utilize that same functionality? To use your automobile analogy, it's like buying a car without the steering wheel; it renders the thing completely useless and moot! It makes no sense to me so please enlighten me. I'm not adverse to learning new things but as it stands, the arguments present thus far has not been very convincing.
Well, that functionality only applies to users with the particular products that required the payed update. It would have been unfair to charge users who don't use the iPod Touch/iPhone.
Nope
What in the hell are you talking about? Your iPod touch works just fine with or without the 2.0 update. You can still use iTunes 7.7, none of the songs or videos you've previously synced will be unreadable and, well, that's about it.
To use YOUR automobile analogy, it would be like a car dealership building a fancy new building to sell a nicer steering wheel than you currently have. While you don't NEED a new steering wheel, it does have a nicer grip, a better feel and comes in a cooler color than the one already installed.
Now, please enlighten me.
What in the hell are you talking about? Your iPod touch works just fine with or without the 2.0 update. You can still use iTunes 7.7, none of the songs or videos you've previously synced will be unreadable and, well, that's about it.
To use YOUR automobile analogy, it would be like a car dealership building a fancy new building to sell a nicer steering wheel than you currently have. While you don't NEED a new steering wheel, it does have a nicer grip, a better feel and comes in a cooler color than the one already installed.
Now, please enlighten me.
I think other "whiners" have made the argument already; I just happen to agree with them.
So why didn't they charge the iPhone for 2.0? See the disparity here. They're creating an artificial divide between the product because they can. It has nothing to do with accounting. If SOX applied here, it should apply to the iPhone as well.
I see your point, and you're right; they are separating them, and I can't find a reason. When I made that comment I forgot that it was free for iPhoners (new word?
)! Still, I personally was okay with a $10 update that added a good amount of functionality. But, once again, that's just my opinion
They've made many arguments, none even remotely convincing, because they are based entirely on feelings, and not one little bit on relevant facts. Their arguments, like yours, are all based on "because that's the way I feel."
You can't be serious. My original post was based purely on info I've found and logic/reasoning. Quit saying that anyone who disagrees with your view does not have the ability to reason, and only thinks with emotion/feelings.
People keep arguing that Apple has the right to charge for anything they want, and that is true. However, there is something important in business called consumer loyalty.
For example, I purchased a Bose headset a little over 1 year ago, but a few weeks ago it developed a short in one ear. I called Bose and was told that even though my headset was out of warranty, they were going to send me a new boxed retail set (not refurbished, unlike Apple's warranty replacement iPods), completely free of charge. They weren't required to do that, but they did it anyway, because it promotes their brand, and generates consumer loyalty.
Bose sells "Premium" electronics, and so does Apple. My headset cost $240, and my iPod Touch was $399, yet Bose was more willing to give me a replacement product free of charge (which they lost money on because it is a physical item). Yet, Apple is unwilling to give iPod Touch owners a software update, which aside from development costs (which were already going to be incurred because of the iPhone), possibly additional iTunes servers, and bandwidth, cost them nothing.
The fact that Apple does not account for the iPod Touch the same way as the iPhone is either great short-sightedness by Apple, or a deliberate attempt to extract extra money from iPod Touch owners (I believe it to be the former).
WAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!
Can't wait for future operating system releases for our laptop and desktops now.
Look forward to reading all the sissy responses about why they have to pay for it.
Think I will protest and set up a website. Apple should not allow free apps. We should have to pay for all of them. They need to be convinced that more money will be made selling all apps than charging for 2.0.
Yep, I'm going to do it.
Can't wait for future operating system releases for our laptop and desktops now.
Look forward to reading all the sissy responses about why they have to pay for it.
Think I will protest and set up a website. Apple should not allow free apps. We should have to pay for all of them. They need to be convinced that more money will be made selling all apps than charging for 2.0.
Yep, I'm going to do it.
Perfectly serious, but not in the way you think apparently. I'm not saying that anyone who has a different view doesn't have the ability to reason, but perhaps in this case, is simply not applying that ability. As I have said several times already, nobody in this debate is in possession of sufficient facts to draw a reasonable conclusion, and I include myself.
The two, missing substantial facts are (1) an actual, detailed understanding of the accounting requirements proscribed by the law, and (2) Apple's interpretation of those requirements. Lacking both of these critical pieces of information, drawing a conclusion, let alone a definite conclusion, seems foolish -- since it is little more than uneducated guesswork. And when we guess, we tend to use how we feel, rather than logic, as a guide.
So just to be clear once again, I'm not saying that I know the right answer. I'm saying that I don't know, and anyone who pretends to know without being in possession of the critical facts, is really just guessing.
You are kinda correct, because at the time, Apple got a cut from AT&T, while they didn't for the iPod Touch.
Anyway, the laws don't state pricing. They can charge $100 for the Mail application, then charge $1 for firmware 2.0.
I believe the reason why they didn't include the January update with the iPod Touch in the first place was so that they could test activation and billing of applications (oh come on, obviously they planned on native applications sooner or later...why else would you need a three axis accelerometer when the only functions on the phone that use it only use one axis [and only three fourths of it]). I'm guessing they charged $20 because it is $4 per application which was thought to be the price of the average application of App Store, so people would get used to paying for applications :/.
But that's just my thoughts.
If they're going to charge for it, fine. What bothers me more is that they lie about this mystical law. Amazingly NO OTHER COMPANIES have to charge money to add features to products.
My Playstation Portable, 3, 360, XP, etc. have all had tons of features added to them, without my paying a dime to anyone.
My Playstation Portable, 3, 360, XP, etc. have all had tons of features added to them, without my paying a dime to anyone.
Okay I read through a few pages of drivel.
Apple is "accounting" for the upgrade price at some function of amortized cost basis. Time for engineers to do the work, land use, utilities, space rent, expendables costs, typical mark-ups.
Apple has several typical mark-ups. One for music sales, pretty low, one for iPhone app sales, about 30%, CPU hardware sales, 30-40%, software in box sales, accessories, etc. So they do have considerable latitide on margin targeting depending on their goal.
Their stated goal with iPhone and iPod Touch is to make a fair price on hardware sales and make recurring revenues on device usage, higher on iPhone with its carrier fees, lower on iPod Touch which lacks that.
The amount of costs for the very first iPod Touch upgrade had to account for all historical costs in a single fee, which I bet they simply rounded to $19.95.
The second upgrade only had to account for "marginal costs" since that upgrade and they were able to assign some portion of the app store and 2.0 software development to ADC sales, iPhone sales, and even CPU sales via iTunes 7.7 and main CPU meme, and such.
So the lower price for more features actually makes sense from an accounting perspective as the work was marginal add-on not full development from scratch.
Repeal Sarbox.
Rocketman
Apple is "accounting" for the upgrade price at some function of amortized cost basis. Time for engineers to do the work, land use, utilities, space rent, expendables costs, typical mark-ups.
Apple has several typical mark-ups. One for music sales, pretty low, one for iPhone app sales, about 30%, CPU hardware sales, 30-40%, software in box sales, accessories, etc. So they do have considerable latitide on margin targeting depending on their goal.
Their stated goal with iPhone and iPod Touch is to make a fair price on hardware sales and make recurring revenues on device usage, higher on iPhone with its carrier fees, lower on iPod Touch which lacks that.
The amount of costs for the very first iPod Touch upgrade had to account for all historical costs in a single fee, which I bet they simply rounded to $19.95.
The second upgrade only had to account for "marginal costs" since that upgrade and they were able to assign some portion of the app store and 2.0 software development to ADC sales, iPhone sales, and even CPU sales via iTunes 7.7 and main CPU meme, and such.
So the lower price for more features actually makes sense from an accounting perspective as the work was marginal add-on not full development from scratch.
Repeal Sarbox.
Rocketman
You mean they might not be lying? Heavens.
The intent of Sarbanes-Oxley was certainly good, but then there's all of those unintended consequences. I don't know about repealing it, but an amendment or two might be in order.
The intent of Sarbanes-Oxley was certainly good, but then there's all of those unintended consequences. I don't know about repealing it, but an amendment or two might be in order.
My evidence for this is that NO OTHER COMPANY has this mystical requirement. It either doesn't exist, or everyone else ignores it, or Apple is intentionally distorting what it says they have to do.
I completely disagree. Take a look at Rogers Cellular in Canada. People said something was unacceptable and they changed.
A voice makes a difference there comrade.
Strength in numbers.
I paid for the upgrade; am I happy about it? No, but I'll live. Will I continue to complain? Damn straight.
Now where's that petition?
Another statement which you have no evidence to sustain. This just goes on and on, doesn't it?