You can't talk sense to people who have already made up their minds. It's an age-old truism.
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
You can't talk sense to people who have already made up their minds. It's an age-old truism.
OK, I don't know why I bother, but: again, why would Apple lie in their SEC REPORTS about a regulation? Do you all think that iPod Touch owners are so important in the scheme of things, that Apple would just make things up about "mystical" "laws" in their SEC reports just because they really must have your $10? Again, it is NOT a law, it is a regulation governing the accounting of software. It especially affects situations when hardware and software are sold together (by the same company). Last I knew, Sony wasn't a U.S. company, and actually it's a subsidiary that does the Playstation anyway. Microsoft ALSO refer to this "mystical law" in all of THEIR Quarterly SEC reports, as do many publicly owned U.S. software companies. Yes, Microsoft chooses to defer revenue in cases where they think they will be providing a portion of the value at a later time. (that doesn't mean that NO other company but Apple does, however). Since not one complainer in this thread knows ANYTHING about this, then like TJ Reilly says, we can assume you also: 1) don't know the drawbacks to deferring revenue (impact on stock prices, impact with the SEC AND shareholders if a mistake was made and revenue for previous quarters needs to be restated, impact on trying to keep secret for whatever reasons Apple has of sales of specific models within a quarter, increase in complexity of accounting, etc.), 2) can't distinguish between the effect of this for Apple vs. Microsoft, and 3) have no idea what advice Apple receives from their accountants and lawyers.
So, yes, we hear you loud and clear: you wish you didn't have to pay $10 for the upgrade. (I wish I didn't have to pay $2,000 to AT&T) But this thread (like all the others on the topic) is unbelievable -- first the title that they're lying about the reason, then, no, they're not lying, but you KNOW from your vast accounting knowledge and mastery of the English language, that they COULD charge $1. Then, back to they're lying. Then, from your accounting expertise you KNOW that they could have/should have accounted for the Touch the same as the iPhone. Then, a petition is going to make Apple do something that is contrary to what they say to the SEC! Wow, of all the things corporate America (including Apple) does, THIS is worthy of your time writing, signing, circulating and publicizing a petition? I can't say more about that in this forum, so instead, my advice is: go join another "Apple (or Steve) lied" thread. I can assure you that they are NOT lying about this in their SEC filings, and that other companies DO also pay attention to this "mystical" regulation. (SOP 97-2)
Value lowers with time?
I'm not sure if someone has suggested this yet, but perhaps Apple sees the value of the first update as being of lesser value since it's older.
Accounting may have decided that the old update dropped to 5$ and the new 2.0 update was also worth 5$, for a new total of 10$ (instead of the 20$+10$ price you were expecting).
I'm not sure if someone has suggested this yet, but perhaps Apple sees the value of the first update as being of lesser value since it's older.
Accounting may have decided that the old update dropped to 5$ and the new 2.0 update was also worth 5$, for a new total of 10$ (instead of the 20$+10$ price you were expecting).
Explain why other companies offer similar upgrades ALL THE TIME without charging for it. It's as simple as that.And to the guy claiming that was "unsubstantiated", I listed a number of companies off the top of my head that do it. I'm sure others could come up with another half dozen easily.
The value "value" is defined as the price a willing buyer and a willing seller agree to. That's it nothing more.
My guess is that Apple decided $20 was to high as there were not enough willing buyers.
Again, if two parties who are not forced into the sale agree on a price then it is by definition "fair".
And to the guy claiming that was "unsubstantiated", I listed a number of companies off the top of my head that do it. I'm sure others could come up with another half dozen easily.
It's "simple" to somebody no relevant facts at hand. I won't repeat the relevant facts, as they will certainly be ignored again.
At best, you and others who are so sure that Apple is "lying," are left with the impossible task of explaining why Apple doesn't charge for similar upgrades to the iPhone. Good luck!