That helps to explain how they are accounting for iPhone sales, however, I think they employ a different model for Macbooks, otherwise this would be free.
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.
Apple's $0.99 FaceTime Charge Due to Accounting Requirements
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That helps to explain how they are accounting for iPhone sales, however, I think they employ a different model for Macbooks, otherwise this would be free.
Yes, and I know know many many people who get a lot more use out of Angry Birds. Seriously, I know of one person (other than myself) who has used FaceTime, and it was only to try it. He doesn't even keep his wifi on because he hates his phone constantly alerting him to available hotspots.
Unless version 1.0 actually performs better than the beta, what's the point?
the point is not whether the so-called accounting reasons is a valid excuse or not
The point is that Apple choose convenience over its consumers.
It's like at the cashier they over charged you for a dollar and told you that it's just too much hassle to call the manager and initiate the reimbursement process.
And what's more, imagine if this were to be the other way.
For accounting reasons, would Apple give out something for free if they could make $1 out of it?
Probably not.
Apple has reasons to charge, so do people to complain.
The point is that Apple choose convenience over its consumers.
It's like at the cashier they over charged you for a dollar and told you that it's just too much hassle to call the manager and initiate the reimbursement process.
And what's more, imagine if this were to be the other way.
For accounting reasons, would Apple give out something for free if they could make $1 out of it?
Probably not.
Apple has reasons to charge, so do people to complain.
Last edited:
If that convenience comes at a price that would cause an uproar in the financial world over Apple restating earnings, I think Apple would chose to just charge the fee every time.
If you don't fully understand why they are charging it, please stop trying.
CLEARLY... the $.99 is to cover the two Apple employees who are on standby for Facetime chats, since nobody you know uses it.
Seriously, I can't remember the last time that Apple was so excited about a new product that nobody cared about.
I'm sure there were thousands of intellects similar to yours that pointed out how useless that silly telephone thing was when there were only a few in existence.
As to video calling popularity, I tend to agree in general that most people don't want to have to worry about looking engaged during a call, when without video they can multi-task.
But for other uses (seeing a loved one when away) its a wonderful feature to have available.
Sorry if I'm behind the curve here, but why isn't this just an extension to iChat video conferencing? I don't understand the need for a separate app with duplicate functionality.
Regarding the accounting fee: it's real, get over it, blame SOX. Enron got fabulously wealthy crippling the California power grid, and the regulatory response was to charge us a buck for Facetime. Doesn't make sense, but that doesn't make it less true.
Regarding the accounting fee: it's real, get over it, blame SOX. Enron got fabulously wealthy crippling the California power grid, and the regulatory response was to charge us a buck for Facetime. Doesn't make sense, but that doesn't make it less true.
to expand on the restatement of revenue concept: if you've ever had to refile previous years personal income taxes, multiply that by at least 1000 and you get an idea of what Apple would be facing by restating revenue.
plus watch what happens to APPL stock if they did that.
i suspect that once Lion is available (not in beta) then this app will become free again as it will be a feature of Lion.
Yes, we as consumers want it to be free, but there are actual GAAP principles involved here that 95% of the readers aren't applying.
and as a friend of mine once proudly stated: "you can want in one hand and ***** in the other. see which fills up first"
plus watch what happens to APPL stock if they did that.
i suspect that once Lion is available (not in beta) then this app will become free again as it will be a feature of Lion.
Yes, we as consumers want it to be free, but there are actual GAAP principles involved here that 95% of the readers aren't applying.
and as a friend of mine once proudly stated: "you can want in one hand and ***** in the other. see which fills up first"
It's the principle of the matter. Today it's 99 cents for Facetime. Tomorrow it's 4.99 for something else. Then before you know it they're charging for security updates. Apple loves to charge people money whenever they can.
The "Accounting Requirement" is BS. They used to say this about the iPod Touch firmware, now they don't charge for it. They're charging because they can get away with it. But because someone says they have to. Otherwise they couldn't give away iPod Touch upgrades, Safari and QuickTime for free.
Typical. Oh well...$.99 is a lot easier to swallow than some of the other times they have done things like this.
The cost for giving the App Store to you is accounted for. Apple had a new project "sell lots of applications to Macintosh users and make money", and the cost for the App Store application is part of that. Apple makes money by giving you this free application. Just like eBay gives away a free iPhone application so you can access eBay (and give them your money) from your iPhone.
With the FaceTime application, Apple doesn't make any money if they don't charge you. Result: Some ambulance chasing lawyer would start a shareholder lawsuit against Apple for wasting shareholder's money.
The iTunes application lets you buy stuff from Apple, and every time you use iTunes to buy things Apple makes money. The idea behind Ping is that you will hear about music that interests you, and buy it from iTMS and give money to Apple. That pays for the features in iTunes. FaceTime doesn't make money for Apple.
Last edited:
This update is related to a delivered item, that they recognize the revenue for upon delivery. In order for them to provide significant updates and not charge for them; they would have to move their revenue stream from immediate (when the customer walked out of the store with the Mac) to some defined period that they would like to deliver all these enhancements. T
Safari is different because it is free and broadly available. To satisfy this, it needs to be 1) free and 2) the experience needs to be the same between a customer and a non-customer (such as a PC owner). As a PC customer can not use Face Time you no longer can say that this is free and broadly available as it would be only for your customer base and would lead us to believe that your service period should have been years instead of right away.
The resulting effect of this on the Financial Statements would be monumental (image instead of all those $2,000 sales, you could only "get credit" for $42 in the month of purchase) because you wanted to deliver a feature 2 years down the road.
Wow. You're just like 3 hours behind everybody else.
Go back about 4 pages. Read discussions from people who have actual accounting qualifications, rather than a belly full of indignation and Cheez-Its.
No.
They account for sales of iPods differently than Macbooks/OS X. Because of this they have to charge. They can't just switch it whenever they feel like it.
It is not because of Sarbanes-Oxley, it is because of US GAAP.
It is not Enron's fault, nor Arthur Andersen's.
Wait...
2000$ every 4 years for a new Mac, that's 500$ a year.
100$ for MobileMe.
400$ for an iPod every 3 years, that's 133,33$ a year.
650$ fon an iPad every 3 years, that's 216,66$ a year.
And the yearly major OSX update for 30$.
Thats 979,99$ every year that I'm giving to Apple. And now they want to charge me 99¢ ?
For a grand total of 980,89$ ? And they think I can afford it ?
The nerve of theses guys !
2000$ every 4 years for a new Mac, that's 500$ a year.
100$ for MobileMe.
400$ for an iPod every 3 years, that's 133,33$ a year.
650$ fon an iPad every 3 years, that's 216,66$ a year.
And the yearly major OSX update for 30$.
Thats 979,99$ every year that I'm giving to Apple. And now they want to charge me 99¢ ?
For a grand total of 980,89$ ? And they think I can afford it ?
The nerve of theses guys !
Accounting rules are accounting rules. Do you really think the prospect of a few million dollars would make Apple take on client dissatisfaction? Rules are rules and as such they are making the charge.
It's GAAP and tight revenue recognition regulations that make this an issue: one that is easier to handle using their existing infrastructure (app store) rather than through fudged accounting entries that require them to restate prior year results. Their investors would hate that.
Count yourselves lucky. Before the app store this would have been a Lion only feature that required you to upgrade an entire OS before you could use it.
Please stop saying this - everyone saying this is quoting just another misconception - that then keeps getting quoted over and over again.
I'm going to scream this (yes - intentionally) once.
SARBANES-OXLEY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS
refer to my post #152. There - move along.
As I recall, they charged for iChat AV ($29.95) at one point. And for Personal Web Sharing ($19.95) before that. Sure gets boring waiting for the sky to fall. Particularly when things (iChat AV, PWS, Facetime in Lion) get less charge-y over time.
Last edited: