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
Actually that is a very interesting observation. Because if you sell a product with the promise of an undeveloped new feature, then you really are required to set aside the earnings needed to fund its development.
EDIT: Of course if it was included then that doesn't matter.
Incredible
People have never been more greedy as regards personal wealth and never more stingy as regards actually paying for the work of others.
99 cents is an issue for people? Seriously.
Maybe anyone that objects to paying for software and services should start doing their own job for free, if you're not prepared to pay for the work of others, you shouldn't be paid yourself.
Greedy, selfish, arrogant.
</rant>
People have never been more greedy as regards personal wealth and never more stingy as regards actually paying for the work of others.
99 cents is an issue for people? Seriously.
Maybe anyone that objects to paying for software and services should start doing their own job for free, if you're not prepared to pay for the work of others, you shouldn't be paid yourself.
Greedy, selfish, arrogant.
</rant>
An operating system and the latest version of iLife comes 'free' with the new macs. Doesn't mean that those who want new features that didn't come with their hardware shouldn't pay an incredibly low fee for the privilege.
My new house didn't come with new sofas, but other people can buy a house fully furnished. Go figure.
Actually, you may have hit the nail on the head. If the MBA was advertised as having a "facetime camera", then it could be argued that the MBA was shipped incomplete per GAAP rules, and if the facetime software were now offered free, that would constitute completion.
If the SEC ruled that Apple violated GAAP in this way, Apple would be forced to restate revenue significantly for each quarter they shipped the "facebook camera" MBA. It would be chaos.
LOL! What in the world are you going on about? I am not talking about the fairness of it being $0.99 verses free like so many people here are.
How is my question difficult to understand? Here, let me simplify it. My question is:
What is different in the $0.99 version of Facetime as compared to the Beta version of Facetime? Should people who already have the Beta version of Facetime (that would be ANYONE who has had it since before today) buy this new version and why?
Please tell me that was not hard to understand.
Somebody has HAD to have worked with both of them by now.
It's funny, my house came with a phone line. I still had to pay for line rental and a phone to actually use it. All apple are asking you to do is pay for the phone.
It's 99c Get OVER YOURSELF. Don't like it - go and use Skype.
It's freaking hilarious how people can act out so cheap after blowing a small fortune buying Apple hardware in the first place. If you're not going to use FaceTime then fine nobody expects you to spend 99 cents of your hard earned life savings.
If this silliness turns into a 100 page thread then I'll be pretty disgusted with the MR community.
This is laughable. I may enjoy FaceTime on the Mac occaisoanlly when I get a new machine and it's included, but I've only used the beta twice so no way am I payin' for it.
Se la vi.
Se la vi.
It was hard to understand because you asked the question in the context of a discussion about the $.99 charge and accounting rules.
But to answer your question, the only reasons to upgrade appear to be any bugs that Apple has squashed, performance improvements, and the possibility that the beta will expire or become unsupported for new Facetime connections.
Peole who complain ...
People who complain about this do not understand reality.
Governments regulate business and this is a costly enterprise.
If you want to complain, complain to your Congressman (if in fact you know who they are) that the Federal government, FCC and others are in the way.
People who complain about this do not understand reality.
Governments regulate business and this is a costly enterprise.
If you want to complain, complain to your Congressman (if in fact you know who they are) that the Federal government, FCC and others are in the way.
Nice try, but no cigar. Nobody has proved anyone wrong.
If you bother to read my previous posts, my argument is that this sets a bad precedent for the future of OSX, that it merely boils down to Apple "testing the water" for a Pay-as-you-use type model. Afterall, they would prefer all Mac users to
only use the Mac App Store to purchase Apps, and this could be the way to do it. That's right, the Mac App Store which was also never part of the original OS...
But I digress... the CPA's have pointed out that the "Accounting Issues" raised are indeed valid. I am not disputing that.
I am, however, disputing that it's the actual reasoning behind this move. Just because there's an extremely "subjective" accountancy law that could be used to justify the motives behind the 0.99 charge, doesn't mean that's the real reason.
Look, the CPA's on here make a lot of sense and they are right that the rule is something that could apply (again, it's subjective as to what is "extra functionality") but, come one, just because Apple say the sky is red, doesn't make it red.
Why are people mad about $.99 when the real issue is Apple not allowing previous macs with capable cameras to use the HD feature of this app?
That's the real story here, not the sub-dollar charge.
That's the real story here, not the sub-dollar charge.
No, I did not. The thread is about it being released today- and my question stems from that. I did not post my question in a reply to anyone engaging in the $.99 charge debate, and that was quite clear, so, no that was not the context of my question.
Right- and my question is - what are those things- those bugs and performance improvements? So far I haven't heard one.
How could it expire if it is already downloaded onto my machine? I am not worried about future updates- it's fine the way it works now for having been free.
Maybe you should check the title of this thread. Maybe you confused it with another one.
Don't know.
Betas often have built in expiration dates after which the software will no longer work. Don't know if this is true of the Facetime beta.
Everyone within my organisation, my mum, my brother and his family in japan, most of my friends.
Odd question.
How do you want a VGA camera (640 x 480) to output a HD image (1280×720)?
So far, only the new MacBook Pro's that were released today have an HD Camera, every Mac before today has a VGA camera.
because HD is all about the camera, not about performance issues caused by older graphics card and overall processing power?
Why doesn't my current mac support thunderbolt - it's got sockets that could fit a thunderbolt connector!!!
</sarcasm>
Since you've decided to not read the last part of my response I'll take the same approach in my response as you just did.
Why do you expect software to be free? You've been given the ability to use the software for free for a period of time - and now you are pissed that a company actually wants to get paid. Shame on them - how dare they!
Now to why anyone who has it today would buy it - why would they? It doesn't expire does it? That seems to me to be a pretty stupid question.
To the should question - that's up to Apple and all other software developers. You make the decision whether you want to let the "early adopter" beta testers keep the free version - but to say that coming to the conclusion that actually wanting to get paid is "wrong" is ludicrous.
I'm not challenging your statement, but would like to educate myself on this. I agree SOX doesn't apply, but would like to read the relevant GAAP information you reference. Thanks!
Um... maybe because all current Macbooks, besides the MBA, come with 1280x1024 cameras built in? Last time I checked, that resolution encompasses 720p... But of course, those who attacked didn't do their research. Look it up, guys.
What's wrong with a "pay as you use" model? Do you expect all computing to be free, or how about just paying for those elements that you use, rather than a weighty OS fee covering all possible features, many of which would go unused.
it's 99c - stop being cheap. It's not the tip of any iceberg, it's a small fee for an optional piece of software - don't want it, don't buy it. At the same price as a fart app, what is the issue?!?!?!
It was a clear question- I mentioned nothing regarding the fairness of the charge. It still relates to today's version of FaceTime that's being offered for $0.99. If I asked if the sky were blue on this thread I would hope someone would still answer yes and not run off into a diatribe about the intricate economic reasoning behind the $0.99 pricepoint. I was hoping to get an answer here on this thread so that perhaps people could say "oh, this version has feature X and Y that the beta didn't" and then take their debate of the price-point from there.
I know this, but I'm pretty sure they would have to tell you this in the terms of service and I don't remember reading that for this Beta.