Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
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

jctune said:
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.
Click to expand...

They're not charging 99¢ to "get paid". They have to charge it due to accounting regulations.

If they could have given it away for free, they would have.

See here:

kwfergy said:
This has to do with GAAP, multiple deliverables, revenue recognition, etc.
Click to expand...
 
jctune said:
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.
Click to expand...

LOL- you have me mixed up with someone else, bud. I never said I expected the software to be free- I'm not mad about anything. I was asking what are the new features of the Facetime that was released today that are not in the Beta. If there were new features, I was ready to pay $0.99 and buy it. It doesn't seem like there are any, so I will happily stick with my Beta version.

Some people are telling me that this Beta version of Facetime will expire so, no asking if it will or not and whether I should buy the $0.99 version released today is not a stupid question because no one seems to know the answer for sure.

I NEVER said anything about the $0.99 version being "wrong" - where are you coming up with this stuff?
 
Nice trick Apple... They forced user to create an account to use iTunes and App Store, even for free music/apps, in purpose to get credit card number to allow user for compulsive buying with one-click.

However, there was always a way to skip the credit card info during iTunes account creation.

So now, they'll charge customers for a feature they promote such Facetime. Tomorrow in Lion, we'll only get Finder and App Store for free, then if you want safari you'll pay, you want mail you'll pay, you want the address book you'll pay, $0.99 here, $0.99 there, etc...

Accounting reason is mainly Apple's bank account!!

I'm still using the beta and if it stops to work, I will just keep using Skype anyway, which is better and cross-platform.

Not this time Apple, not this time...

Spid
 
Spid: you should really educate yourself. It really is an accounting issue.

Do you think Apple wants to piss off their loyal customers over a measly 99¢?
 
aplqna said:
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.
Click to expand...

I understood what you are asking. But in the context of this thread, your question could have been interpreted to be asking for justification of $.99 for the new version when the beta version was free. I assume that is how jctune interpreted it. It was unclear if you didn't read the whole post carefully.

I understand that all you are asking for is a changelog.
 
I'm sure Apple understands the legalities of this far better than the hoards of "lawyer want-to-bes" posting here. Come on people, 99 cents. You spend that by turning your car's ignition to "start" and backing down your driveway.
 
aplqna said:
I NEVER said anything about the $0.99 version being "wrong" - where are you coming up with this stuff?
Click to expand...

Sorry if I misinterpreted your postings (I'm always happy to admit when that happens - rarely of course). Reading through these negative postings where people truly aren't understanding that they are bitching about paying for something that they were getting for free before just set me over the edge.
 
jctune said:
Sorry if I misinterpreted your postings (I'm always happy to admit when that happens - rarely of course). Reading through these negative postings where people truly aren't understanding that they are bitching about paying for something that they were getting for free before just set me over the edge.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no, see I would be happy to spend $0.99 on FaceTime if I didn't already have the Beta. I'm pretty sure I could find that amount of bank somewhere.
 
Alucardx03 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I take it that the new "Facetime HD" camera is better than 1280x1024, and not simply a rebranding of the 1280x1024 iSight version? Maybe Apple is more stringent of what it calls "HD."

I would be very surprised if the FaceTime app artificially limited the quality of the video that's possible on the hardware.
 
Cougarcat said:
I take it that the new "Facetime HD" camera is better than 1280x1024, and not simply a rebranding of the 1280x1024 iSight version? Maybe Apple is more stringent of what it calls "HD."

I would be very surprised if the FaceTime app artificially limited the quality of the video that's possible on the hardware.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it's a limitation of the processor or GPU. Seems like there was something about it on Apple's site.

Here you go:
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/features.html#graphics
 
BaldiMac said:
Did you read the link? It's the ability to encode HD video in real time.
Click to expand...

I did read the link. The Intel HD 3000 is roughly the equivalent of an ATI 2600 Pro from 2008. The 320m in last year's MBPs is a bit faster than it.

Graphics capability is not the issue.
 
Cougarcat said:
I take it that the new "Facetime HD" camera is better than 1280x1024, and not simply a rebranding of the 1280x1024 iSight version? Maybe Apple is more stringent of what it calls "HD."

I would be very surprised if the FaceTime app artificially limited the quality of the video that's possible on the hardware.
Click to expand...

iChat has been limiting the quality of the video for two or three years now, why not Facetime "HD"? Plus, Facetime won't accept external, third-party HD cameras, so I don't think "artificial limitations" are outside the realm of possibility.

I'm not saying that there aren't new and improved cameras in the new Macbook Pros. However, why not simply crop the existing cameras into a proper aspect ratio and activate "HD" calls for everyone else? Doesn't make sense at all.

The maximum chat resolution on the new MBPs is 720p. The existing cameras are higher resolution than 720p... Am I missing something here?

And the CPU/GPU is more than able to handle HD chats. Hell, my mom's Windows XP Dell POS from three years ago works with Logitech HD cameras-- she uses it every day. I don't buy the marketing. If that was the case, why not enable it for the Mac Pros with 8 cores and spec'ed out video cards?
 
Last edited:
Cougarcat said:
I did read the link. The Intel HD 3000 is roughly the equivalent of an ATI 2600 Pro from 2008. The 320m in last year's MBPs is a bit faster than it.

Graphics capability is not the issue.
Click to expand...

Do you really think they are lying on the feature page? The general specs of the GPU are not the issue. It's pretty obvious from Apple's description that the GPU supports hardware encoding of video (I assume h.264.)

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/performance.html
"An integrated video encoder enables HD video calls with FaceTime"
 
Last edited:
Supply and Demand... Capitalism. If you don't want it, don't get it, right?

Nomadski, classic... but don't we already do this (newspaper, cable, internet, etc...). Can't wait for blog... nomadski@blogspot ($.99 a visit)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back