Apple's $0.99 FaceTime Charge Due to Accounting Requirements

[dagryme]

sarbanes-oxley act of 2002

They have no choice, thank an overly intrusive government. The sarbanes-oxley act of 2002 basically says that any company must do whatever it can do, within is power, to return value back to shareholders.

 

[QuarterSwede]

They have no choice, thank an overly intrusive government. The sarbanes-oxley act of 2002 basically says that any company must do whatever it can do, within is power, to return value back to shareholders.

*In the voice of John C Dvorak*

"This stupid law has to go. Completely."

 

[Cougarcat]

Plus, Facetime won't accept external, third-party HD cameras, so I don't think "artificial limitations" are outside the realm of possibility.

It's working (well, the beta) with my Logitech in HD just fine.

 

[applemagic123]

I don't understand why so many people complain about this insignificant fee.

If you can afford a MacBook Pro, you can afford an application with the price tag of 99 cents.

But what if you're like me and bought your iMac with a credit card and paid it off? Just because someone has a mac, or a mercedez benz, doesn't mean they are rich.

 

[whistler222]

It's possible. IFRS is more principles-based, but the same concepts of multi-element arrangements and vendor-specific objective evidence will (generally) apply under IFRS as well.

I believe IFRS has a similar concept of VSOE for software revenue recognition as well. In either case, they are charging 99 cents to establish VSOE for the software.. so as to not cause restatement of deferred revenue in the past I think?

 

[Slix]

I have no problem paying for this. I won't now, but I could. People, it's a dollar, relax and enjoy your FaceTime.

The beta still works, if you don't want to pay, continue using that. Easy.

 

[jctune]

They have no choice, thank an overly intrusive government. The sarbanes-oxley act of 2002 basically says that any company must do whatever it can do, within is power, to return value back to shareholders.

Please don't say that. Sarbanes Oxley has nothing to do with "returning value to the shareholders".

Sarbanes concerns itself with internal controls over financial reporting and the corresponding changes in the "regulation" of audit firms. That's it.

 

[Popeye206]

People are still complaining about this? Geech!

 

[BaldiMac]

That's not a "technical" reason. That's a marketing reason. Easy way to tell the difference? It doesn't make sense.

You're telling me that a Mac Pro with 12 cores and two ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB cards couldn't do HD chatting? Come on, man. Same thing goes for a MBP that's three months old. Of course it could handle HD chatting. No problem.

It has nothing to do with standards.

Whatever you want to believe is fine. I just provided an explanation from Apple. Not sure what you think they are gaining by pulling the wool over everyone's eyes with this one.

 

[damarsh]

In Britain the cost sounds even more outrageous.
59 pence. fifty nine PENCE.



crazy. next we'll be paying 75 pence for a can of coke... wait... You wha...

 

[tdream]

I have no problem paying for this. I won't now, but I could. People, it's a dollar, relax and enjoy your FaceTime.

The beta still works, if you don't want to pay, continue using that. Easy.

They are grooming you into paying for every little thing. Look at the amount of people wanting to get the 15 inch Macbook because it has decent specs, when I say decent. I mean those specs should of made it to the 13inch.

 

[Pink∆Floyd]

Wow look at all these people whining about having to pay 99 cents.

Sad stuff

 

[telepati]

Apple just wants to f**ck dry!!!

 

[Alucardx03]

Whatever you want to believe is fine. I just provided an explanation from Apple. Not sure what you think they are gaining by pulling the wool over everyone's eyes with this one.

How about a new "checkbox" feature?

 

[benson304]

I believe IFRS has a similar concept of VSOE for software revenue recognition as well. In either case, they are charging 99 cents to establish VSOE for the software.. so as to not cause restatement of deferred revenue in the past I think?

Ugh VSOE.

But yes you are correct as far as I know.

 

[iEdd]

Wow look at all these people whining about having to pay 99 cents.

Sad stuff

$1.19 here. Might have to wait until my birthday for this one.

 

[dacapo]

Wow look at all these people whining about having to pay 99 cents.

Sad stuff

It's 99 cents to us. Rough guess -- it translates into more than $1 million to Apple. Not a bad deal for Apple due to 'accounting regulations'.

 

[BrunoMac]

Why did anyone pay for this? Beta seems to be working fine for me. If the paid version is any better at all I would happily pay for it. I'm just confused as to why anyone did.


Please enlighten me.

Thanks.

 

[mosx]

Gotta love the apologists supporting Apple ripping people off for the nth time.

Sure, its "only" 99c. It's not the cost but the principle. Apple is, again, lying about the reason they're charging. If they want to charge, simply charge for it and be honest. Don't make up lies as to why you have to charge.

Let's not forget that Apple tried to say that iPod software updates were paid updates because of "accounting" then Apple "fought" to have that "rule" changed and won, so they offered the last iPod software update for free.

Now, if they had that rule changed, why does it only apply for the iPod and not Macs? If "accounting" is the reason, why weren't us iPad owners charged for 4.2?

Also, look at everything else in the world. Are you telling me that Microsoft and Sony go back and restate the earnings for every PS3 and Xbox 360 ever sold when they release software updates with new features? Of course not. Microsoft certainly isn't going to go back and re-state the earnings for Xbox 360s sold in 2005.

This is Apple being typical Apple. Shafting the customer while lying about it and seeing how far they can push people before they break and finally realize that they're being ripped off.

 

[iEdd]

Sure, its "only" 99c. It's not the cost but the principle. Apple is, again, lying about the reason they're charging. If they want to charge, simply charge for it and be honest. Don't make up lies as to why you have to charge.

Why would they make something up, just to annoy people? That's bad PR. Remember, 99c per person is a negligible amount of money. The amount of customers pissed off is not worth the peanut butter return it gives.

Do you really think Apple want to piss everyone off just so every employee can have an extra biscuit in their morning tea break?

 

[chugg]

Man I'd love to archive this thread and show it to my kids in 30 years. It'll be amazing to see the reactions to how the richest company in the world in 2011 was able to charge $1 for what should've been a free download and still somehow had a parade of people defending it.

If you have any principles at all, for the love of god, don't buy this crap.

 

[mosx]

Why would they make something up, just to annoy people? That's bad PR. Remember, 99c per person is a negligible amount of money. The amount of customers pissed off is not worth the peanut butter return it gives.

Do you really think Apple want to piss everyone off just so every employee can have an extra biscuit in their morning tea break?

Did you forget that we're discussing Apple? A company that puts profit margin above EVERYTHING else?

If they can get a million people to buy it, thats a million dollars in their account. Thats not "negligible" by any means, even for a large company.

Don't forget that this is the same company that once sold the iPod touch without Mail and other apps then tried to sell it to the people who already bought it for $20.

 

[aristobrat]

Let's not forget that Apple tried to say that iPod software updates were paid updates because of "accounting" then Apple "fought" to have that "rule" changed and won, so they offered the last iPod software update for free.

Now, if they had that rule changed, why does it only apply for the iPod and not Macs? If "accounting" is the reason, why weren't us iPad owners charged for 4.2?

Have you even bothered reading the letter that Apple's Controller sent to the Chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board in regards to this matter?

The letter was pretty clear that the only thing Apple was asking was to not have to use subscription accounting in order to provide updates to "software enabled products", like (quoting the letter) "PDAs, cell phones, and MP3 players as well as less obvious examples like audio and video equipment, medical devices, automobiles and home appliances".

Software for computers doesn't fall under subscription accounting, and thus isn't affected by this change in rules. That's why it applies to devices like iPods and not traditional software for computers.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...es-change-could-end-ipod-touch-update-fee.ars
http://www.fasb.org/cs/ContentServe...ASB/Document_C/DocumentPage&cid=1176156438101

 

[Skoal]

Wow, for the haters PLEASE switch back to PC!!!! You get OSX, iPhoto, etc. etc. for free, now you're complaining that Apple is selling an app for .99, the cost of Angry birds? Pathetic!

Actually I got Angry Birds for free AND I continually get free updates! Oh and BTW, it works far better and other people actually use it as well!

 

[iEdd]

So how much of the $1M do the independent accountants and MacRumors, et al get paid to keep the conspiracy a secret and perpetuate the lie that Apple had to do this for legal reasons?

Seems the cash would be spread pretty thin just to keep the corrupt accountants quiet.

Anyway, it's good we have MR detectives on the case to expose these evil dealings.