A post complaining about the 99c charge doesn't take more time than a post saying "oh well, c'est la vie."
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
A post complaining about the 99c charge doesn't take more time than a post saying "oh well, c'est la vie."
This kind of reminds me of something I experienced in college. My friends and I were walking along the edge of our college campus, when we were approached by a group soliciting funds for some charity. We honestly had no money, and apologetically declined to give any offers. The charity people then chastised us: "you go to this expensive university and you have no money?!" One of my friends then laughed in their faces, and asked where they thought any money that we might have had went. (I mean, wasn't it obvious? They already knew that the tuition was damnably expensive...)
Granted, there's a big difference between going broke over your education and going broke over a laptop. Whenever someone says "you could afford to buy X, so you must be able to afford Y" it reminds me of that event, though.
I didn't even think twice about it, I was in the Mac App Store before I read this article, saw that it was version 1.0 (out of beta) and one click later and it was on my desktop.
its $.99, not your life's savings.
its $.99, not your life's savings.
Seriously? Does it hurt your knees when you jump out of the path of a point that's barrelling towards you?
I don't feel the need to use it, and now would have to pay for it? I don't think so...
Luck for you, you don't have to buy it. See how that works out?
Gotta say this is incredible. Some bozo's in the marketing dept have to sell the $.99 charge.
of course it is for accounting purposes. to add millions buck to apple's bottom line.
of course it is for accounting purposes. to add millions buck to apple's bottom line.
Useless App
I've tried FaceTime on iphone and Mac, in my opinion it is inferior to Skype, also nobody uses FaceTime, you need WiFi on iPhone to use it and it's not as good of a video quality as Skype.
I don't feel the need to use it, and now would have to pay for it? I don't think so...
I've tried FaceTime on iphone and Mac, in my opinion it is inferior to Skype, also nobody uses FaceTime, you need WiFi on iPhone to use it and it's not as good of a video quality as Skype.
I don't feel the need to use it, and now would have to pay for it? I don't think so...
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!
Odd how people say how they just can't understand why Apple would do this when they want Facetime to be a success, but when presented with a valid reason why they just dismiss it as BS.
Do people honestly think that a company like Apple that has every little move it makes scrutinised to the minutest degree by investors, accountants, auditors, governments and tax agencies is going to just lie and say they're charging for something for accounting reasons knowing damn well that the lie wouldn't stand up to the slightest professional review and they'd be hung out to dry on it? Since when has Apple ever felt obliged to explain its prices? Why the heck would Apple say this was for accounting reasons when it wasn't? If they'd just done it for the money, why would they have even bothered to say anything? In other words, why would they bother taking a massive reputational risk and lying when they could just keep quiet?
Just saying.
Do people honestly think that a company like Apple that has every little move it makes scrutinised to the minutest degree by investors, accountants, auditors, governments and tax agencies is going to just lie and say they're charging for something for accounting reasons knowing damn well that the lie wouldn't stand up to the slightest professional review and they'd be hung out to dry on it? Since when has Apple ever felt obliged to explain its prices? Why the heck would Apple say this was for accounting reasons when it wasn't? If they'd just done it for the money, why would they have even bothered to say anything? In other words, why would they bother taking a massive reputational risk and lying when they could just keep quiet?
Just saying.
Last edited:
Call it what it is!
This is your FEDERAL GOVERNMENT requiring this charge, not Apple. If you don't like it, contact your congressman. If he's not out trying to end Planned Parenthood or creating a new health care system, you might be able to remind him (her) that this is a BS requirement. Or not. 99¢ is OK with me, but quit complaining about Apple. Their hands are tied.
This is your FEDERAL GOVERNMENT requiring this charge, not Apple. If you don't like it, contact your congressman. If he's not out trying to end Planned Parenthood or creating a new health care system, you might be able to remind him (her) that this is a BS requirement. Or not. 99¢ is OK with me, but quit complaining about Apple. Their hands are tied.
I've tried FaceTime on iphone and Mac, in my opinion it is inferior to Skype, also nobody uses FaceTime, you need WiFi on iPhone to use it and it's not as good of a video quality as Skype.
I don't feel the need to use it, and now would have to pay for it? I don't think so...
Seriously? I've used both and the video quality of FaceTime is far GREATER than Skype IMO.
So Apple didn't have any idea what is was talking about when it explained that SarBox required the charges for updated iPod software?
I don't ********** care about Apple's accounting. My accounting tells me that my $0.99 shouldn't be paid to such an app.
When Apple released FaceTime 1.0 into the Mac App Store earlier today with a $0.99 price tag, many users were up in arms over the charge for what had been a free application during its beta phase.
As we suspected and has now been confirmed by Macworld's Dan Moren, the charge is due to an accounting requirement that has affected similar updates in the past.Moren's reference is to the software download that unlocked 802.11n capabilities that were included in certain Macs but not activated at the time of sale.
While it is not clear exactly what types of updates trigger such accounting requirements, Apple has in the past generally stated that adding significant functionality that had not been advertised as included at the time of purchase can require such minimal user payments. While Macs have long included iChat video capabilities similar in many respects to FaceTime, Apple and its accounting advisors clearly believe that a public release of FaceTime software for existing Macs represents a substantial new feature addition for which the company is required to either charge a small fee or restate its past earnings to retroactively delay recognition of a tiny slice of revenue from each past machine sale.
The new FaceTime application is included free of charge on the MacBook Pros released today, as it is an advertised feature on the new hardware, and the application will certainly continue to be free on future versions of Mac hardware.
Article Link: Apple's $0.99 FaceTime Charge Due to Accounting Requirements
If it was an arbitrary 99 cent price to satisfy accountants, and they don't need the money, then why didn't they make it one cent? Nobody would complain then... and all rules would be satisfied.
But is that what they are doing? No.
It's like you actually believe Apple conspired to release Facetime as a beta to then charge $.99 later. Most people won't buy it, and they'll get the revised one when they upgrade (and pay) for Lion.
Bully for you. Hope your pleased with yourself.
It's a matter of Apple lying, which, unfortunately is becoming a common event. Why were we not all charged for the introduction of the Mac App Store. That added functionality that was not originally present in Snow Leopard. Or the additions to iTunes over recent updates.
Claiming "Accounting" as a reason is pure horsepoo.
Exactly! And Lion will require all apps to be paid for thru the App Store. They are turning OSX into a giant iPhone!
Because according to Apple, anything in the App Store (Mac or iOS) has to either be Free or a minimum of $.99
It isn't the money, it's the excuse for it that is so annoying.
"Regulatory reasons" do not state that $0.99 must be charged, that is simply Apple's interpretation of them. Other companies do not do this - in fact even Apple doesn't do this with programs like Mail and Safari. Do Windows users have to pay for Safari? No. But it doesn't come free with their OS, does it?
Blaming the regulator when nobody else does sounds like a little girl's squealling that you've pulled her hair in First Grade when she actually sat on it herself. Pathetic.
"Regulatory reasons" do not state that $0.99 must be charged, that is simply Apple's interpretation of them. Other companies do not do this - in fact even Apple doesn't do this with programs like Mail and Safari. Do Windows users have to pay for Safari? No. But it doesn't come free with their OS, does it?
Blaming the regulator when nobody else does sounds like a little girl's squealling that you've pulled her hair in First Grade when she actually sat on it herself. Pathetic.
I can't even believe people are whining about 99 cents for such a quality application that any other company would have charged 10 or 20 times as much. Especially when Apple is about to make it's $99 Mobile Me service free.
