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
Exactly... who cares? I spend $.99 on apps all the time. Some not worth the time to click.
I'm guessing there is some capitalized development costs they have to account for and charging for this allows it to show separately on the books. Being a public company, there do have accounting guidelines so it's not unreasonable what they say. I doubt they really care about the $1.
Again... who cares... if you want it or need it... it's only $.99. BFD.
You don't have to quote the whole article, we know what it is already. The Reply button is at the bottom.
Could someone explain the details of this accounting requirement?
I am confused. Look at the last OS X update. It gave us the app store, which surely can be called a new feature that I doubt was planned and accounted for when Snow Leopard was released. Now we have another new feature, but it must be charged for due to accounting regulations.
I am confused. Look at the last OS X update. It gave us the app store, which surely can be called a new feature that I doubt was planned and accounted for when Snow Leopard was released. Now we have another new feature, but it must be charged for due to accounting regulations.
The submission to the standards bodies, which it hasn't. And indeed the activation at the start of the call passes through Apple servers using an entirely proprietry method that has never been documented.
Phazer
Amen. Exactly the same for me too. For everyone i know, skype is horrendous, they just don't know any better because they haven't used facetime, or heck, ichat even.
It's known as the "Free-Tard" movement. This is the crowd that thinks everything should be free... the hardware, the software, the music, the videos. No one should have to pay for anything.
Any evidence that it hasn't been submitted to standards bodies? If so, any evidence as to why? (As opposed to the jump to the assumption that Apple simply lied.)
I guess you never heard a story like this: If you put a frog into boiling water, it will definitely struggle to jump out. But if you put the frog into cold water and heat the water slowly, the frog would not feel anything until it dies.
Can someone please answer something for me?
Is Apple the only company on the planet affected by this 'Sarbanes-Oxley' act? Why is it then that I've never, ever heard of any other situation where this has applied on any other company? I'm asking a sincere, serious question, because I'm dumbfounded. I've installed completely new, free software from Microsoft on my windows machine which was not included or in existence when I bought my machine so... where the hell does this act apply? Why does it not apply for the remote app, and other free apps that apple has in the appstore? How the hell is facetime different? It's not.
This sounds so much like a crock of ****. I consider myself to be rational, objective, and intelligent, yet I don't see any consistency or historical reason to believe that Apple is being 'forced' to put a price on this app, and I don't like being lied to. If it's 0.99, fine, but let's not blame some ******** legislation which apparently is not applied on any other product I've ever bought or on software of any other company on the planet.
Is Apple the only company on the planet affected by this 'Sarbanes-Oxley' act? Why is it then that I've never, ever heard of any other situation where this has applied on any other company? I'm asking a sincere, serious question, because I'm dumbfounded. I've installed completely new, free software from Microsoft on my windows machine which was not included or in existence when I bought my machine so... where the hell does this act apply? Why does it not apply for the remote app, and other free apps that apple has in the appstore? How the hell is facetime different? It's not.
This sounds so much like a crock of ****. I consider myself to be rational, objective, and intelligent, yet I don't see any consistency or historical reason to believe that Apple is being 'forced' to put a price on this app, and I don't like being lied to. If it's 0.99, fine, but let's not blame some ******** legislation which apparently is not applied on any other product I've ever bought or on software of any other company on the planet.
Nonsense, with every iOS update we get new not advertised features for free.
Is this some US rule?
Because they use a subscription method for booking revenue earned through handset sales which allows them to do that.
When did the window for Apple to submit this close?
i paid for 1x download, i have 5 apple products that can do farcetime....... do i have to pay another 4x?
That's not the point its the fact the apple is making money off of something that should have been free like ipods and iPhones so um about that cydia jailbreak for Macs ;-)
"Version 1.0" of the Facetime protocol came out on the day the iPhone 4 was released. They've had over a year.
I know because standards bodies publish the submissions they recieve, which I've been keeping an eye on, and Apple have not submitted anything about Facetime at all. And again, no documentation of the initial discovery protocol exists at all, because it's entirely proprietry.
Phazer
I literally laughed out loud at this. We waste far more than 99 cents on all kinds of ridiculous things, and then get all indignant over spending a dollar on a piece of software. iTunes and the App Store have certainly changed the value that people put on such a miniscule price.
The fricking day isn't even over yet. Geez. How many seconds after the release would be acceptable to you?
Last edited by a moderator:
Other way around I would guess. The "department" or "Group" that was responsible for developing FaceTime got paid and had their work justified by knowing they'd make money. They probably did this by negotiating (accounting wise) a fraction of the OS sale price. That is how they got paid.
But now, with the development done, they could release it without an OS upgrade. But that would hurt (even if insignificantly) the number of OS sales, and the ability for the development group to recoup they money they spent developing the app.
And if their is one thing I've learned and have been told about accounting departments, it's that there is no such thing as an insignificant dollar ;-)
So I completely believe this to be the case. Most Apple applications are not free. Major features are shipping either with the OS, iLife, or standalone for a price. Apple provides plenty of updates for free, but not major features let alone brand new apps.
In fact, I'd give the developers credit on this one. They somehow managed to release a "Beta" that was damnwell near Gold Master quality, and kept it out there for free for months on end. That was a pretty slick way to get around accounting for a while
No, they aren't the only company. They are just the only company that people care enough about to make something like this newsworthy.
