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.
iPod touch Charged for accounting purposes...
- Thread starter Adokimus
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Don't get me wrong - as I mentioned earlier, I quickly forked out the cash for the apps as I personally feel that they're decent value, and I'm just stirring the pot a little! However, I think it's a poor show that 'accounting requirements' are used to justify the price of those and the upcoming updates. If that is really the case, make them a truly nominal price like one dollar. If they instead want to sell them for the actually relatively decent market price of $20, then they should get a spine and say so.
Truth be told, too many people are used to getting everything for free in this world. It's something everyone has done to themselves.
You guys say, you don't like it and will continue to jailbreak...yah, cuz that's gonna make Apple wanna make it free, considering jailbreaking is just like hacking any other system, which is technically illegal.
You're the kinda people who download bootlegged movies, and then complain because the theater raised their prices.
If anyone here owns a iPod touch, I'm sure they have a measly $20 laying around. Since you're not spending that on real movies anyways...
You guys say, you don't like it and will continue to jailbreak...yah, cuz that's gonna make Apple wanna make it free, considering jailbreaking is just like hacking any other system, which is technically illegal.
You're the kinda people who download bootlegged movies, and then complain because the theater raised their prices.
If anyone here owns a iPod touch, I'm sure they have a measly $20 laying around. Since you're not spending that on real movies anyways...
1. Apple does have to charge something. Go read about the terms of the bill.
2. Apple never even said that they were charging because of the law, which does exist...
3. You can't buy a product and assume that you'll get free stuff for it later. That's just stupid.
4. That's a terrible analogy with the store being remodeled. What if 2.0 has more features on final release? You'll still whine because you want it for free.
5. Apple takes money from the monthly iPhone fees. Not all of the money goes to AT&T. Why else would they be so expensive?
6. I bet that you'll eventually buy the update if it's not $2-5. This is the same reaction that we got here after the keynote "ZOMG $20, no way!" Two weeks later, most people that had complained had bought the apps.
7. Why worry about this when it won't affect you (or your wallet, for that matter...) for three and a half months? You don't even know what it's gonna cost...
You are totally talking out of your ass. You honestly haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. Have you studied the SOX law in depth? I'm not an accountant for a public company, and neither are you.
I would like to hear from someone actually knowledgeable about these issues on their opinion of this controversial practice.
The last time I checked, you still did have to pay install applications on your operating system.
With Leopard, Apple gives you the operating system, with a few apps, and then you need to buy or download all of the other apps you want or need.
Same with the 2.0 upgrade. Apple supplies you with the operating system with a few apps, then you need to buy or download all of the apps you need or want.
Neither upgrade is free and saying that Apple is essentially selling Touch owners the ability to pay Apple money through the AppStore, is just like saying, Apple is selling Mac users the ability to pay Apple money through their programs like iLife, Aperture & FCP.
No, you missed the point. You buy Leopard to install on your Touch. You don't have to pay someone to put the disc in the drive. You buy an App from the AppStore and you buy the iPod Touch. You shouldn't have to pay apple to install that App on your Touch.
Ok, you want to use this analogy.
1. You pay for the computer (in this case, your iPod touch).
2. You upgrade the operating system at a later date (here is your 2.0 upgrade).
3. You buy apps that become available with the features of the new OS (your iPhone apps).
I fail to see where you're going with this...
2.0 is A) Updates to EXISTING applications and B) The AppStore.
Updates are free per Apple's AppStore, so what are we being asked to pay for?
You're not paying Apple to install that app on your touch. You are paying for the software to put on the touch. Just like you pay for Leopard. You're upgrading a system, whether it's Leopard 10.5, or iPhone/iPod touch 2.0, there is no difference.
Noone is making you pay for installing anything. But just like with Leopard, you need to buy the upgrade, if you wanna use the new features, and you're not gonna get them for free.
To get programs on your Mac (or iPhone/iPod) you have to pay to get applications on to it.
There is no difference.
There is a difference. 2.0 will update Mail, Calendar, Safari, Address Book, etc all EXISTING applications. These updates shoud be free.
The only new application added is the AppStore. In essence, you're paying Apple for this store. In essence, you're paying Apple to pay them more money through buying apps.
Yes, the apps are updated. But with new features. iLife got updated in August with the same applications. That wasn't free.
Just so you know, just because all you know about the 2.0 update is a few upgrades to existing apps and one new app, does not mean that the entire system that lies underneath, won't be updated.
Really tho, the entire system will be upgraded when 2.0 is released, it will make the system run faster, smoother, better battery consumption, ability to install new apps on your system. This sounds like a operating system update to me.
It's apparent that you'll defend anything Apple does until you're dead in your grave.
Apple should not be charging for updates to purchased iPod Touch apps. Apple should not be charging for the ability to access the App Store. I bought the January update in good faith that Apple was selling me applications, not firmware.
I'm not so sure anymore.
Dude, Apple has done lots of stupid stuff... iPhone price drop, puck mouse, etc.
I defend any business for doing business-like stuff when people come around whining that they think that they deserve everything for free. You don't know the fee for the update, or even what all is coming. All you know is that an app store will come in 2.0, there could be a lot more.
So you clearly must support and defend Microsoft's attempts to subvert anti-trust rulings. Hell Yeah! Long live the monopoly and it's inflated prices. If you don't want it, don't buy it! It's just a business doing business-like stuff. Get over it hippies!
I'm convinced. Companies should never be challenged or criticized for acting in their own self-interest of making the most money possible. My only hope is that Apple cuts the health insurance plans for it's employees next... then we can finally see that stock shoot back up and make some money!
Woot big business, go big money. No Whammies.
1. What bill are you talking about? Are you talking about the iphone? If so, then you NEVER have to send a check to Apple for phone use. ATT does, but that's ATT's bag, not the consumers.
2. I realize the law exists, I've read the law, the law does not apply. I said accounting issues, in which there is NO GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) stipulating this rule. Are you meaning to tell me that if they don't charge us then the SEC will shut them down? You're nuts.
3. I can't buy a product and expect free stuff? I can respond to this in two ways. One, I can argue that when I paid $400, all updates were built into that price, so really I'm not getting anything for free. It's like those TV commercials (or ebay) where the product is like $10 and shipping and handling is like $15. It's all built into the price, take a business class. Or, I could argue that even if SOFTWARE UPDATES (not upgrades, I'm not getting OS Eleven here), the precedent is quite clearly set that month to month updates on technology are far and wide usually free. Whether it be my ipod, my smartphone, my computer, or my DVR. ALL FREE. So, yes, sir, I can expect free things when I buy something.
4. My analogy is fine and the point is obvious.
5. Like I said in #1. The end user pays ATT for the fee not Apple. When you go to Wal-Mart do you talk about the semi driver who shipped it? Or how about when you order a steak at a restaurant, do you justify the cost by saying "Well, really a lot of this is going to the farmer".
6. Maybe. I still haven't bought the $20. I jailbroke my ipod and have all the programs (which I rarely even use).
7. UGH!!!!!!! AGAIN... It does matter to me. It matters because I want the functionality that I was led to believe when I bought the ipod touch. It's an opportunity cost. And I'm "whining" about it now because it's relevant right now as it was just announced that there will be a fee. My life doesn't revolve around this issue. Don't get me wrong, I'm a pretty boring person but this is the least of my worries
2. I realize the law exists, I've read the law, the law does not apply. I said accounting issues, in which there is NO GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) stipulating this rule. Are you meaning to tell me that if they don't charge us then the SEC will shut them down? You're nuts.
3. I can't buy a product and expect free stuff? I can respond to this in two ways. One, I can argue that when I paid $400, all updates were built into that price, so really I'm not getting anything for free. It's like those TV commercials (or ebay) where the product is like $10 and shipping and handling is like $15. It's all built into the price, take a business class. Or, I could argue that even if SOFTWARE UPDATES (not upgrades, I'm not getting OS Eleven here), the precedent is quite clearly set that month to month updates on technology are far and wide usually free. Whether it be my ipod, my smartphone, my computer, or my DVR. ALL FREE. So, yes, sir, I can expect free things when I buy something.
4. My analogy is fine and the point is obvious.
5. Like I said in #1. The end user pays ATT for the fee not Apple. When you go to Wal-Mart do you talk about the semi driver who shipped it? Or how about when you order a steak at a restaurant, do you justify the cost by saying "Well, really a lot of this is going to the farmer".
6. Maybe. I still haven't bought the $20. I jailbroke my ipod and have all the programs (which I rarely even use).
7. UGH!!!!!!! AGAIN... It does matter to me. It matters because I want the functionality that I was led to believe when I bought the ipod touch. It's an opportunity cost. And I'm "whining" about it now because it's relevant right now as it was just announced that there will be a fee. My life doesn't revolve around this issue. Don't get me wrong, I'm a pretty boring person but this is the least of my worries
1. No, bill is the same as law in this context.
2. What's your point? That's not a counterargument.
3. Nobody told you that you were gonna get free upgrades, you just expected them.
4. No, it isn't.
5. AT&T has to pay Apple, showing that Apple gets money from iPhone subscriptions. It doesn't matter who signs the check. What matters is that they get money for each subscription.
6. ok...
7. Apple didn't lead you to believe that you were gonna get free upgrades, or even new features. You can't let your mind or people on a forum mislead you and then get upset when what you expected doesn't come through.
Who cares what Microsoft does? The reason that they have to raise the prices is because people pirate their software and they have to fight that. They can charge whatever the hell they want for the product that they made, no matter how much it sucks. No, you don't have to buy what they make. Buy a mac...So you clearly must support and defend Microsoft's attempts to subvert anti-trust rulings. Hell Yeah! Long live the monopoly and it's inflated prices. If you don't want it, don't buy it! It's just a business doing business-like stuff. Get over it hippies!
I'm convinced. Companies should never be challenged or criticized for acting in their own self-interest of making the most money possible. My only hope is that Apple cuts the health insurance plans for it's employees next... then we can finally see that stock shoot back up and make some money!
Woot big business, go big money. No Whammies.
If companies like this just lowered their prices down to free, they wouldn't make money, which wouldn't let them make products, which would also make you mad. If someone invests in your company and it becomes successful, you can't just blow that person off. If you pay for your share, it should be returned to you whever you want and since you own a part of the company, your best interest is also their best interest.
Here's what Microsoft did: When companies bought Windows XP, Microsoft sold them "all new operating system versions that we ship within the next three years" for lots of money. Everyone thought they would get Vista cheap that way. What they didn't know was that Vista took longer than three years to deliver, so what they got for their money was nothing.
All we know about 2.0 is what they said on Thursday. There could eaisly be more to be revealed at a later date, nobody knows.
Apple has a right to charge for updates, of course. I doubt anybody's arguing that. But, I think a lot of people have trouble with being "nickeled and dimed".
I think most people (including myself) would feel better if Apple bumped up the initial price and gave us a few "free" updates instead. Of course, this might make others unhappy about having to "pay more for features I don't need" (like you're paying $300+ for a PDA device and not to have it updated, but I digress).
If this regulation were the sole reason to charge, of course Apple could charge a minimal fee of a $1 or $2 (or literally nickels and dimes, but coming off entirely differently than saying) instead of $20 or more.
Regardless, I myself have waited for the iPod Touch to gain those features it should ahve always had, and now I am waiting for the SDK-compatible update to come along before purchasing an iPod Touch, but I can still sympathize with some of the early adopters here.
I think most people (including myself) would feel better if Apple bumped up the initial price and gave us a few "free" updates instead. Of course, this might make others unhappy about having to "pay more for features I don't need" (like you're paying $300+ for a PDA device and not to have it updated, but I digress).
If this regulation were the sole reason to charge, of course Apple could charge a minimal fee of a $1 or $2 (or literally nickels and dimes, but coming off entirely differently than saying) instead of $20 or more.
Regardless, I myself have waited for the iPod Touch to gain those features it should ahve always had, and now I am waiting for the SDK-compatible update to come along before purchasing an iPod Touch, but I can still sympathize with some of the early adopters here.
I feel like why don't THEY just wait to have a final product than having us wait for it all to be released in one thing.
Apple was the one that changed their minds on not having mail,maps etc installed already, couple of months later its like woops it should've been included, you can have them but pay me some money for my dumb ass idea