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 :( Dirty Money Making Scheme Protest
- Thread starter Euanp
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And if we assume half of the posts are current iPt owners objecting to and refusing to pay the charge, at 25 per page... that's around 170 people, and subsequently over $3,000 Apple aren't getting, just from this one little website
we should treat ourselves!And if we assume half of the posts are current iPt owners objecting to and refusing to pay the charge, at 25 per page... that's around 170 people, and subsequently over $3,000 Apple aren't getting, just from this one little website
Compare that with the results of the Engadget poll:
Those opting for the upgrade: 6,908
Those annoyed by the charge and/or sticking with jailbreak: 24,169
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/15/poll-are-you-spending-20-on-new-ipod-touch-apps/
Think what you will about Engadget, but that's a pretty clear message to Apple.
y should I pay for something when I can get free via jailbreaking. It cost apple nothing to make those apps side the touch an iphone mi us the phone part. Y should I pay 20$ which is Hellas expensive just for apple to "unlock" apps. Its not even a new firmware which also should and always be free. Just look at he zine free firmware like it should be. There's no way im paying for this, and I dont see how other ppl can either $20 is at overprised even if it was 1 cent it would to much.
Any ways that's my opinion and I could write more but my touch keybaord is getting annoying now.
Any ways that's my opinion and I could write more but my touch keybaord is getting annoying now.
But why continue arguing over this when there is a clear reason why Apple is charging for the extra features.
The iPhone is the only product that has subscription based accounting which allows them to add more features for free to a product making it more valuable than the purchase price.
Yall were happy with the apps on it when yall paid $200 for it, now the extra value must be accounted for.
Stop bitching at Apple, and start bitching at law makers that put laws like Sarbanes-Oxley into practice.
The iPhone is the only product that has subscription based accounting which allows them to add more features for free to a product making it more valuable than the purchase price.
Yall were happy with the apps on it when yall paid $200 for it, now the extra value must be accounted for.
Stop bitching at Apple, and start bitching at law makers that put laws like Sarbanes-Oxley into practice.
Or you could put it this way: assuming that SOX actually applies to 'upgrades' within the same fiscal year as the 'sale' at all (anyone?), what we have here is a clear oversight by Apple. They didn't use the same subscription accounting model as iPhone and ATV etc., when there's every reason to have done so.
They made a mistake. They'll probably correct this mistake for the next generation of iPods. In the meantime, instead of trying to find a creative solution, they just dumped on their early adopters.
Right. It enabled the game functionality, but you still had to purchase the game.
I haven't got the touch yet. I bet i'll get the 5 apps for free by the time i get it. And i honestly feel it's really unfair for those who are stuck with the older firmware and have to pay $20 extra just to get what i get. They shouldn't have had to pay 2 cents for it.
I know a whole bunch of you will go with Apple for this but we don't care you are that happy to throw $20 away.
Apple is being cheaper than ever in my eyes. Gee, I wonder if we have to pay $399 for the 1.1.4 firmware. <_<
I know a whole bunch of you will go with Apple for this but we don't care you are that happy to throw $20 away.
Apple is being cheaper than ever in my eyes. Gee, I wonder if we have to pay $399 for the 1.1.4 firmware. <_<
Yes, you can. I was curious as to what the new apps and features were like, so I bought a $30 gift card (upgrade costs $25 here in Australia) and got the upgrade. While the apps (Mail, Weather, Stocks, Notes, Maps) and features (customizable homescreen, lyrics) are nice, I really think it was wrong of Apple to make people pay for them ($25 is a lot of money to a 16 year old like myself).
I don't understand why people are complaining about the charge.
You are not paying for the updated 1.1.3 firmware. You still get this for nothing.
You are paying for new applications that were not on the original product. Why wouldn't there be a charge ?
I would have seen it, as very generous of apple to give the apps away free, but they are a business - who obviously sell software and hardware and want to be paid for it.
You are not paying for the updated 1.1.3 firmware. You still get this for nothing.
You are paying for new applications that were not on the original product. Why wouldn't there be a charge ?
I would have seen it, as very generous of apple to give the apps away free, but they are a business - who obviously sell software and hardware and want to be paid for it.
So by this logic any time Apple starts bundling a software package with their computers anyone who had buggy first gen hardware/OS should be entitled to that software for free? People who had G4 cubes should get free copies of iLife? First gen products are almost always buggy, if you don't want to deal with it wait until second or third generation and buy a more feature filled, less buggy product for less money.
It was mentioned that early adopters should be favored since they produce the sales that allow for the products to improve, but how far back do you take that? Should gen 1 iPod owners get free iPod Touches because without them the iPod would have tanked and we wouldn't have iPts today? You buy a product for the features it has not the features you think it might get in the future. If new features are added, you may luck out and get them for free, you may have to pay for them, or you may be ineligible because of older hardware, it's the nature of technology, tomorrow's products will always be faster, smaller, better, and cheaper.
The bug fixes for any software are almost always free (excepting the bug fix from ME->XP). The 1.1.3 firmware update for the iPt is also free.
These apps, while already developed were not initially available on the iPt and thus count as new applications on that platform. Microsoft could start bundling MS Word with Vista tomorrow and offer it as a download "upgrade" for current users but they would have to charge for the "upgrade" while new Vista purchasers get it with the OS they buy today for no extra charge. This is where SOX comes into play. MS can issue any bug fixes and enhancements to applications already within Windows (Explorer, Outlook Express, etc.) but if they add any applications that weren't previously there they need to charge existing users for those applications.
ya but u cant compare hardware to firmware, its totally different. The thing is The new IPT ppl get this for free, and there shafting the early adopters by not including it, when it should be free since its not like they had to waste man hours programming these apps, when there on the iphone already.
Did Apple give away iLife to old customers when they started bundling it with new computers?
How do you know that they didn't use these apps to perfect the SDK, effectively spending a lot of time and money to make them compatible with the SDK? The iPhone had the apps already so charging for an upgrade to the apps would have gone over even worse than charging for them on the iPt where the apps were not currently bundled.
Think of it all as a $20 price cut on the iPt and then forcing the new users to purchase a bundle of the iPt and the new apps. They may not want or use the apps but they have to spend the $20 to get their iPt (unless you can get your hands on the existing stock without the apps for $20 less).
New iLife is not supposed to be on old Macs in the first place (because they have NOT been released yet!!!!).
Apple and Oranges.
I can see both sides to this argument.
I bought the iPhone at launch, and was upset, though not suprised, when Apple dropped the price significantly very early in the life cycle of the device. Apple did what was right, and gave us back a $100 store credit. I'm not here to argue about the fact that the money is still going back to Apple. That doesn't matter. They made early owners happy.
Now, for the iPod Touch. I really don't see a problem with them charging for this update. You want to know why? Because there is very little difference between the iPhone and the iPod Touch now. Sure, the Touch does not have SMS or the phone, but it does everything else now that the iPhone can do (with the exception of browsing the internet over EDGE). And you know what? That kind of sucks, cosidering I pay about $100 a month in order to use the iPhone. That is why iPhone users are entitled to free updates from Apple. They are getting subscription revenue from AT&T monthly from us. A one time $20 fee to update your Touch will not kill you.
As for the
TV. Apple did the right thing by recognizing that the TV left a lot to be desired. Could you imagine how mad everyone would be that owned an TV and couldn't take advantage of the new features of the iTunes Store? I mean, that is the primary reason why they bought the device. Apple is paying them back with the new features because the TV sucked until Tuesday. Now it can be used as a true entertainment hub. This is the year TV will make its way into the living room. And probably mine.
Apple does take care of its customers. And 9 times out of 10 they get it right. When they get it wrong, they usually fix it. So, if they truly believe they are doing a disservice to early adopters of the Touch by charging the $20 software update fee, then they will revoke it. Time will tell.
Just my .02
I bought the iPhone at launch, and was upset, though not suprised, when Apple dropped the price significantly very early in the life cycle of the device. Apple did what was right, and gave us back a $100 store credit. I'm not here to argue about the fact that the money is still going back to Apple. That doesn't matter. They made early owners happy.
Now, for the iPod Touch. I really don't see a problem with them charging for this update. You want to know why? Because there is very little difference between the iPhone and the iPod Touch now. Sure, the Touch does not have SMS or the phone, but it does everything else now that the iPhone can do (with the exception of browsing the internet over EDGE). And you know what? That kind of sucks, cosidering I pay about $100 a month in order to use the iPhone. That is why iPhone users are entitled to free updates from Apple. They are getting subscription revenue from AT&T monthly from us. A one time $20 fee to update your Touch will not kill you.
As for the
TV. Apple did the right thing by recognizing that the TV left a lot to be desired. Could you imagine how mad everyone would be that owned an TV and couldn't take advantage of the new features of the iTunes Store? I mean, that is the primary reason why they bought the device. Apple is paying them back with the new features because the TV sucked until Tuesday. Now it can be used as a true entertainment hub. This is the year TV will make its way into the living room. And probably mine.Apple does take care of its customers. And 9 times out of 10 they get it right. When they get it wrong, they usually fix it. So, if they truly believe they are doing a disservice to early adopters of the Touch by charging the $20 software update fee, then they will revoke it. Time will tell.
Just my .02
iLife did not come with an entire Mac lineup refresh. People who had a completely current computer out of Apple's lineup were not given iLife just because new purchasers of the exact same hardware got it with their purchase.
iPt owners did not get these apps with their purchase, new iPt buyers do. Apple is under no obligation to give the apps away for free to people who knew the applications were not there when they bought their hardware.
Again, it is when a completely new software is released. Those iPod apps are NOT new, at all. These are totally different situations. Plus Apple intentionally crippled iPod touch apps. Did Apple intentionally crippled Macs (removing iLife)??? Please stop comparing inappropriately. Becasue these are different situations, people are angry. If people just want free stuff, and what you said is comparable, we would see people complaining about iLife bundle. But we didn't, did we?
The apps are new to the iPt. They weren't there when you purchased it, they weren't available without hacking. Essentially these are all new apps for the iPt platform.
How was the iPt crippled by not having these apps? It did everything it was advertised to do. Sure the capability was there to do more but these apps were not available or intended for use on the iPt until now.
My computer can do much more out of the box if I buy software for it, does that mean it's crippled because the applications weren't bundled with the computer?
So all the people who thought iPod touch was crippled are crazy. And all the people who did not applaud when Jobs announced $20 to upgrade don't know what they are doing. What changed Apple to make them to "intend" to allow iPod touch to run these apps?
Where does this iPhone users are superior than iPod touch users because you pay subscription fee come from? How ridiculous.
Just because a device is capable of doing something does not make it "crippled" by not having the application to do it. The iPt did everything it was supposed to when it was released. Now Apple has opened it up to do more and provided applications to do more. Is it wrong for them to want to charge for applications that are new to the iPt?
Yes the apps were already available on the iPhone but who's to say that the 1.1.3 update didn't break these apps on the iPhone necessitating the update? Since the iPhone is advertised to have these applications they cannot charge iPhone owners for them, but it may have been a significant time/development effort on Apple's part to make the apps 1.1.3 compatible. Why can't they charge iPt users for features that were not there or advertised to be there when they purchased the product?
If Nintendo decides to start putting 4000 Wii points on every console they sell, or bundle one of their own games with the Wii, do they now have to send all prior purchasers the game/points? The hardware hasn't changed, the price is still the same, but new buyers get more for their money, while existing owners have to purchase the game/points.
Nice way to take this small part out of context of my entire post.
Tell me this: in the past, with iPods, most of the time, when Apple released a software/firmware update, it was to provide bug fixes, primarily, was it not? Yes, there were a few times when it added a couple new features. But that was rare. It was mainly to improve the stability of the device. And it was free.
Now, Apple releases five new applications to the device, and you are complaining that they are not free? I bet you $100 that when the SDK is released next month, a majority of the apps that are developed will cost money to be able to use on the iPhone/iPod Touch. Are you going to complain about that, too? And don't give me that crap that they are "not new apps because they were already developed for the iPhone." Well, the iPod Touch is not an iPhone, last I checked. So why should you expect to get the apps that were developed for the iPhone for free on the Touch?
And to everyone that does not see the comparison between the iPod Touch update and Apple updating iLife are just wanting to make an argument for the sake of arguing. It is the same thing. Same reason as I stated above applies to OS X: When Apple provides the free updates to OS X, aren't they primarily to improve security and to fix bugs? Rarely does an OS X software update involve new features. You have to pay for new features.
Look, I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice if Apple gave it away for free. Obviously that would make everyone happy. I think it would be great if Apple gave me a free copy of OS X every time there is a new release because I bought a PowerBook G4 when OS X 10.0 came out. But, they don't. And I'm okay with paying for it because it is worth it.
I do not think this conversation is health because no matter how much you guys say, you just simply ignore the most fundamental problem: these apps should have been there since day 1. People were disappointed and surprised when they were not included. If you do not agree with this part, you can argue whatever you want and still sounds reasonable.