I think the biggest screw-up is reserved to the people who bought iPod touch in countries with no iTunes online store. They cannot pay even if they wanted to. I understand that music store may be tied to all those regional copyright restrictions, but Apple should open up the software section if they are going to have one.
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 Down with Apple's Touch "Upgrade" Fees
- Thread starter aidanpendragon
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Obviously touched quite a nerve on either side with this thread...[Mr.Burns]Exxxcellent[/Burns]
I've given 2 lengthy posts about why I'm angry about locked bloatware in firmware upgrades, with no choice to decline; and/or paid firmware/bugfix upgrades (as 2.0 threatens to be). I've drawn reasonable parallels to what the Mac equivalent of this would be, which would draw tons of screaming if done. No need to rehash all that, go back & read 'em.
Here's the BS in this to me. It's not because the device must necessarily have recurring revenue, like iPhone contracts. They just choose to account for the Apple TV that way. But the possibility of future rentals is no more "subscription" than the possibility of future iTunes - or SDK app! - sales on the Touch. So why one but not the other?
...in fact, that Macworld quote is chicken-and-egg: makes it sound like because they decided to give free updates to Apple TV users (maybe to keep them from trashing the flop product?), therefore it's accounted as "subscription." That suggests they decided not to give free upgrades to Touch owners, therefore it's "not" subscription. May just be poorly worded on Macworld's part, but pretty damning if it's true.
I'm not. But I'm pissed that I have my premium space being eaten up, drip by drip, by crap I can't decline.
If it really was a ONE TIME FEE, not an EVERY FEW WEEKS' FEE, I might disagree less.
I'm glad to see that folks outside the RDF also have a problem with this. And really, their argument for "why aren't Quicktime, iTunes, Safari also charged for" is pretty sound. Hell, 10.4.11 had Safari 3, why didn't Apple charge us 20 bucks for that? "OMG B/C THERE FREE" someone will no doubt say. But there's no reason, really, why January's 5 apps need not have been free, if these others can be. Downloading iTunes to a Windows PC certainly adds "significant new features," but doesn't require a charge.
...Maybe Apple will only charge $1.99 for 2.0, in which case I'll have much less of an objection. But everybody expects $20 is a floor, not a ceiling. And really, Apple charging us so we can buy apps is stupid and, again, just drives me to the JB camp.
I've given 2 lengthy posts about why I'm angry about locked bloatware in firmware upgrades, with no choice to decline; and/or paid firmware/bugfix upgrades (as 2.0 threatens to be). I've drawn reasonable parallels to what the Mac equivalent of this would be, which would draw tons of screaming if done. No need to rehash all that, go back & read 'em.
Here's the BS in this to me. It's not because the device must necessarily have recurring revenue, like iPhone contracts. They just choose to account for the Apple TV that way. But the possibility of future rentals is no more "subscription" than the possibility of future iTunes - or SDK app! - sales on the Touch. So why one but not the other?
...in fact, that Macworld quote is chicken-and-egg: makes it sound like because they decided to give free updates to Apple TV users (maybe to keep them from trashing the flop product?), therefore it's accounted as "subscription." That suggests they decided not to give free upgrades to Touch owners, therefore it's "not" subscription. May just be poorly worded on Macworld's part, but pretty damning if it's true.
I'm not. But I'm pissed that I have my premium space being eaten up, drip by drip, by crap I can't decline.
If it really was a ONE TIME FEE, not an EVERY FEW WEEKS' FEE, I might disagree less.
I'm glad to see that folks outside the RDF also have a problem with this. And really, their argument for "why aren't Quicktime, iTunes, Safari also charged for" is pretty sound. Hell, 10.4.11 had Safari 3, why didn't Apple charge us 20 bucks for that? "OMG B/C THERE FREE" someone will no doubt say. But there's no reason, really, why January's 5 apps need not have been free, if these others can be. Downloading iTunes to a Windows PC certainly adds "significant new features," but doesn't require a charge.
...Maybe Apple will only charge $1.99 for 2.0, in which case I'll have much less of an objection. But everybody expects $20 is a floor, not a ceiling. And really, Apple charging us so we can buy apps is stupid and, again, just drives me to the JB camp.
Apple books the revenue from the iPhone and AppleTV as a subscription. It has nothing to do with the device itself bringing in extra money after purchase.
When you buy an AppleTV for $229, instead of booking the entire $229 towards its monthly revenue, they only book 1/24th of your $229 purchase. The following month, Apple books another 1/24th of your $229. 16 months after you've purchased your AppleTV, Apple's still applying 1/24th of your $229 towards its revenues. They continue to do this until the 24th month after you've purchased your AppleTV.
From what I've read, over the period that they're booking your revenue, they're allowed to add major new functionality to the device.
IMO, that's EXACTLY what happened. At the time the iPod touch was released, Apple (Steve Jobs) was very adamant that the only third-party applications would have be web-based. Apple said "NO NATIVE APPLICATIONS" and was sticking to their guns when questioned about it. So yeah, I believe that they had zero plans on adding major new functionality to the iPod touch (like the 5 missing applications, or the stuff they're about to add with the June update). Apple didn't change its position about the SDK until months after the iPod touch was released, which was undoubtedly even more months after the accounting method for the touch was already chosen.
I found this to be interesting, especially the two updates.
http://jfaughnan.blogspot.com/2007/01/sarbanes-oxley-means-no-features-in.html
If you have to change realized revenues, that would mean they would be constantly restating past earnings, right? That wouldn't make a lot of sense.
http://jfaughnan.blogspot.com/2007/01/sarbanes-oxley-means-no-features-in.html
If you have to change realized revenues, that would mean they would be constantly restating past earnings, right? That wouldn't make a lot of sense.
No.
When you pay for an iPod touch, Apple takes the entire amount you paid and books it as revenue all at once.
When you pay for an iPhone or an AppleTV, Apple takes 1/24th of the amount you paid and books it monthly over 24 months. This allows them to add major new functionality over those 24 months.
Apple screwed up by not using the same accounting method for the touch as they did the AppleTV/iPhone. It doesn't have anything to do with AT&T royalties.
I think it must have something to do with the fact that the iPhone is tied to a subscription plan. I can't imagine the logic of accounting for the revenue of any other type of product on a proportional basis over a two-year period.
There are two solutions to your problem: jailbreak or buy an iPhone. Bitching on an Internet message board isn't going to get you anywhere.
Interesting. But again, "a nominal fee" - obviously people's definitions of this may vary. I'd argue $1.99 is "nominal" whereas $20 - repeatedly - is not; S-O here is just a cover to make money.
And, it doesn't explain how, as Engadget argues, iTunes, Quicktime, Safari, etc. upgrades don't amount to adding "previously unadvertised features" & thus require a charge. I'm sure if you dig through the change-logs to those updates, you'd find some significant-enough new features. I mean, if "now supports push email" is significant enough, surely something in Mac apps is too.
...Here you go:
"About iTunes 7.6 for Mac
What’s New in this Version
Rent and download your favorite movies with iTunes on your computer or directly to your living room on Apple TV."
Something tells me "you can now rent movies" is a significant, new, previously unadvertised feature, added well after S-O took effect.
This goes on Mac hardware (and PCs!), which no one has said are accounted for over a period of time (a la Apple TV) but all at once (like the Touch). So why aren't we being charged for that? Maybe we should tell the SEC...
The only argument left is, "well, but those apps are free." Presumably an upgrade to free software - even one that adds "new, unadvertised features" can also be free? But then, why weren't the Mail etc. apps for the Touch considered free from the get-go? Then all future upgrades would also be free, etc.
One might also say that "the ability to download new applications is a new & unadvertised feature." Only if one also thinks that A. the ability to install apps on a computer (mobile or otherwise) is some kind of stunning & unexpected feature; and B. the ability itself to play games on classic iPods is a "new feature" that should be charged for - just like the ability to buy SDK apps.
...and hey, why was bringing the Touch's initial anemic Calendar feature up to snuff with the iPhone's - added new sync features! - not a charged item? It fits all the criteria!
Unless a credentialled S-O expert gets on here, I think I've found to my satisfaction that the accounting argument from Apple is largely a dodge that they use to justify charges & apply very inconsistently.
Nope, as others have mentioned, the Apple TV has no such subscription plan. It appears to rely on how they record the earnings, not whether there's recurring revenue or not.
God forbid we "discuss" anything in a discussion forum. I actually think this is pretty interesting, and shoots some holes in Apple's explanation. And if you don't like this thread, hey, there's one solution to your problem: don't read Internet message boards.
The Apple TV, like the iPhone, generates revenue after the initial sale. I believe this is the crucial distinction. In fact the Apple TV upgrade was specifically designed to generate revenue.
I think the $20- upgrade was more than worth the cost. Apple is in business to make money. When you buy a device like an ITouch it's not a single event. You don't have to buy any upgrades, but I'm glad Apple is making them available. Development time is expensive. I also believe that jailbreaking in order to save $20- is not smart. At some point IPhone and ITouch users that have jailbroken their units may have a brick, and I'm sure they'll complain about that. The whinning gets so old sometimes.
Thank you Apple for continuing to improve your products! I appreciate it and I love my ITouch!
Thank you Apple for continuing to improve your products! I appreciate it and I love my ITouch!
I don't know how buying songs directly from iTunes Store via the Touch isn't "generating revenue after the initial sale." Also, regardless of whether Apple TV now has the capability to generate rental revenue, that's far different from the guaranteed revenue iPhone contracts bring in.
Separately, I'll say it for the third/fourth time: if I had the ability to opt-out of these upgrades and the space they take up, I'd have no reason to complain. And/or, if future firmware, bug fixes, security etc. don't require a charge - 2.0 sounds like it might - I also won't complain.
I don't know either, but obviously there must be some difference, otherwise the upgrades would be treated the same way.
I don't see why you could not opt out of upgrades. Just don't do them.
Since when is constant bitching about Apple's "greed" a valid discussion?
Hackedoffer: Steve Jobs is the greediest man on earth! Apple must be stopped! Why don't they update MBPs more often?
Idontcare: It's not that bad, really. Just part of keeping up with new technology. It's actually a smart business decision on their part because they know people will pay for it.
Hackedoffer: Steve Jobs is the greediest man on earth! Apple must be stopped! Why don't they update MBPs more often?
Idontcare: You could jailbreak or buy an iPhone if you don't want to pay $20 for new software.
Hackedoffer: Steve Jobs is the greediest man on earth! Apple must be stopped! Why don't they update MBPs more often?
Please read the prior posts before assuming that "there must be some reason." I thought this too, but the more we discuss it, the more arbitrary it seems.
My complain, again, is that I can't opt-out of "extra" upgrades without also missing firmware updates, bugfixes, stability fixes, security patches, etc. Give me 1.1.3 or .4 without the 5 extra apps and I'd be happy. Give me the ability to buy apps without having to pay for the privilege, and I'll be happy.
As much as I disagree that the charge is a "ridiculous" charge (and if I were a Touch owner I'd happily pay it), I think your point above is a fair one. You're suggesting that if you had the option of NOT paying for the additional features of 1.1.3, you'd be ok with the charge? But since the additional features of 1.1.3 were combined with what you describe as necessary bug fixes you "had" to pay the charge simply to continue to use your iPod Touch the same way you always had been. Do I have your argument right?
If so then perhaps someone more intelligent than me can explain what bug fixes and other "necessary" things were included with 1.1.3 beyond the additional features. I'm not being facetious... if indeed Apple is charging for bug fixes in side step with new features, with no option of getting the fixes by themselves for free, I'd have a problem with this too. I didn't believe this to be the case but perhaps I had it wrong.
rjfiske
I think the real reason the
TV update was free was because the product was a flop and without some serious changes, it was just going to die off. Take 2 makes it a more viable piece of revenue-generating technology, which means it's a smart business decision to give it to people for free so they will start spending their money on rentals and downloads.You cannot say any of those things about the iPod touch.
The iPod Touch bugfixes provided in 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 are both available for free without anybody needing to buy anything.
I'll say it again: The 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 updates are both free downloads. You only pay money when you want to activate the extra features that hadn't been present prior to installing the update.
Why assume that the same wouldn't be true of future firmware updates?
You didn't have to pay for 1.1.3, that was free. You had to pay for the apps at $5 a pop.
If you want to troll around this thread complaining about things people didn't say, that's your business. But it's clear what the thread topic is about, so don't come in here if it offends you.
I guess I should know better than to critique anything Apple might do on this site. Part of what they sell is a seamless customer experience. I'm feeling a lot of seams. Maybe Apple users can't handle hearing this. I guess we can always rename it MacFanBoi.com?
dum-da-dum-Dumb
I think it's also a fair bet that the iPhone 2.0 software update will come in two flavours or at least have the enterprise features separated out as a paid "app" download. Otherwise, those who do not want to pay won't get the more minor bug-fixes and could be forever frozen out of future updates.
People are also not really thinking about why the average skateboarding dude with a Touch is going to actually *want* Cisco IP stuff, remote wiping and MS Exchange functionality.
The touch is a media player that has some internet functionality added to it. Why get upset when Apple announces that you might have to pay 20 bucks in the unlikely event that you want to add enterprise grade encryption and server functionality to your media player? WTF?
This whole thread is very dumb.
I think it's also a fair bet that the iPhone 2.0 software update will come in two flavours or at least have the enterprise features separated out as a paid "app" download. Otherwise, those who do not want to pay won't get the more minor bug-fixes and could be forever frozen out of future updates.
People are also not really thinking about why the average skateboarding dude with a Touch is going to actually *want* Cisco IP stuff, remote wiping and MS Exchange functionality.
The touch is a media player that has some internet functionality added to it. Why get upset when Apple announces that you might have to pay 20 bucks in the unlikely event that you want to add enterprise grade encryption and server functionality to your media player? WTF?
This whole thread is very dumb.
Yeah that's what I had remembered as well. Sorry, OP... i'm not on your side with this one if this is actually the case. You are being charged nothing for using your Touch in the same manner as when you purchased it. You ARE being charged for using your Touch with more features when you purchased it. Apple's reasons for doing so are valid as has been stated in previous posts.
rjfiske
I guess you haven't read any of the other 1,000,000 threads on this exact topic (paying for upgrades) since January. Nobody is saying you can't have a discussion, but the repetitive playing of the "greed" card on every one of them is tiresome.