iPod touch Down with Apple's Touch "Upgrade" Fees

[archurban]

people just don't understand why iphone users update for free. they made two years contract with AT&T and apple (a part of) for charging fee. if you don't use iphone, you have no idea how much I pay for it monthly. even you set one of three plans. so for Apple, two contract continues to bring revenue. but ipod touch is not. one time purchase. that's it because it is not a phone which you don't need contract to use. so nominal fee makes sense. if you saw iphone SDK event by streaming quicktime video, I bet Steve or another already talked about it.

 

[mavis]

people just don't understand why iphone users update for free. they made two years contract with AT&T and apple (a part of) for charging fee. if you don't use iphone, you have no idea how much I pay for it monthly. even you set one of three plans. so for Apple, two contract continues to bring revenue. but ipod touch is not. one time purchase. that's it because it is not a phone which you don't need contract to use. so nominal fee makes sense. if you saw iphone SDK event by streaming quicktime video, I bet Steve or another already talked about it.

That's all fine and good, but you're overlooking the AppleTV people - no subscription there, yet they get free feature-loaded updates. And if you look at other companies (Microsoft's Zune, Sony's PSP) you'll see the same thing - free updates which add apps and features to those devices. The PSP is a one time purchase, as is the Zune, as is the AppleTV - so don't go preaching about how much iPhone people deserve a free upgrade because of Apple's revenue sharing deal with AT&T. That revenue sharing deal isn't the reason us Touch owners are getting screwed. The only possible reasons are 1) ignorance/shortsightedness on Apple's part or 2) pure greed. Both of which are very good reasons to be angry at Apple.

 

[AdeFowler]

Maybe Apple users can't handle hearing this. I guess we can always rename it MacFanBoi.com?

You lost any sympathy I had for your cause right there. You come across as a spoilt 12 year old. You'll find plenty of long time members criticising Apple on MacRumors, when it's deserved. In this instance it's not.

 

[Jack Flash]

You lost any sympathy I had for your cause right there. You come across as a spoilt 12 year old. You'll find plenty of long time members criticising Apple on MacRumors, when it's deserved. In this instance it's not.

You think updates to applications we bought should cost money? You think we should have to buy the AppStore?

 

[aethelbert]

You think updates to applications we bought should cost money? You think we should have to buy the AppStore?

Dear freaking lord, that's the only thing announced about 2.0 really. You're also paying for enterprise features and anything else that could be announced before its release. You don't even really know what 2.0 will be besides the appstore, and you're already pissed because they mentioned the word "fee."

I guess they could have just kept this software to the iPhone. Then you would be able to have just what you have know.

 

[mavis]

Dear freaking lord, that's the only thing announced about 2.0 really. You're also paying for enterprise features and anything else that could be announced before its release. You don't even really know what 2.0 will be besides the appstore, and you're already pissed because they mentioned the word "fee."

I guess they could have just kept this software to the iPhone. Then you would be able to have just what you have know.

Way to completely skirt the point he's making. You think it's fair to charge us to access the AppStore? Last time I checked, I didn't have to pay a cover charge to go shopping - what makes Apple so friggin special?

 

[UltimateSyn]

Summary of the situation:
Apple doesn't get constant income for touch users, so having us pay for apps that weren't essential in the first place isn't bad.
Paying for 1.1.3 = Uncool
Paying for 2.0.0 that's going to bring many more features than we've already heard about = Fine. As long as it's $30 or cheaper.

 

[aethelbert]

Way to completely skirt the point he's making. You think it's fair to charge us to access the AppStore? Last time I checked, I didn't have to pay a cover charge to go shopping - what makes Apple so friggin special?

I didn't skip the point. I said that one who buys 2.0 is paying for more than just the AppStore, probably even more than we know about already. You guys just see "AppStore" and "fee" and you don't bother to read or think any deeper before you come onto a forum complaining. I really find it comical to come on here to see how so many people think that they're entitled to something without any good reason. I also laugh when some twelve year old tries to explain economic laws to everyone else, which usually comes out as total crap.

 

[mavis]

I didn't skip the point. I said that one who buys 2.0 is paying for more than just the AppStore, probably even more than we know about already. You guys just see "AppStore" and "fee" and you don't bother to read or think any deeper before you come onto a forum complaining. I really find it comical to come on here to see how so many people think that they're entitled to something without any good reason. I also laugh when some twelve year old tries to explain economic laws to everyone else, which usually comes out as total crap.

I understand your point, it's just that 12 year olds explaining economic laws are almost as amusing as Apple sheep who jump to defend every ignorant decision Apple makes.

It's clear that you're 100% sold on the idea of paying for Touch updates, but it should also be clear to you that a lot of people aren't. Apple is shooting themselves in the foot trying to nickel-and-dime us, in my case they've lost at least 15x the January app pack fee and I don't feel the least bit guilty about stealing from them. AFAIC, that's exactly what they're doing to me.

 

[aethelbert]

I understand your point, it's just that 12 year olds explaining economic laws are almost as amusing as Apple sheep who jump to defend every ignorant decision Apple makes.

It's clear that you're 100% sold on the idea of paying for Touch updates, but it should also be clear to you that a lot of people aren't. Apple is shooting themselves in the foot trying to nickel-and-dime us, in my case they've lost at least 15x the January app pack fee and I don't feel the least bit guilty about stealing from them. AFAIC, that's exactly what they're doing to me.

I agree, a business trying to make money is quite ignorant...

Software development isn't free, and everyone who pays deserves to get it. But you paid for the iPod... Nowhere does it say that you get free software upgrades for life. And never before did an iPod have this funcionality, so you couldn't just expect Apple to spoon feed it to you. If you want free, visualize this as an open source device. Although it sound like a great idea, it would collapse on itself. You can pay for good software (or in your case, break the law and pirate it), or you can have some terrible coder make it for you. The day that the final loophole is closed and you can't get the new features without legitimately obtaining them from Apple is a day that I will be laughing, quite hard.

 

[aidanpendragon]

I agree, a business trying to make money is quite ignorant...

Software development isn't free, and everyone who pays deserves to get it. But you paid for the iPod...

...ergo Touch owners deserve to get it?

There a difference between "openly trying to make money" and "charging us but blaming federal accounting laws for it." That's part of the problem.

It's not like this development isn't also being done for the iPhone. And iPhone users are getting it for free. Yes, they pay $70/month, but that's the market rate on another package of services they get: voice + data + cellular net access. Touch owners don't have the benefit of any of those.

If [monthly charge] - [services received] = a net neutral, then iPhone and Touch owners are in the same boat, overall cost-wise: the initial purchase cost of the device.

So, why is it again iPhone users *deserve* upgrades for free but Touch owners *don't*?

One then must fall back on Apple's argument - how they choose to account for the device sale, why one thing (1.1.3 apps) adds "new features" to a one-time-revenue device (Touch), even if another (iTunes 7.6.1 & video rentals) to a different one-time device (Macs) isn't counted & charged the same way - and that argument is just full of holes.

Much like they decried with music companies, Apple's got the recurring revenue bug, and wants it however they can, be it from iPhone or Touch. It's actually very like Steve, to hate & belittle a practice/idea until he adopts it as his own.

 

[aethelbert]

...ergo Touch owners deserve to get it?

There a difference between "openly trying to make money" and "charging us but blaming federal accounting laws for it." That's part of the problem.

It's not like this development isn't also being done for the iPhone. And iPhone users are getting it for free. Yes, they pay $70/month, but that's the market rate on another package of services they get: voice + data + cellular net access. Touch owners don't have the benefit of any of those.

If [monthly charge] - [services received] = a net neutral, then iPhone and Touch owners are in the same boat, overall cost-wise: the initial purchase cost of the device.

So, why is it again iPhone users *deserve* upgrades for free but Touch owners *don't*?

One then must fall back on Apple's argument - how they choose to account for the device sale, why one thing (1.1.3 apps) adds "new features" to a one-time-revenue device (Touch), even if another (iTunes 7.6.1 & video rentals) to a different one-time device (Macs) isn't counted & charged the same way - and that argument is just full of holes.

Buying the device is not paying for the upgrade... I said that those who pay for the upgrade deserve the software that it provides, not those who come to forums to whine about business.

Apple never blamed the federal law for charging. That was people on the forum that knew what they were talking about.

Do you seriously think that the iPhone's plans are the going rate? Hell no. People pay a premium for having the one and only iPhone... and where does that extra money go? All the way to the infinite loop. You can't seriously think that the €45 plan in Ireland is what it actually costs... Go look at what's included, it's like 1GB of data, and 175 minutes. Apple gets some of that money...

"[monthly charge] - [services received]"= ~$10

Over two years, that's $240. You're not paying that to Apple, are you? No. You're paying right when the updates come out instead of every month when your phone bill comes.

They're not gonna make it free, weather you see their reasoning or not. So stop whining over it.

 

[Jack Flash]

Buying the device is not paying for the upgrade... I said that those who pay for the upgrade deserve the software that it provides, not those who come to forums to whine about business.

Apple never blamed the federal law for charging. That was people on the forum that knew what they were talking about.

Do you seriously think that the iPhone's plans are the going rate? Hell no. People pay a premium for having the one and only iPhone... and where does that extra money go? All the way to the infinite loop. You can't seriously think that the €45 plan in Ireland is what it actually costs... Go look at what's included, it's like 1GB of data, and 175 minutes. Apple gets some of that money...

"[monthly charge] - [services received]"= ~$10

Over two years, that's $240. You're not paying that to Apple, are you? No. You're paying right when the updates come out instead of every month when your phone bill comes.

They're not gonna make it free, weather you see their reasoning or not. So stop whining over it.

Actually, in the SDK presentation they do in fact blame SoX for a "nominal fee's" necessity.

And stop dismissing all the counter-arguments as whining. People are bringing up many valid points against Apple's decisions but time and time again you try to write it off as childish complaining.

 

[aethelbert]

Actually, in the SDK presentation they do in fact blame SoX for a "nominal fee's" necessity.

And stop dismissing all the counter-arguments as whining. People are bringing up many valid points against Apple's decisions but time and time again you try to write it off as childish complaining.

No, they said that it is accounted for differently. Nothing else was mentioned. Go watch the quicktime stream. And you guys are bringing up points that are very uneducated about everything from where the iPhone subscription money goes to how business works in general.

When people don't get their high expectations met and complain about it, I, as well as most everyone else in the world, call that whining.

 

[Jack Flash]

No, they said that it is accounted for differently. Nothing else was mentioned. Go watch the quicktime stream. And you guys are bringing up points that are very uneducated about everything from where the iPhone subscription money goes to how business works in general.

When people don't get their high expectations met and complain about it, I, as well as most everyone else in the world, call that whining.

I'll call your thought process fanboyism, then.

 

[mavis]

When people don't get their high expectations met and complain about it, I, as well as most everyone else in the world, call that whining.

And when people let big companies trod all over them, I call that pathetic.

Seriously, it amazes me how many Apple sheep there are, people who accept whatever decisions Apple makes as being absolutely, 100% just and fair, even when they clearly aren't.

 

[arn]

I'll call your thought process fanboyism, then.

And when people let big companies trod all over them, I call that pathetic.

Seriously, it amazes me how many Apple sheep there are, people who accept whatever decisions Apple makes as being absolutely, 100% just and fair, even when they clearly aren't.

If it bothers you this much, why don't you sell your iPod touch and buy another product? You obviously aren't satisfied with it.

I'm not being facetious. It is an option.

Regardless of whether or not its "fair" or not, or you agree with the reasoning. Let's say everyone agrees with you that Apple's just being greedy. Now what? If you truly believe it, then stop supporting a greedy company. Buy a product that gives you free updates.

Really, those are your options. I think you can assume that all major software upgrades to the iPod Touch from this point forward will cost $$. If that really bothers you, then cut your losses now.

arn

 

[Sesshi]

Yup. If you want the convenience of a mediocre all-in-one for people who have never been able to get their heads around a smartphone and are easily distracted by things like multitouch, you have to pay.

You do always have the option to branch out into somewhat less convenient collection of two or more devices which much better experiences in their respective niches.

 

[mavis]

If it bothers you this much, why don't you sell your iPod touch and buy another product? You obviously aren't satisfied with it.

I'm not being facetious. It is an option.

Regardless of whether or not its "fair" or not, or you agree with the reasoning. Let's say everyone agrees with you that Apple's just being greedy. Now what? If you truly believe it, then stop supporting a greedy company. Buy a product that gives you free updates.

Really, those are your options. I think you can assume that all major software upgrades to the iPod Touch from this point forward will cost $$. If that really bothers you, then cut your losses now.

arn

Actually, I love my Touch (at least until I can finally get an iPhone, which is what I've really wanted all along, after which I probably will never use the Touch again) but I hate the way Apple is treating their customers. As for supporting a such a greedy company, I certainly won't be giving them any more money than I absolutely have to. Hardware can't be helped. But software? Not a chance in hell they'll see a dime from me for any of their software in the future. That's how I'll stop supporting them.

BTW, this is a great site you've got here. Whether you agree with my opinion on this update fiasco or not, just wanted to say thanks.

 

[Sesshi]

I don't really see the problem. Yes - companies like Cowon always add new little features through firmware updates, but these companies are well known for releasing firmware which is almost alpha. Since most of the cool new features they add are somewhat broken in any case, no-one would actually pay for it.

Sony's firmware updates never do anything but fix bugs, which is why they come out with one like once a year, if ever. This is the way a properly tested product like the Touch should be.

People do pay for software on computers and PDA's (well - impatient idiots like me at least who can't wait for torrents, apparently), so why not on the Touch, which is after all a half-assed PDA now?

 

[mavis]

I don't really see the problem. Yes - companies like Cowon always add new little features through firmware updates, but these companies are well known for releasing firmware which is almost alpha. Since most of the cool new features they add are somewhat broken in any case, no-one would actually pay for it.

Sony's firmware updates never do anything but fix bugs, which is why they come out with one like once a year, if ever. This is the way a properly tested product like the Touch should be.

People do pay for software on computers and PDA's (well - impatient idiots like me at least who can't wait for torrents, apparently), so why not on the Touch, which is after all a half-assed PDA now?

Actually, Sony has released quite a few firmware updates for the PSP, all free, adding the following features over the years:

• Internet Browser
• Wallpaper
• Custom Themes
• Multiple media formats made playable/viewable
• Flash player (standalone or in browser)
• Playstation titles playable
• Internet Radio
• Skype

Quite a bit of functionality added there, wouldn't you say?

 

[Sesshi]

Doh, you got me - I was talking about the MP3 players

My point still stands regarding PDA's though. On some Windows Mobile phones, you can't even upgrade the OS to support new features - you've got to buy a new phone with a later OS installed.

 

[mavis]

My point still stands regarding PDA's though. On some Windows Mobile phones, you can't even upgrade the OS to support new features - you've got to buy a new phone with a later OS installed.

Well, I guess it could be worse.

 

[Sesshi]

I know. It's just impossible to get that sanctimonious yet needy-for-attention fix with a Windows Mobile machine, isn't it?

 

[macfan881]

wow this is really sad if you dont like it stop whinning about it and dont buy it plain and simple