Sidebar Sidebar
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

Adokimus said:
FALSE
It is just greed, plain and simple. https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/449010/
Click to expand...

Great....Did you buy the updates? If not, good. Then you can keep bitching about it. If you caved and purchased any of the updates, then please stop your bickering because Apple, like all companies, is out to maximize profit. Again, Apple, like all companies would rob you blind if they could. But that would certainly get them into a bit of legal trouble. Don't get me wrong, I love Apple and all of their products, but the fact is that they are still a large corporation looking to make a profit. It's that simple...



EDIT:

Also, assuming you do have a job, $10 for a MAJOR software update shouldn't be anymore than an hour or hour and a half of work(I make 8.50 an hour working over the summer before I go back to college in the fall) If money really is so hard to come by for you(and that is the way it is for some people) that you don't have the $10 and those $10 would break the bank if you spent them on a software update, then you SHOULDN'T HAVE A $300 PREMIUM IPOD! (I'm not yelling...) You either find the product worth the price tag or you don't. It's that simple. Don't like the price of organic milk, buy regular milk. Don't like the price of regular milk, drink water from the tap. Don't like the price of new OS updates? Don't buy them. Don't like the price of the 2.0 update? Don't buy it. Complaining isn't going to make the update free. If it did, everyone would have be using a Mac Pro and have 3 Ferraris in the garage all free of charge...
 
I posted a comment on the news thread railing against Apple's new gouge-the-Touch-owners policy, but it deserves a full thread in this forum.

Gouge? $20 for two updates, that is hardly gouging. Don't know about you, but getting the extra features that we did get for $20 seems well worth it.

My initial outrage was, why the Touch and not the iPhone? As I first understood it, adding apps required a charge under Sarbanes-Oxley - but now that both devices had a common feature set, why were the Touches only getting charged?

Common feature set may be true, but Apple is getting some sort of monthly royalty from AT&T, thus no need to charge them for more as they are still making money from iPhone uses. Where as the iPod had it's initial fee of $400 and that's it. (Same price as iPhone by the way)

Another reader then pointed out that the subscription basis of the iPhone exempts it from such charges; the Touch, with a one-time purchase price, is alone subject to them.

Yup, see above.

But I'm still angry. Angry because Apple could charge a buck for technicality's sake; but will probably charge at least $20 for no new apps, some added functionality, and the ability to buy SDK apps! Angry because this cost will either be required to get firmware 2.0; or if not, we'll again get stuck with a bunch of locked but space-eating features. And angry because, after paying 400 bucks, I'm again feeling like a second-class citizen.

$20 for new features is reasonable, and probably only covers the bandwidth for the update and the FREE applications you download. If Dell were to put a new processor in their Dell 1500 laptop, and you owned a Dell 1500 too, would you expect a free upgrade of the processor? Don't think so.

Remember, the 802.11n enabler only costs $1.99 (and still made a big stink). Apple clearly can charge that if they wish. If they want more, I think it's to throw up barriers against people who could live with "everything-but-the-phone" & steer them towards subscription revenue.

So the company is bad for breaking even? Dev time to develop these new features, and bandwidth probably cost $20 per person in the end, so what the complaints? Would they rather have everyone on an iPhone? Probably, but that doesn't mean they are, or have been 'gouging' the iPod users.

What all this really makes me want to do is JB my Touch. I'm not the kind who'd ordinarily want to fool around with that, but Apple is driving me to it. It's like the anti-iTunes Store approach.

Apple is not driving you to JB your iPod, your cheap wallet is.
 
you do know that phone bill covers the update....

Okay, for those who are complaining about iPhone getting free software update, and iPod touch requiring fee for update....

You do know that all iPhone owners are ACTUALLY paying for the update as well...

But instead of paying it through iTunes, they are paying it through their phone bill every month.

Yes, the contract that they sign up for when they buy an iPhone also covers the so called "free" software upgrade, when in truth, they are paying for it in their monthly bill....

So, STOP COMPLAINING, all iPhone owners are paying for the update as well through phone bill...
 
kdarling said:
Not the 3G owners. Apple gets paid up front, one time.
Click to expand...

Yes, 3G owners are getting a subsidized phone, but when mobile carrier paid Apple up front, they also paid the fees for software upgrades, thinking that the monthly fees that subscribers pay will cover the cost of that as well...

So, although subsidized, the monthly fees still covers the software upgrades, but instead of going towards Apple, goes straight toward the mobile carrier who already paid Apple the software upgrade fees, thinking that monthly fees will cover the loss for the upgrade fees.....

So, subsidized, or not subsidized, ALL iPhone owners are still paying for the upgrades through monthly fees....
 
kdarling said:
Not the 3G owners. Apple gets paid up front, one time.
Click to expand...
Uh... yeah, Apple's still getting the money from AT&T. Now they're not revenue sharing, rather Apple is getting payments for new customers as well as large amounts from AT&T for exclusivity rights. Don't think that Apple was making more off of the 2.5G iPhone. If they're not making the same amount with the 3G, they're making more.
 
For those of you complaining about the price of a stinking software upgrade: here is an idea - use Linux - it is free.

The rule people are talking about so much SOX as it is GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Prinicpals)

1. The iPod Touch when sold is written to the books immediatley as revenue, it is a one time purchase that does not account for any more income.

2. the iPhone and iPhone 3G since they are on service contracts - Apple Gets a monthly check from At&T wireless for the revenue sharing, so they have continuing income.

It is all about how it shows up on the books when then Auditors come in. So Apple Charges you for product updates

Sorry

You have options

1. Dont buy the product

2. Buy the product and risk turning it into a 400.00 Brick should you decide to jail break it

3. Pay for the update


Option 3 doesnt sound so bad anymore does it?
 
Southernboy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hey! I'm a spoilt 12 year old, but I like to think I churn out some pretty useful posts, and I'm not a bad person :eek:

Of course, this post wasn't very useful, but I'm just saying spoilt 12 year olds aren't always all that bad :p
 
aidanpendragon said:
I posted a comment on the news thread railing against Apple's new gouge-the-Touch-owners policy, but it deserves a full thread in this forum.

My initial outrage was, why the Touch and not the iPhone?
Click to expand...

Because iPhone costs about 10 times more to own than the touch does?

But I'm still angry.
Click to expand...

Then don't buy it, and quit your whining. If you do buy it at the price they ask, then you obviously feel that it's worth it. So what's the problem again? That you are being offered a benefit at a price that you find reasonable?
 
redsoxunixgeek said:
For those of you complaining about the price of a stinking software upgrade: here is an idea - use Linux - it is free.
Click to expand...
At home, I do use a combination of OS X and (primarily) Linux. Thanks very much for your permission to do so.

The rule people are talking about so much SOX as it is GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Prinicpals)

(...)

2. the iPhone and iPhone 3G since they are on service contracts - Apple Gets a monthly check from At&T wireless for the revenue sharing, so they have continuing income.
Click to expand...
Almost. With the original iPhone, that was the case. With the iPhone 3G, there is no revenue sharing deal; Apple receives a lump-sum payment in the form of a carrier subsidy.

Apparently, GAAP doesn't impose any requirement for any actual ongoing flow of real cash from an outside entity; rather, the same feat can be performed in-house through appropriate shuffling of the books internally.

What we see here is apparently the fact that Apple is willing to shuffle the books appropriately for the iPhone 3G (and the AppleTV), but for whatever reason, they've chosen not to shuffle the books that way with the iPod Touch. Of course, however we may feel about it, they had every right to choose not to do so.
 
akonradi said:
Uh... yeah, Apple's still getting the money from AT&T. Now they're not revenue sharing, rather Apple is getting payments for new customers as well as large amounts from AT&T for exclusivity rights.
Click to expand...

A lot of 3G owners aren't new to ATT.

What "large amounts" for exclusivity?

Don't think that Apple was making more off of the 2.5G iPhone. If they're not making the same amount with the 3G, they're making more.
Click to expand...

I think Apple clearly made more from the 2.5G phone. Not only were they getting a good profit off each sale, but they were also getting monthly payments (our subsidy)... that they originally hinted was going to pay for software updates.

Now Apple is just getting the one-time (subsidized) iPhone sales profit, same as with the Touch. There's no longer an excuse for charging one for software upgrades and not the other.
 
kdarling said:
I think Apple clearly made more from the 2.5G phone. Not only were they getting a good profit off each sale, but they were also getting monthly payments (our subsidy)... that they originally hinted was going to pay for software updates.
Click to expand...
Maybe. Let's say Apple was making a moderate $10 per month from their revenue sharing deal with the first-generation iPhone. That adds up to $240 over the lifetime of a 2-year contract. The selling price of the first-generation 8GB iPhone was around $399. That makes a total revenue of $639 for the original iPhone. In terms of the time value of money (a dollar today has more potential than that same dollar tomorrow), their actual benefit would have been less than that.

Apple is selling the 2nd generation 8GB iPhone for $199. AT&T's no-contract price for the iPhone is supposed to be around $599 (the extra $400 likely reflects the size of the subsidy payment that AT&T would have otherwise been making to Apple).

So, Apple might be taking in as little as about $40 less in revenues with the 3G iPhone than it was with the first-generation iPhone. The 3G iPhone's estimated BOM is $173 per unit, whereas the first-generation iPhone's BOM was estimated at $226 per unit; that's a reduction of $53.

So, their per-unit revenue may have reduced by $40, but their per-unit costs were reduced by $53. That means their per-unit profits may have actually increased by $13 with the iPhone 3G.
 
goosnarrggh said:
So, their per-unit revenue may have reduced by $40, but their per-unit costs were reduced by $53. That means their per-unit profits may have actually increased by $13 with the iPhone 3G.
Click to expand...

I agree that this could be so.

In either case, Apple has no good reason to justify charging only touch owners for upgrades, when both they and 3G buyers now pay everything up front.
 
aidanpendragon said:
That's reasonable. Except:

-Anyone who buys a Touch gets a progressively inferior device in a matter of months or less, not years. Pretty rough given the price points.

-Are we now paying not for new features but upgrades to existing features? That's what free firmware/OS upgrades typically do. Would you like to pay, incrementally, for 10.4.1-10.4.11 (& Safari 3)?

-Worse, it's unclear whether firmware 2.0 itself will cost $$ - with no option to get the "base" for free. So now we have to pay for bug fixes, security fixes, etc.? If Microsoft did that, the Internet would collapse under all the howls of outrage. If this ends up being the case, Apple shouldn't get a pass just because "it's so great."

-Even if the firmware's free, it continues the worst problem: forced bundling of locked, for-cost apps together with bugfixes. Space is at a premium on my 16GB Touch. 1.1.3/1.1.4 ate up close to 100MB of space - for apps I don't want and won't buy. That's about 2 CDs or 1 half-hour show worth of space. There's no option for me to get "just the firmware." Imagine if you didn't want or need iWork - but it came bundled with 10.4.11, ate up space on your hard drive, and couldn't be deleted. Sounds like 2.0 firmware will continue to do the same.



That's fine, except again for the forced bundling and/or will we have to pay for bugfixes?

If Apple had to charge for accounting reasons, they could set some <$5 price, presumably. That they don't suggests they have less innocent motives than they protest to.
Click to expand...

I always laugh at the assertion that hardware is 'new' when purchased, or "I will wait for the next upgrade, if it is weeks away." Answers.

ANY computer or devise like the Touch is OBSOLETE WHEN YOU BUY IT, even on THE FIRST DAY! Apple and ALL other companies are already working on the NEXT whatever!!!!

Sorry, but for anyone to think their Touch or Mac will last years with the same feature set is just not understanding how the industry works.

If you buy a MBP, MB, or iMac do you expect that just because a newer model comes out that you should get the latest motherboard, DVD burner, or RAM? Replace that monitor? Or have Apple send you the ungraded parts??

Just my 2 cents!
 
IJ Reilly said:
On and on this argument goes, despite the complete lack of evidence or logic to support it.
Click to expand...

As I see it, we don't have any hard evidence to support either side of the argument. That's why I'm content to say that Apple judged the pros and cons of the situation decided that the business model they selected was best for them.

None of us outside Apple have any real idea what their reasons were.
 
kdarling said:
A lot of 3G owners aren't new to ATT.

What "large amounts" for exclusivity?
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter if they've used AT&T before. They're customers on a new contract, bringing in the same amount of money as people that are new to the service. You can't seriously believe that Apple would allow AT&T to give them less money and extend their contract for another year, can you? The subsidy is just covering the costs of the phone, which they were already making before.

But I'm betting that people will continue to bitch about having to pay $10 for new software and new features, anyway.

They make more from the iPhone, and they account and market for it that way. They're gonna charge you for future updates; complaining on this forum doesn't help the case.
 
goosnarrggh said:
As I see it, we don't have any hard evidence to support either side of the argument. That's why I'm content to say that Apple judged the pros and cons of the situation decided that the business model they selected was best for them.

None of us outside Apple have any real idea what their reasons were.
Click to expand...

True, up to a point, but I don't think it's quite so simple. The argument that Apple has absolutely no justification for charging touch owners for the 2.0 update when they haven't charged iPhone owners is fundamentally lacking in logic. If it was only a matter of Apple "sticking it to iPod owners because they can," then obviously Apple could have made even more money sticking it to iPhone owners too. So this argument doesn't clear the first logical hurdle.

The second logical hurdle requires some understanding of the accounting requirements and how Apple interprets them. I agree this is at least partially unknowable, but this lack of factual evidence doesn't stop many from definitively concluding that Apple had "no good reason" for charging.

In the end, it boils down to an emotional response: Many feel the charge can't be justified because they don't like it.
 
akonradi said:
But I'm betting that people will continue to bitch about having to pay $10 for new software and new features, anyway.
Click to expand...
You think? ;)

akonradi said:
They're gonna charge you for future updates; complaining on this forum doesn't help the case.
Click to expand...
Somehow I doubt that complaining about other people's opinions accomplishes much, either - but that doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent for you. :rolleyes:

You're absolutely right, though - complaining about here about the update fee doesn't help - there are far more productive courses of action one can take. For example, downloading the 2.0 software update for free using your P2P software/tracker/server of choice. That's what I did, and I have no regrets - besides the launch day fiasco (which was my original motivation), I think it's ridiculous to pay for software this sh**ty (just Google 'apple logo death' if you have any questions) ...

Anyway, I'm sure the Apple apologists will have a field day with this post. Knock yourselves out; complaining about others' opinions on this forum isn't going to accomplish anything. Yet, that doesn't seem to stop anyone, does it?
 
I just bought a new Touch and the firmware was 1.1.5
After using it for several days, I don't see an incentive to buy the 2.0.1 upgrade. I read an article where only a small percentage of the custom made apps received continued usage, meaning the bulk of them are junk - just like a lot of the addons for Mozilla FireFox. I don't like the idea of paying $10 for an upgrade either, so I'm sticking with 1.1.5 for now.
 
mavis said:
Somehow I doubt that complaining about other people's opinions accomplishes much, either - but that doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent for you. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I wasn't complaining about opinions, or really complaining. I was trying to explain that Apple makes more money on the iPhone beyond the subsidy. Other than that, I hadn't replied to this thread in five months.

You're absolutely right, though - complaining about here about the update fee doesn't help - there are far more productive courses of action one can take. For example, downloading the 2.0 software update for free using your P2P software/tracker/server of choice. That's what I did, and I have no regrets - besides the launch day fiasco (which was my original motivation), I think it's ridiculous to pay for software this sh**ty (just Google 'apple logo death' if you have any questions) ...
Click to expand...
Aside from the fact that you don't like to pay for software updates, why would you even want to steal 2.0? It's like stealing a cow chip from a farm. Didn't take long for me to realize from my iPhone that it's a horrible piece of software, so I've kept my iPod on 1.x.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back