Hands-On With iOS 10.3's New 'Find My AirPods' Feature

[4jasontv]

Your explanation doesn't fit my use case...as I explained.

Then you won your device because how you use it doesn't change how it's paid for.

 

[Thunderhawks]

Not if it's an iphone, as I just explained.
[doublepost=1485495139][/doublepost]

An update I paid for via their accounting practices. Why do people have a hard time understanding that just because you didn't exchange money and goods at a particular moment doesn't mean you didn't pay for it.
[doublepost=1485495928][/doublepost]

Nope. I paid for 2 years of updates. That became true when they changed their accounting practices. As I said, it's a non interest account for me, but since you want to factor interest in for them:

3% of $800 is $24. Since they have all the money upfront they would see $24 the first month, subtract that from their $33 ($800/24=$33) and you have $9 removed from the $800. So now they have $791 left for 23 months. Repeat. Their total sale plus interest would be about $1350 for every $800 iPhone. $225 a year is overpaying foe what they have supplied in updates.

What Apple reports as revenue is a direct result of what we pay.

Just how convoluted can one be? Why would Apple's accounting practices be an issue for what you
pay?

You end up paying a total price. As I wrote in that price a portion of R&D are included, their software updating costs, their overall other overhead, and as many items as you want to include.
Taken to an extreme you are even paying when Tim Cook takes out somebody to lunch or dinner, or somebody buys paperclips, if you want to look at it like this.
Whatever Apple does in accounting doesn't effect you and the price you pay for your phone, not even if you get a subsidized phone and pay your carrier over two years. You actually get a break in that you don't have to come up with the full price at once.
Again taken to an extreme you could invest whatever balance each month and get interest.

By your logic you would even make money if you kept the phone longer than 2 years. LOL.

Back to the thread. It's a new feature that doesn't cost you anything, but if you want to have butterflies swirling in your head over this, go ahead.

 

[I7guy]

Then you won your device because how you use it doesn't change how it's paid for.

My use case is different than yours was the point. You're trying to propose some explanation because you're on a payment plan. I'm not. My device is free and clear.
[doublepost=1485524311][/doublepost]

No I am speaking for a LOT of Apple's customers.According to 9to5, even a majority at that. And the YT videos speak for themselves

What hyperbole. You're are now speaking for other people.

I cant adjust the tonal quality of my Dell P2414H monitor without software and even then I still cant exactly emulate the yellow hue on MacOS Sierra

I can do that on my $300 Dell monitor.

Microsoft would disagree considering their IE case. Apple is the only tech giant not allowing multiple app stores.

This will take years to decide, if the case isn't tossed.

Timmy would love to keep the share price up so no wonder he promises the moon to investors to profit from his own share pile.I do know something of Apple's internal financials though. Timmy failed at meeting the internal performance targets whatever they were and suffered a near 20% pay cut. This gives more credence to the theory that Apple is hiding the Watch sales because the Watch flopped. Popup shops worldwide are being closed down

Apple is still the most valuable company in the world, stock is up, app store is approaching a milestone. While Timmy missed an internal target, it's my guess it's a bit like hearing a branch fall in the office. To the people that matter, it's irrelevant as under Timmy, he broke revenue record after revenue record.

The current CEO is credited with the first ever decline in iPhone sales,the lowest op margin in 7 years and cratering iPad sales. At least Steve's missteps (according to you) didnt involve a product which made up nearly 70% of Apple, eh?

The current CEO is credited with record breaking quarters after record breaking quarters, propelling the company into the most valuable company in the world, by having some foresight to do what Stevie didn't do and having to fix jobs mis-steps. Not to mention the addition of wildly successful products. eh?

 

[4jasontv]

My use case

I don't think that means what you think it means.

You're trying to twist what I said to mean that I am on a payment plan with the merchant I purchased it with. I am, if anything, on a payment plan with Apple. Just like anyone who paid a single cent for their device. If you drop $800 cold hard cash for your iphone, then you are on a payment plan with apple. The ONLY way to avoid that is if Apple directly gave you a device at no cost.

 

[kognos]

An update I paid for via their accounting practices.

You paid for the hardware device. The software was free. The update is free. This thread is about IOS and its update. Not about the hardware. It's about IOS, which, as everyone keeps mentioning, is free.

IOS itself is free. IOS updates are free. This is a free update. You can download IOS for free. It's available on the website for free. It's free, as in zero cost. This update is free. It's a free update. There is no cost to this update, it costs no money. There is no installment plan for this update. No one is paying for this update. There is no reason to pay for this update. It's free. It costs no money. No coins. No bills. There is no underwriter looking at the plan for this IOS update. There is no argument on the cost of IOS. It is free. You can get it for free. A 11-toed monkey in Zimbabwe could figure out how to use a computer (with the aid of a smart lemur or two) and download IOS. Because it's free. Free free free.

This, is a dead parrot!

 

[4jasontv]

Just how convoluted can one be? Why would Apple's accounting practices be an issue for what you pay?

It's only an issue because they used an undeveloped feature to justify removing an third party app. Had they not used their accouning practices to inflate their stock, they also couldn't justify removing an app that conflicted with something they hadn't yet done.

You end up paying a total price. As I wrote in that price a portion of R&D are included, their software updating costs, their overall other overhead, and as many items as you want to include.

And as I wrote, they make about 50% more per device by spreading the income over three years and different tax brackets. Again, how they manage their budget isn't the issue until they do something anticompetitive as a result.

Taken to an extreme you are even paying when Tim Cook takes out somebody to lunch or dinner, or somebody buys paperclips, if you want to look at it like this.

Ok... not really sure where you are going with this... (Peeking ahead I see you went nowhere.)

Whatever Apple does in accounting doesn't effect you and the price you pay for your phone, not even if you get a subsidized phone and pay your carrier over two years. You actually get a break in that you don't have to come up with the full price at once.

Um... no. I said that. The consumer has to pay upfront. Hence the $800 at POS, but Apple delays the revenue while still collecting intrest on it. This cuts their revenue per year in half on device sales and generates 50% more revenue via intrest. Which just happens to be taxed lower.

Again taken to an extreme you could invest whatever balance each month and get interest.

I can't invest anything because I don't have the money. Apple has the money, they just (shh) claim they arn't accepting it yet. I don't think you get the point that apple both takes the money and also claims they didn't recieve it at the same time. I'm not saying what they are doing is wrong, until they abuse the position they are in. Which they did.

By your logic you would even make money if you kept the phone longer than 2 years. LOL.

How? How do I make any money? You make no sense.

Back to the thread. It's a new feature that doesn't cost you anything, but if you want to have butterflies swirling in your head over this, go ahead.

Again, it costs all of us because they restricted the ability of a developer to provide a better solution.

 

[I7guy]

I don't think that means what you think it means.

You're trying to twist what I said to mean that I am on a payment plan with the merchant I purchased it with. I am, if anything, on a payment plan with Apple. Just like anyone who paid a single cent for their device. If you drop $800 cold hard cash for your iphone, then you are on a payment plan with apple. The ONLY way to avoid that is if Apple directly gave you a device at no cost.

I don't agree with the entire premise, but we're each entitled to our opinions.

 

[4jasontv]

You paid for the hardware device. The software was free. The update is free. This thread is about IOS and its update. Not about the hardware. It's about IOS, which, as everyone keeps mentioning, is free.

IOS itself is free. IOS updates are free. This is a free update. You can download IOS for free. It's available on the website for free. It's free, as in zero cost. This update is free. It's a free update. There is no cost to this update, it costs no money. There is no installment plan for this update. No one is paying for this update. There is no reason to pay for this update. It's free. It costs no money. No coins. No bills. There is no underwriter looking at the plan for this IOS update. There is no argument on the cost of IOS. It is free. You can get it for free. A 11-toed monkey in Zimbabwe could figure out how to use a computer (with the aid of a smart lemur or two) and download IOS. Because it's free. Free free free.

This, is a dead parrot!

Oh my. You don't understand my point. It's not free because everyone how can actually use the software had to buy a device from them and Apple themselves is reporting said purchase on a monthly basis. So even though I purchased a device with cash at the store Apple says will only recognize 1/24th of the payment each month (although they will hold onto the money untill the recognize all of it).

This story was about an update (which isn't free as I just explained) that allows Apple uses their accounting practices to justify removing an app from their store because they decided they want to make the same software.
[doublepost=1485566061][/doublepost]

I don't agree with the entire premise, but we're each entitled to our opinions.

You don't have to agree. I provided links that explained it was true.

What don't you agree with?

Apple makes iPhone and BT headphones?
That they make the OS these devices run on?
That the remove apps they don't want on the App store?
That they removed an app that has the same functionality as their newest OS update?
That they recognize revenue of one sale over a two year period to justify adding features to devices that customers have already taking hold of?

What part of that is the premise you don't agree with?

Some people here are so hung up on arguing with facts that are true that they don't see how the what they did was wrong. Apple used their gatekeeper possition to remove an app on the grounds that they planned to add the feature later. The only reason they are allowed to add the feature is because of their accounting practice to take hold of revenue earned over a 2 year period (fact). This means they "made money' by the "free" update. They made money by advertising they add functionality to devices post sale. Customers will make purchases based on this observation. Blocking the sale of an app that competes with them because they are also the gatekeeper is anticompetitive.

 

[Thunderhawks]

It's only an issue because they used an undeveloped feature to justify removing an third party app. Had they not used their accouning practices to inflate their stock, they also couldn't justify removing an app that conflicted with something they hadn't yet done.


And as I wrote, they make about 50% more per device by spreading the income over three years and different tax brackets. Again, how they manage their budget isn't the issue until they do something anticompetitive as a result.


Ok... not really sure where you are going with this... (Peeking ahead I see you went nowhere.)


Um... no. I said that. The consumer has to pay upfront. Hence the $800 at POS, but Apple delays the revenue while still collecting intrest on it. This cuts their revenue per year in half on device sales and generates 50% more revenue via intrest. Which just happens to be taxed lower.


I can't invest anything because I don't have the money. Apple has the money, they just (shh) claim they arn't accepting it yet. I don't think you get the point that apple both takes the money and also claims they didn't recieve it at the same time. I'm not saying what they are doing is wrong, until they abuse the position they are in. Which they did.


How? How do I make any money? You make no sense.


Again, it costs all of us because they restricted the ability of a developer to provide a better solution.

Can't make it any simpler:

A consumer pays $ 800 for an iPhone (Put in your number) Doesn't matter if cash or installments.

From then on the consumer pays $ 0 for iOS and it's upgrades and new features, i.e. that is FREE

Where, at what point and how is the consumer paying more than the initial $ 800?

 

[I7guy]

Oh my. You don't understand my point. It's not free because everyone how can actually use the software had to buy a device from them and Apple themselves is reporting said purchase on a monthly basis. So even though I purchased a device with cash at the store Apple says will only recognize 1/24th of the payment each month (although they will hold onto the money untill the recognize all of it).

This story was about an update (which isn't free as I just explained) that allows Apple uses their accounting practices to justify removing an app from their store because they decided they want to make the same software.
[doublepost=1485566061][/doublepost]

You don't have to agree. I provided links that explained it was true.

What don't you agree with?

Apple makes iPhone and BT headphones?
That they make the OS these devices run on?
That the remove apps they don't want on the App store?
That they removed an app that has the same functionality as their newest OS update?
That they recognize revenue of one sale over a two year period to justify adding features to devices that customers have already taking hold of?

What part of that is the premise you don't agree with?

Some people here are so hung up on arguing with facts that are true that they don't see how the what they did was wrong. Apple used their gatekeeper possition to remove an app on the grounds that they planned to add the feature later. The only reason they are allowed to add the feature is because of their accounting practice to take hold of revenue earned over a 2 year period (fact). This means they "made money' by the "free" update. They made money by advertising they add functionality to devices post sale. Customers will make purchases based on this observation. Blocking the sale of an app that competes with them because they are also the gatekeeper is anticompetitive.

This is similar to the threads about apples "extra profits". This is not about how apple amortizes the sales. It's about are you getting value out of the product? You can't control apples accounting. You can control your purchasing.

If you don't get value then buy an alternative cell phone. There certainly are enough to choose from.

I enjoy using my 6s, which I bought outright. I could care less about apples app store policies. Some people are suing apple, let's see how that goes. There are alternatives, one is not locked in.

Vote with your wallet! Do you understand my point of view?

 

[4jasontv]

Can't make it any simpler:

A consumer pays $ 800 for an iPhone (Put in your number) Doesn't matter if cash or installments.

From then on the consumer pays $ 0 for iOS and it's upgrades and new features, i.e. that is FREE

Where, at what point and how is the consumer paying more than the initial $ 800?

When Apple claims they are spreading the payment out over two years but not giving the customer the interest accrued by the payment plan Apple set up for themselves. But again, that's just a fact of how Apple runs, and not the issue. The issue is that they used their ability to remove an app and their ability to add features to screw over a competitor.
[doublepost=1485567591][/doublepost]

This is similar to the threads about apples "extra profits". This is not about how apple amortizes the sales. It's about are you getting value out of the product? You can't control apples accounting. You can control your purchasing.

If you don't get value then buy an alternative cell phone. There certainly are enough to choose from.

I enjoy using my 6s, which I bought outright. I could care less about apples app store policies. Some people are suing apple, let's see how that goes. There are alternatives, one is not locked in.

Vote with your wallet! Do you understand my point of view?

I can't vote with my wallet because apple removed the app from the store. Do you understand my point of view here?

This isn't about how apple amortizes the sale. It's about how they use such practices to get away with anticompetitive behaviors when deciding who is allowed to sell what.

 

[kognos]

It's not free because everyone how can actually use the software had to buy a device from them... <snip>

You can acquire IOS without buying a device. As stated, you don't have to buy a device. IOS is free.

The rest of the argument is not topically relevant.

 

[I7guy]

When Apple claims they are spreading the payment out over two years but not giving the customer the interest accrued by the payment plan Apple set up for themselves. But again, that's just a fact of how Apple runs, and not the issue. The issue is that they used their ability to remove an app and their ability to add features to screw over a competitor.
[doublepost=1485567591][/doublepost]

I can't vote with my wallet because apple removed the app from the store. Do you understand my point of view here?

This isn't about how apple amortizes the sale. It's about how they use such practices to get away with anticompetitive behaviors when deciding who is allowed to sell what.

Then vote with your wallet. Really? You don't like apples policies, buy an s7.

I only know my family and I get value out of apples products.

This is about as off topic to 10.3 as can be.

 

[4jasontv]

Then vote with your wallet. Really? You don't like apples policies, buy an s7.

I only know my family and I get value out of apples products.

This is about as off topic to 10.3 as can be.

You can acquire IOS without buying a device. As stated, you don't have to buy a device. IOS is free.

The rest of the argument is not topically relevant.

It isn't a discussion about the value of the product. It's a discussion over the features of the update. Update 10.3. That feature is noteworthy because the feature had been made available prior to the update and removed.

The fact that Apple removed an app that already did what this update is also doing IS on topic.
The reason Apple removed an app IS topically relevant.

You can disagree about Apples behavior like your arguing against climate change all you want, but the facts presented are still real and relevant. This is a thread about 10.3 which is adding a feature that Apple removed from the app store. Why its an issue is associated with how they reconcile revenue and the fact that a developer charged for said app. Just because you want to turn a blind eye to the issue doesn't make it off topic.

 

[I7guy]

It isn't a discussion about the value of the product. It's a discussion over the features of the update. Update 10.3. That feature is noteworthy because the feature had been made available prior to the update and removed.

The fact that Apple removed an app that already did what this update is also doing IS on topic.
The reason Apple removed an app IS topically relevant.

You can disagree about Apples behavior like your arguing against climate change all you want, but the facts presented are still real and relevant. This is a thread about 10.3 which is adding a feature that Apple removed from the app store. Why its an issue is associated with how they reconcile revenue and the fact that a developer charged for said app. Just because you want to turn a blind eye to the issue doesn't make it off topic.

I am not disagreeing about what apple did, I am flat out saying I don't care. Especially if the app was using "restricted apis". Just because you want to make it a "cause de-celeb" doesn't mean it really is.

I am also saying, if this is a real sticking point for you there are alternatives.

No company I do business with over the last x years has done everything that I am happy with. Especially the companies that have been raising rates.

 

[Thunderhawks]

When Apple claims they are spreading the payment out over two years but not giving the customer the interest accrued by the payment plan Apple set up for themselves. But again, that's just a fact of how Apple runs, and not the issue. The issue is that they used their ability to remove an app and their ability to add features to screw over a competitor.
[doublepost=1485567591][/doublepost]

I can't vote with my wallet because apple removed the app from the store. Do you understand my point of view here?

This isn't about how apple amortizes the sale. It's about how they use such practices to get away with anticompetitive behaviors when deciding who is allowed to sell what.

Again, avoiding to acknowledge the simple facts:

iPhone cost $ 800 for consumer
iOS FREE for consumer

One more try and then I suggest you switch medications:

If somebody gives you an iPhone as a gift with an old iOS, i.e. you do not pay anything, zilch, $ 0.00 for that phone.

You then download iOS 10 for FREE , just were does that cost you any money for iOS?

 

[4jasontv]

Again, avoiding to acknowledge the simple facts:

iPhone cost $ 800 for consumer
iOS FREE for consumer

One more try and then I suggest you switch medications:

If somebody gives you an iPhone as a gift with an old iOS, i.e. you do not pay anything, zilch, $ 0.00 for that phone.

You then download iOS 10 for FREE , just were does that cost you any money for iOS?

Really? Don't be rude. The cost was paid by the person who purchased the device initially. Their money is the one being given divided up to pay for the device and software. Stop trying to make it seem like the OS is separate from the hardware. You can't run the phone without ios. You can't get an alternative OS, and you can't use iOS on different hardware. It's all one thing.

 

[Thunderhawks]

Really? Don't be rude. The cost was paid by the person who purchased the device initially. Their money is the one being given divided up to pay for the device and software. Stop trying to make it seem like the OS is separate from the hardware. You can't run the phone without ios. You can't get an alternative OS, and you can't use iOS on different hardware. It's all one thing.

Sorry, I just can't understand why you refuse to answer my simple question and make twists and turns that have nothing to do with the actual posts.

If you go back to the beginning of my answers, I stated that EVERYTHING Apple does is in some percentage in it's prices as overhead and it has to be. Any business has overhead and it has to be covered via sales and profit margins.

So, why are you concerned about what the previous owner paid ? (Or, keep bringing up Apple's accounting practices)

If YOU get a free phone, you can keep downloading iOS for FREE even if you never buy another Apple product.

FREE means YOU did not spend anything.

Why is that so hard to admit?

I make it as extremely simple as possible to answer:

You get a free iPhone, you download the latest iOS and all future upgrades.

Did you or will you have to pay any money?

Yes or NO? (Hint , the only possible answer is BOLD)

If you need numbers attached:

$ 0.00 = Free iPhone
$ 0.00 = Free iOS download
-------
$ 0.00 = your total out of pocket expense
====

 

[4jasontv]

Nice apology.

Sorry, I just can't understand why you refuse to answer my simple question and make twists and turns that have nothing to do with the actual posts.

I have answered your questions. No twists or turns. I'll do it again.

If you go back to the beginning of my answers, I stated that EVERYTHING Apple does is in some percentage in it's prices as overhead and it has to be. Any business has overhead and it has to be covered via sales and profit margins.

No argument. Apple charges a price to offset the overhead. Every company does.

So, why are you concerned about what the previous owner paid ?

Because it doesn't matter who paid Apple as long as someone does. If I buy a phone and give it to you, I think you would expect Apple to fix it while it was under warrenty even though you didn't pay.

(Or, keep bringing up Apple's accounting practices)

Because it's Apples accounting practices that give them a financial incentive to remove apps that compete with them.

If YOU get a free phone, you can keep downloading iOS for FREE even if you never buy another Apple product.

But an Apple product was already purchased. Therefore the update wasn't free. This isn't a point of discussion. It's true. Stop trying to make these seem like it's different.

FREE

means YOU did not spend anything.

Someone spent something, which means Apple was paid.

Why is that so hard to admit?

I keep wondering that about you.

I make it as extremely simple as possible to answer:

You get a free iPhone, you download the latest iOS and all future upgrades.

Did you or will you have to pay any money?

Unless Apple gave me the device for free, then yeah, I did. I paid via the person who paid for it.

Yes or NO? (Hint , the only possible answer is BOLD)[/QUOTE]
You have a really hard time with this.

If you need numbers attached:

$ 0.00 = Free iPhone
$ 0.00 = Free iOS download
-------
$ 0.00 = your total out of pocket expense
====

This assumes Apple gave me the device. Which they didn't I don't know anyone who did. To fit the example of someone else giving me the phone it would look like this:

$ 849.00 = Buy iPhone
$ 0.00 = Gives me iPhone
$ 0.00 = iOS download at point of download
-------
$ 849.00 = your total out of pocket expense

Now Apple decides to break this up into 24 months.
($35.375 a month x 12 months) + interest = profit + taxes first year
($35.375 a month x 12 months) + interest = profit + taxes second year
interest = profit + taxes third year

That means that my $849.00, paid by the original customer paid for the iOS update.

 

[Thunderhawks]

Nice apology.


I have answered your questions. No twists or turns. I'll do it again.


No argument. Apple charges a price to offset the overhead. Every company does.


Because it doesn't matter who paid Apple as long as someone does. If I buy a phone and give it to you, I think you would expect Apple to fix it while it was under warrenty even though you didn't pay.


Because it's Apples accounting practices that give them a financial incentive to remove apps that compete with them.


But an Apple product was already purchased. Therefore the update wasn't free. This isn't a point of discussion. It's true. Stop trying to make these seem like it's different.


Someone spent something, which means Apple was paid.


I keep wondering that about you.

Yes or NO? (Hint , the only possible answer is BOLD)

You have a really hard time with this.



This assumes Apple gave me the device. Which they didn't I don't know anyone who did. To fit the example of someone else giving me the phone it would look like this:

$ 849.00 = Buy iPhone
$ 0.00 = Gives me iPhone
$ 0.00 = iOS download at point of download
-------
$ 849.00 = your total out of pocket expense

Now Apple decides to break this up into 24 months.
($35.375 a month x 12 months) + interest = profit + taxes first year
($35.375 a month x 12 months) + interest = profit + taxes second year
interest = profit + taxes third year

That means that my $849.00, paid by the original customer paid for the iOS update.[/QUOTE]

Here we go again with your warped accounting of what Apple does.

All I see is an iPhone that costs $ 849 with FREE iOS upgrades until you want to get rid of it.

I gave my entire family iPhones (3) for Christmas, I paid for them. Of Cours etc initial iOS and
Apples overheads, profits etc. are in the prices I paid.

All 3 of them no longer live with me, but have upgraded the iOS for these phones several times.

They have not paid 1 cent.

Please produce any kind of a real invoice or payment for an iOS upgrade!

I see at least you put in $ 0.00 finally someplace Getting warmer.

 

[I7guy]

You have a really hard time with this.



This assumes Apple gave me the device. Which they didn't I don't know anyone who did. To fit the example of someone else giving me the phone it would look like this:

$ 849.00 = Buy iPhone
$ 0.00 = Gives me iPhone
$ 0.00 = iOS download at point of download
-------
$ 849.00 = your total out of pocket expense

Now Apple decides to break this up into 24 months.
($35.375 a month x 12 months) + interest = profit + taxes first year
($35.375 a month x 12 months) + interest = profit + taxes second year
interest = profit + taxes third year

That means that my $849.00, paid by the original customer paid for the iOS update.

Here we go again with your warped accounting of what Apple does.

All I see is an iPhone that costs $ 849 with FREE iOS upgrades until you want to get rid of it.

I gave my entire family iPhones (3) for Christmas, I paid for them. Of Cours etc initial iOS and
Apples overheads, profits etc. are in the prices I paid.

All 3 of them no longer live with me, but have upgraded the iOS for these phones several times.

They have not paid 1 cent.

Please produce any kind of a real invoice or payment for an iOS upgrade!

I see at least you put in $ 0.00 finally someplace Getting warmer.[/QUOTE]
I don't get the point of making a purchase decision on apples accounting policies or profit margin or revenue. I make a purchase decision on price vs value; but that's me.

 

[Thunderhawks]

Here we go again with your warped accounting of what Apple does.

All I see is an iPhone that costs $ 849 with FREE iOS upgrades until you want to get rid of it.

I gave my entire family iPhones (3) for Christmas, I paid for them. Of Cours etc initial iOS and
Apples overheads, profits etc. are in the prices I paid.

All 3 of them no longer live with me, but have upgraded the iOS for these phones several times.

They have not paid 1 cent.

Please produce any kind of a real invoice or payment for an iOS upgrade!

I see at least you put in $ 0.00 finally someplace Getting warmer.

I don't get the point of making a purchase decision on apples accounting policies or profit margin or revenue. I make a purchase decision on price vs value; but that's me.[/QUOTE]

Same here I don't get what the problem is.

I buy the product, pay for it and use it.

Every upgrade after that has been FREE.