iPod touch How the hell can Apple CHARGE for firmware?

[apsterling]

Because they are accounted for differently than the iPod touch.

Is there a source that states this somewhere? If someone can prove it, then I'll believe it.

The cost of the upgrade is not what would cause them to restate earnings. If they add significant functionality, they would have to go back to previous quarters and restate iPod touch revenues. Some of the revenue would have to be moved to the quarter in which the increased functionality is delivered. This would decrease revenue in the prior quarters. That would look very bad to investors.

They're still in control of what constitutes "significant" functionality, a la claiming their 5 apps were significant and tagging that $20. They could chalk this up to not-so-significant so as to provide it to their consumers free of charge. It's their own decision in the matter.

So basically, you believe that you are entitled to whatever you think Apple should have included?

I feel I'm entitled to what the device's parallel was capable of, that should have been included, in which I paid for the functionality twice over, once twice as much as the second time, when the device was released.

How is it extortion to offer to sell something at a reasonable price?

It's extortion to sell it once at $20, then bundle it with a true feature upgrade for half the price, while requiring me to pay once again for the same features, just to get that feature upgrade.

I guess the ultimate problem for me is the bitter taste of the January Software update. I wouldn't have minded 2.0 and 3.0 if they hadn't had made an awful decision in regards to charging $20 for something that they later charged $10 and upgraded features on, which, in order to gain App Store functionality, was required. It's redundant and extortionate.

I have less of a problem paying the $10 now, than I did for the 2.0, but I still feel that it shouldn't cost me or others a cent, because the iPhone users aren't paying a cent for it.

 

[Sasuke-chan]

Hi, I'm not sure when the previous update was...

But new models of 2G are updated with the newest 2.0xxx (whatever firmware is) when sold. And older models of 2G have to pay for the upgrade despite paying the same price for the device, am I right?

So if this is true, this probably meant that future 2G will have the upgraded firmware 3.0 (assuming it is out before the third generation) while paying the same price as previous owners. Wouldn't this be kindda unfair then? Shouldn't there be kindda a 'loyalty' programme for those who supported and purchased ipod touch before?

 

[Happy Meal]

I would pay it if I had to however. The first thing the presenter says about 3.0 is that it's a major update.

Did it not occur to you that the 'presenter' is Apple trying to sell you things?!

And yet again another sheep blindly follows...

 

[mrkgoo]

Maybe if apple didn't spank the developer for 30% of revenue they make for each app, then this wouldn't be an issue!! Honestly, making a developer give away 30% of revenue for an app they make themselves is counter productive and doesn't have the consumers best interests in mind...

30% is a bargain. Apple provide both very good SDK/apis and support for developers, but also a marketplace for the apps.

The only reason the developers even really sell apps is because of the simplicity to buy apps on the appstore.

 

[wolfie37]

Is there a source that states this somewhere? If someone can prove it, then I'll believe it.

Have a check on any news sites. This was a major deal when Apple, among many companies, were investigated a couple of years ago with regard to accounting practices, the backdating of stock to directors etc. At that time Apple were giving iPod Touch free upgrades but that was deemed to be illegal.

Check here for a start

http://www.macworld.com/article/131991/2008/02/ipodtouch.html

 

[synagence]

Still amazes me that people think that Apple owes them all these new features and shouldn't charge....

They're a business...not a charity...all the devs, testers, designers, distribution(content delivery network akami must take a good chunk of change for the bandwidth), licence fees to technology owners cost money ...

Look at Windows Vista to Windows 7 ..... they're gonna charge you $150 or more (at a guess) to upgrade ..... Does it off masses of new features? Is it value for money? Ditto Leopard to Snow Leopard which will be $129 (guess) ... if you don't want it... don't buy it... everything running on your ipod touch today will still run the day 3.0 ships ... its not like everything will suddenly collapse

 

[bergmef]

Still amazes me that people think that Apple owes them all these new features and shouldn't charge....

They're a business...not a charity...all the devs, testers, designers, distribution(content delivery network akami must take a good chunk of change for the bandwidth), licence fees to technology owners cost money ...

Look at Windows Vista to Windows 7 ..... they're gonna charge you $150 or more (at a guess) to upgrade ..... Does it off masses of new features? Is it value for money? Ditto Leopard to Snow Leopard which will be $129 (guess) ... if you don't want it... don't buy it... everything running on your ipod touch today will still run the day 3.0 ships ... its not like everything will suddenly collapse

+1 And when I see someone write the word entitled I want to throw up too.

 

[Happy Meal]

Look at Windows Vista to Windows 7 .....

No, let's not. Like another user said, let's keep this to mobile OS comparisons shall we.

I don't care what apple or apple sheep might say, this firmware upgrade is just that, a firmware upgrade. NOT a new OS, or a "major" update, but that would bring us nicely back into word games and a nice row about defining 'major' and 'minor'. In a nutshell, it's a small update to firmware.

Let's campare to, say, the Changes/improvements made in the Nokia N73 SW version 3.0705.1.0.31 to version 4.0727.2.2.1. The new features are listed below.

Nokia never charge for these updates.

They include new features.

They include new applications.

- New features
- FOTA (Flashing Over The Air)
- Bluetooth Stereo activated
- A2DP Support activated
- Dial-up over IR
- Lifetimer Reset for reflashed phones
- Vibra Boot notification
- Configurable Flash setting function for Camera
- Secure Formatter with TCB and All-Files capabilities
- New N Series Music Player application
- New application - Online Album included
- Active Standby + UI Grid layout + application locations changed in-line with Pre-Space UI layout.

- Improvements:
- Weather Deck wording alignement
- Icons and text in Application Shell
- Icon in “Catalogs”
- Folder validity updates
- Alarm clock function, when handset is turned off
- Active Standby Shortcut 6 function
- Quick Office “Save” options
- Bluetooth search “Searching for Devices”
- Camera can not be launched if RAM is low.
- Music player - Indicator appears on the idle state background, after saving a music track
- Memory card details are not read correctly if the card is locked by DUV
- Music player starts when BT stereo headset is switched OFF
- Streaming improment for H3G

 

[mrkgoo]

No, let's not. Like another user said, let's keep this to mobile OS comparisons shall we.

I don't care what apple or apple sheep might say, this firmware upgrade is just that, a firmware upgrade. NOT a new OS, or a "major" update, but that would bring us nicely back into word games and a nice row about defining 'major' and 'minor'. In a nutshell, it's a small update to firmware.

Let's campare to, say, the Changes/improvements made in the Nokia N73 SW version 3.0705.1.0.31 to version 4.0727.2.2.1. The new features are listed below.

Nokia never charge for these updates.

They include new features.

They include new applications.

- New features
- FOTA (Flashing Over The Air)
- Bluetooth Stereo activated
- A2DP Support activated
- Dial-up over IR
- Lifetimer Reset for reflashed phones
- Vibra Boot notification
- Configurable Flash setting function for Camera
- Secure Formatter with TCB and All-Files capabilities
- New N Series Music Player application
- New application - Online Album included
- Active Standby + UI Grid layout + application locations changed in-line with Pre-Space UI layout.

- Improvements:
- Weather Deck wording alignement
- Icons and text in Application Shell
- Icon in “Catalogs”
- Folder validity updates
- Alarm clock function, when handset is turned off
- Active Standby Shortcut 6 function
- Quick Office “Save” options
- Bluetooth search “Searching for Devices”
- Camera can not be launched if RAM is low.
- Music player - Indicator appears on the idle state background, after saving a music track
- Memory card details are not read correctly if the card is locked by DUV
- Music player starts when BT stereo headset is switched OFF
- Streaming improment for H3G

To be fair, Apple don't charge either - just for their ipod touch, which is kind of a different market in some ways since it's primarily a portable media device.

Look, don't be a fool - you come in with a complaint, and that's fine, but you blindly call any poster with an opinion contrary to your own as a sheep and dismiss them. What exactly do you want to achieve with this thread? It's obviously not discussion.

We all know they are charging iPod touch users. It sucks it's not free (personally, I couldn't care less, since I have both, I might just leave my iPod at 2.2.1), but that's simply what Apple have chosen to do. All your examples in the world of other companies not charging for updates doesn't prove anything - show me the rulebook on firmware releases - where does it say that firmware is supposed to be free?

 

[Tallest Skil]

Nokia never charge for these updates.

They include new features.

They include new applications.

Then buy one and leave us alone. We don't care about people who refuse to accept opinions other than their own.

Go annoy people on a Nokia forum until Apple gives you what you want.

 

[Happy Meal]

To be fair, Apple don't charge either - just for their ipod touch, which is kind of a different market in some ways since it's primarily a portable media device.

Strange, I don't recall any other MP3 players charging for firmware updates...

 

[IJ Reilly]

Every time this issue comes up, I ask this simple question: If Apple is deliberately "extorting" money from touch owners by charging them $9.95 for major upgrades, because they can, then why aren't they doing the same thing to iPhone owners?

I keep asking, but I never get an answer. Interesting how that works.

 

[edesignuk]

Strange, I don't recall any other MP3 players charging for firmware updates...

How many other MP3 players have anything even resembling the function and complexity of the Touch OS?

 

[mrkgoo]

Strange, I don't recall any other MP3 players charging for firmware updates...

See, you just latch onto whatever you see as an isolated point. It doesn't matter what people say in this thread - you will never ever see a valid point. Everything with you is simply "But this and but that".

The point is it's a different market for Apple. Any precedent, even within Apple doesn't matter, because there are no rules for charging for firmware. PRECEDENT doesn't matter - so what if another company does it? Do all companies have to do the same thing? Is there some written (or unwritten) rule about firmware updates?

 

[Happy Meal]

Every time this issue comes up, I ask this simple question: If Apple is deliberately "extorting" money from touch owners by charging them $9.95 for major upgrades, because they can, then why aren't they doing the same thing to iPhone owners?

I keep asking, but I never get an answer. Interesting how that works.

Because Apple are already getting a nice wad of cash from both the networks and the consumer.

 

[synagence]

Exactly, the point has been made repeatedly ...

Any comparison to Nokia/Windows Mob/Blackberry etc are mute because you're back to comparing a mobile phone OS with an MP3 player

Apple don't charge for iPhone because they account for it on a subscription base....

And saying that other MP3 players don't charge for firmware updates is laughable as most other MP3 players aren't even close to the iPod touch.

The best comparison you could make is to the old iPaq (pocketPC os) ... they gave minor patches free but going from OS3 to OS4 meant generally you had to buy a whole new device as they never usually allowed you to update those major new versions. Windows Mobile still operates on this model....

Any current handset running WIndows mobile 6.1 most likely won't get 6.5 when it ships.

 

[mrkgoo]

Every time this issue comes up, I ask this simple question: If Apple is deliberately "extorting" money from touch owners by charging them $9.95 for major upgrades, because they can, then why aren't they doing the same thing to iPhone owners?

I keep asking, but I never get an answer. Interesting how that works.

To be fair - the argument is this:

I think Apple IS 'extorting' iPod owners. That is, Apple charge because people will pay. Apple charge because they can - they want to make money and that is fine.

The main reason they don't charge iPhone users is because that is their primary market for this product , hence the name 'iPhone 3.0', not iPod touch 3.0, not Mobile Mac OS X. If they charged for their primary market, a lot less people will be inclined to upgrade (people will stick with 'what works'). And if noone upgrades, the platform doesn't move forward. They want the iPhone platform to be growing and to do that, they want everyone to be on the same page for the iPhone. Users are on the same page, and so too will developers, and hence their appstore market is healthier. It's simple really. The iPod touch is simply 'along for the ride'.

To put it another way, by making it a 'compulsory' upgrade for iPhone, all user share the same OS. This is important for the health and future of the iPhone as a platform, because they don't want to segregate the market. They don't necessarily want app developers having to worry about who is on 2.2 or who is on 3.0 (remember new api s in 3.0 will make anyone on 2.2 not be able to run those apps). It doesn't matter if Apple do this by 'hiding' the charge in subscriptions, or that they simply give it away for free - they NEED to have people use iPhone 3.0 to keep everything in parity. To charge means you will have some adopters, and some not - by free, and even enforcing it, it works out for Apple.

The iPod touch is a side story. It is not the primary source. They don't gain as much from enforcing 3.0 to all iPod touch users as they do for iPhone.In fact, they could probably just not allow 3.0 on the iPod touch and be done with it, after all, part of Apple's product map is to segregate 'tiers' of markets to entice upgrade paths. But I guess they've done the math, and that having the iPod touch update cost $10 + the appstore makes them more money than making it free, where making it $10 on the iPhone actually makes them less money (from the appstore and moving the platform forward in general).

The real question, therefore, is not "why are Apple charging for the iPod touch", but "why aren't Apple charging for the iPhone?".

And the answer, as explained above, is all tied in with the future of the iPhone as a PLATFORM, and shock-horror, the best way to make money for Apple. The other mobile OS such as Nokia are not the same -they are simply upgrading the OS for a specific range of phones. The iPhone is setup as an entire platform of its own. Of course, Microsoft Windows mobile is a platform also, but that will likely be a paid upgrade too. The palm pre is probably going to be a platform too.

 

[Happy Meal]

See, you just latch onto whatever you see as an isolated point. It doesn't matter what people say in this thread - you will never ever see a valid point. Everything with you is simply "But this and but that".

That's what a disagreement is I'm afraid!

The point is it's a different market for Apple.

Because it has a nicely conditioned fanbase that won't accept any form of critisism of their beloved apple?

Any comparison to Nokia/Windows Mob/Blackberry etc are mute because you're back to comparing a mobile phone OS with an MP3 player

Any current handset running WIndows mobile 6.1 most likely won't get 6.5 when it ships.

Careful, you might be in danger of contradicting yourself there.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Because Apple are already getting a nice wad of cash from both the networks and the consumer.

Apple could charge iPhone owners for the upgrades, but they're already making enough money on iPhones, so they're deliberately leaving money on the table?

To be fair - the argument is this:

I think Apple IS 'extorting' iPod owners. That is, Apple charge because people will pay. Apple charge because they can - they want to make money and that is fine.

The main reason they don't charge iPhone users is because that is their primary market for this product , hence the name 'iPhone 3.0', not iPod touch 3.0, not Mobile Mac OS X. If they charged for their primary market, a lot less people will be inclined to upgrade (people will stick with 'what works'). And if noone upgrades, the platform doesn't move forward. They want the iPhone platform to be growing and to do that, they want everyone to be on the same page for the iPhone. Users are on the same page, and so too will developers, and hence their appstore market is healthier. It's simple really. The iPod touch is simply 'along for the ride'.

The real question, therefore, is not "why are Apple charging for the iPod touch", but "why aren't Apple charging for the iPhone?".

Apple doesn't want the iPod market to grow and move forward?

These attempts at answering my question are even less logical than I expected, but at least you're trying. Try again!

 

[edesignuk]

I've been doing some further research in to your question as to why they will charge the formidable amount of $9.95 for you to upgrade your Touch.

Ready?

To piss you off (specifically you it seems), to give you something to troll about, and for you to practice the second language of gibberish.

 

[apsterling]

And there's still the good ol cut the price in half and offer more and require em' to pay again for the 2.0 which is pissing me off a year later.

 

[WinterMute]

Seen enough this is going nowhere.