Okay is the 2.0 an update or a new model? If so is it worth the wait to wait till June for the 2.0 update or is better to get it now? And what's with the money to update if you have a ipod touch?
Apple is charging money for these updates under the guise of an accounting requirement but really, it's simply to make more money off existing Touch owners.
Or the features... Sheesh, the word "fee" is making so many people compain when you don't even know what the "fee" is for.But I got my touch after it already came included, so I'll save my complaining until we find out the price of the 2.0 update.
Hello there,
Newbie posting here, asking a few newbie questions! I have done the relevant searches in accordance with "newbie etiquette". Forgive if i've missed anything!
As with the new software update; what does it offer to technologically disadvantaged folk like me? I have a MacBook, nana, and now a 16gb iPod Touch and i enjoy all three. The touch has to be the most incredible piece of gadgetry i have ever held, and am absolutely in love. No problems paying £12 for the updates...but...
What can i do with them? Me?
Tech talk confuses me (sometimes, not always), and so simple talk would be lovely! Thanking you...
Jake
well if it truly was only about the accounting practices then they could have charged $1 or $2. The $20 makes it seem a little like a money grab.
Could you give a link to where Apple's said that SOX was the reason? The most I've heard Steve Jobs say about it is a vague mention about being "for accounting reasons".In answer to James L, Apple cited Sarbanes-Oxley, a largely successful accounting reform enacted in the wake of Enron, as imposing a requirement that products accounted for at one time (such as the iPod touch) be treated differently with respect to upgrade pricing than products that are accounted for over time (such as the iPhone and Apple TV). Specifically, Apple asserted that because it accounts for software upgrades for the iPhone over time, it can distribute them without charge, but that the corollary to this principle requires them to charge for software updates to products like the iPod touch.
The problem is that Sarbanes-Oxley says nothing of the sort.
During 2007, the Company began shipping Apple TV and iPhone. For both Apple TV and iPhone, the Company indicated it may provide future unspecified features and additional software products free of charge to customers. Therefore, sales of Apple TV and iPhone handsets are recognized under subscription accounting in accordance with SOP No. 97-2. The Company recognizes the associated revenue and cost of goods sold on a straight-line basis over the currently estimated 24-month economic lives of these products with any loss recognized at the time of sale. Costs incurred by the Company for engineering, sales, marketing and warranty are expensed as incurred.
If you want to save yourself money paying for the update, wait until 2.0 is out in June...
Maybe SOP got confused with SOX at some point and the confusion has just perpetuated over time.Apple's 2007 10-K filing with the SEC (under revenue recognition) mentions SOP No. 97-2, not SOX.
Email - lets you access your email from an application you can simply tap on the home screen. See how you've got Safari, Contacts, Calender, etc, on your home screen? It would add a separate email application.
You can still check your emails by using Safari, it's just not as convenient.
Notes - allows you to create and save notes. Handy if you don't have your phone or pen and paper with you.
Googe Maps I guess this wouldn't be really useful to you? It basically lets you find places, etc. It's good, I don't really use it so much.
Stocks Stockmarket stuff - guess you won't be interested?
Weather Lets you check the weather in your area.
In answer to James L, Apple cited Sarbanes-Oxley, a largely successful accounting reform enacted in the wake of Enron, as imposing a requirement that products accounted for at one time (such as the iPod touch) be treated differently with respect to upgrade pricing than products that are accounted for over time (such as the iPhone and Apple ...
The problem is that Sarbanes-Oxley says nothing of the sort. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how companies charge end-users. It most definitely ...
Apple has made a business decision that it will charge iPod users and won't charge iPhone users. One can agree or disagree with that decision (you probably can guess how I feel). But blaming the decision on SOx is pure bunk.
In answer to James L, Apple cited Sarbanes-Oxley, a largely successful accounting reform enacted in the wake of Enron, as imposing a requirement that products accounted for at one time (such as the iPod touch) be treated differently with respect to upgrade pricing than products that are accounted for over time (such as the iPhone and Apple TV). Specifically, Apple asserted that because it accounts for software upgrades for the iPhone over time, it can distribute them without charge, but that the corollary to this principle requires them to charge for software updates to products like the iPod touch.
The problem is that Sarbanes-Oxley says nothing of the sort. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how companies charge end-users. It most definitely does not require any company to charge any fee for any product, ever. Apple is perfectly free under SOx (as many securities lawyers call it) to use different accounting methodologies for the iPod touch and the iPhone. But that does not affect whether they charge, or don't charge, for a software update for either product.
Apple has made a business decision that it will charge iPod users and won't charge iPhone users. One can agree or disagree with that decision (you probably can guess how I feel). But blaming the decision on SOx is pure bunk.