iPod touch 2.0

Discussion in 'iPod touch' started by IgnatiusTheKing, Mar 6, 2008.

?

How much will iPod touch 2.0 cost?

  1. $5

    18.7%
  2. $20

    67.5%
  3. $50

    4.1%
  4. $99+

    9.7%
  1. IgnatiusTheKing macrumors 68040

    IgnatiusTheKing

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Location:
    das Fort
    #1
    How much do you think the fee will be?
     
  2. Krafty macrumors 601

    Krafty

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2007
    Location:
    La La Land
  3. great high wolf macrumors regular

    great high wolf

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #3
    Going with $20 (£12.99) - same as last "Upgrade". And whilst I would have begrudged the £12.99 for the January Upgrade had I bought a touch before it was out, I wouldn't begrudge £12.99 to run 3rd party apps and have Exchange integration.

    They've said they don't see it as a profit-making opportunity, and I don't think a fee of more than $20 would be received well by the community in light of that statement.
     
  4. CPD_1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Location:
    South East Texas
    #4
    I'm sure it'll be $20 and I'm more than happy to pay it. The features offered are above and beyond those which I bought the device for.
     
  5. Zwhaler macrumors 603

    Zwhaler

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    #5
    20 bucks. I'm not paying for it, I'd much rather hack (if it is 20, then that means I can either pay 40 bucks for the jan update and the jun update or hack for free). it is a no brainer. I will be getting the iphone 2, so I won't waste any more money on this ipod touch.
     
  6. mavis macrumors 68040

    mavis

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #6
    Same here. SJ can take that 'nominal' fee and stick it where the sun don't shine. Greedy pigs ... :mad:
     
  7. IgnatiusTheKing thread starter macrumors 68040

    IgnatiusTheKing

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Location:
    das Fort
    #7
    Do you think Leopard should have been free?
     
  8. Jack Flash macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    #8
    This isn't the same situation, but if you want to go there... Do you think MacBook Pro owners should get Leopard for free because their machines cost more than MacBooks?
     
  9. Adokimus macrumors 6502a

    Adokimus

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #9
    Do you think you should be charged for 10.5.2 and every subsequent upgrade after you already bought Leopard on launch day?
     
  10. apsterling macrumors 6502a

    apsterling

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    #10
    Do you think you should pay $20 to install applications on ANY device?
    It's like paying to put the toast in your toaster!

    This is ********, and I'm tired of it.
     
  11. Quasiportnoy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, LA
    #11
    My vote is actually $29.99, but that's just a guess. I voted $20.
     
  12. IgnatiusTheKing thread starter macrumors 68040

    IgnatiusTheKing

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Location:
    das Fort
    #12
    How is it not the same situation? 10.5 was a major upgrade (lots of new features, etc.); 2.0 will be, as well.

    If you'll notice, the SDK is for the iPhone, not the iPod touch. That is the way Apple is marketing it, that is the way developers will be approaching it. The touch, as much as I love it, is like the retarded cousin of the iPhone and as such, will be treated that way. If you don't want to pay for major updates, the solution is simple: buy an iPhone.
     

    Attached Files:

  13. IgnatiusTheKing thread starter macrumors 68040

    IgnatiusTheKing

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Location:
    das Fort
    #13
    Again, 2.0 is to the iPod touch what 10.5 is to a Mac.

    Your argument would make a lot more sense if we were talking about 2.0.2.
     
  14. Silver-Fox macrumors 65816

    Silver-Fox

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Location:
    England
    #14
    he has a point, that argument dosent work in this situation
     
  15. Jack Flash macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    #15
    Well, we paid for 1.1.3.
     
  16. mavis macrumors 68040

    mavis

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #16
    Wirelessly posted (iTouch 1.1.3 (JB'd): Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A93 Safari/419.3)

    I think you guys are deluding yourselves if you really believe Apple will charge the same amount ($20) as they did for 1.1.3. The January app pack cost $20, for five already developed apps! This new 2.0 firmware allows for possibly 100's of apps to be installed - you think that has the same value as five already-developed apps??
     
  17. mavis macrumors 68040

    mavis

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #17
    Wirelessly posted (iTouch 1.1.3 (JB'd): Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A93 Safari/419.3)

    No, and I paid for Leopard on launch day.

    The difference is, some people will be getting this update for free. Apple is choosing to screw the rest of us, and I find that objectionable.
     
  18. Jack Flash macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    #18
    I don't think Apple can afford to charge $20 again.

    The backlash was immense! They want this SDK to get its feet off the ground. $5 tops.
     
  19. ebel3003 macrumors 6502a

    ebel3003

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Location:
    "The Google"
    #19
    You didn't pay for 1.1.3. That was free. You paid for the application package, which you can consider the equivalent to shareware on the Mac.
     
  20. Jack Flash macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    #20
    No, I paid for my wiggly icons and webclips. I also paid to get that damned Adware Advertisement in iTunes to get out of my face.
     
  21. ebel3003 macrumors 6502a

    ebel3003

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Location:
    "The Google"
    #21
    Perhaps that's what you purchased it for, but those are, as advertised, features of the application package. As for the advertisement, there was a "No thanks" button on the lower left which put it to rest permanently.
     
  22. Jack Flash macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    #22
    Oh, but it didn't do ANYTHING but give an error message. The Ad could NOT be disabled without a purchase.
     
  23. ebel3003 macrumors 6502a

    ebel3003

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Location:
    "The Google"
    #23
    If that's the case, then I'm sorry that your experience with this ad was this awful. Apple's marketing team is a clever one; they squeezed $20 out of you by annoyance and wiggling icons.
     
  24. Jack Flash macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    #24
    Yes, they did. And then they refunded it because it was Adware.
     
  25. mavis macrumors 68040

    mavis

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #25
    Sure. Wouldn't it be great if every single person in the world lived in the US? It's easy for you guys to make comments like this, but you seem to overlook the fact that for most of the world's population, buying an iPhone is impossible. So, we just get screwed?
     

Share This Page