Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPod touch Not very cool that 2.0 available for iPhone, iPod touch left high and dry

OMG! I'm not going to waste my time reading this thread because I already know what it is going to be filled with... :rolleyes:

Get your $10 ready and wait for tomorrow, Jeez... Gimme a break...

BTW, I'm glad :apple: is charging money for all their hard work, too bad it wasn't more... :eek:
 
akonradi said:
Whenever something gets upgraded, people just start to pull this card. "oh, it should've been on there to begin with." Technology progresses constantly. If you thought that it was incomplete, you shouldn't have purchased it.
Click to expand...

It's the fact that Steve stated it's free for iphone users because it can be accounted for under the monthly payments for their cell phone plan. Because of (I can't remember which) accounting laws, they have to charge a fee for ipod touch users. I'm ok with a small amount, but it's $20 an update. And the kicker is, you can buy the same ipod touch you bought a while back, for the same price, but the updates are included at no charge. I see it a a milking tactic, but to each their own
 
liquidh2o said:
It's the fact that Steve stated it's free for iphone users because it can be accounted for under the monthly payments for their cell phone plan. Because of (I can't remember which) accounting laws, they have to charge a fee for ipod touch users. I'm ok with a small amount, but it's $20 an update. And the kicker is, you can buy the same ipod touch you bought a while back, for the same price, but the updates are included at no charge. I see it a a milking tactic, but to each their own
Click to expand...
First off, the update (this time) is 10USD (was 20 last time, if that's what you're referring to). Apple actually gets money from the iPhone contracts, which is most likely put in some fund for future iPhone stuff.

They could just make it so that the 2,0 update applies only to future iPods. But they let you upgrade (not update, they're different) for a fee, which most seem to think is fair. With hardware updates, the people that buy the new one will have the latest and greatest while the people with the previous model cannot do anything about it. At least with software, they give you the opportunity to upgrade. Whether you think that the fee is fair is completely subjective.
 
JML42691 said:
Good luck finding it, it should take you a while and you would be crossing legal lines if you distributed it, have fun! Be sure to tell us when you find it.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it will be available on the torrents within a week of its release. The iPod apps didn't take long, did it?
 
akonradi said:
First off, the update (this time) is 10USD (was 20 last time, if that's what you're referring to). Apple actually gets money from the iPhone contracts, which is most likely put in some fund for future iPhone stuff.

They could just make it so that the 2,0 update applies only to future iPods. But they let you upgrade (not update, they're different) for a fee, which most seem to think is fair. With hardware updates, the people that buy the new one will have the latest and greatest while the people with the previous model cannot do anything about it. At least with software, they give you the opportunity to upgrade. Whether you think that the fee is fair is completely subjective.
Click to expand...

The previous fee was $20, there's been no indication that people won't have to pay $10 for the 2.0 update if they did the January upgrade (however, 2.0 includes the Jan upgrade in the cost). So that's an additional $30 all together to keep up to date if you choose to stay up to date with upgrades/updates. How many updates/upgrades before it becomes cost prohibitive to someone?

And I think you hit the point exactly, same hardware, you're paying for software, the cost of the update is already built into the purchase price of the new ipod touch (else they'd raise the price). You're right, Apple could just not offer an update, and would probably upset more customers. By offering updates for $xx they're covering their rear by saying "you can't see we didn't try", when in reality, they've put a person in a position to shell out more money, or to upgrade to a new ipod touch. What it is doing is covering their bottom line for R&D The third option is to not do either and be content with what you have, which is the route I've gone. I'd actually be interested in the cost benefit comparison between the update

p.s. apple doesn't receive $$$ from iphone contracts anymore. Yes, the cost is subsidized, and this may work out better for apple in the long run. I'd venture to say they're making roughly the same margins off the iphone as the ipod touch, it all depends on how much the carriers are subsidizing.

p.p.s. the first release was an upgrade, 2.0 is an update. That's apple ambiguity for you.
 
liquidh2o said:
p.s. apple doesn't receive $$$ from iphone contracts anymore. Yes, the cost is subsidized, and this may work out better for apple in the long run. I'd venture to say they're making roughly the same margins off the iphone as the ipod touch, it all depends on how much the carriers are subsidizing.
Click to expand...
Revenue sharing is over, but the carriers are now just paying fees to Apple for the iPhone. They're still getting about the same amount per contract, it just comes in a different way. This was made to accommodate some of the new contracts, such as those that don't have solid monthly fees.
 
akonradi said:
Revenue sharing is over, but the carriers are now just paying fees to Apple for the iPhone. They're still getting about the same amount per contract, it just comes in a different way. This was made to accommodate some of the new contracts, such as those that don't have solid monthly fees.
Click to expand...

And most likely it was done because iphones were being activated without being signed up through AT&T, which means apple lost out on revenue sharing $$$.

We don't know that they're getting the same amount per contract, however we can speculate. And I imagine there would be a tradeoff on the subsidy vs revenue sharing, because in two years a dollar is worth more if received today than if received in two years. Which is why I'd like to know what amount exactly is being subsidized.
 
a lot of people don't seem to understand the situation here. apple gets $10 every month from every (original) iphone user that uses at&t. so they are paying $$ every month for those software upgrades. but lucky us me only have to pay for the major upgrade and if we don't like them we aren't forced to pay. sounds like a pretty good deal to me!

sorry if someone has all ready said this; i didn't read any of the comments.

also @ wwdc you may note that steve said "we got it down to $9.99" so it must be somewhat difficult to convince the money people in apple to lower the price to something more affordable.
 
JML42691 said:
I am sorry that you feel that way, but which would you rather have, a release on time that is EXTREMELY buggy, might not even work for regular use and frankly should still be in beta/developer mode, or a release that might be delayed somewhat that works near-flawlessly? I pick the second of the two options, how about you? And in Leopard, when they released it, it was very buggy, imagine if they released that on or near-on-time, you would be having a kernal panic or freezed computer every 10 minutes.
Click to expand...

The matter is not about releasing too soon, but about making realistic promises. If you have a record of releasing things late, then put more thought into your release windows. I think you are misunderstanding my meaning here.

JML42691 said:
No it's not, 2.0 is an upgrade, not an update.
Click to expand...

Do you work for Yazsoft? ;) What a silly spin!
 
liquidh2o said:
And most likely it was done because iphones were being activated without being signed up through AT&T, which means apple lost out on revenue sharing $$$.

We don't know that they're getting the same amount per contract, however we can speculate. And I imagine there would be a tradeoff on the subsidy vs revenue sharing, because in two years a dollar is worth more if received today than if received in two years. Which is why I'd like to know what amount exactly is being subsidized.
Click to expand...
I know a member of the board of directors for Swisscom and that's what he explained to me. It was a quick explanation and I didn't have time to go into detail so that's just my understanding of it. It makes sense that Apple continue to get similar revenue from iphones, though. It could be wrong, I don't know, but I figure that he's a pretty good source for all things Swisscom.
 
akonradi said:
I know a member of the board of directors for Swisscom and that's what he explained to me. It was a quick explanation and I didn't have time to go into detail so that's just my understanding of it. It makes sense that Apple continue to get similar revenue from iphones, though. It could be wrong, I don't know, but I figure that he's a pretty good source for all things Swisscom.
Click to expand...

I'm Steve Jobs and I don't even know!?

Chances are very few people know all the details. I've explained the economics behind it though, which is what my opinion is rooted in. I'm sure we'll find out eventually. It's safe to assume though that (retail cost of iphone + Subsidy paid) - (component cost + R&D + etc) = Margin It's just a lot of blanks to fill in at the moment, but will be interesting to compare against the ipod touch margins
 
liquidh2o said:
I'm Steve Jobs and I don't even know!?
Click to expand...
Can I have your autograph?

Chances are very few people know all the details. I've explained the economics behind it though, which is what my opinion is rooted in. I'm sure we'll find out eventually. It's safe to assume though that (retail cost of iphone + Subsidy paid) - (component cost + R&D + etc) = Margin It's just a lot of blanks to fill in at the moment, but will be interesting to compare against the ipod touch margins
Click to expand...
Hence my uncertainty in that post ;). Comparing the iPhone revenues should be interesting, though. I do agree on that one.
 
akonradi said:
Can I have your autograph?


Hence my uncertainty in that post ;). Comparing the iPhone revenues should be interesting, though. I do agree on that one.
Click to expand...

Agreed :)

I do have to admit I am now tempted to upda...upgra..., to move....up:)p) to the 2.0 software for my touch since it includes the Jan apps
 
David G. said:
Apple is not perfect. ie: They are wrong. They could call it a downgrade:))) but any dictionary worth its weight in salt would tell you it is an upgrade.
Click to expand...

I think that's more of a matter of personal interpretation. However, in my interpretation, it would most certainly be considered an upgrade due to their charging for it. If it were free, it would be an update.

And just for the record, I have no problem whatsoever paying the $9.95. I'm not saying I'm happy with paying it, but $9.95 isn't enough to fret over. $9.95 is reasonable. I'd be saying differently if it were $99.95. Besides, it's almost as big of an update as say Tiger to Leopard, and Apple charges $139 for that!
 
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