"Settle down, Kanye, settle down". - Carlos Mencia
I was just poking fun at the reputation Starbucks has for overpriced coffee.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Prominent Accountants Blast Apple's $1.99 802.11n Upgrade Reasoning
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I was just poking fun at the reputation Starbucks has for overpriced coffee.
The reason is obvious...
Clearly, accounting regluations have nothing to do with this. Also, $2 is an insignificant source of revenue for Apple. There's only one reason for Apple to do this: metrics.
Apple wants to know how many of its customers are actually USING 802.11n. What cities they live in, age demographics etc.
As pointed out, $2 is a FANTASTIC deal for someone to upgrade service. For an early adopter, $2 is nothing. They will pay the $2 online and get immediate functionality. Because the users are paying online, Apple will immediately know exactly who is using the service.
If you AREN'T going to use the upgrade, it's pointless to log in and pay the $2. Maybe if it were free...you would activate it for fun. But why pay even $2 for a service you never plan to use?
Apple wants to develop the streaming video on demand market. Knowing which of it's users have an 802.11n router indicates potential market size and demand. That's key before Apple can move forward. They need to know who might really be able to use the service before creating a new service!
Clearly, accounting regluations have nothing to do with this. Also, $2 is an insignificant source of revenue for Apple. There's only one reason for Apple to do this: metrics.
Apple wants to know how many of its customers are actually USING 802.11n. What cities they live in, age demographics etc.
As pointed out, $2 is a FANTASTIC deal for someone to upgrade service. For an early adopter, $2 is nothing. They will pay the $2 online and get immediate functionality. Because the users are paying online, Apple will immediately know exactly who is using the service.
If you AREN'T going to use the upgrade, it's pointless to log in and pay the $2. Maybe if it were free...you would activate it for fun. But why pay even $2 for a service you never plan to use?
Apple wants to develop the streaming video on demand market. Knowing which of it's users have an 802.11n router indicates potential market size and demand. That's key before Apple can move forward. They need to know who might really be able to use the service before creating a new service!
And it is also the 802.11n support that Apple never officially said they were going to charge for.
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsid=3475
I'm not sure what's going on here at MacRumors, but it seems like these stories just aren't being caught.
It seems like all of the good information this week landed on Page 2.
I just downloaded it. My firmware version is now 1.0.46. Hope that means it's n-enabled. Or draft-n-enabled at least.
I congratulate Apple on being responsive to the user community. Makes me feel good about my recent $2,700 purchase.
Charging for a driver upgrade for something you already bought is a little silly, is the point. It's not as much about overcharging as it is that this $2 upgrade just comes across as unnecessary and stupid.
And to the other guy who said that people wouldn't be singing a different tune, yikes. There would be a few in Dell's corner, but the numbers would be different. If you disagree, go see what non-Mac forums have to say about this. They're laughing at us.
strange statement at dl site
On Apple's download url which is here:
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/apple/firmware_hardware/airportextremeupdate2007001.html#
The writeup states:
"About AirPort Extreme Update 2007-001
The perfect wireless solution for home, school, and business. As it blankets your space with a blazing-fast, secure wireless network, it opens up a world of possibilities for home entertainment, backups, printing, and more. With the AirPort Extreme Base Station, you and up to 50 of your friends, colleagues, or family members can enjoy a robust wireless network offering up to five times the performance and up to twice the range of networks created with the earlier 802.11g standard."
(bold typeface, mine).
That seems to be a very strange disclaimer. Has any other standard had these kinds of limitations? Just curious...
On Apple's download url which is here:
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/apple/firmware_hardware/airportextremeupdate2007001.html#
The writeup states:
"About AirPort Extreme Update 2007-001
The perfect wireless solution for home, school, and business. As it blankets your space with a blazing-fast, secure wireless network, it opens up a world of possibilities for home entertainment, backups, printing, and more. With the AirPort Extreme Base Station, you and up to 50 of your friends, colleagues, or family members can enjoy a robust wireless network offering up to five times the performance and up to twice the range of networks created with the earlier 802.11g standard."
(bold typeface, mine).
That seems to be a very strange disclaimer. Has any other standard had these kinds of limitations? Just curious...
Get a new mesiah
Apple is the one that needs to learn to pick a fight.
They are flat-out lying about why they wanted to charge $5.
The WSJ article quotes former chief accountant of the Securities and Exchange Commission and a member of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, which writes the accounting rules.
If you believe Apple has any credibility on this issue over them, you've obviously got something of Jobs stuck up your rear.
Apple is the one that needs to learn to pick a fight.
They are flat-out lying about why they wanted to charge $5.
The WSJ article quotes former chief accountant of the Securities and Exchange Commission and a member of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, which writes the accounting rules.
If you believe Apple has any credibility on this issue over them, you've obviously got something of Jobs stuck up your rear.
One gigantic DITTO.
I'm not sure weather to laugh hysterically or cry. I can't believe all the commotion that a non-existant $2 caused.
Just because it turns out not to be true doesn't make it a lie. It has nothing to do with Apple's involvement--all companies act based on their beliefs about requirements and standards. Sometimes they turn out to have gotten it wrong. It's happened to media conglomerates, websites, and corporations large and small. Sometimes when it does happen, the consequences cost the company hugely; if they were cautious, they avoid losing anything.
If it's a flagrant lie, please offer your explanation as to why Apple would charge such a small amount to such a small number of its user base for a one-time charge which only a small percentage will use to begin with.
First and foremost, only a few hundred thousand computers are affected. Second, anyone who buys Leopard or an Airport Extreme base station gets this for free. Of those few hundred thousand customers (we'll round up and say it's one million), how many of them have a pre-n router right now and more than one n-capable computer? It can't possibly be any higher than 1/3, and is probably much, much lower than that. After the administrative costs involved, even being generous, they're left with no more than $1.
What evil motive would be worth the bad press for at most $300,000? Based on last quarter's performance, Apple makes about 7 times that much money in gross profit daily.
I would have to agree with most of what you said, except the $300,000. Most enthuistic computer users have had draft-N routers for some time now (I had one since May). I think the money that they make won't be huge, and the damage to their reputation will be worse, so I don't get it.
In my opinion there may have been an accounting, or other type of error and now there is a "hole" in their finances and they don't want to have to borrow it from another place... they found this as a way to fix their problem... they didn't count on anyone caring...
Yes. I believe that "64" is the actual constraint, but "50" is a much less computer-geekish number to publish and still large enough that most people will never get to it.
FWIW, my current access point has a connected user limit of 16. I'm not sure what the capacity of the standards themselves are (b, g, and n). Even with 'n', though, dividing that speed amongst 50 users and you start to feel not-so-fast. I'd say the practical limit is more along the lines of 20 active users for the base station, although I'm not someone who does that for a living.