Today's Announcements: The Untold Story

[winterspan]

Ahhhhhggggg!! This is the way it works in the electronics game. This has kind of been said before, but I will try again. If I bought a Macbook in June, it came with Tiger and iWork 06. A few months later, that same Macbook, at the same price, came with Leopard and iWork 08. I would have to pay to upgrade my software to Leopard and iWork 08 despite the fact that new purchasers were getting that software for free. How is this any different??? New purchasers will ALWAYS get more for the same amount of money. If you don't like this model, wait until all the software that will ever be released gets released before buying anything Let me know how that works out for you.

It's not that people aren't listening to you, it's just that your analogy isn't accurate. With the Touch, it is NOT the case that the future buyer receives a newer version of an existing application that they wish to charge the original buyers an upgrade fee for; that situation is quite reasonable and I don't think many would complain.

In this case, the future buyer is receiving an application set free of charge, for which there had been no prior version available on the existing product;
and for which they intend to charge the original buyers a fee. And this is despite the fact that the said application set actually existed during the original product launch, but was not included on the product.

An Macbook analogy would look like this:

1) Entirely new Macbook and iMac computers are announced. Models are touted to improve over time as new software packages are added.

2) iMac comes with a set of 3D modeling applications which are not available on the Macbook.

3) Later on in the year, not having updated any computer models, Apple decides to include the original 3D application set with all current shipping Macbooks in addition to the iMac, while charging existing same-model Macbook owners a $129 upgrade, despite the fact that the 3d software package was available at the time the macbook was originally sold.

See the difference?

 

[winterspan]

i see what you're saying about what people expect but there's a differential between a product (think 3G iPod or a washing machine) and a general computing device.

for a product, you don't expect feature sets to change or improve. i old iPod's never did, my toaster and washing machine don't. if i want a new feature i know that i have to cough up money for it by buying a new product and throwing it away.

with a general computing device (say a mac or a pc) i have an expectation that i can upgrade without throwing away and this leads to the possibility of free upgrades, however in reality upgrades are almost always cost options.

but i'm not sure why you say it's intuitive that the upgrade be free because neither model has a default of increasing functionality for free.


because apple are really struggling to get the acceptance rate of the ipod up...

The problem with your argument is that Job's consistently touted the fact that the iPhone would continue to improve over time with new updates, in part because of the reconfigurable screen interface. When the iPod touch was announced, this same idea was implied. The first few firmware updates, while not adding bundles of apps, did indeed improve the product. So up until MWSF08, the precedent had been set that future updates would not cost more money.
Obviously this is in addition to the existing argument that new owners get the 'existing' applications for free, while existing owners of the same product model are forced to pay for them. Remember, this is NOT an upgrade from one version of an app or app suite to a newer one; This is the addition of pre-exisiting software to the same model hardware.

 

[southernpaws]

The problem with your argument is that Job's consistently touted the fact that the iPhone would continue to improve over time with new updates, in part because of the reconfigurable screen interface. When the iPod touch was announced, this same idea was implied. The first few firmware updates, while not adding bundles of apps, did indeed improve the product.

The firmware updates were minor, many of them fixing bugs (e.g. the edit feature in ical)

Jobs touted the iphone's update capability when they announced the deferred revenue model, which causes them to take somewhat of a hit on the reported earnings sheet. the move was made so that they could update the iphone and keep it ahead of the pack.

the ipod touch was never on the same accounting model, so it wasn't implied that major updates would also be free, although many people assumed it.

 

[audioruckus]

everyone needs to take a step back off the ledge....

 

[kshott]

What bothers me, and I presume most who are angry, is the fact that ONLY the people who currently own an Ipod Touch ("early adopters") have to pay to upgrade, whereas new users get it for free. That doesn't seem fair to me; and to the contrary, it appears an especially bad decision to piss off your early adopters when Apple is one of those business that thrives on their core dedicated users who make up a large share of the early adopters of their products. it definitely leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Bingo. That, plus the fact that they so BLATANTLY waited until right after the holiday season (when they knew they were going to sell an a$$ load of Touches that would then have to pony up another $20 to get the apps) are the reasons I will no longer be giving Apple one red cent.

 

[Tyrannosaurs]

The problem with your argument is that Job's consistently touted the fact that the iPhone would continue to improve over time with new updates, in part because of the reconfigurable screen interface. When the iPod touch was announced, this same idea was implied. The first few firmware updates, while not adding bundles of apps, did indeed improve the product. So up until MWSF08, the precedent had been set that future updates would not cost more money.

hmmm.... having watched the ipod touch launch i don't share the view that they implied that. even if you are of that view i'm not sure how you'd weight that implication over the fact that they had never significantly upgraded a previous ipod model so the precident runs against this - where that's the case, where it's something the company had never done - i'd look for something express rather than something implied. i think it's a shaky claim at best.

Obviously this is in addition to the existing argument that new owners get the 'existing' applications for free, while existing owners of the same product model are forced to pay for them. Remember, this is NOT an upgrade from one version of an app or app suite to a newer one; This is the addition of pre-exisiting software to the same model hardware.

that depends on whether you view this as a productised music player or a general purpose computing device.

i'd say apple have made it perfectly clear that in their view, right now, this is the former. their open hostility to jailbreaking has made it clear that it is not, as far as they are concerned, a general purpose computing device and as they're the ones selling the product, they get to say what it is. sure you can use it as something else but you can't expect their support for that.

now, as products age, it's common to bundle new stuff in to make it more attractive. go look in a car show room where they're bundling new interior trim and better stereo's on slightly older models to encourage interest.

and early adopters are always screwed - always have been, always will be. an early adopter will pay more (prices almost always drop over time), will have to put up with teething troubles, and will often see their products date and new consumers given better deals.

also let's not forget - no-one forced you to be an early adopter. you had the choice. and you also got a couple of months of flashing about a new toy that no-one else had, playing with it's new features and enjoying the kudos that comes with having the latest, greatest thing.

the distinctions come from thinking of it as software rather than as a product (a product as i am using the term being the combination of both hardware and software - essentially a defined feature set). if you think about it as a product in those terms, then it's no different to a car, a toaster or whatever - you get what you pay for, a new model might come out, you don't get bent out of shape when a new model comes out that's better than yours (or perhaps you do but i doesn't cause this sort of outrage usually).

if you think about it in terms of software, what this really comes down to is basically the same as the software piracy argument - if it's free or easy for the company to copy or port, then it should also be free or cheap for the user...

and there-in lies the rub.

 

[southernpaws]

Bingo. That, plus the fact that they so BLATANTLY waited until right after the holiday season (when they knew they were going to sell an a$$ load of Touches that would then have to pony up another $20 to get the apps) are the reasons I will no longer be giving Apple one red cent.

They waited for the Macworld expo. They *always* wait for the macworld expo. they're not going to start showing off their stuff one month before macworld. in fact, it's probably a dumb idea to hold the macworld expo after christmas, because a lot of people didn't buy mac stuff for christmas because they want to see the new stuff that's coming out a month later.

i mean, i'm sure i'm not the *only* one who didn't purchase an ipod touch because i wanted to see what was coming out at macworld.

slow down with the conspiracy theories. it's just dumb luck .

 

[audioruckus]

slow down with the conspiracy theories. it's just dumb luck .

Seriously people. The reaction this $20 upgrade is getting is beyond irrational. Do I understand being a little ticked off? Yeah I do. But thats ALWAYS what happens with early adopters.

For example, I bought the first intel core duo macbook pro when they made their switch. Like 6 months later they came out with the core 2 duo for the same price! Did that tick me off? Yeah it did a little, but I was more mad at myself because I KNEW I should have waited to see how things were going to shape up before investing in a brand new product like that.

We all make our own decisions to purchase these things, so lets accept part of the blame here too. No one MADE you buy the ipod touch...and you bought it not knowing one way or the other how they were going to upgrade them.

By the way, I bought the ipod touch before the upgrade..and I paid the $20 for the apps.

Such is life!

 

[iboswall]

is anyone else upset that the update ruins the dock on the ipod touch, before it looked like the dock on leopard, now its going to look like the simple solid grey background already featured on the iphone

 

[diamond.g]

What would be annoying to me is, if I didn't want the apps, they are included in 1.1.3 even if you don't pay for them.

 

[Tyrannosaurs]

What would be annoying to me is, if I didn't want the apps, they are included in 1.1.3 even if you don't pay for them.

they are - it seems just to be some sort of activation...

 

[kingtj]

I get it, but you gotta pay to play....

I think I was right there with the rest of the people collectively frowning at Apple asking $20 for the iPod Touch apps update. You can't really put a good "spin" on this move.... It amounts to Apple wanting to milk some extra cash out of people, plain and simple. (As it's been said a million times before, these apps were already written, and it didn't take any real "engineering time" to bring them to the Touch once they were made for the iPhone.) They could have gotten away with this a lot more "smoothly" if they didn't include them with new Touches too, IMHO. If you're going to place a $20 price on them, do it across the board. Either increase the price of new Touches by $20 or make *everyone* pay for them separately. Otherwise, you just come across as punishing your early-adopters for being fans of the products.

THAT being said though, the very existence of the iPod Touch is sort of odd. What I mean is, it really felt like an after-thought on Apple's part. It's essentially an iPhone with the "phone" part gutted out, just to placate the "gotta have one of those cool multi-touch devices" crowd who refused to buy a new cellphone as part of the deal. It doesn't look *anything* like the entire rest of the iPod product line - and I doubt Apple even wanted to build it, initially. (When they started seeing people buying iPhones and then using hackery to fake a service activation, just so they could use them as iPods - they probably felt their hand was forced to offer an alternative.)

So I've got kind of mixed feelings on the whole thing. If you had the money to blow on a Touch just to "look like one of the hip iPhone owners" - how is it you can't cough up another $20 for this stuff if you want it? If you were that "cost-conscious", it makes one wonder why one of the traditional iPod videos wasn't more suitable for you? (Up to 160GB storage instead of only 16GB??)

Bingo. That, plus the fact that they so BLATANTLY waited until right after the holiday season (when they knew they were going to sell an a$$ load of Touches that would then have to pony up another $20 to get the apps) are the reasons I will no longer be giving Apple one red cent.

 

[diamond.g]

they are - it seems just to be some sort of activation...

So in essence people here are arguing over paying for a single plist file? So is it wrong to change the plist file on your own to access the applications that they put on the phone anyways? I mean, if they didn't want you to get the apps without paying for them, then why include them in the 1.1.3 update at all?

 

[audioruckus]

If you had the money to blow on a Touch just to "look like one of the hip iPhone owners" - how is it you can't cough up another $20 for this stuff if you want it?

I wouldn't assume people bought the ipod touch just to look like an iphone owner. Since when does buying a phone make a person "hip"?

AT&T service sucks compared to Verizon Wireless in my area and since all my friends and family are on Verizon, I'm not gonna change my cell phone service, increase my monthly cell phone bill, ruin my verizon to verizon unlimited calling and unlimited texting just to have an ipod that makes phone calls.

I'd rather have a phone that works all the time and an ipod that does everything else.