Today's Announcements: The Untold Story

[franzmueller]

Want to step around to tell you that i am very happy with my update and for € 17,99 ( in Spain ) i´ve got a lot of new features into my itp .

I believe some of this apps are from 3rd party ? anyway can´t wait till new apps arrives and for € 4-5 .- a piece i´m in .

When i first bought my ipod i knew what i was getting and since ever i had to pay for new software ..... ilife ? OSX ? quicktime pro ?

So take it easy .... i still have 8 pages to fill up with great apps 😀

Saludos

 

[Tyrannosaurs]

However, there are many times where people may really need something, but can't afford it. So something's gotta give.

Need? As in can't live without?

We're talking about an iPod Touch here. There's no-one who needs the damn thing in the first place so I'm not sure what need has to do with it.

 

[twoodcc]

yeah, i thought there was reason for the $20 fee.

 

[capvideo]

OK, so why is iTunes treated differently, then? New versions come out from time to time with new features (yesterday, 🙄), but existing Mac owners aren't being asked to pay for it.

Well, you are being asked to pay for iTunes. You're being asked to pay 20% of the original cost. 😎

If it was just to get around a legal requirement, surely they would charge some token amount, like $1.

The bureaucrats who enforce laws like Sarbanes-Oxley do not like it when you try to get around their turf. In this case I believe it's the SEC, and they have all sorts of ways to screw you over if they decide you're trying to get around one of the requirements that they enforce.

I would like to see a clear description of why and how this is a legal requirement though; I'd like to be able to complain to the right people.

Jerry

 

[germ war]

I don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet, but here are my thoughts on the $20 charge:

When I bought a 3rd generation iPod in July 2003, I was very excited for everything it could do. A year or so later, Apple came out with the 4th generation model which had some extra software abilities that my current model didn't have. My option? Buy a whole new iPod.

While most people are upset about the $20 charge, I'm glad Apple is now giving people that option, instead of expecting people to buy a whole new product to get the new features.

 

[bytethese]

Need? As in can't live without?

We're talking about an iPod Touch here. There's no-one who needs the damn thing in the first place so I'm not sure what need has to do with it.

"I said bring only what you need to survive!"

"It's my industrial strength iPod, and I CAN'T live without it!"

 

[TehBits]

Need? As in can't live without?

We're talking about an iPod Touch here. There's no-one who needs the damn thing in the first place so I'm not sure what need has to do with it.

Exactly. I don't get what the big deal is. It's an iPod, why the hell does it need GPS? Especially if it only works in WiFi. Generally, if you're in a place with WiFi, you've got a pretty good idea where you are in the first place.

 

[noco80]

Re: #28 - Student whining about his/her ipod touch expenses

Why does everybody assume that $20 is fair??? I bought my iPod touch because I am on a college campus and can't afford the data plan the iPhone requires. Why does Apple consider my product differently? $20 means a lot to me. Not to mention that this iPod touch thing keeps screwing me over. No apps? $20 upgrade for capability it should have had from the beginning? Apple is ubiquitous in the academic environment, but they just refuse to show me any love. If only Apple had heard of Google's mantra - don't be evil!

To put it succinctly - why is the iPod touch being treated like a bastard sibling of the iPhone instead of the brother it really is??

So, if your a college student and on a budget, why are you buying a new iPod Touch. It's hard to argue that an iPod Touch is an essential item in your daily life. Food, housing, books for school - those are necessary. iPods, not so much. If you were a decently intelligent student (you did get into college) you should have known of the lack of apps before you bought it. Again, it's not appropriate to complain about something you got yourself into.

 

[beeh]

It's cyclical. Apple has grown to be popular now, something Microsoft was years ago. A few years from now it will be someone else ( Google maybe ) that delivers us the next cool series of gadgets, they're probably out there now, just not well known ( yet ).

It seems that the announcements yesterday were cool, I think. I only question the MacBook Air, I don't see a huge market for it. Maybe there is, or maybe this is the start of a slew of products that Steve thinks are "cool" that market research conrtadicts? ( i.e. he's going nutty, seems to happen to most celebrities ).

BH

 

[Thomas S]

Quit Whining

There are a few reasons why the charge was necessary and fair.

1. Due to the fear of a SOX audit, etc. Apple has to charge for additional functionality; if they did not, they'd be leaving the door *wide open* for legal trouble for unfairly recognizing revenue early.
2. You all bought the iPod Touch KNOWING what it came with. You found it a worthy purchase, and parted with your money. Apple has delivered what you purchased with everything they advertised for it. That's where their duty to you, the consumer, ENDS. You were NEVER promised updates such as this, and you KNEW this when you purchased the device. Quit whining and go back to a basic econ class.
3. Apple has the right to charge ANYTHING they want (but they choose to go with what the market will pay). You are not required to purchase an iPod Touch, and you are not required to purchase this update. It's optional. If enough people refuse to buy it, Apple will go back and re-evaluate the market price (just look at the iPhone). Greed has nothing to do with it; Apple's only duty is to its shareholders - and giving things away like candy doesn't help there.
4. You need to understand that you no "right" to this update; I cannot stress this enough. Just because you want something does not mean you're going to get it.

Now, a few of you are asking "well, iTunes and Software Updater... " and why you're not charged for those updates. First off, the iTunes client is free, and because of that, they don't have to worry about recognizing revenue for it (since there is none).

As far as software updates are concerned, they're delivering on promises made through advertising, the terms of service, etc. etc. when you originally purchased the product. In addition, they're not adding functionality to it that would raise red flags with Uncle Sam; they're just fixing things etc.

Anyhow, if you want to complain about the fees feel free to write your state's representatives and senators; they're the ones who passed SOX, and they're the ones who continually tie the hands of corporations.

 

[Tyrannosaurs]

Am I wrong or is this the FIRST time since the iPod introduction that the customer has to pay for a software update?

depends whether you count the games apple has been releasing for the Nano and Classic.

that's basically the same thing in that new functionality = more money.

 

[PatrickC]

...whereas the iPod Touch is based on cellular tracking, which isn't everywhere...yet.

I think you mean WiFi tracking.

it uses both to improve accuracy.

still, in the arse end of no-where you'll still get +/- 5 miles because there won't be enough registered hotspots or masts.

I was referring to comments about the iPod Touch, which only uses WiFi positioning as it has no GSM capabilities. It has no way of using both methods of tracking.

 

[slffl]

Good! I say make it $50 for whiners. All of you always want everything for free. If you can't afford it, or think it's unfair, BUY SOMETHING ELSE or don't buy anything at all.

 

[Dicx]

Well, you are being asked to pay for iTunes. You're being asked to pay 20% of the original cost. 😎



The bureaucrats who enforce laws like Sarbanes-Oxley do not like it when you try to get around their turf. In this case I believe it's the SEC, and they have all sorts of ways to screw you over if they decide you're trying to get around one of the requirements that they enforce.

I would like to see a clear description of why and how this is a legal requirement though; I'd like to be able to complain to the right people.

Jerry

Finally someone has done some research and figured it out, also Sarbanes-Oxley is EXACTLY why it is $20.00. Not free, not $1, not $15.00. The iPhone and Apple TV can be amortized to accommodate the free update. The iPhone has AT&T and the subscription, the ATV has iTunes with subscriptions also (season pass, and now rentals.)

You can go to: http://www.sarbanes-oxley-101.com/

for more info.

 

[brad2610]

to top it off

I bought the update and it does not download...does not install..it does nothing.

Looks like the apple/mac discussions are heating up about others having the exact issue.

 

[mrwizardno2]

I bought the update and it does not download...does not install..it does nothing.

Looks like the apple/mac discussions are heating up about others having the exact issue.

Strange. Worked fine for us last night.

 

[Tyrannosaurs]

I bought the update and it does not download...does not install..it does nothing.

Looks like the apple/mac discussions are heating up about others having the exact issue.

you buy it then go to the main ipod screen in itunes and do "check for update". this will download the 1.1.3 update and install it at which point the apps appear.

same thing happened to me - the whole "huh?" when you click purchase and nothing happens... worked it out in the end.

 

[Teddy's]

Why?

You can go to: http://www.sarbanes-oxley-101.com/

for more info.

Securities??? Confused

How the hell that US Law is being applied to other countries?

 

[Lancetx]

I could understand the complaints over the iPhone price drop because we were talking about $200 at that point. But to hear so much angst over just $20 with the iPod touch? I'm sorry, but that's literally a drop in the bucket by comparison. Not to even mention that iPhone customers in the U.S. have to pay a minimum of $60 per month for 2 years to AT&T just to have one.

Everyone has known for almost a year what impact SOX has on software upgrades, as it goes all the way back to the 802.11n upgraders. Knowing that, plus what happened with the iPhone back in September, I'm not sure how anyone was surprised by the events of yesterday with the iPod touch.

Like many have said, if you choose not to pay the $19.99, your iPod touch will still work exactly the same as it did yesterday morning, so it's not like Apple is cheating you. And if you don't like having to pay $19.99 for the upgrade, blame the congress, because that's squarely where the blame belongs.

 

[Mackan]

Good! I say make it $50 for whiners. All of you always want everything for free. If you can't afford it, or think it's unfair, BUY SOMETHING ELSE or don't buy anything at all.

I would say it is just good we have people bringing up points why we can question Apple's actions. I want the iPod touch update to be free for early buyers, if new buyers get it for free. I can also pay for it, if new buyers also have to pay for it. But they don't, so it feels unfair. That is why we whine.

It has nothing to do with always wanting everything to be free.

 

[Unspeaked]

I think the problem with the $20 upgrade is that when the iPod Touch was presented, many people looked at it as an alternative to the iPhone for those that didn't have AT&T and/or didn't want to hack a phone.

In fact, I can think of specific threads where would-be unlockers were told be posters that they should just get a Touch and not bother unlocking.

Well, clearly that wasn't the way Apple saw it; but actions like this only justify the consciouses of those that hacked their Touches to get the iPhone applications on it...

 

[Small White Car]

Apples recent treatment of it's customers with the iphone and now the touch have soured me on them.

And WHAT, exactly, did they do to stop jail-broken iPhones? People who bought them and jail-broke them are STILL using those phones today! Apple could have found a way to kick them off the cell-network, but they haven't touched those phones one little bit. Not once.

Yes, people with jail-broken phones can't run new updates from Apple, but so what? People have a choice to make: Am I going to get my software from hackers or from Apple? BOTH choices worked out well for the people who made them.

The only thing you CAN'T do is pick one (hackers) and then whine and complain that you can't ALSO get the other (support and updates from Apple). Well boo hoo, you're telling me you can't have it all? You want the best of both worlds? Get over it. If you wanted to go with the hackers, be happy with your choice. No one is stopping you.

 

[cmendill]

touch = iPhone - phone - camera

This is a matter of perception. Consumers see the touch as iPhone minus phone minus camera. The look nearly identical, they run the same software. It stands to reason that they should feel entitled to all the same free software the iPhone gets that will run equally well on the touch. If Apple really wanted these to be two drastically different devices they should have changed the appearance of the touch, they should have not included wifi, they should have given it only music/video capabilities, it should have been $100 cheaper. That would have been a bad idea, which is why the didn't do it. People who want a touch, want an iPhone, but don't want a new phone. But, after releasing it as simply iPhone minus phone, they've chosen to arbitrarily draw a line between which apps touch users get and which ones they don't. That seems silly. And why they are charging an upgrade fee (legality aside) where new touch owners won't have to pay makes people feel cheated.

These aren't new apps. They are standard OS X portable apps, consumers realize that. Charging an upgrade fee is identical to Microsoft having multiple versions of Vista at different price points. Go ahead and charge both touch users and iPhone users for NEW apps, but come on, this was just a quick way to make a buck and nothing else. Shame on .

This should have been a $0.02 upgrade.

my $0.02

 

[Dicx]

Securities??? Confused

How the hell that US Law is being applied to other countries?

Because Apple is headquartered in the US and it's accounting every year is in the US, and they are liable for US taxes and accounting principles.

Simple enough.

 

[guzhogi]

About the iPod Touch apps...

Could this be like the 802.11n updater? Where Apple cannot 'enable' new features without a fee due to the way revenue is counted?

The price could be cheaper, sure, but just throwing that idea out into the wild...

I think so. The only thing I didn't get about the 802.11n was it's not like people bought an .11n adaptor and installed it. It was already built-in, but Apple didn't say so. How hard is it to say "We have 802.11n built-in"? I remember someone saying in the thread about the .11n that he could show me a MBP box and it wouldn't say that it had .11n. But then I'd open up the MBP and show him the .11N. I just didn't like having to pay any amount for a feature we already have, whether advertised or not.

With the iPod Touch, it's a little more grey than black or white. iPod Touches didn't have these features before so I can see why we should pay for them. On the other hand, they were already on the iPhone and the two products, under my understanding, are pretty much identical except for the phone so no extra development was needed. Just put it into the firmware installer. If Notes and E-Mail were completely new apps that neither had before, I can see the charge. But when it's like this, it's kind of a rip off IMO.

In response to the person who said Apple would partner w/ Abercrombie & sell a scarf for the MBA for $200, I agree. Apple seems like it wants market share, but makes only high class, really stylized products only rich people can afford. Apple makes a lot of really cool products, but they're just so expensive. I remember reading articles on MRs and Appleinsider about the breakdown of different Apple products and how much the individual components cost. For many Apple products, the total cost of the actual components (screen, hard drives, etc.) is about half what the completed products goes for. Like a $100 product would actually cost Apple $50 for the parts. Sure there's assembly, R&D costs and so forth, but a lot of that gets worked off so Apple can discount prices after a while. And Apple charges a REALLY big premium for RAM when you can go somewhere else, get the same kind of RAM for not even 1/2. Apple, IMO, likes to overcharge people. But then again, a lot of other companies do, too.