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

Today's Announcements: The Untold Story

One other thing:

This is now a pattern and a defined behaviour for apple - it's happened for the MBP n update, now it's happened for the ipod touch.

If you're moaning this time, fair enough, I get why you're upset, however please accept that this is now how apple do business and in future buy products based on what they are at the time you hand over the cash and don't expect that you'll get extra stuff for free down the line.
 
guzhogi said:
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.
Click to expand...
nearly but not quite. the product is a combination of hardware and software. the argument that the hardware was capable of supporting n is undermined by the fact that (a) the software wasn't and therefore the product wasn't, and (b) they never sold it as a n compatible product.

reality is that a lot of products could do a lot more stuff if the software changed - that's what new versions are for. i could list a load of features i'd like in OSX which could be implemented without changing the hardware. doesn't mean i'm entitled to them.
guzhogi said:
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.
Click to expand...
the whole of the software industry relies on the fact that you write it once and then milk it. if an app is ported to the mac from the PC do you expect a discount because they had to do less work for the mac version?

why should the ipod be any different?
 
Tyrannosaurs said:
One other thing:

This is now a pattern and a defined behaviour for apple - it's happened for the MBP n update, now it's happened for the ipod touch.

If you're moaning this time, fair enough, I get why you're upset, however please accept that this is now how apple do business and in future buy products based on what they are at the time you hand over the cash and don't expect that you'll get extra stuff for free down the line.
Click to expand...

Yes, Apple post 2002 (Sarbanes-Oxley) will act like this from now on.
 
so.... Locate Me should work on any Mac if it can use wireless pinpoint technology, not just cell towers??
 
You know, I am shocked at the people who think that Apple is okay for charging $20 for an upgrade that should have been there in the first place.

There is NO other reason for this other than the fact that Apple is being greedy. These features should have been available in the first place, for free. Was this Apple's plan all along? Cripple the iTouch with the plan to milk even MORE money out of the buyers just a few months after it's release? Ridiculous. Utterly and completely ridiculous.

Shame on Apple for this. Are they really that hard up for cash where they need to cheat their customers out of money? Sure, it's "only $20" but money is money. I don't go outside just throwing money out on the streets.

In other news, I am loving the locate me feature on Google Maps. I've tried it at home, at work, and while at a gas station on my way to work. All three times it nailed my location within a hundred feet or so. I'm sure results will vary, but so far so good here in Denver.
 
It's not like they have to charge $20.
They enabled n wireless for $1.99 for Intel Macs. They can do the same thing, $1.99, if it is just about they "have to" charge a fee.
$20 is pure extra profit. If they have sold 1M, then it will be $20M extre profit.

I urge iPod touch users NOT to buy.
 
Loge said:
Lucky they "forgot" when 5G iPod owners got gapless playback for free in a firmware update.
Click to expand...


Gapless playback is an enhancement to the function of playing back music, which was already established in the iPod, doesn't count as a new appication.

I am not a lawyer or an accountant, just going by what lawyers and accountants have told me.
 
Dicx said:
Gapless playback is an enhancement to the function of playing back music, which was already established in the iPod, doesn't count as a new appication.

I am not a lawyer or an accountant, just going by what lawyers and accountants have told me.
Click to expand...

This is splitting hairs surely. It could be argued that wireless n is an enhancement to the function of wireless networking, which was already established in the computer, not a new function. :rolleyes:
 
phytonix said:
It's not like they have to charge $20.
They enabled n wireless for $1.99 for Intel Macs. They can do the same thing, $1.99, if it is just about they "have to" charge a fee.
$20 is pure extra profit. If they have sold 1M, then it will be $20M extre profit.

I urge iPod touch users NOT to buy.
Click to expand...




Think of it this way:

If you were Steve Jobs, how could you convince all the other board members NOT to take that extra $20M pure profit?
 
willdenow said:
...Dieux et Mon Droit, doesn't even work for the Queen of England anymore, it certainly doesn't for you, Mr. Jobs.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't see how this applies to Apple charging you for a software upgrade. Plus, unless you are hindu and believe in many gods, the phrase is actually Dieu et Mon Droit.
 
Can someone explain to me how the AppleTV is a subscription-model when the iPod Touch is not?
 
ricosuave said:
MacRumors said:
View Post
The iPod touch does not fall under this model, and therefore under Apple's reasoning, a major feature upgrade must incur a charge.
Click to expand...
So Macs are under the subscription model? Because they get constantly updated.
Click to expand...

soooo true! :D


Edit: And renting movies or buying music on iTMS (to put on your iPod) doesn't fall under "ongoing flowing revenues" model? ;)
 
"the Digg community"

NDLaHam said:
... A lot of the digg community was extremely mad about this it seemed. ...
Click to expand...
The "Digg community" is basically just a bunch of dim, twenty-something American males though. ;)

Not representative of real thinking humans at all. Certainly a very narrow demographic at best.
 
Loge said:
This is splitting hairs surely. It could be argued that wireless n is an enhancement to the function of wireless networking, which was already established in the computer, not a new function. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I disagree, however what I was getting at is that this was an issue with lawyers and accountants, and not Steve putting his hand to his forehead and saying to the faithful "$20.00".

Kind of like Remy in Ratatouille checking for poison, that scene. That was my visual :)
 
Get over it

If someone paid for an iPod then they made the decision that the price was equal to what they were receiving. Deal was done get over it. Why do so many people expect handouts?
 
Lots of posts saying apple is becoming greedy, in so many ways. I can't remember them ever giving anything away. Are some people crying over a Camalot that never existed?

Reminds me of hippies outside the gates at concerts wailing "music should be free, man".
 
Not a bad deal really

If I had bought an iPod Touch and Apple offered me the chance to add the ability to send and receive mail on it for only $20, I would be pretty happy. I'm getting tired of hearing all this grumbling from people who have this sense of entitlement about things. You bought the Touch with the features it had and were happy enough to pay the price. Now you can have a better Touch for a small upgrade fee. I think it just kills people that someone else is getting what they got for a cheaper price. If this is the case, you should probably stop buying electronic gadgets.
 
Dicx said:
I disagree, however what I was getting at is that this was an issue with lawyers and accountants, and not Steve putting his hand to his forehead and saying to the faithful "$20.00".

Kind of like Remy in Ratatouille checking for poison, that scene. That was my visual :)
Click to expand...

I haven't seen that unfortunately. :) But it seems it will ultimately come down to some fairly arbitrary distinctions over what precisely is the function of a device. Something for lawyers to enjoy, I agree.
 
DamnDJ said:
You know, I am shocked at the people who think that Apple is okay for charging $20 for an upgrade that should have been there in the first place.

There is NO other reason for this other than the fact that Apple is being greedy. These features should have been available in the first place, for free.
Click to expand...


Why ?

for me it is an ipod with a wide screen.

Apple added wifi, safari,youtube,calculator all things all other ipods just DONT have.

and now you can have more apps for € 3,5 a piece .... for me more than reasonable for all these great apps.

AGAIN

its a ipod and not an iphone or a PDA

is just plain an

IPOD

got it ?

Saludos
 
tivoboy said:
I haven't read the ENTIRE thread, but the point to make is

The issue of Software Revenue Recognition rules and requirements is 100% valid. In order for apple to be able to BOOK all the revenue of the SALE of any product, there must be NO ADDITIONAL deliverable, consequential or INCONSEQUENTIAL in the future. Otherwise, a percent of REVENUE would have to be DEFERRED till such time that those items are DELIVERED, ACCEPTED and INSTALLED by the end user.

Such a scenario is bad for revenue timing, and REALLY bad for tracking of DELIVERY.

With a charge, (and it DOES have to be somewhat reasonable) it becomes a NEW REVENUE opportunity and a NEW DELIVERY with its OWN REVENUE SCHEDULE.

Remember the 802.11N update, that was 2.99$ or something crazy. SAME Thing.

It is just anothe reason why we HAVE to pay something for SOFTWARE upgrades, but not UPDATES
Click to expand...

tivoboy, thank you for being the first person to finally inform people on this thread of why Apple had to charge for the upgrade. I can understand why people would not be familiar with this SEC rule.

But it is really important for users to understand that a public software company cannot give away free upgrades.

I have been trying to figure out why they thought the :apple:TV upgrade did not fall under SOX.
 
Tyrannosaurs said:
If you're moaning this time, fair enough, I get why you're upset, however please accept that this is now how apple do business and in future buy products based on what they are at the time you hand over the cash and don't expect that you'll get extra stuff for free down the line.
Click to expand...

No, I'll continue buying products for the potential of what I can do with them. If this is Apple's new strategy, that just means I won't be buying from them.
 
Spades said:
No, I'll continue buying products for the potential of what I can do with them. If this is Apple's new strategy, that just means I won't be buying from them.
Click to expand...

Get this through your head... this is the Regulatory Agencies' policy, not Apple's 'strategy'.
jeez.
 
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