iPod touch Touch, $20 and SOX

[theBB]

3) I don't think that any thinks that Apple is OBLIGATED to give away this update. I do think, however, that most people agree that it was a terrible decision not to, and the good will they will lose over this is worth far more than any profit they will realize.

They probably could have paid $20 for every current touch owner (call it 2m, so $40m) out of an advertising budget calling it "promotion for customer good will" and not missed it at if they HAD to please the accountants.

I agree. No obligation on Apple's part, but still it'd be better PR considering how much money is spent on advertising.

On the other hand, one can think of it as iPod touch price reduction by $20, (which is a bit early by Apple's standards, but still...) with the catch that new customers are forced to buy the bundle of touch and the apps.

 

[aristobrat]

The entire argument Apple is throwing out there about being legally required to charge for an update that puts a few new features on the device is a weak one at best.

For such a weak argument, you'd think it would have been throughly debunked by an quasi-official source by now, wouldn't you?

Someone must have done the legwork to figure out exactly what's required to meet Sarbanes-Oxley requirements, right?

 

[kshott]

Saw this on another post, but this makes sense to me:

"I was looking at this in the retrospec that if i buy the apps i should be able to use them on the devices i own. So therfore i would want to be able to put say it on two ipod touches, if i legally own two of them."

 

[mrgreen4242]

Saw this on another post, but this makes sense to me:

"I was looking at this in the retrospec that if i buy the apps i should be able to use them on the devices i own. So therfore i would want to be able to put say it on two ipod touches, if i legally own two of them."

I responded to this in the other thread, and it doesn't make sense. Most software is sold with a specific use license, quite often it's a per machine license, so you can install the software on a single computer and anyone who uses it can use that software.

Think about it like this, can you (legally) install a copy of OSX onto multiple machines, or would you need to buy the Family Pack version?

 

[cineapple]

SO why not just Jailbreak and be at peace with yourself?

So, I don't really understand all of the hoopla, and bantering happening over the $20 upgrade. Is it not true that the programs that jailbreak lets you install already have all of the application that the upgrade offers, and more?
-Ben

 

[kshott]

I responded to this in the other thread, and it doesn't make sense. Most software is sold with a specific use license, quite often it's a per machine license, so you can install the software on a single computer and anyone who uses it can use that software.

Think about it like this, can you (legally) install a copy of OSX onto multiple machines, or would you need to buy the Family Pack version?

Yeah. my bad.

 

[laokai]

Think about what has made the iPod such a success: it's a relatively closed system, all driven through iTunes. Sure, you can rip your own CDs and put them on your iPod, but most of the success can be attributed to the full "system" of hardware and software that Apple closely controls. Essentially, Apple is extending this system to the Touch and future apps. They will all be downloaded through iTunes and will cost around 5 bucks per app---thus the $20 price for the new apps.

So making the apps cost 20 bucks is just a form of consumer conditioning. This explanation makes a lot more sense to me than all the obscure tax law, etc. Not to mention, it's an absolutely brilliant way to expand the PDA aspects of the Touch while maintaining a lot more control than MS or Palm have over their devices. Please note that this is not an endorsement of the $20 strategy---just saying that it makes more sense when you think about it this way.

 

[Hls811]

This precisely demonstrates my position: Apple was under no obligation to ever add these features to the touch, nor give them away for free if they did. However, giving them away would have been "the right thing" to do and the long term cost of not doing the right thing will far, far out weight the profit they make on upgrade sales.

I understand your point of view and all of those from people who are questioning (or jsut angry) about being charged with it - but I look at it this way... When I bought my Touch I knew it didn't have Mail or Weater, or Notes or Maps - but yet I still purchased it. I also knew it didn't have Tetris or iQuiz either.

Now, lets say Apple decided that they were going to start including Tetris for free on all new iPod Touches and at the same time offer it up for sale for $5.00 through iTunes. Would I be ticked? No - not at all. Its not something I want, its not something I am entitled to. Its my choice to not purchase it.

When I paid $399 for my Touch I knew what I was getting. A 16GB iPod Touch without Mail, Notes, Weather, Maps and Stocks. I have no right to complain - nothing is being forced on me. I can still get 1.1.3 without the 5 apps - I still have a fully functional device without those apps. I am quite content to pay $20 to have those extra's.

When I bought my MacBook Pro, it came with iLife '07. When iLife '08 came out 3 months later - I went to the Apple Store and bought it. I never felt that I was obligated to get an update for free because my Mac came with a version for free.

 

[mainstreetmark]

This precisely demonstrates my position: Apple was under no obligation to ever add these features to the touch, nor give them away for free if they did. However, giving them away would have been "the right thing" to do and the long term cost of not doing the right thing will far, far out weight the profit they make on upgrade sales.

This sounds like pretty good reasoning to me. Why nickel&dime your loyalists, when you can give predeveloped software to them for (essentially) free. I believe Apple would, which is why I suspect they're under some SOX requirement at this point.

Though, if that were the case, perhaps $5 woulda been the upgrade price.

It may be a mix of both revenue and SOX.

 

[IJ Reilly]

This precisely demonstrates my position: Apple was under no obligation to ever add these features to the touch, nor give them away for free if they did. However, giving them away would have been "the right thing" to do and the long term cost of not doing the right thing will far, far out weight the profit they make on upgrade sales.

Again, this is merely your opinion, stated as though it was a proven fact. This entire thread is intended to be a discussion of whether Apple was obligated by the new accounting disclosure laws to charge something for this software.

 

[ucfgrad93]

While I don't have a Touch, I have to chime in. I think the $20 charge was not an unreasonable fee for 5 apps. When the SDK is released and other apps are made available do you think they will be more or less than the $4 apps you just bought? Games for the iPod are $5, and I really don't think you will see any apps for less than $5. Just my two cents.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Someone must have done the legwork to figure out exactly what's required to meet Sarbanes-Oxley requirements, right?

Right. But Apple is not going to explain this publicly.

The point to be made here is that none of us know how Apple is interpreting the reporting requirements, only that they've done so very conservatively in the past. We also have no way of knowing whether their interpretation is too conservative.

 

[jmmo20]

As I've said in other fora, paying a nominal fee for the iPhone apps is fair enough. At the end of the day we knew Mail et al were not available on the Touch when we bought it.

However:


- They aren't worth 20 bucks. Think about how much iLife costs and compare with these "iPod apps".

- What it beyond me is that the 1.1.3 update is basically just adding movie rental support and bug fixes. Period. All other features such as home screen customisation and webclips are only unlocked if you pay for the upgrade. Come on!! It's not like it's going from 1.1.2 to 2.0 iPod/Phone OS and we have 300+ features. It's just some tiny little things that should have been there in the first place. Charging for this is, as far as I'm concerned, unmoral.

 

[phytonix]

Those who defend apple don't really understand the situation. That's why Apple dare to charge $20 because those people would always s*k it up

 

[IJ Reilly]

As I've said in other fora, paying a nominal fee for the iPhone apps is fair enough. At the end of the day we knew Mail et al were not available on the Touch when we bought it.

However:


- They aren't worth 20 bucks. Think about how much iLife costs and compare with these "iPod apps".

- What it beyond me is that the 1.1.3 update is basically just adding movie rental support and bug fixes. Period. All other features such as home screen customisation and webclips are only unlocked if you pay for the upgrade. Come on!! It's not like it's going from 1.1.2 to 2.0 iPod/Phone OS and we have 300+ features. It's just some tiny little things that should have been there in the first place. Charging for this is, as far as I'm concerned, unmoral.

Not so. The 1.1.3 update itself is free, and includes the editable home screen. The $20 charge covers only the mobile applications.

Things are "worth" what people will pay for them. This is the only meaningful metric of value.

 

[mainstreetmark]

- What it beyond me is that the 1.1.3 update is basically just adding movie rental support and bug fixes. Period. All other features such as home screen customisation and webclips are only unlocked if you pay for the upgrade. Come on!! It's not like it's going from 1.1.2 to 2.0 iPod/Phone OS and we have 300+ features. It's just some tiny little things that should have been there in the first place. Charging for this is, as far as I'm concerned, unmoral.

Really? The webclips, etc, are part of the $20pack and not the update itself???

 

[jmmo20]

Not so. The 1.1.3 update itself is free, and includes the editable home screen. The $20 charge covers only the mobile applications.

Things are "worth" what people will pay for them. This is the only meaningful metric of value.

That's not correct. I had the intention to pay the 20$ (17 euro here.. that's like 25 dollars) but wanted to try the 1.1.3 first. This update (1.1.3) does NOT include

a) Lyrics
b) Home screen rearragement
c) Web clips

and possible something else I can't remember now. These features only unlock themselves when you purchase the 1.1.3 20$ upgraede.

 

[notjustjay]

If SOX-compliance was really the issue here (and with the prior 802.11 'n' updater), could they not have charged a $0.01, or even $1.00, and be done with it?

No, this feels like a cash grab.

 

[jmmo20]

Really? The webclips, etc, are part of the $20pack and not the update itself???

Correct.

If you install 1.1.3, the + button moves to the bottom of the screen. But if you click on it you noly have the option to "Add bookmark".

Upon purchase of the 1.1.3 upgrade, two additional options appear "Add to home screen" and "Mail link".

This is stupid: before you buy the upgrade and click the plus button, you get two options "Cancel" and "Add bookmark". Obviously the sens of that menu is to have more than 1 option. If it was only to add a bookmark a Cancel button in the bookmark option was enough. Crippled update.

 

[atszyman]

At the end of the day this is Apple wanting to make a tidy little profit on something that costs them zero to develop. These features already exist, there is no "cost" involved in developing them.

How do you know that it cost them zero to develop these applications? because similar applications exist on the iPhone?

From reports these apps work better than their Jailbreak'd brethren so how do you know Apple didn't spend a lot of time tweaking and updating them? How do you know that these aren't modified to use the SDK and used internally by Apple to test the SDK before distributing it to developers incurring cost along the way to make them SDK compatible?

 

[dranktherest]

A few things I've heard that are not sitting correctly with me:

1) This was a way to test the new app delivery system when the sdk is released.

This, unfortunately, is false. If you noticed when you paid for the apps, the "download" was incredibly short. Also, if you haven't paid, but did upgrade to 1.1.3, you'll notice an extra 100mb of space taken by the "other" category. this is because the apps are included with the firmware, whether or not you pay. Paying only unlocks the apps. Therefore, unless the suggestion is that all of the apps that will ever be created are already on the iPod it is not a test of the app delivery method.

2) Apple did development work to port the apps from iPhone to iPod, thus justifying the cost.

Sadly, this is also untrue. The iPod is wholly a stripped-down iPhone. They did not create new software for the iPod, they only took out the freatures they didn't think we needed, and now they are putting some back. The only work they did was undoing some of the original work on the "iPod"'s firmware.

3) The iPhone is under contract, whereas the iPod is a one-time purchase.

While no one but Apple and AT&T can truly know how much apple receives for each subscription (if anything), you have to remember that the iPhone is a cellphone. The people using iPhones are paying for cellphone service (internet included), not application updates. If you own an iPhone, but discontinue the service plan, you still receive these updates for free. Therefore, it is pretty clear that, while I cannot divine Apple's intent, some of your justifications for paying for the updates is unfounded.

 

[IJ Reilly]

That's not correct. I had the intention to pay the 20$ (17 euro here.. that's like 25 dollars) but wanted to try the 1.1.3 first. This update (1.1.3) does NOT include

a) Lyrics
b) Home screen rearragement
c) Web clips

and possible something else I can't remember now. These features only unlock themselves when you purchase the 1.1.3 20$ upgraede.

My home screen was changed with the 1.1.3 update, before I bought the software. Hard to reconstruct it now, but that's what I saw.

If SOX-compliance was really the issue here (and with the prior 802.11 'n' updater), could they not have charged a $0.01, or even $1.00, and be done with it?

We don't know.

 

[atszyman]

Sadly, this is also untrue. The iPod is wholly a stripped-down iPhone. They did not create new software for the iPod, they only took out the freatures they didn't think we needed, and now they are putting some back. The only work they did was undoing some of the original work on the "iPod"'s firmware.

This is actually untrue. There's a recent brief in EETimes where a company tore down an iPt. While very similar the form factor shrink and memory densities required using some much more state of the art components including even smaller resistors and some IC shrinks. It's not just an iPhone with the phone stuff un-installed. While the software it runs should not require changes to say that an iPt is simply a stripped down iPhone is diminishing the technological feats involved.

For anyone interested and who understands, as an example the iPt uses size 0201 diodes and 01005 resistors, and this is the first time the teardown company has ever seen these components in any product.

 

[anti-microsoft]

I agree with you! I bought the apps are are VERY happy with them. to me they are worth it (anymore than 20 bucks though, i wouldn't have gotten them).. However, the one thing that kinda irritates me is that the new iPod touch is coming with the apps already loaded for the same price in which i purchased mine. If they too had to pay, would be much more fair. But, its business.

They also needed a test on how to distribute applications, and I believe they may have used this as a test. A lot of people including myself had problems installing, which got me even more irritated. But luckily, with the help of some other people on here, most of us were able to figure it out.

I love the new apps!

Ahh... but you see technology moves on...

 

[jmmo20]

My home screen was changed with the 1.1.3 update, before I bought the software. Hard to reconstruct it now, but that's what I saw.



We don't know.

Well .. your case is the first one I heard of. Check other fora or Apple discussions.. plenty of people saying the same I do.