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

iPod touch Touch Users: It's $20 or this...

gkarris

gkarris

macrumors G3
Original poster
Dec 31, 2004
8,301
1,063
"No escape from Reality...”
Well, if you don't like the $20 update to a full PDA, there's always this:

http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/handheld/PC/1/storefronts/FA979AA%23ABA

Same price as the 8Gig Touch. But, you'll have to get a memory card as it only has 256Megs, and don't loose the little stylus!

For $20, you can update your iPod to a PDA? A steal if you ask me...

Do you have to spend the $20? If you're just using it as an iPod, can't you skip the upgrade?
 

Attachments

  • fa979aa_300.jpg
    fa979aa_300.jpg
    11.7 KB · Views: 2,034
gkarris said:
Well, if you don't like the $20 update to a full PDA, there's always this:

http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/handheld/PC/1/storefronts/FA979AA%23ABA

Same price as the 8Gig Touch. But, you'll have to get a memory card as it only has 256Megs, and don't loose the little stylus!

For $20, you can update your iPod to a PDA? A steal if you ask me...

Do you have to spend the $20? If you're just using it as an iPod, can't you skip the upgrade?
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think that you're going to make others "see the light" with this post? If you don't want to pay the $20 "go buy something else?"

I highly question the intelligence of individuals when they try and make a point like this. Or, at very least, their ability to reason.

It's more than just the apps. You can't modify your home screen or view embedded lyrics when playing music. Wow... I have to pay $20 for a lyric feature that should've been included in my iPod. :rolleyes:
 
Pared said:
Do you honestly think that you're going to make others "see the light" with this post? If you don't want to pay the $20 "go buy something else?"

I highly question the intelligence of individuals when they try and make a point like this. Or, at very least, their ability to reason.

It's more than just the apps. You can't modify your home screen or view embedded lyrics when playing music. Wow... I have to pay $20 for a lyric feature that should've been included in my iPod. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I didn't mind paying $20 for the apps, but like you said, the 1.1.3 upgrade should have included the lyrics and the edited home screen.. the 20 dollar charge for the apps only.
 
gkarris said:
Well, if you don't like the $20 update to a full PDA, there's always this:

http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/handheld/PC/1/storefronts/FA979AA%23ABA

Same price as the 8Gig Touch. But, you'll have to get a memory card as it only has 256Megs, and don't loose the little stylus!

For $20, you can update your iPod to a PDA? A steal if you ask me...

Do you have to spend the $20? If you're just using it as an iPod, can't you skip the upgrade?
Click to expand...

You're being pedantic. Everyone defending Apple in this case KNOWS, deep down inside, the RIGHT thing for Apple to have done was giving the software away. Everyone on the other side knows, deep down inside, that Apple was under no OBLIGATION to do it, but that it would have been the right thing to do.

That's it. That's the end of the discussion. There's certainly opinions on it both ways, but at the very core of the argument, the complete truth is that while the didn't HAVE to do it, they SHOULD have done it.
 
mrgreen4242 said:
You're pedantic. Everyone defending Apple in this case KNOWS, deep down inside, the RIGHT thing for Apple to have done was giving the software away. Everyone on the other side knows, deep down inside, that Apple was under no OBLIGATION to do it, but that it would have been the right thing to do.

That's it. That's the end of the discussion. There's certainly opinions on it both ways, but at the very core of the argument, the complete truth is that while the didn't HAVE to do it, they SHOULD have done it.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but in a world where half the people go to bed hungry, you have to pick what things are worth your energy to get upset about. And this just isn't one of them. In fact I think having to pay $20 for the apps is even well down the list of things to get upset about from not having them available. So you can look at it as a small wrong replacing a larger one, and on balance you are better off!
 
mrgreen4242 said:
You're being pedantic. Everyone defending Apple in this case KNOWS, deep down inside, the RIGHT thing for Apple to have done was giving the software away. Everyone on the other side knows, deep down inside, that Apple was under no OBLIGATION to do it, but that it would have been the right thing to do.

That's it. That's the end of the discussion. There's certainly opinions on it both ways, but at the very core of the argument, the complete truth is that while the didn't HAVE to do it, they SHOULD have done it.
Click to expand...

Once again, we're being told how we are allowed to feel about this, that no other views are valid, and no other facts are in bounds for consideration.

Wow.
 
I think that's a fantastic alternative and it'd allow you to read ebooks, which, as far as I know, is not a feature of the Touch. It certainly doesn't look as stylish (at least to me) but I like that you're looking for alternatives and not just whining. Thanks! :)
 
Just jailbreak people.... a jailbroken ipod touch is STILL better than a PDA, and better than the 20$ upgrade....its free! I will give anyone who wants it step by step instructions if they need...
 
mrgreen4242 said:
...the complete truth is that while the didn't HAVE to do it, they SHOULD have done it.
Click to expand...

Says who? That is your truth and only your truth.

EDIT: btw, Apple is perfectly within their right to charge for this upgrade. At the end of the day, those apps have never been an advertised feature of the iPod touch. The only thing I think they have done wrong is charging existing iPod touch owners for the upgrade, but not new owners.
 
jlbrown23 said:
Maybe, but in a world where half the people go to bed hungry, you have to pick what things are worth your energy to get upset about. And this just isn't one of them. In fact I think having to pay $20 for the apps is even well down the list of things to get upset about from not having them available. So you can look at it as a small wrong replacing a larger one, and on balance you are better off!
Click to expand...

If you're worried about half the world going to bed hungry, you shouldn't be buying a touch or a Mac in the first place... I don't see how this straw-man argument enters into the conversation.

IJ Reilly said:
Once again, we're being told how we are allowed to feel about this, that no other views are valid, and no other facts are in bounds for consideration.

Wow.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm pointing out that most everyone probably agrees on the basic core of this issue, but that there's disagreement on how big of a deal it is. I'm not telling anypne what to think, nor that they are wrong or right, I'm defining the nature of this discussion because I think it's pretty clear that most people agree on some basic facts (it would have been nice/right of Apple to make this a free update, but they we're not obligated to do it by any means).

But, you're pretty bent on taking whatever I say and ignoring it for sake of defending Apples decision to make no effort to do the right thing for their customers.

Had MS charged existing owners $20 when the added MPEG4/h264 video playback to the XBox 360, but included those features in all new purchases for free the same people saying "it's only $20" when Apple did it would be saying "it's the principle of the matter" about MS.
 
davidjearly said:
Says who? That is your truth and only your truth.
Click to expand...

Honestly, would you have said "WTF!? Why would you give this to me for FREE, Apple?" if they had made it free? I don't think anyone could HONESTLY say they would have complained if Apple gave this update away. Who would have not thought "man, this was a really great update and it's things like this that make me like and want to buy Apple products".

I also don't think that anyone, after serious thought, would feel like Apple was utterly and completely obligated to make this a free update.

I can't think of nor have I seen any compelling argument that indicates that what I said is not the absolute bottom line truth.
 
anti-microsoft said:
I understand that you have to pay for extra apps but what i don't understand is that you have to pay $20 for the extra features like webclips and customizable home screen!!
Click to expand...


Are you sure? You should get those with the 1.1.3 update - not the apps... (I could be wrong - I did my App upgrade right away so I didn't bother to test it first and see!).
 
mrgreen4242 said:
Actually, I'm pointing out that most everyone probably agrees on the basic core of this issue, but that there's disagreement on how big of a deal it is. I'm not telling anypne what to think, nor that they are wrong or right, I'm defining the nature of this discussion because I think it's pretty clear that most people agree on some basic facts (it would have been nice/right of Apple to make this a free update, but they we're not obligated to do it by any means).

But, you're pretty bent on taking whatever I say and ignoring it for sake of defending Apples decision to make no effort to do the right thing for their customers.

Had MS charged existing owners $20 when the added MPEG4/h264 video playback to the XBox 360, but included those features in all new purchases for free the same people saying "it's only $20" when Apple did it would be saying "it's the principle of the matter" about MS.
Click to expand...

No, I've reread what you have written and you are completely consistent on these points in all of your posts on this topic. You obviously don't believe that any other views or facts are valid, and you have even been insulting to those who offer any other views or facts. And here you are, doing it once again. We get it. To use your words, you may stop now.
 
mrgreen4242 said:
Had MS charged existing owners $20 when the added MPEG4/h264 video playback to the XBox 360, but included those features in all new purchases for free the same people saying "it's only $20" when Apple did it would be saying "it's the principle of the matter" about MS.
Click to expand...

That's the point we are all making. MS can't charge money to add a codec to it's XBOX 360, as MS makes it clear and markets it as a video playback device as well as a game machine.

The Touch was marketed as an iPod with certain features. Sarbanes-Oxley makes it clear as when you remarket it with MORE features, they have to charge previous customers to upgrade to those new features and make it an option.

This will get the people who say, "Wait, I bought a MUSIC/VIDEO Touchscreen iPod, NOT A PDA! Why are you making me download programs I don't want and taking up my iPod's memory and cluttering my screen?"

The Touch's are now marketed as having PDA/iPhone features as well.

You get it?
 
IJ Reilly said:
No, I've reread what you have written and you are completely consistent on these points in all of your posts on this topic. You obviously don't believe that any other views or facts are valid, and you have even been insulting to those who offer any other views or facts. And here you are, doing it once again. We get it. To use your words, you may stop now.
Click to expand...

Are you saying then that you would have preferred Apple charge for the update rather than giving it away? I guess I am asking you if you in fact disagree with this statement, and why:

"It would have been a nice gesture for Apple to give these applications to all touch owners for free, but there was no implied or otherwise obligation for them to do so."

You're telling me that I'm shoving "my truth" down other peoples throats, but you don't seem to giving me any reason why what I am saying is wrong or debatable.
 
mrgreen4242 said:
Are you saying then that you would have preferred Apple charge for the update rather than giving it away? I guess I am asking you if you in fact disagree with this statement, and why:

"It would have been a nice gesture for Apple to give these applications to all touch owners for free, but there was no implied or otherwise obligation for them to do so."
Click to expand...

Sarbanes-Oxley - they can't give it away (like the whole upgrading the older MacBooks to wireless n).
 
davidjearly said:
EDIT: btw, Apple is perfectly within their right to charge for this upgrade.
Click to expand...
And mrgreen4242 has not claimed otherwise on that specific point. In fact, he has explicitly prefaced his comments with statements to that effect.

He then went on to say that he would have preferred it if the apps had been added on for free. Given the choice between:
A) Getting Application X for $20 or
B) Getting the exact same Application X for $0,

All other considerations being equal, can you seriously tell me you'd choose to pay $20 instead of $0? I honestly don't believe any rational consumer, acting solely as a consumer, would prefer option A.

Perhaps his wording is a little sketchy. Rather than calling his hypothetical free Apps the "right thing to do" perhaps I'd choose to call it "the more popular thing to do".

gkarris said:
Sarbanes-Oxley - they can't give it away (like the whole upgrading the older MacBooks to wireless n).
Click to expand...
Except that there have been cases where demonstrably "new" features (not just bug-fixes) that had not been previously available or advertised, have been added to consumer electronic devices via free manufacturer-supported firmware downloads, without the manufacturer charging any fee, and without anybody facing legal penalties under Sarbanes-Oxley. For example, the Zune 30 (new codecs, wi-fi synching, less stringent "squirting" rules) and the 5G iPod (gapless playback, the groundwork for supporting iPod games). I think the argument that they were OBLIGATED to charge for this update is seriously lacking in supporting evidence.
 
goosnarrggh said:
If all other considerations being equal, can you seriously tell me you'd choose to pay $20 instead of $0? I honestly don't believe any rational consumer, acting solely as a consumer, would prefer option A.

Perhaps his wording is a little sketchy. Rather than calling his hypothetical free Apps the "right thing to do" perhaps I'd choose to call it "the more popular thing to do".
Click to expand...

Okay, they have to charge for them (SOX), but I guess they could have made it a token fee (like for upgrading to wireless-n) of $5.

Maybe Apple decided they had to put in costs for the infrastructure to have them implement this and the bookkeeping nightmare that SOX is going to make them do to make this available.
 
goosnarrggh said:
And mrgreen4242 has not claimed otherwise on that specific point. In fact, he has explicitly prefaced his comment with statements to that effect.

He then went on to say that he would have preferred it if the apps had been added on for free. Given the choice between:
A) Getting Application X for $20 or
B) Getting the exact same Application X for $0,

If all other considerations being equal, can you seriously tell me you'd choose to pay $20 instead of $0? I honestly don't believe any rational consumer, acting solely as a consumer, would prefer option A.

Perhaps his wording is a little sketchy. Rather than calling his hypothetical free Apps the "right thing to do" perhaps I'd choose to call it "the more popular thing to do".


Except that there have been cases where demonstrably "new" features (not just bug-fixes) that had not been previously available or advertised, have been added to consumer electronic devices via free manufacturer-supported firmware downloads, without the manufacturer charging any fee, and without anybody facing legal penalties under Sarbanes-Oxley. For example, the Zune 30 (new codecs, wi-fi synching, less stringent "squirting" rules) and the 5G iPod (gapless playback, iPod games). I think the argument that they were OBLIGATED to charge for this update is seriously lacking in supporting evidence.
Click to expand...

THANK YOU! for actually reading what I am saying. By "right thing" I mean "right by their customer". It's like Walmart taking a return of a product that is clearly defective, but outside the 30-day return window. It's not the "right thing" to do by policy, it is however "the right" way to treat a customer.

As for SOX and other accounting guidelines, there's several options Apple could have pursued to abide by these rules but still "do the right thing for their customers". Lower priced update, rebates, bundling in added value bonuses (say a $10 iTMS code), paying for the updates on behalf of their customers using a promotional budget, and I'm sure there's more.
 
mrgreen4242 said:
Are you saying then that you would have preferred Apple charge for the update rather than giving it away? I guess I am asking you if you in fact disagree with this statement, and why:

"It would have been a nice gesture for Apple to give these applications to all touch owners for free, but there was no implied or otherwise obligation for them to do so."

You're telling me that I'm shoving "my truth" down other peoples throats, but you don't seem to giving me any reason why what I am saying is wrong or debatable.
Click to expand...

Preferred? Of course not. This just shows how strange (and insulting) your argument has become.

I have given you a reason why you might well be wrong, and even pointed you to the current front page article which describes how you might well be wrong, but you have simply ignored this.

The fact is, I don't know and neither do you, precisely why Apple decided to charge for these applications. I've offered a theory for why they did, backed up with facts -- which you simply reject out of hand, for no good reason that I can discover. Further, you have said that any who thinks this might be true actually knows that they are wrong and are offering this explanation out of... what must it be -- denial? idiocy? dementia?
 
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