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

Discussion in 'iPod touch' started by gkarris, Jan 16, 2008.

  1. gkarris macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
    #1
    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?
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Pared macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    #2
    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:
     
  3. shoelessone macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
  4. macwannabe77 macrumors member

    macwannabe77

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Location:
    Pennsylvania USA
    #4
    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.
     
  5. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #5
    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.
     
  6. gkarris thread starter macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
    #6
    Point is, you don't have to buy the apps if you are going to use it as an iPod.
     
  7. anti-microsoft macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2006
    Location:
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    #7
    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!!
     
  8. jlbrown23 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    #8
    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!
     
  9. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #9
    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.
     
  10. megatronbomb macrumors regular

    megatronbomb

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #10
    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! :)
     
  11. iJordo macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    #11
    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...
     
  12. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    It does doesn't it?
     
  13. davidjearly macrumors 68020

    davidjearly

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    #13
    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.
     
  14. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #14
    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.

    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.
     
  15. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #15
    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.
     
  16. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #16
    Yes. I haven't tried lyrics but this feature is supported and the home screen edits. Hold down any icon until they start jiggling.
     
  17. Hls811 macrumors 6502a

    Hls811

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #17

    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!).
     
  18. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #18
    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.
     
  19. gkarris thread starter macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
    #19
    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?
     
  20. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #20
    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.
     
  21. gkarris thread starter macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
    #21
    Sarbanes-Oxley - they can't give it away (like the whole upgrading the older MacBooks to wireless n).
     
  22. goosnarrggh macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    #22
    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".

    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.
     
  23. gkarris thread starter macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
    #23
    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.
     
  24. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #24
    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.
     
  25. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #25
    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?
     

Share This Page