Apple serves up $1.99 AirPort Extreme 802.11n Enabler

[AppleInsider]

Along with colored iPod shuffle models, Apple on Tuesday put up for sale a highly controversial software patch that will let owners of its latest Intel-based Macs activate next-generation wireless technologies hidden inside their computers.

"Many Mac computers with an Intel Core 2 Duo and all Mac Pro computers with AirPort Extreme can be enabled to access 802.11n-based wireless networks," Apple wrote in a description of the $1.99 software update posted to its online store. "If you purchased one of these Macs, you can use the AirPort Extreme 802.11n Enabler software to activate this advanced wireless capability."

Those customers who plan to purchase or have already placed orders for the company's 802.11n AirPort Extreme Base Station need not purchase the software update separately, as it will be included free with the new Apple router.

Apple said Macs that have 802.11n hardware built-in include the MacBook Pro with Intel Core 2 Duo, MacBook with Intel Core 2 Duo, Mac Pro with AirPort Extreme option, and iMac with Intel Core 2 Duo (except the 17-inch, 1.83GHz iMac).

The company recommends that customers check to make sure that their Mac does not already have the 802.11n enabler installed before purchasing the software patch. To do so, Intel Mac owners should open the "Network Utility" application (found in the Applications > Utilities folder), choose "Network Interface (en1)" under the "Info" tab, and then inspect the information provided under "Model: Wireless Network Adapter." If it says "(802.11a/b/g/n)," the Mac already has the 802.11n enabler installed. If it says (802.11a/b/g), the Mac does not have the 802.11n enabler installed.



Apple, which originally intended to charge $4.99 for the software enabler, has come under immense criticism from both customers and the media for imposing any such fee. In a statement to CNet News, Apple spokesperson Lynn Fox said the company was required under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) to charge customers for the software upgrade.

"The nominal distribution fee for the 802.11n software is required in order for Apple to comply with generally accepted accounting principles for revenue recognition, which generally require that we charge for significant feature enhancements, such as 802.11n, when added to previously purchased products," she said.

However, several prominent accounting later blasted Apple's reasoning, claiming that GAAP does not require that companies charge for retroactive product enhancements but rather provides a set of guidelines on how the related accounting for such updates should be recorded.

"GAAP doesn't require you to charge squat," Lynn Turner, a former chief accountant of the Securities and Exchange Commission, told the Wall Street Journal. "You charge whatever you want. GAAP doesn't even remotely address whether or not you charge for a significant functionality change. GAAP establishes what the proper accounting is, based on what you did or didn't charge for it."

Apple has since remained mum on the matter.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[O4BlackWRX]

So some laptops already have it enabled? This is BS. I purchased a 15" MacBook Pro 2.33Ghz a week ago today and it didn't have it enabled, so this begs the question which ones were already enabled?

[Kasper]

Originally Posted by O4BlackWRX

So some laptops already have it enabled? This is BS. I purchased a 15" MacBook Pro 2.33Ghz a week ago today and it didn't have it enabled, so this begs the question which ones were already enabled?

Likely those built following Apple's initial disclosure a couple of weeks ago. Your model was likely built prior and sitting in the channel until you purchased it. You may try giving Apple Care a call.

Best,

K

[crees!]

Originally Posted by Kasper

Likely those built following Apple's initial disclosure a couple of weeks ago. Your model was likely built prior and sitting in the channel until you purchased it. You may try giving Apple Care a call.

Best,

K

Or, if you're not in middle school or high school then $2 shouldn't be that big of a deal.

[O4BlackWRX]

Originally Posted by crees!

Or, if you're not in middle school or high school then $2 shouldn't be that big of a deal.

I understand that and I already went ahead and downloaded it because my time on the phone with them is worth more then $2, I was just wondering why a 1 week old would not already include this update, since some apparently are.

[melgross]

It's nice that AI is finally quoting the article I quoted here a week ago.

[AjayBot]

Dumb question, but it has already been decided that absolutely none of the Core Duo MBPs have the Draft N in it right? I bought it a while ago and I'm not yet financially able to get a new one yet (Stupid college ) Is there some other way to test if you can enable it?

[Hiro]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

"GAAP doesn't require you to charge squat," Lynn Turner, a former chief accountant of the Securities and Exchange Commission, told the Wall Street Journal. "You charge whatever you want. GAAP doesn't even remotely address whether or not you charge for a significant functionality change. GAAP establishes what the proper accounting is, based on what you did or didn't charge for it."

While that statement is true in it's own vacuum, the accounting rules force penalties to income if you don't charge. What public company wants to readjust past earnings because they ship a software upgrade? Let alone try to track this stuff across quarter boundaries?

[Edit: Now on another look, what the heck is Lynn Turner and everyone else riled up about? Apple said it was the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that forveed the charge, not Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Completely different subjects? No?]

[BrianMojo]

Not to mention the fact that at the moment Apple is having a bit of trouble regarding their finances right now -- this is just a CYA move, plain and simple.

[Carniphage]

If you, like me, were hoping that the N-abler would fix the ongoing problem of poor WiFi signal strength, and ultra-low throughput....
Then forget it.
It makes no difference.


C.

[mmmdoughnuts]

Originally Posted by Hiro

While that statement is true in it's own vacuum, the accounting rules force penalties to income if you don't charge. What public company wants to readjust past earnings because they ship a software upgrade? Let alone try to track this stuff across quarter boundaries?

I completely agree. It does not state the price of the 'improvement', but it does say you have choices to when and how the income is reported. You 1) charge for the improvement in the quarter that it is delivered, 2) defer all revenue from the product to be upgraded to the quarter that the imiprovement is delivered.

If apple were to give this away free to ALL MBP owners, ALL of the sales EVERY MBP would have to be deferred on the books untill the Quarter that the 'improvement' is delivered. This would have tanked apple's stock at the end of Q4 and been more costly to the stock owners as well as the company in general than 'charging $2 for the improvement'.

It is time that all of the complainers get over it.

[Cubert]

Well, I knew it. It was only a matter of time. Unbelievably people are complaining about unlocking a previously unknown and not paid for feature, thereby giving you a significant upgrade to your computer - for only $2!

Not many companies will do that.

[irasiegel]

I've downloaded the Airport Extreme 802.11n Enabler and then tried to install it. I get this message:

"You cannot install Airport Extreme 802.11n Enabler on this volume. This volume does not meet the requirements for this update."

This is my computer:
Machine Name: Mac
Machine Model: MacBookPro2,1
Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speed: 2.33 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 2
L2 Cache (per processor): 4 MB
Memory: 2 GB
Bus Speed: 667 MHz
Boot ROM Version: MBP21.00A5.B01
SMC Version: 1.14f5

Any help?

[rebel_without_a_pc]

Look, the reason this is happening is that there were/are no final industry standards for Wireless-N. Companies began releasing products and drivers with regressions and backwards compatibility issues with existing networks, which only creates more problems for users. It is expensive to keep rewriting drivers and retesting every time something changes when there are no standards. If you want prerelease software that everyone has to pay for, YOU pay for it.
Apple was doing customers (and investors!!!) a favor by waiting until now.
IF I worked for Apple I would think that the people complaining were being ungrateful. If all you want to buy from Apple is an empty box filled with used pinball machine parts then go buy a DELL and maybe you will like that better.
Seriuosly, the company that puts technology into the hands of people that dont know what it is and dont apprciate it or actually use it for anything (because they want to take it for granted) isn't Apple, its DELL. If you think new technology that integrates, and is easy to use, and doesnt couse you stress is a right instead of a priveledge, then you would be better of buying a Dell and learning the hard way that the real world doesn't work that way.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Hiro

While that statement is true in it's own vacuum, the accounting rules force penalties to income if you don't charge. What public company wants to readjust past earnings because they ship a software upgrade? Let alone try to track this stuff across quarter boundaries?

That's not quite true.

Apple will receive favorable tax accounting IF they charge this fee.

But, IF they don't, there are no penalties involved over normal accounting practices.

By charging this fee, they are actually receiving a tax bonus.

That's very different.

[vinney57]

Originally Posted by irasiegel

I've downloaded the Airport Extreme 802.11n Enabler and then tried to install it. I get this message:

"You cannot install Airport Extreme 802.11n Enabler on this volume. This volume does not meet the requirements for this update."


Any help?

Make sure you have all the latest System and Airport software updates.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by mmmdoughnuts

I completely agree. It does not state the price of the 'improvement', but it does say you have choices to when and how the income is reported. You 1) charge for the improvement in the quarter that it is delivered, 2) defer all revenue from the product to be upgraded to the quarter that the imiprovement is delivered.

If apple were to give this away free to ALL MBP owners, ALL of the sales EVERY MBP would have to be deferred on the books untill the Quarter that the 'improvement' is delivered. This would have tanked apple's stock at the end of Q4 and been more costly to the stock owners as well as the company in general than 'charging $2 for the improvement'.

It is time that all of the complainers get over it.

Stop promulgating this nonsense. This has already been shown to be untrue.

Read the articles in the WSJ and the NYTimes that came out weeks ago. The tax authorities have already debunked this claptrap.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by irasiegel

I've downloaded the Airport Extreme 802.11n Enabler and then tried to install it. I get this message:

"You cannot install Airport Extreme 802.11n Enabler on this volume. This volume does not meet the requirements for this update."

This is my computer:
Machine Name: Mac
Machine Model: MacBookPro2,1
Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speed: 2.33 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 2
L2 Cache (per processor): 4 MB
Memory: 2 GB
Bus Speed: 667 MHz
Boot ROM Version: MBP21.00A5.B01
SMC Version: 1.14f5

Any help?

Call Apple. That's the best way.

Thanks to Vinney, I withdraw my comment.

[irasiegel]

Originally Posted by vinney57

Make sure you have all the latest System and Airport software updates.

Thanks, Vinney. Installing this:

AirPort Extreme Update 2007-001
This update is recommended for all Intel-based Macintosh computers and provides compatibility with AirPort Extreme base stations and networks.
01/25/2007

before installing the enabler did the trick.

[mmmdoughnuts]

Originally Posted by melgross

Stop promulgating this nonsense. This has already been shown to be untrue.

Read the articles in the WSJ and the NYTimes that came out weeks ago. The tax authorities have already debunked this claptrap.

Those 'tax athorities' were misleading people like you. They were brutally honest, but broke the honesty by not providing the proper proceedures and choices. You should learn to read the primary sources of the tax laws and not rely on reporters who have an agenda to promote.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by mmmdoughnuts

Those 'tax athorities' were misleading people like you. They were brutally honest, but broke the honesty by not providing the proper proceedures and choices. You should learn to read the primary sources of the tax laws and not rely on reporters who have an agenda to promote.

You obviously haven't read the articles in question, or you wouldn't be making the statement that those (reporters) have an agenda, so we can disregard the writing, so your comments about them are worthless. If you had, you would have read the statements from those who wrote those laws, and rules. Their comments are most relevant. No one else is dismissing them as you are, so apparently you haven't read them in context.

The same conclusions have also been reached by other tax authorities in academia..

One doesn't have to read the actual statutes when all of those who are qualified agree in their conclusions.

You seem to be taking Apple at their word. Good luck with that.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by O4BlackWRX

So some laptops already have it enabled? This is BS. I purchased a 15" MacBook Pro 2.33Ghz a week ago today and it didn't have it enabled, so this begs the question which ones were already enabled?

No where in this report did it say that some laptops already have it enabled.

[mmmdoughnuts]

[QUOTE=melgross;1034790]You obviously haven't read the articles in question, or you wouldn't be making the statement that those (reporters) have an agenda, so we can disregard the writing, so your comments about them are worthless. If you had, you would have read the statements from those who wrote those laws, and rules. Their comments are most relevant. No one else is dismissing them as you are, so apparently you haven't read them in context.

The same conclusions have also been reached by other tax authorities in academia..
[\QUOTE]

From one of those that you quote,["To be certain, GAAP does not require companies to charge customers," said Gerard Carney, a spokesman for the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), which updates and maintains GAAP standards for accounting. "Further, GAAP does not tell companies how to run their business," he wrote in an e-mail.]

He is misleading you in a very subtle way. When he says, GAAP does not 'require companies to charge customers' he is being very true and then you stopped listening because it supported your wrong theory. But his statement is true only because the ONLY other option is to hold the revenue of all of their MBP sales.

As for GAAP "not telling companies how to run their business" is also very misleading. He means that GAAP does not make the business or finanancial decisions for the company. But the choices that Apple can make are clearly defined by the RULES that the GAAP sets up. GAAP makes the rules - Apple makes the business decision of which method is used.


You are failing to educate yourself and falling for the sound bite summary that is being promoted by every one that wants to slam apple for every little thing.

[melgross]

[QUOTE=mmmdoughnuts;1034802]

Originally Posted by melgross

You obviously haven't read the articles in question, or you wouldn't be making the statement that those (reporters) have an agenda, so we can disregard the writing, so your comments about them are worthless. If you had, you would have read the statements from those who wrote those laws, and rules. Their comments are most relevant. No one else is dismissing them as you are, so apparently you haven't read them in context.

The same conclusions have also been reached by other tax authorities in academia..
[\QUOTE]

From one of those that you quote,["To be certain, GAAP does not require companies to charge customers," said Gerard Carney, a spokesman for the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), which updates and maintains GAAP standards for accounting. "Further, GAAP does not tell companies how to run their business," he wrote in an e-mail.]

He is misleading you in a very subtle way. When he says, GAAP does not 'require companies to charge customers' he is being very true and then you stopped listening because it supported your wrong theory. But his statement is true only because the ONLY other option is to hold the revenue of all of their MBP sales.

As for GAAP "not telling companies how to run their business" is also very misleading. He means that GAAP does not make the business or finanancial decisions for the company. But the choices that Apple can make are clearly defined by the RULES that the GAAP sets up. GAAP makes the rules - Apple makes the business decision of which method is used.


You are failing to educate yourself and falling for the sound bite summary that is being promoted by every one that wants to slam apple for every little thing.

Then show some evidence that Apple would have had to pay that penalty. I'm not confused here. There are no "penalties to income" that you agreed to. There are tax advantages to doing what Apple has done. It is a choice they have made. They have indicated that they were forced into this by law. They were not.

[O4BlackWRX]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

No where in this report did it say that some laptops already have it enabled.

The company recommends that customers check to make sure that their Mac does not already have the 802.11n enabler installed before purchasing the software patch. To do so, Intel Mac owners should open the "Network Utility" application (found in the Applications > Utilities folder), choose "Network Interface (en1)" under the "Info" tab, and then inspect the information provided under "Model: Wireless Network Adapter." If it says "(802.11a/b/g/n)," the Mac already has the 802.11n enabler installed. If it says (802.11a/b/g), the Mac does not have the 802.11n enabler installed.

Great way to read....

[mmmdoughnuts]

[QUOTE=melgross;1034805]

Originally Posted by mmmdoughnuts

Then show some evidence that Apple would have had to pay that penalty. I'm not confused here. There are no "penalties to income" that you agreed to. There are tax advantages to doing what Apple has done. It is a choice they have made. They have indicated that they were forced into this by law. They were not.

The penalty was that they would have to hold the sales from Q4 and their stock price would have plumeted because they didn't meet their expected targets.

This is not a plenalty to income, but simply when it is reported on the books.

Take your monthly subscription to 'How to be a shill' magazine. They bill you for 12 months of service and 1 publication per month. They are not allowed to report the full subscription fee as income the day that you hand over the check. They are required by the same laws that apple is following to report 1/12 of your check as income for each issue they mail you and defer the rest in a seperate register of undelivered orders. They are allowed to report money paid to them as income ONLY when they have shipped you the product.

Apple shipped MBP owners a complete product with no promises. Apple gets to record all revenue in the quarter. End of story.

If Apple had stated that the product was 'incomplete' and would be upgraded at another time. The sale from that incomplete item would have to be defered on the register as unfulfilled sales and not count towards the revenues generated for that quarter.

Done end of story. This is purely a 'business decision' that is framed around accounting laws and has nothing to do with apple screwing its customers.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by O4BlackWRX

Great way to read....

Having the enabler installed, does not mean that it is enabled.

[Caribou Killa]

I'm not sure if anyones mentioned this but has anybody thought of the idea of a thrid party company unlocking the ability via their own firmware. I mean the hardware is there and accessible. It couldnt be THAT hard could it?

[Chucker]

Originally Posted by Caribou Killa

I'm not sure if anyones mentioned this but has anybody thought of the idea of a thrid party company unlocking the ability via their own firmware. I mean the hardware is there and accessible. It couldnt be THAT hard could it?

No, but…*two dollars?

[O4BlackWRX]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

Having the enabler installed, does not mean that it is enabled.

Seriously read the whole article (or even the sniplet I took in the last post). It clearly states that you should check to see if it's installed and to do that go to your network utility and see if it says 802.11a/b/g/n and if so then you do not need to purchase it for $2. Just actually read before commenting, novel idea I know but at least humor me, please....

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by crees!

Or, if you're not in middle school or high school then $2 shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Maybe it's not the money, it's the principal of it.

[Hiro]

Originally Posted by melgross

That's not quite true.

Apple will receive favorable tax accounting IF they charge this fee.

But, IF they don't, there are no penalties involved over normal accounting practices.

By charging this fee, they are actually receiving a tax bonus.

That's very different.

No, they are avoiding an earnings reporting requirement that would force a restatement of some portion of earnings from previously shipped systems. I agree they would not have to restate the total purchase prices, that would be ridiculous. While this is not a penalty in the sense that Apple would expend $$ to some government agency, restatements for any reason are nearly always penalized in short term stock price trading pushing share values down.

This would also change tax reporting some, can't argue with that, but I would hardly call avoiding a larger than required tax burden a tax bonus. If any earnings were restated into a new quarter than that income is not as easily offset by expenses, a NASTY problem when moving income across tax year boundaries.

If you mean "favorable" by not taking it up the ol' corporate a$$ due to paper-based income shuffles not reflected in real world delivery dates you would be correct.

[Hiro]

Originally Posted by Chucker

No, but…*two dollars?

Remember Steve has a sense of humor. <cue paperboy>I want my two dollars!!!

[mmmdoughnuts]

Originally Posted by Hiro

Remember Steve has a sense of humor. <cue paperboy>I want my two dollars!!!

If apple charged $75 for the same upgrade, then there would be that market for some developer to unlock the hardware and sell it for $50. I suspect that apple wanted a price low enough to discourage developers from making a profit off of the 'enhanced' driver.

It would be near impossible to undercut apples price for the limited number of MBPs that have been sold and still make a profit as a developer.

[ecking]

Originally Posted by AjayBot

Dumb question, but it has already been decided that absolutely none of the Core Duo MBPs have the Draft N in it right? I bought it a while ago and I'm not yet financially able to get a new one yet (Stupid college ) Is there some other way to test if you can enable it?

Hopefully for us they'll find a way to release a new airport card, like they used to in the ppc days, I don't know how possible that is with the current design internally though.

Your signature sure doesn't make it seem like your strapped for cash though.

I know everyone's defending the cost or not defending the cost but my problem is this and so far no one has mentioned it: Why not just release the machines with this patch in the first place, they're no way they made the chip inside the computers saying "we'll make a patch later." They did it so they could release the new airport extreme first which makes no sense because if people are downloading this they weren't getting it anyways. They didn't need to hold n back to protect airport extreme sales, it's a friggin patch. Insead of why does this cost anything it should be why is this even necessary?

[psionic001]

So if someone is controlling my MBP for me via Remote Desktop, can they install it onto my computer?

[melgross]

Originally Posted by mmmdoughnuts

Done end of story. This is purely a 'business decision' that is framed around accounting laws and has nothing to do with apple screwing its customers.

I never said that Apple was screwing their customers. But, they are being disingenuous in their explanation.

[lanky_nathan]

Much more important that all this accounting nitpickery, methinks, is which non-Airport pre-N routers will our machines work properly with? :-) Off to do some hunting ...

[Chucker]

Originally Posted by ecking

Why not just release the machines with this patch in the first place,

Because:
1) the driver wasn't done
2) the specification hadn't progressed as much.

The second part is important. The chipsets in the Macs are all "pre-N". They don't correspond to the final 802.11n spec, because there is no such thing yet. Now that a few months have passed, it has become increasingly certain that the chips will work fine with other 802.11n devices in the future, or will be easily patchable to increase compatibility. Back then, however, it was quite uncertain, to the point that there were two completely different, mutually incompatible technologies, and it was for quite a while very unclear which of the two would prevail.

By not announcing the feature (the n capability of the chips) to begin with, Apple thus left the possibility open that, if the chips don't work together with other devices as well as they need to, Apple will simply never release an Enabler. Nothing would be lost or gained, and nobody would feel screwed over, since the feature had never been advertised to begin with.

Now that it's known that the chips work fine, Apple can prepare a driver and release it.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Chucker

Because:
1) the driver wasn't done
2) the specification hadn't progressed as much.

The second part is important. The chipsets in the Macs are all "pre-N". They don't correspond to the final 802.11n spec, because there is no such thing yet. Now that a few months have passed, it has become increasingly certain that the chips will work fine with other 802.11n devices in the future, or will be easily patchable to increase compatibility. Back then, however, it was quite uncertain, to the point that there were two completely different, mutually incompatible technologies, and it was for quite a while very unclear which of the two would prevail.

By not announcing the feature (the n capability of the chips) to begin with, Apple thus left the possibility open that, if the chips don't work together with other devices as well as they need to, Apple will simply never release an Enabler. Nothing would be lost or gained, and nobody would feel screwed over, since the feature had never been advertised to begin with.

Now that it's known that the chips work fine, Apple can prepare a driver and release it.

Of course, those reasons make it even more interesting.

If it wasn't certain that the feature would work properly, if at all, when it came on the machines, and so, Apple didn't supply software for it, then it couldn't really be called a feature at all.