ipod touch users will have to pay once again to get 2.0!
Yeah, that's definitely too bad. But don't think us iPhone owners aren't paying either. It comes right out of our monthly phone bill, and you aren't paying a dime for that.
Just think of it this way. You paid for a device at a set price and it does everything it was advertised to do at the time you bought it. Now instead of having to buy a new device in order to upgrade, like you would have to do with essentially every other mp3 player on the market, you can simply pay a nominal fee to gain amazing new funtionality through a simple software update. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
Just think of it this way. You paid for a device at a set price and it does everything it was advertised to do at the time you bought it. Now instead of having to buy a new device in order to upgrade, like you would have to do with essentially every other mp3 player on the market, you can simply pay a nominal fee to gain amazing new funtionality through a simple software update. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
The point is that Apple doesn't charge for Mac OS X updates that add functionality nor do they charge for iLife/iWork applications that add features via a free software update.
So what exactly makes Mac OS X so different accounting-wise than the iPod Touch OS X?
I am just glad I am not one of those that has to get the device when it comes out. I am happy to wait for price to go down and features to go up before I buy. Or until that thing can play videos on nfl.com (flash I think).
The point is that Apple doesn't charge for Mac OS X updates that add functionality nor do they charge for iLife/iWork applications that add features via a free software update.
So what exactly makes Mac OS X so different accounting-wise than the iPod Touch OS X?
I think the point is that this is a much larger update.
The point is that Apple doesn't charge for Mac OS X updates that add functionality nor do they charge for iLife/iWork applications that add features via a free software update.
So what exactly makes Mac OS X so different accounting-wise than the iPod Touch OS X?
They don't charge for updates in OSX in the same sense that they haven't charged for the basic updates to the touch platforms.
What they do charge you for though in both OSX and Mobile OSX is for the initial program whether it be the 5 apps made available in January, The App Store application coming in June or iLife/iWork for Macs.
I'm not familiar with their accounting practices but in my opinion the choice as to whether or not to charge for an update (aside from bug fixes etc.) is entirely up to Apple. If they feel that they can afford to give it away for free then great but if they have substantial costs to recuperate from the development process then so be it.
I suppose they could increase the MSRP to include the potential costs of future updates; but seeing as they can't determine exactly how much those updates are going to cost to develop they just charge for them later and leave the choice of whether or not to update/upgrade up to the customer instead of forcing them to pay for something they might not want.
“It’s an accounting requirement that if you upgrade a device that’s not on a subscription, you have to charge,” Needham and Company financial analyst Charles Wolf said. “Apple has a choice of what to charge, but they have to charge.”
AppleTV and iPhone are under a subscription accounting method. This made news a year or so ago, but most people thought the term "subscription" referred to music subscriptions back then.
AppleTV and iPhone are under a subscription accounting method. This made news a year or so ago, but most people thought the term "subscription" referred to music subscriptions back then.
ok the iphone yes is under a subscription to at&t but appleTV isnt. you really dont have to buy anything from itunes in order to use appleTV.
They both are...and it has nothing to do with AT&T! That's why the AppleTV update was free, even though it was released a year ago. I don't make this stuff up...I promise.
They both are...and it has nothing to do with AT&T! That's why the AppleTV update was free, even though it was released a year ago. I don't make this stuff up...I promise.
ok so then what subscription service are they attatched to?
ok the iphone yes is under a subscription to at&t but appleTV isnt. you really dont have to buy anything from itunes in order to use appleTV.
You're making the same mistake that gordy was referring to. This type of subscription has nothing to do with ATT subscriptions, your cable TV subscription or even a magazine subscription. It is an accounting term that has to do with how Apple accounts for the income derived from the selling of these items. For most of what Apple sells it accounts for all the cash at the time of the sell. But for the iPhone and the Apple TV Apple spreads the cash out over a period of time. So for example (I don't know the details so don't hold me to them), Apple sells the iPhone. But it doesn't immediately credit it books with the full income from that sell. Instead it spreads the income over, say 24 months. Thus a subscription.
Thank to the accounting scandals awhile back, congress go into the act and said that you can't add value to an already purchased product without getting value back in return. So for a normally accounted for item like the Touch and the MacBook Apple has to charge the purchaser when they add value to that product. Whereas for an item accounted for by subscription, Apple has not completed the purchase and is free to add value to that product.
* I am not an accountant and I may be wrong in what I just said, but this is how I understand the issue.
You're making the same mistake that gordy was referring to. This type of subscription has nothing to do with ATT subscriptions, your cable TV subscription or even a magazine subscription. It is an accounting term that has to do with how Apple accounts for the income derived from the selling of these items. For most of what Apple sells it accounts for all the cash at the time of the sell. But for the iPhone and the Apple TV Apple spreads the cash out over a period of time. So for example (I don't know the details so don't hold me to them), Apple sells the iPhone. But it doesn't immediately credit it books with the full income from that sell. Instead it spreads the income over, say 24 months. Thus a subscription.
Thank to the accounting scandals awhile back, congress go into the act and said that you can't add value to an already purchased product without getting value back in return. So for a normally accounted for item like the Touch and the MacBook Apple has to charge the purchaser when they add value to that product. Whereas for an item accounted for by subscription, Apple has not completed the purchase and is free to add value to that product.
* I am not an accountant and I may be wrong in what I just said, but this is how I understand the issue.
And the reason why they can give free software updates, i.e. Aperture 1.5 or Mac OS X 10.5.1 is because you are licensing the software... you don't actually own it. With the iPod Touch, they can't use this logic because the Touch's software is not licensed separately from the device. Adding to what you said about the iPhone, because Apple continually gets revenue through AT&T data plans, Apple can account for the entire cost of the device at time of purchase and still provide free software updates at any point within an iPhone users' contract (or future contract as well).
Adding to what you said about the iPhone, because Apple continually gets revenue through AT&T data plans, Apple can account for the entire cost of the device at time of purchase and still provide free software updates at any point within an iPhone users' contract (or future contract as well).
Maybe they could, but they don't. Apple has repeatedly said that they account for the revenue from the iPhone purchases by the subscription method.
Maybe they could, but they don't. Apple has repeatedly said that they account for the revenue from the iPhone purchases by the subscription method.
Right, but what I'm saying is, Apple could pocket the $399 per iPhone and leave the accounting open as a "subscription" model BECAUSE they get revenue via 2-year contacts from AT&T. And in fact, that is what I would guess they do.
Does anyone know if Apple will be giving the 2.0 upgrade free to people who buy an iPod Touch now? I would expect them to start this policy sometime to prevent people from waiting.
Comments
ipod touch users will have to pay once again to get 2.0!
Yeah, that's definitely too bad. But don't think us iPhone owners aren't paying either. It comes right out of our monthly phone bill, and you aren't paying a dime for that.
So really there's nothing to complain about.
The Playstation 3 upgraded their firmware a few time, adding increased functionality and they don't charge.
So does the Wii if were talking about gaming systems
Just think of it this way. You paid for a device at a set price and it does everything it was advertised to do at the time you bought it. Now instead of having to buy a new device in order to upgrade, like you would have to do with essentially every other mp3 player on the market, you can simply pay a nominal fee to gain amazing new funtionality through a simple software update. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
The point is that Apple doesn't charge for Mac OS X updates that add functionality nor do they charge for iLife/iWork applications that add features via a free software update.
So what exactly makes Mac OS X so different accounting-wise than the iPod Touch OS X?
Blame your Congressmen, not Apple.
Congressman aren't telling Apple to charge $20 for the update.
The point is that Apple doesn't charge for Mac OS X updates that add functionality nor do they charge for iLife/iWork applications that add features via a free software update.
So what exactly makes Mac OS X so different accounting-wise than the iPod Touch OS X?
I think the point is that this is a much larger update.
The point is that Apple doesn't charge for Mac OS X updates that add functionality nor do they charge for iLife/iWork applications that add features via a free software update.
So what exactly makes Mac OS X so different accounting-wise than the iPod Touch OS X?
They don't charge for updates in OSX in the same sense that they haven't charged for the basic updates to the touch platforms.
What they do charge you for though in both OSX and Mobile OSX is for the initial program whether it be the 5 apps made available in January, The App Store application coming in June or iLife/iWork for Macs.
I'm not familiar with their accounting practices but in my opinion the choice as to whether or not to charge for an update (aside from bug fixes etc.) is entirely up to Apple. If they feel that they can afford to give it away for free then great but if they have substantial costs to recuperate from the development process then so be it.
I suppose they could increase the MSRP to include the potential costs of future updates; but seeing as they can't determine exactly how much those updates are going to cost to develop they just charge for them later and leave the choice of whether or not to update/upgrade up to the customer instead of forcing them to pay for something they might not want.
Congressman aren't telling Apple to charge $20 for the update.
Actually, yes they did...sort of:
http://www.macworld.com/article/1319...ipodtouch.html
“It’s an accounting requirement that if you upgrade a device that’s not on a subscription, you have to charge,” Needham and Company financial analyst Charles Wolf said. “Apple has a choice of what to charge, but they have to charge.”
AppleTV and iPhone are under a subscription accounting method. This made news a year or so ago, but most people thought the term "subscription" referred to music subscriptions back then.
Actually, yes they did...sort of:
http://www.macworld.com/article/1319...ipodtouch.html
AppleTV and iPhone are under a subscription accounting method. This made news a year or so ago, but most people thought the term "subscription" referred to music subscriptions back then.
ok the iphone yes is under a subscription to at&t but appleTV isnt. you really dont have to buy anything from itunes in order to use appleTV.
They both are...and it has nothing to do with AT&T! That's why the AppleTV update was free, even though it was released a year ago. I don't make this stuff up...I promise.
ok so then what subscription service are they attatched to?
ok the iphone yes is under a subscription to at&t but appleTV isnt. you really dont have to buy anything from itunes in order to use appleTV.
You're making the same mistake that gordy was referring to. This type of subscription has nothing to do with ATT subscriptions, your cable TV subscription or even a magazine subscription. It is an accounting term that has to do with how Apple accounts for the income derived from the selling of these items. For most of what Apple sells it accounts for all the cash at the time of the sell. But for the iPhone and the Apple TV Apple spreads the cash out over a period of time. So for example (I don't know the details so don't hold me to them), Apple sells the iPhone. But it doesn't immediately credit it books with the full income from that sell. Instead it spreads the income over, say 24 months. Thus a subscription.
Thank to the accounting scandals awhile back, congress go into the act and said that you can't add value to an already purchased product without getting value back in return. So for a normally accounted for item like the Touch and the MacBook Apple has to charge the purchaser when they add value to that product. Whereas for an item accounted for by subscription, Apple has not completed the purchase and is free to add value to that product.
* I am not an accountant and I may be wrong in what I just said, but this is how I understand the issue.
You're making the same mistake that gordy was referring to. This type of subscription has nothing to do with ATT subscriptions, your cable TV subscription or even a magazine subscription. It is an accounting term that has to do with how Apple accounts for the income derived from the selling of these items. For most of what Apple sells it accounts for all the cash at the time of the sell. But for the iPhone and the Apple TV Apple spreads the cash out over a period of time. So for example (I don't know the details so don't hold me to them), Apple sells the iPhone. But it doesn't immediately credit it books with the full income from that sell. Instead it spreads the income over, say 24 months. Thus a subscription.
Thank to the accounting scandals awhile back, congress go into the act and said that you can't add value to an already purchased product without getting value back in return. So for a normally accounted for item like the Touch and the MacBook Apple has to charge the purchaser when they add value to that product. Whereas for an item accounted for by subscription, Apple has not completed the purchase and is free to add value to that product.
* I am not an accountant and I may be wrong in what I just said, but this is how I understand the issue.
And the reason why they can give free software updates, i.e. Aperture 1.5 or Mac OS X 10.5.1 is because you are licensing the software... you don't actually own it. With the iPod Touch, they can't use this logic because the Touch's software is not licensed separately from the device. Adding to what you said about the iPhone, because Apple continually gets revenue through AT&T data plans, Apple can account for the entire cost of the device at time of purchase and still provide free software updates at any point within an iPhone users' contract (or future contract as well).
Adding to what you said about the iPhone, because Apple continually gets revenue through AT&T data plans, Apple can account for the entire cost of the device at time of purchase and still provide free software updates at any point within an iPhone users' contract (or future contract as well).
Maybe they could, but they don't. Apple has repeatedly said that they account for the revenue from the iPhone purchases by the subscription method.
Maybe they could, but they don't. Apple has repeatedly said that they account for the revenue from the iPhone purchases by the subscription method.
Right, but what I'm saying is, Apple could pocket the $399 per iPhone and leave the accounting open as a "subscription" model BECAUSE they get revenue via 2-year contacts from AT&T. And in fact, that is what I would guess they do.