Apple releases FaceTime on Mac App Store for 99 cents - Page 2

Go over to MacRumors and start on page 6 or so. There is plenty more explanation as to why they do have to charge for it from qualified individuals. I don't have the accounting understanding to re-explain it, unfortunately.

FaceTime requires an AppleID that you sign-in on but it persists in the background because Apple has designed it that way. They could have done the same to iChat and allowed Apple IDs to work in the same way.


I'm absolutely not quibbling the 59p charge, but bear in mind that the Mac App Store is only for SL not an 'older OS'.


Most people understand IM in my experience. We even have it on our work PCs on the company intranet (Win XP SP2 with IE6 for example - so we're well up to date!!!) I'd rather have seen Apple implement iChat features seamlessly rather than start afresh with a new video type. It's all the other iChat features that would be good on the iPhone - the video chat is just meh. I was similarly disappointed when Quicktime X removed all the functionality for the sake of 64bit.

Actually for most people in my Address Book I'd like them to see when I'm willing to accept calls much like IM status. That would be progress that Apple could have driven with iOS.

On OS X iChat can load on log-in with passwords in Keychain and is unobtrusive with the app left open in the background. I fail to see how this is less convenient than FT.


Only 1/2 a litre of petroleum over here. :-(

Yes, if Apple is going to charge for the software, then the revenue must be recognized in a standardized manner. But Apple doesn't have to charge for the software. As further example, a large chunk of software is available through the App Store for free and constitutes "significant new functionality."

I'm really curious why they seem to think that Facetime is a "major new feature"? And somehow, the Mac App Store isn't?

The Mac App Store represents a major new functionality that never previously existed on the Mac OS X. Bu it's been given away for free to everybody running Snow Leopard. The Facetime application is a (small) evolutionary step beyond features that were already well known and advertised for Mac computer systems.

Heck -- if somebody else had taken the protocol specification, and implemented it in their own 3rd party application, then they would have had permission to give it away to any computer anywhere, without charging anybody anything, if they had so wished.

But because it came out of the same company that initially sold the computer system, it's magically a major feature that requires a separate source of revenue to account for its addition.

I think it's ridiculous to try to convince us that somehow they were in any way "forced" to charge anything for it. They are charging because they want to.
I have no problem with the $0.99 price tag. I don't think it's unfair, gouging, or disproportionate. But Apple, please don't lie to us about the reason behind it.

Don't get hung up on credentials. If you can't understand it, then don't necessarily believe it.

Thanks to "the law", this is the way it is.

That is HORRIBLE logic. If that were the case, I wouldn't have believed a damn thing I was taught in college. I didn't say I CAN'T understand. I simply said I don't understand it enough to re-explain it. I.E. I don't have the luxury of setting aside a bunch of time to learn it. It's not my area of expertise. My background is mathematics, data analysis, SQL, and the like. I'm quite confident I'm smart enough to understand it.

You are thinking only of face-to-face chatting. There are many serious uses for video communications between people and machines. Imagination needed.


Ninety-nine cents is greed? Surely you can't be serious, M. le Hurukan? I assume you know, by the way, that you've named yourself after the Amanita muscaria figure in Maya myth, hurakan kakulje. That can make you one angry guy.

I know it's only .99¢, but since Skype, Yahoo, MSN Messenger and others are free and allow video chat (Yahoo and Skype even allowing video chat on phone to phone and phone to PC)... I think it's a little cheesy (greedy) to charge even .05¢ for a service that allows only video and not even typing chat. It's a principle thing.

Especially since Apple wants this to be popular and a standard and open-source, open-source doesn't mean charging for it.

Ok, on the AppStore there are tons of people complaining, on here there are tons of people complaining, other websites its the same. NEWS FLASH: Its a dollar because LEGALLY they can't give you a new feature your computer didn't ship with without you paying for it. Its NOT open source software, its an open source platform. So they HAVE to charge something, so instead of charging $30 or something they charged the bare minimum of a dollar. Seriously, grow up folks. Its a buck and if its that big of a deal DON'T DOWNLOAD IT!!! Apple did not twist your arm, hold a gun to your head and say "give me your %$#@%^& dollar or I will blow your head off". If they did, I would be standing in your court, but since they didn't GROW UP.

PS. this is directed at absolutely everyone who complains about a damn dollar.

The fandroids, who wince paying 1c for an app. That is why they love android so much. It's free! So they complain about anything especially about their enemy, Apple.
I don't think these people have a life.
Look at all the fantastic stuff Apple released today to the public and developers.
Apple are simply light years ahead of the rest.

How come it only apperas to be apple affected by this accounting requirement

Why do a number of other tech companies who supply people with free updates or new software (say MS with Windows Live software) not have to charge?

Lets make it a strawman about the dollar, that should be a good way to discuss the topic at hand.

Edit: while i am at it. How much did downloading nad installing the Mac App Store cost you?

The accounting thing sounds like a lame excuse. What exactly qualifies FaceTime as part of the OS to justify saying that it adds significant value to the existing software vs. just being a new separate app that they provide for free? In other words can Apple never release any apps as freeware, simply because they might add value to it's OS? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm not complaining about the price, but how come FaceTime isn't free yet the Mac Store app is? Don't they both ad new features?

Well, you could take credit. Whether you should, is another matter!


As i understand it and this is outside my area of expertise it's essentially the same reason they "had" to charge for iPod Touch OS updates before the GAAP change. They don't have to do it now for the iPod Touch because they switched to the new rules for iPod Touch last year. I'm inferring that they didn't make such a change for Mac OS X Snow Leopard (because the accounting costs weren't justified for a product coming so soon to end-of-life), so the old rules still apply to Snow Leopard. When Lion comes out, that'll be under the new rules, and this foolishness will end. Since Lion is only months away from replacing Snow Leopard, it isn't worth the cost to Apple to change Snow Leopard's accounting over to the new rules.

Anyhow, that's my laymen's take on this. Could be wrong.

Agreed. They could have avoided all of the Sarbannes-Oxley Act nonsense by simply upgrading iChat to include FaceTime (which makes more sense than having 2 comm programs).

Actually, they do need to charge for it, according to the old GAAP rules, because if they don't, it affects their accounting for the hardware with which the OS was bundled. Or at least according to a conservative interpretation of the rules.

The question why the App Store doesn't count, whereas Facetime does is a good question. I suppose it might be argued that Facetime is tied into the OS, whereas the App Store is a standalone app, independent of the OS per se. Facetime has a background process looking for incoming connections, arguably making it a part of the OS. Whereas the App store, arguably, isn't so intertwined with the OS.

Also, is the App store still in beta? Facetime was free while it was still in beta.


Well, the older you get, the more you'll have to unlearn what you learned in school.


Apple is fiscally conservative. This is a grey area. They're not taking any chances. Also, M$ doesn't make hardware (to speak of). As i understand it, its the accounting on the hardware sales which is the problem. When Apple updates the OS, it's perceived as a retrofit on the old hardware, and therein lies the crux of the problem, IIRC.

What a bunch of fk'n clueless whiners posting here. It's frik'n 99 cents!!!!!! And as you should have known, its required by the government! Do you actually think they care about making 99 cents on this? Get a life.

Conservatively speaking, if Apple doesn't charge for it, there's nothing to account for.


Yes, sure, it's tied into the OS in the same way Internet Explorer was tied into Windows at the time of antitrust investigations.


But App Store checks for updates in the background--it's "tied into" the OS, too.


No, it's version 1.0.


The most important thing is for people to learn to think for themselves. Everything else follows naturally from that.

enormous strawman knockdown - awsome

Actually it's perfectly good logic. If someone with qualifications on the subject can't explain it in an understandable fashion, then it should not necessarily be believed. For all you know, they could just as easily be talking out their @ss or--unbelievable as it might seem--be in error.

All right... drink your juice box, eat a graham cracker and take a nap - you're all excited. Then when you wake up kiss your Steve Jobs photo next to your bed and you'll see the world is still revolving.

I like Apple, too, but it's a b.s. to say they must charge for new software. As someone else stated the Mac App Store was a free OS download upgrade. Google gives free software all the time in the name of calling it a 'beta' for 10 years. iTunes is always a free download, that's software. Etc etc.

I'll stick with Skype, Yahoo and MSN Messenger - most my friends/family are on Windows-PCs anyway and I can still video chat from my Mac or iPhone - with a free app that does more than FaceTime.

So why was Safari free when it came out of beta? Or are you not old enough to remember that?

It's not about the 99 cents. It's about being told the truth. I defy anyone to show me, with the appropriate references, why a company is compelled to charge anything for a product. I can't prove a negative, and you shouldn't blindly believe some of the bullshit that's served up on the Internet.

You can blather on about GAAP and so on, but until someone point outs to me where and why a company MUST charge for a product, I remain skeptical.

Moreover, why would believe someone from the big4 at face value?

Apple can't afford not to charge for Macs. That's the "it" you're talking about, not FaceTime.

So long as Apple charges for Macs, adding substantially new features to the Mac operating system would change the "Macintosh product" being accounted for.

By the way, i'm not defending the GAAP. Just explaining it as i recall it from a few years ago when this came up with the iPod Touch. I thought those GAAP rules were stupid then. I still think they're stupid. Thank you very much you greedy bastards at Enron, Tyco, WorldCom et al for bringing the SarbanesOxley Act upon us!


Only if you have the application open and running. It doesn't have a background process checking for updates when the app isn't running. That makes it a standalone product, like Safari.

FaceTime, on the other hand, doesn't need to be running for your Mac to receive an incoming connection. Therein lies the difference.

Personally, i don't feel this makes FaceTime part of Mac OS X. But it is an argument which could be made, and is possible could prevail in a court of law, where a technically clueless judge or jury may be making decisions beyond their areas of competence. Therefore, i can understand where Apple might choose to circumvent legal issues by charging a nominal fee for FaceTime for Snow Leopard. People like us might grumble about it, but only until this summer when Lion comes out and you can get it for "free" (as part of Lion). Of course Snow Leopard users will still be out-of-luck.



Agreed. If only they taught people how to think for themselves in school! In fairness, some schools do. But far too many schools are simply programming droids. This problem is nothing new, though. Mark Twain said: Dont let schooling interfere with your education.


Safari was a free standalone app initially. It was subsequently bundled with the OS. Or are you not old enough to remember that?

I think this is a grey area of the law. One interpretation is that a company should do this. Apple has looked at the problem and decided the benefits don't outweigh the risk, so they play it safe and charge. Sure, they'll torque off a few customers, but most will see the cost as nominal and not think twice about it, and Apple avoids any potential legal trouble with regulators. It's the safest thing for them to do.

I'm willing to bet FaceTime will be included as part of Lion. The charge is only for Snow Leopard users.

No, that's the "it" you're trying to justify.


It's called rationalization. Just because something can be rationalized to a degree doesn't mean it's right.


Does background operation really matter? The App Store is only for Mac OS X, not for Windows, not for Linux, not for iOS. FaceTime and App Store are both Mac OS X enhancements.


You're then basically saying App Store is being charged for because Apple has decided to, not because the law decidedly requires it.


Did Apple charge for it?

Update: The 99 cent fee has been confirmed to be a result of regulatory fees associated with software updates. The situation is similar to when Apple charged a fee for users to unlock 802.11n functionality with a software update years ago. The Sarbannes-Oxley Act requires that companies charge for significant features added to already-purchased products.

Update: The 99 cent fee has been confirmed to be a result of regulatory fees associated with software updates. The situation is similar to when Apple charged a fee for users to unlock 802.11n functionality with a software update years ago. The Sarbannes-Oxley Act requires that companies charge for significant features added to already-purchased products.

Update: The 99 cent fee has been confirmed to be a result of regulatory fees associated with software updates. The situation is similar to when Apple charged a fee for users to unlock 802.11n functionality with a software update years ago. The Sarbannes-Oxley Act requires that companies charge for significant features added to already-purchased products.

Update: The 99 cent fee has been confirmed to be a result of regulatory fees associated with software updates. The situation is similar to when Apple charged a fee for users to unlock 802.11n functionality with a software update years ago. The Sarbannes-Oxley Act requires that companies charge for significant features added to already-purchased products.

All this concern over 99¢...

Shit dude. Is there an echo in the room?

It should. It has a 1.3mp camera. Software controls the resolution and iChat is limited to 640x480. You should be able to adjust the resolution and record something in QuickTime.
See this -> http://macdaddyworld.com/2007/06/28/...-more-details/

Yeah? And it came out of beta for free long before it was bundled with any version of Mac OS X.


Safari was in beta when this went into effect. Safari came out of beta under its jurisdiction. Safari was free. This charging thing is crap.

I think they explained the subject matter perfectly at a 10,000 foot view. However, the details of what's really going on would require a far too lengthy post and too much technical jargon. If Stephen Hawking met with me to explain how a blackhole works, I'm fairly confident I might get lost...that doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about.

In short, go back to post #35 on page 1 and reread. "...there may actually be a legit reason that they're charing $0.99 for it." Please note the may in that sentence. All I was trying to do was provide some insight from someone who seemed to know what they were talking about on the matter. I never said one way or the other if it was 100% true or not. Next time, don't infer so much from a simple post that was merely trying to help out the topic in question.

+1

I don't care about the 99 cents. That's less than a cup of coffee. But I'd like to know the truth. Is there an Apple press release that provides this rationale (Sarbannes-Oxley excuse) or is it just conjecture and speculation by somebody rushing to defend Apple?

I don't see how anybody can say it's a "major feature" either. You already have iChat on the computer, which enables video chatting. FaceTime is merely a standard. It's just like downloading another videochat client. By this rationale, if Apple built-in FaceTime into iChat, they'd have to charge people for it?

Something doesn't seem quite right here. Either the law is wrong here (and it should be changed if it is....that's just anti-consumer), or Apple is. I'd like to see more on who's at fault here.

For some of us, it really is the principle of the matter.

Actually, not having a Windows client is what keeps this thing a novelty. But I wonder, if they have to charge Mac users, does that mean they'll have to charge Windows users too?

Mac users might pony up the buck, because it's an easy buy on the Mac App Store. Not that many Windows users are going to go through the trouble of downloading and making a credit card payment for this, unless they know tons of people using FaceTime.