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.
I'm not trying to justify or rationalize anything. Many have attributed this charge to malice or greed on Apple's part. That was my initial reaction too. But the reason why Apple is charging the fee for this software has to do with accounting for Macintosh hardware sales.
As i said, i don't like the fee (it rubs me the wrong way), and i personally intend to avoid it. But i now understand why Apple is doing this. And i personally don't fault them for it, even though i don't like it. They're just trying to protect themselves from regulators and lawyers.
As i've already said: 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.
Just because an app can only run on the Mac, doesn't make it part of the Macintosh hardware product. Therein is the acid test. Mac OS X is considered part of the Mac hardware product.
The App Store is clearly a standalone app, just like Safari. And just like Safari, it's being released standalone before Apple bundles it with Mac OS X. As such, neither can be construed as part of Mac OS X, per se. Independent product, so it has no impact on Mac accounting.
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.
You're then basically saying App Store is being charged for because Apple has decided to, not because the law decidedly requires it.
No. I'm saying because the App Store isn't tied to Mac hardware the way Mac OS X is, Apple is unencumbered by the GAAP in its regard. However, because Facetime could be construed to be part of Mac OS X, Apple perceives itself as encumbered by GAAP and is therefore charging a nominal fee for it.
No. It was always free.
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.
You're missing the point. Safari was never encumbered by the GAAP, because it was always a free standalone app. It was never tied to the Mac hardware per se.