Upgrade fee sees few iPod touch users updating to 3.0 software - Page 4

Of course, you're absolutely incorrect. And since the fact that the iPod Touch had/has Bluetooth had already been established several times through this thread, the only question remaining is whether or not you are retarded.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/iPod-Tou...news-3642.html

"To be more specific, the uncovered Broadcom chip was found capable of single-band 2.4GHz 802.11b/g, dual-band 2.4GHz and 5GHz 802.11a/b/g. Additionally, it had Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR support and an advanced FM receiver. Simply put, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth capabilities were already present in the iPod Touch, with the latter deactivated via software."

I don't understand how some article talking about the 2G is magically adding bluetooth to my iTouch.

I assume it's the same chip in both devices..

After reading through a couple links it appears that I was mistaken. Here is a link where an apple employee admits to the capability.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/17/2...-by-iphone-os/

That being said, it was not established "several times" is this thread that the iPod touch had bluetooth. Judging by the harshness of the reply from one user I would guess that I was right about the typical age of some posters.

In summary, I was wrong, but no need to bash.

Sorry Thought you were claiming that Macs got free software upgrades (instead of just software updates) in a way that was different from iPod Touches. After reading again realise you were making the same point I was trying to make, which is that iPod Touches are being treated no different to Macs in terms of charging for OS upgrades.

So, could you explain to us "kids" what the argument is? Or is your only argument to hurl silly insults?

I suppose I'd ask where are your facts? I know I read several articles back when Apple charged for the wireless N unlock with quotes from accounting types (people who should know the facts) stating that Apple didn't have to charge for it even then.

Apple charging for the iPod Touch is simply an easy way to continue profitting off of existing sales. There's no need to do that with the iPhone since they get monthly profits from AT&T. I know there's some arguments that $10 is nothing to Apple. But it's $10 of pure profit. Multiple that $10 by the number of Touch users and you get more than just a drop in the bucket.

Thank you for clearing this up. This is precisely why Apple continues to provide margins that are very conservative but blow the hell out of water when they announce their results. When a company announces its revenues, a part of this has to be accounted as deferred revenue due to the GAAP-based measures that require the product or services to be fully delivered before being fully recognized. GAAP measures are in place as a checks-n-balances component for investors in the company. It is necessary but it tells people that Apple is valued at a lower valuation than it really is. Therefore, Apple actually makes more money but the GAAP accounting standards project it as if it made lower revenues.

A couple of things regarding this report

1. Not all apps that use the AdMob advertising network might have been successfully tested with OS 3.0. They might be in the approval stages or abandoned by the developers due to the hassles of upgrading. So seeing a small fraction is not uncommon. But it doesn't mean that iPod Touch users do not want to upgrade. I know I did and I am incredibly happy.

2. Most people seem to forget that the source of revenue for Apple's iPhone is AT&T. It is my belief that Apple was using subscription because of the fees received from ATT due to carrier fee participation and federal law that forbids a company from realizing income for something it has not delivered. As newer devices have emerged, Apple gets paid full price at time of sale and no longer participates in carrier fees. This is why the big furore about AT&T offering higher prices and different dates for upgrading to iPhone 3GS was all about. Apple did not fully recognized the revenue and earnings from its sales of the original iPhone but this change with AT&T has actually resulted in them showing a higher revenue recognition. This is translated with increased sales and a bigger attraction with its high share price. Now, AT&T has to make up for its revenue given to Apple and so it charges higher for upgrading.

3. Related to point 2, the definition of a service for an iPhone and iPod Touch vary significantly. Not only does the Touch not have the phone component, Apple understands that the first major update is an incomplete piece of software. Hence, they charge for going from 1.1.5 to 2.0 but none for the subsequent updates to 2.0. "Service" for an iPhone includes voice and data services where iPod Touch has only data services. Therefore, the additional $10 charge for the update could be construed as making up for the "lost revenue" from voice services which it does not provide.

Are you saying it should be reset or restored now? It was reset when the software upgrade completed. I didn't restore it, because I see no sense in restoring from a backed-up image. Doesn't make much sense to me. I myself know how to spell IPod, but, to respond in your own style, my IPod owning grandma' (if she had one) shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get it working. That's one of Apple's strengths, that it allows people who don't care to be knee deep into computers to use them to do other things they're interested in.

So, the restore button: doesn't that restore the IPod from a previous image? How is this intuitive that it will help the chopiness after I upgraded and reset my IPod?

You're joking right?

I have an HTC Touch phone that I just purchased within the last 6 months and in order to update you need to pay, even for just the measly 6.5 update AND it wipes ALL data from your phone! Not that you can't back up your stuff, but then you still have to reconfigure everything (i.e email, settings, etc.)! Just like a brand new phone - NOT FUN. It was the same going from 6.0 to 6.1 except I didn't have to pay for that one. It still completely wiped my phone though.

Sorry, unless you just bought your phone within the last couple of months or so, you will pay for 6.5. There isn't even nary a release date for 7 yet.

Oh, and if you DO upgrade, I suggest you do it from an XP box and not Vista. Vista F'd up the update multiple times for me leaving me with a useless phone but with purdy RGB bands going across the screen. Took it to an XP box and it performed the update fine the first time.

I was not happy to pay the 9.95 but I did want some of the features of the upgrade plus there were two apps that I had already identified that required 3.0 that I wanted (and both of those were free). So the cost overall is offset by the add'l (and sometimes free) new and updated apps and some of the features (landscape keyboard) is really nice. I have a Blackberry where I hold all of my business/personal PDA requiring information; my IPOD touch is all for entertainment and such ... I consider myself to have the best of both worlds (when I am using my IPOD, outside of work, I can ignore my Blackberry; it would drive me crazy if my IPOD was my phone also and would just ring and interrupt me when I am watching a TV show, movie, etc). Separation of duties is sometimes really nice!

It's all good......

Since Restore begins by downloading the OS from Apple's site, it certainly does not appear to be using a disk image. After the Restore, its empty. I then resync. This also appears to be a fresh sync as my old settings and email configs are not replicated.

Up until yesterday, there were 7 iPods in this family (now 6). Anytime any of them start responding poorly to battery management or scrolling or playback gets erratic they get restored and resync'd. Its dead nuts simple and it works.

Good point another thing to ask is; if apple does it for the ipod touch why not do it for the rest of the ipod line regardless of the iphone.

Why should some ipod models get free updates while others are paying updates; it should be all are pay updates or none are.

Some users probably dont pay because they are alienated; say some users are probably upgrading from a classic, nano, video, shuffle etc. the updates have been free for those why should they pay here (regardless of features).

If you want to see a reason for not upgrading, just go to the Apple Discussions website and check out all of the issues with the 3.0 upgrade on the Touch. There are a large number of users who are having issues with WIFI connectivity. We were going to upgrade my son's new Touch until I saw all of the issues people were having. Seems very reminiscent of the problems with WIFI connectivity Apple had with OSX 10.4.10 and beyond to Leopard where Wireless stopped working for WPA and other wireless connections. It took the City of New York schools to stop delivery of new machines before Apple would fix it. I was very surprised to see that Apple is not shipping 3.0 with the current Touch ipods. A sales rep told me they were staying with v2 until the next generation came out.

I am one of the few who didn´t pay for that freaking upgrade I jailbroke it with DEV Team, and the six million dumb asses who pay the 10 bucks should ask for a refund because its ridiculous that for the iphone they get a free upgrade and for the ipod touch users they have to pocket out 10 bucks go search for dev team and jailbreak it you would run 3.0 and get cydia.

I don't begrudge Apple the software upgrade fee for the Touch. It would be a different matter if they automatically updated, then charged us. But it's very clear from the home screen in iTunes that there's a fee. If you don't upgrade, Apple doesn't nag you with pop-ups or other randomly annoying "reminders".

The reason I haven't upgraded to 3.0: the numerous reports of WiFi issues with 3.0 on the Touch.

If/when that gets resolved, I'll upgrade. But WiFi is more important to me than the other benefits that come with the upgrade.

Brent

Always interesting to get the new data from AdMob. Of particular note is the disparity in 3.0 OS downloads between iPhone and iPod Touch users. Some people have brought up the idea of iPod Touch users being treated like 2nd class citizens--do you think Apple will ever address these differences? Does Apple risk alientating a large portion of its users by releasing new updates and then charging iPod Touch users?

We're trying to get a debate going on our blog about the future of Apple, especially after its latest releases. Please check us out: http://uimagicinc.com/blog/?p=165 It seems like a lot of you here would really have a lot to contribute to our discussion!