I upgraded to 3.0 within days of its release. I'm very happy with the added features, and I feel like the $10 is a nominal charge.
I am also surprised about the negative posts here regarding the upgrade software fee that most people would gladly pay for other computers. Because let's face it, the iPod touch is a hand-held computer. The upgrade is less than a third for the latest Snow Leopard upgrade, and it's less than 10 percent of the latest Windows upgrade.
If you want upgrades free obtain a hand-held Linux computer, if there is one, or buy an iPhone and pay the monthly fee for operating one.
I know that being forced to pay for upgrades that iphone owners get for free
Why are you pissed at Apple? They felt compelled to do it because of then current accounting regulations. All these people clamoring for government regulation to save them from themselves, here is one of your unintended consequences of not thought-through regulations. When you see stories in the news about congress "enacting new protections for consumers" you can expect more unintended consequences like this.
And yes, there are other companies that have similar products like the iPod touch and they provide free updates - however they probably also weren't investigated and scrutinized by the SEC for stock backdating either. I don't blame Apple for following the letter of the law. By casting light on just how stupid it was, I'm sure Apple was a major reason the rules were updated and clarified.
Just because a law is stupid doesn't mean you should ignore it - kudos to Apple for doing the right thing, even though it they ended up taking the brunt of the criticism from uniformed consumers instead of being pissed at the stupid regulations enacted by congress.
While nearly 95 percent of iPhone users have upgraded to iPhone 3.0 or greater, only 55 percent of iPod touch users have done the same.
Perhaps the major difference is simply ignorance.
We have three iPod Touches and only I have upgraded. Yet when I asked my son and wife why they hadn't, they claimed they didn't know anything about it. To which I reminded them that I had informed them immediately after it came out, and a number of times since. And it is free to them, I already paid for the upgrade.
Their point: Why? Do I have to. I am quite happy, don't mess with it.
The same holds true for many of my friends, colleagues and clients who are still behind in their touches as well, much like their OS's. Everytime I troubleshoot their Macs, I even have to tell them how to upgrade either their OS or apps.
Cripes, look how many times people here have shown their ignorance as well, i.e., not knowing about updates or even how to do it. A lot won't even touch the OK button when automatically notified that an OS/App update is available. Even if free.
Sorry, didn't realize some folks still used the simulator. I found it too limiting and too different from the actual device to make it basically useless and never use it anyway. I didn't see not having a 2.2 simulator as any sort of hinderance at all, but if you use it I can see your point.
It depends on the types of applications you're developing. For most non-hardware related UIKit apps (so apps that don't use hardware features, like accellerometer, gps etc or OpenGL) then it's still important in your development cycle.
Adding onto that that all templates are built only for iPhone OS 3, and must be manually pushed back to 2.2.1, then it's understandable when developers start developing for 3.0 only.
Also, while libraries HELP 2.2.1 backdating, nothing is as good as the 3.0 optimizations as they're directly in the kit. Developers have good reason in some cases to avoid 2.2.1 as 3.0 has optimizations in the kit that we as developers couldn't do as we don't have access to private areas of the kit.
I understand users pushing for 2.2.1 support. But I can also understand why some developers push for 3.0 and later only.
Personally, I mostly use Core Data for databasing, which is a 3.0 and later technology. Unfortunately, that forces me to stay on 3.0 and later only.
Why are you pissed at Apple? They felt compelled to do it because of then current accounting regulations. All these people clamoring for government regulation to save them from themselves, here is one of your unintended consequences of not thought-through regulations. When you see stories in the news about congress "enacting new protections for consumers" you can expect more unintended consequences like this.
And yes, there are other companies that have similar products like the iPod touch and they provide free updates - however they probably also weren't investigated and scrutinized by the SEC for stock backdating either. I don't blame Apple for following the letter of the law. By casting light on just how stupid it was, I'm sure Apple was a major reason the rules were updated and clarified.
Just because a law is stupid doesn't mean you should ignore it - kudos to Apple for doing the right thing, even though it they ended up taking the brunt of the criticism from uniformed consumers instead of being pissed at the stupid regulations enacted by congress.
apple admitted that the application store took off so quickly because they had a customer base with software updated on their phones.. they realize how important it is to have their customer base upgrade to new software... it is as you say, an accounting snafu.. Now, with the changes coming in non gaap earnings reporting, it might be assumed that rather than being stuck with amortizing the ipod touch over 24 months like the phone if free upgrades are given (which apple surely wants the customer to do but apple could not give away free upgrades in the past unless they accounted for the ipod touch like they have had to do with the iphone.
now, apple will be able to in the future attach a small dollar amount in the sale price of ipod touch or iphone for software upgrades over say the next two years for example - and claim the remainder as profit on the sale just like other products they sell. being stuck with writing off the phone over 24 months up until a recent change in the law has directly affected the ipod touch (in order to give away software on the touch they would have had to account for it as subscription accounting).
we will find out how apple will report deferred subscription earnings on the phone in the next quarter or before the end of 2010 for sure. At that time, a new policy on the touch upgrades might also be offered as free upgrades for 24 months.. or more..?
right now, apple has around 15 billion in deferred earnings that will be subdivided into profit and deferred revenue to pay for software upgrades of the phone. this large amount deferred was the problem - as it is way more than necessary to keep the subscription cost on the phone 100% covered with software upgrades and warranty service over the 24 month contract period on phone service. but that was how the law was written in the past .. and it has just recently been changed.
apple likely never wanted to charge for software upgrades for the ipod touch.. they were forced to by law or they would have had to amortize the ipod touch over 24 months just like the phone. this has been a real problem for them.
What percentage of iPhone users are under 18 versus iPod Touch users?
I would think that there are not a lot of folks under the age of 18 using iPhones - at least not those who have their own credit cards and such - meaning that paid or otherwise the user of an iPhone is far more likely to be someone who would have the means to pay for an upgrade. Compared to how many iPod Touch units have been bought for folks under 18 - who do not have a credit card of their own - perhaps not even a computer of their own? (yes my sister had an iPod for a while without a computer suitable to attach it to - she recently got a new computer - but had given away the iPod since she could not use it effectively - but that was not a touch - a standard iPod is quite limited if you do not have a computer to attach it to).
So yes feature function relative to price point must certainly be a factor - but don't forget demographics.
I'm in India and a lot of my friends don't have access to any Wi-Fi network. They've bought iPod touchs only for its movie capability and UI. I hope I've got my point across well.
Apple must put wireless inernet capability on its iPod touchs.
iPhone users take advantage of mobile networks easily.
I wonder what the percentage of those who upgraded did so legitimately? It's so easy to install the update without paying, I'm surprised that more people haven't upgraded.
I'm in India and a lot of my friends don't have access to any Wi-Fi network. They've bought iPod touchs only for its movie capability and UI. I hope I've got my point across well.
Apple must put wireless inernet capability on its iPod touchs.
iPhone users take advantage of mobile networks easily.
If you have access to someone with a wired connection and a wireless card - you should be able to use internet connection sharing to create your own wi-fi hot spot from the computer to the iPod - even if that wired connection is a dial up modem or cellular card. Of course what you can do with that connection may be limited by its available bandwidth and throughput.
If you have access to someone with a wired connection and a wireless card - you should be able to use internet connection sharing to create your own wi-fi hot spot from the computer to the iPod - even if that wired connection is a dial up modem or cellular card. Of course what you can do with that connection may be limited by its available bandwidth and throughput.
Sorry, I meant like mobile carriers's Internet networks.. Kinda like 3G capabilities for surfing,
Sorry, I meant like mobile carriers's Internet networks.. Kinda like 3G capabilities for surfing,
yes that would definitely be a good idea - though it would require a hardware upgrade and a subscription I would think - what i was suggesting is a way for current Wi-Fi only iPod touch units to get access to the internet in places where there is no Wi-Fi offered by service providers or other hot spots - if you have wired access in a computer that has a Wi-Fi card you can get your iPod Touch on the internet without built in cellular capability or monthly fees.
And yes, there are other companies that have similar products like the iPod touch and they provide free updates - however they probably also weren't investigated and scrutinized by the SEC for stock backdating either. I don't blame Apple for following the letter of the law. By casting light on just how stupid it was, I'm sure Apple was a major reason the rules were updated and clarified.
I don't buy the suggestion that Apple are being forced to charge users for non-subscription devices:
There are too many inconsistencies and no reason why it has to be so expensive. If Apple are being forced to do it, why would they charge $20 for the 2.0 upgrade and $10 for the 3.0? Why not $1 each? $30 is not a trivial amount to add onto the cost of a device for upgrades that are free for the iphone, even on PAYG (non-subscription) tariffs.
I totally agree. Isn't this common sense. iLove my Apple, but iSorta feel touch users get the short end of the stick with these paid updates. Though correct me if I'm wrong, Apple did allow users of the touch to upgrade for free depending on what build of the OS they were running!? Which was announced at the September 2009 event (aka Return of the Jobsian ) (soooo glad he's back)
Touch users also get the short end of the stick with capabilities. GPS, Camera are what I want. Yes it would cost more...but I'm not paying the monthly fees necessary for the iPhone.
And BTW, I get the latest OS for my first gen iPod Touch. Its pretty cheap for new capabilities. I don't expect something for nothing.
Comments
I am also surprised about the negative posts here regarding the upgrade software fee that most people would gladly pay for other computers. Because let's face it, the iPod touch is a hand-held computer. The upgrade is less than a third for the latest Snow Leopard upgrade, and it's less than 10 percent of the latest Windows upgrade.
If you want upgrades free obtain a hand-held Linux computer, if there is one, or buy an iPhone and pay the monthly fee for operating one.
I hope the executives at Apple who favor not charging
It's about accounting rules, no executive wants
I know that being forced to pay for upgrades that iphone owners get for free
Why are you pissed at Apple? They felt compelled to do it because of then current accounting regulations. All these people clamoring for government regulation to save them from themselves, here is one of your unintended consequences of not thought-through regulations. When you see stories in the news about congress "enacting new protections for consumers" you can expect more unintended consequences like this.
And yes, there are other companies that have similar products like the iPod touch and they provide free updates - however they probably also weren't investigated and scrutinized by the SEC for stock backdating either. I don't blame Apple for following the letter of the law. By casting light on just how stupid it was, I'm sure Apple was a major reason the rules were updated and clarified.
Just because a law is stupid doesn't mean you should ignore it - kudos to Apple for doing the right thing, even though it they ended up taking the brunt of the criticism from uniformed consumers instead of being pissed at the stupid regulations enacted by congress.
While nearly 95 percent of iPhone users have upgraded to iPhone 3.0 or greater, only 55 percent of iPod touch users have done the same.
Perhaps the major difference is simply ignorance.
We have three iPod Touches and only I have upgraded. Yet when I asked my son and wife why they hadn't, they claimed they didn't know anything about it. To which I reminded them that I had informed them immediately after it came out, and a number of times since. And it is free to them, I already paid for the upgrade.
Their point: Why? Do I have to. I am quite happy, don't mess with it.
The same holds true for many of my friends, colleagues and clients who are still behind in their touches as well, much like their OS's. Everytime I troubleshoot their Macs, I even have to tell them how to upgrade either their OS or apps.
Cripes, look how many times people here have shown their ignorance as well, i.e., not knowing about updates or even how to do it. A lot won't even touch the OK button when automatically notified that an OS/App update is available. Even if free.
Heck, a lot don't even use command-z.
Heck, a lot don't even use command-z.
Why would I do a command-z when I can shake my iPhone?
I kid
It's about accounting rules, no executive wants
There is no accounting rule which dictates that you have to charge a price for anything.
Sorry, didn't realize some folks still used the simulator. I found it too limiting and too different from the actual device to make it basically useless and never use it anyway. I didn't see not having a 2.2 simulator as any sort of hinderance at all, but if you use it I can see your point.
It depends on the types of applications you're developing. For most non-hardware related UIKit apps (so apps that don't use hardware features, like accellerometer, gps etc or OpenGL) then it's still important in your development cycle.
Adding onto that that all templates are built only for iPhone OS 3, and must be manually pushed back to 2.2.1, then it's understandable when developers start developing for 3.0 only.
Also, while libraries HELP 2.2.1 backdating, nothing is as good as the 3.0 optimizations as they're directly in the kit. Developers have good reason in some cases to avoid 2.2.1 as 3.0 has optimizations in the kit that we as developers couldn't do as we don't have access to private areas of the kit.
I understand users pushing for 2.2.1 support. But I can also understand why some developers push for 3.0 and later only.
Personally, I mostly use Core Data for databasing, which is a 3.0 and later technology. Unfortunately, that forces me to stay on 3.0 and later only.
Why are you pissed at Apple? They felt compelled to do it because of then current accounting regulations. All these people clamoring for government regulation to save them from themselves, here is one of your unintended consequences of not thought-through regulations. When you see stories in the news about congress "enacting new protections for consumers" you can expect more unintended consequences like this.
And yes, there are other companies that have similar products like the iPod touch and they provide free updates - however they probably also weren't investigated and scrutinized by the SEC for stock backdating either. I don't blame Apple for following the letter of the law. By casting light on just how stupid it was, I'm sure Apple was a major reason the rules were updated and clarified.
Just because a law is stupid doesn't mean you should ignore it - kudos to Apple for doing the right thing, even though it they ended up taking the brunt of the criticism from uniformed consumers instead of being pissed at the stupid regulations enacted by congress.
apple admitted that the application store took off so quickly because they had a customer base with software updated on their phones.. they realize how important it is to have their customer base upgrade to new software... it is as you say, an accounting snafu.. Now, with the changes coming in non gaap earnings reporting, it might be assumed that rather than being stuck with amortizing the ipod touch over 24 months like the phone if free upgrades are given (which apple surely wants the customer to do but apple could not give away free upgrades in the past unless they accounted for the ipod touch like they have had to do with the iphone.
now, apple will be able to in the future attach a small dollar amount in the sale price of ipod touch or iphone for software upgrades over say the next two years for example - and claim the remainder as profit on the sale just like other products they sell. being stuck with writing off the phone over 24 months up until a recent change in the law has directly affected the ipod touch (in order to give away software on the touch they would have had to account for it as subscription accounting).
we will find out how apple will report deferred subscription earnings on the phone in the next quarter or before the end of 2010 for sure. At that time, a new policy on the touch upgrades might also be offered as free upgrades for 24 months.. or more..?
right now, apple has around 15 billion in deferred earnings that will be subdivided into profit and deferred revenue to pay for software upgrades of the phone. this large amount deferred was the problem - as it is way more than necessary to keep the subscription cost on the phone 100% covered with software upgrades and warranty service over the 24 month contract period on phone service. but that was how the law was written in the past .. and it has just recently been changed.
apple likely never wanted to charge for software upgrades for the ipod touch.. they were forced to by law or they would have had to amortize the ipod touch over 24 months just like the phone. this has been a real problem for them.
I would think that there are not a lot of folks under the age of 18 using iPhones - at least not those who have their own credit cards and such - meaning that paid or otherwise the user of an iPhone is far more likely to be someone who would have the means to pay for an upgrade. Compared to how many iPod Touch units have been bought for folks under 18 - who do not have a credit card of their own - perhaps not even a computer of their own? (yes my sister had an iPod for a while without a computer suitable to attach it to - she recently got a new computer - but had given away the iPod since she could not use it effectively - but that was not a touch - a standard iPod is quite limited if you do not have a computer to attach it to).
So yes feature function relative to price point must certainly be a factor - but don't forget demographics.
Apple must put wireless inernet capability on its iPod touchs.
iPhone users take advantage of mobile networks easily.
I'm in India and a lot of my friends don't have access to any Wi-Fi network. They've bought iPod touchs only for its movie capability and UI. I hope I've got my point across well.
Apple must put wireless inernet capability on its iPod touchs.
iPhone users take advantage of mobile networks easily.
If you have access to someone with a wired connection and a wireless card - you should be able to use internet connection sharing to create your own wi-fi hot spot from the computer to the iPod - even if that wired connection is a dial up modem or cellular card. Of course what you can do with that connection may be limited by its available bandwidth and throughput.
If you have access to someone with a wired connection and a wireless card - you should be able to use internet connection sharing to create your own wi-fi hot spot from the computer to the iPod - even if that wired connection is a dial up modem or cellular card. Of course what you can do with that connection may be limited by its available bandwidth and throughput.
Sorry, I meant like mobile carriers's Internet networks.. Kinda like 3G capabilities for surfing,
Sorry, I meant like mobile carriers's Internet networks.. Kinda like 3G capabilities for surfing,
yes that would definitely be a good idea - though it would require a hardware upgrade and a subscription I would think - what i was suggesting is a way for current Wi-Fi only iPod touch units to get access to the internet in places where there is no Wi-Fi offered by service providers or other hot spots - if you have wired access in a computer that has a Wi-Fi card you can get your iPod Touch on the internet without built in cellular capability or monthly fees.
And yes, there are other companies that have similar products like the iPod touch and they provide free updates - however they probably also weren't investigated and scrutinized by the SEC for stock backdating either. I don't blame Apple for following the letter of the law. By casting light on just how stupid it was, I'm sure Apple was a major reason the rules were updated and clarified.
I don't buy the suggestion that Apple are being forced to charge users for non-subscription devices:
http://www.macworld.com/article/1319...ipodtouch.html
There are too many inconsistencies and no reason why it has to be so expensive. If Apple are being forced to do it, why would they charge $20 for the 2.0 upgrade and $10 for the 3.0? Why not $1 each? $30 is not a trivial amount to add onto the cost of a device for upgrades that are free for the iphone, even on PAYG (non-subscription) tariffs.
There is no accounting rule which dictates that you have to charge a price for anything.
Well put.
Touch users also get the short end of the stick with capabilities. GPS, Camera are what I want. Yes it would cost more...but I'm not paying the monthly fees necessary for the iPhone.
And BTW, I get the latest OS for my first gen iPod Touch. Its pretty cheap for new capabilities. I don't expect something for nothing.