iPod touch users slow to upgrade mobile OS - Study

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 90
    moochmooch Posts: 113member
    The only reason I updated mine is because it kept crashing in the middle of a music shuffle.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 62 of 90
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post


    first almost every other company out there gives out free firmware updated for their products. too many to name.



    second apple gives out a lot of updates to their non-iphone products. Apple TV comes to mind since it just got a major version upgrade. why are there no SOX issues there?



    my conspiracy theory is that the ipod touch upgrade money really goes to M$ to pay for MS Exchange licensing



    Besides MobileMe correctly pointing out that both the iPhone and AppleTV are using the same accounting model, show me these companies and their firmware updates that are offering rich updates?not just bug fixes and tweaks?years later for free and without having the same accounting model set up? I certainly don?t know of any.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 63 of 90
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,031member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Here are two different reasons as to why companies can?t just give things away or use "slight-of-hand" accounting practices anymore. The former has to do with anti-competitive measures to prevent companies from illegally destroying competition whilst the latter has to do with potentially destroying a stock holder?s investment y masking the true financial status of a company.
    Of course, none of this has anything directly to do with the Apple situation?though SOx looks to be in effect for the Touch update cost?but you asked a general question and assumed this is an Apple smokescreen at work to get more money from customers. While Apple?s goal is to make money, if it were just about short term goal of an extra small payment here and there then why offer the iPhone users free updates at all? Why give the give the original iPhone, now 2.5 years old, free updates, presumably until at least next Summer when v4.0 arrives? This seems counter-productive on the surface, especially when MS and others have been making a profit selling their updates OSes and I don?t know of many phones that are still able to get rich updates (not just bug fixes) so long after they HW has been off the market. So, if you are going to argue for it all being an ?RDF? then you have to also make a good argument as to why Apple isn?t charging for the iPhone updates, as well.



    I'm not planning on arguing the cost of iphone updates. As I recall, it was the Great Steve Himself who said the accounting reasons were behind the ipod touch charge, so let's use that as a reference point.



    There is still no reason why any organisation needs to charge for anything. Service Packs for XP added significant functionality but somehow they weren't caught in the net? In some ways, by your logic, that is even worse than offering for free iPod touch updates. After all, Apple has already put money in the bank on the sale of a hardware device. MS offering such updates for free could be seen to cement the monopoly they enjoy.



    SOX is about preventing malfeasance (I am not a native to make it clear). Nowhere in the wikipedia precis does it suggest that companies are forced to charge for anything. Would that not be anticapitalist, anyway? So it's worthless to look there...



    Again, looking through the sherman anti trust entry, I fail to see anything about offering a free upgrade for a product THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SOLD which might enliven that act.



    So yes, I do still feel that people are being sucked in by the 'requirement'. It's simply a way to make money. atv updates weren't charged. Which model of accounting did it fall under.



    At best, every reference made has been to secondary sources, including my own. Until I see some proper evidence to the contrary I don't see any reason to believe the line that accounting standards require charging for any product.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 64 of 90
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post


    I'm not planning on arguing the cost of iphone updates. As I recall, it was the Great Steve Himself who said the accounting reasons were behind the ipod touch charge, so let's use that as a reference point.



    There is still no reason why any organisation needs to charge for anything. Service Packs for XP added significant functionality but somehow they weren't caught in the net? In some ways, by your logic, that is even worse than offering for free iPod touch updates. After all, Apple has already put money in the bank on the sale of a hardware device. MS offering such updates for free could be seen to cement the monopoly they enjoy.



    SOX is about preventing malfeasance (I am not a native to make it clear). Nowhere in the wikipedia precis does it suggest that companies are forced to charge for anything. Would that not be anticapitalist, anyway? So it's worthless to look there...



    Again, looking through the sherman anti trust entry, I fail to see anything about offering a free upgrade for a product THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SOLD which might enliven that act.



    So yes, I do still feel that people are being sucked in by the 'requirement'. It's simply a way to make money. atv updates weren't charged. Which model of accounting did it fall under.



    At best, every reference made has been to secondary sources, including my own. Until I see some proper evidence to the contrary I don't see any reason to believe the line that accounting standards require charging for any product.



    Apple doesn?t have to specifically charge for it but they do feel they have to account for it with the initial cost, which they aren?t doing for any product categories but the iPhone and AppleTV.



    Your initial query was regarding companies being required to charge for products. I linked to a famous Sherman Antitrust Act case that was showed a specific instance of a company not charging was an illegal practice. I also included the SOx Act and one of the companies that brought it into being which forbid companies from doing clever accounting.



    Having any direct relevance to Apple was not part of your query. Personally, I can?t see anything in SOx that would require Apple to charge for a simple update but I also wonder if they can just give away any and all updates then why do they have special accounting for the product categories previously mentioned.



    Also, if it?s just about ?raping? the customers then why not charge iPhone owners for the latest updates instead of giving them away, especially since until now the iPhone has well outsold the Touch. At least charge the original iPhone users for v3.0. Who would except a phone to get rich updates for free in it?s third year of use. Hell, I wouldn?t have even offered v3.0 to the original iPhones. I think 2 years is long enough for rich OS support.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 65 of 90
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,031member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Apple doesn?t have to specifically charge for it but they do feel they have to account for it with the initial cost, which they aren?t doing for any product categories but the iPhone and AppleTV.



    Your initial query was regarding companies being required to charge for products. I linked to a famous Sherman Antitrust Act case that was showed a specific instance of a company not charging was an illegal practice. I also included the SOx Act and one of the companies that brought it into being which forbid companies from doing clever accounting.



    Having any direct relevance to Apple was not part of your query. Personally, I can?t see anything in SOx that would require Apple to charge for a simple update but I also wonder if they can just give away any and all updates then why do they have special accounting for the product categories previously mentioned.



    Also, if it?s just about ?raping? the customers then why not charge iPhone owners for the latest updates instead of giving them away, especially since until now the iPhone has well outsold the Touch. At least charge the original iPhone users for v3.0. Who would except a phone to get rich updates for free in it?s third year of use. Hell, I wouldn?t have even offered v3.0 to the original iPhones. I think 2 years is long enough for rich OS support.



    The veiled point I was trying to make was it's simply a way for Apple to make money. I have no issue with that. Only the disingenious reasoning used to make the position Apple took palatable.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 66 of 90
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post


    The veiled point I was trying to make was it's simply a way for Apple to make money. I have no issue with that. Only the disingenious reasoning used to make the position Apple took palatable.



    Besides the obvious fact they are publicly traded, for-profit company, if it?s just a ?simply a way for Apple to make money? then why even have the iPhone on a different accounting model? Why not charge for the iPhone updates, too. When you consider the TCO of the iPhone and Touch and the previously stated sales numbers there is much more money to be had from iPhone OS update sales and I?m sure many more would buy them due to the comparatively low price and extra features the update would bring. So I ask again, if it?s just a "simply a way for Apple to make money? then why isn?t this simple method being applied to the iPhone?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 67 of 90
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,031member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Besides the obvious fact they are publicly traded, for-profit company, if it’s just a “simply a way for Apple to make money” then why even have the iPhone on a different accounting model? Why not charge for the iPhone updates, too. When you consider the TCO of the iPhone and Touch and the previously stated sales numbers there is much more money to be had from iPhone OS update sales and I’m sure many more would buy them due to the comparatively low price and extra features the update would bring. So I ask again, if it’s just a "simply a way for Apple to make money” then why isn’t this simple method being applied to the iPhone?



    I don't know and I don't really care. I will still make the point that there is no legal requirement for a company charge a price for anything, short of anti trust issues as you point out.



    EDIT: The conclusion, then, is that there is some other reason the charge was made on ipod touch owners and not iphone owners. A commercial one, no doubt.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 68 of 90
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post


    I don't know and I don't really care. I will still make the point that there is no legal requirement for a company charge a price for anything, short of anti trust issues as you point out.



    I think that you need to care if you want to make that statement because I don?t think you and others are looking at the big picture if you can?t begin to answer the questions I propose. I certainly don?t know the answers but the common ?Apple is just being greedy? answer makes no sense without accounting for the free iPhone updates they could make more money on and the fact that they do use a different accounting method for the iPhone.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 69 of 90
    Marvinmarvin Posts: 15,524moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MobileMe View Post


    What has Apple done wrong here?



    No one has imposed a price on the update except Apple. If they had no intention of profiting from it, they'd make it $1 or less. Remember that there are 30 million ipod touch users worldwide. If they all paid the full upgrade, you're talking about $30 x 30 million = $900m i.e not far off a billion dollars. Not everyone does upgrade as noted but it's significant money and I find it distasteful to profit unnecessarily from people who already choose to support the Apple eco-system.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MobileMe View Post


    if a consumer is willing to spend $299 on a iPod Touch then pay for Apps. Why complain about a $10 or even then $20 upgrade one time out of the year?? That sounds like hypocrisy and theirs no room in this world for any of that.



    You just answered the question. If a consumer is willing to spend $299 + apps, why should they not complain if Apple forces extra charges on them? They've paid enough money already plus the following reason.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipism


    We?ve still got exactly the device that we purchased.



    The devices are sold as being compatible with the app store. If you don't upgrade the firmware, then a significant portion of apps won't run. Nowhere at the time of purchase is it made clear that you would be charged for future software compatibility. This is also true of OS X of course but typically the majority of OS X software runs on 10.4, 10.5 and 10.6. The same is not true of iphone OS 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipism


    Could free Mac OS X updates be viable? You get more Macs on the same OS with the same updates and can control more of what Mac users can expect instead of having your OS usage spread across several versions. (Just thought I?d throw that out there)



    I think they realized this with Snow Leopard. I bet at the next keynote, they comment on how many users are on Snow Leopard because it is an achievement to have people using your latest technologies, especially at a developer conference. There's no point in showing off OpenCL capability or GCD to developers if only 10% of the user base can benefit from it.



    It is different with desktop systems though as they have way more complex usage than phones. If my entire phone got wiped during a bad update, I probably wouldn't bother much at all but if any of the apps I use for work start crashing under a new OS, it's not so good. I do believe free desktop OS updates would result in more uptake though and from friends I've spoken to, even the lower cost of Snow Leopard encourages them to purchase rather than download without paying anything.



    There are videos on youtube explaining how to get ipod touch firmware updates for free with over 200,000 views, which gives the impression a significant number of people aren't happy paying for updates.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 70 of 90
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post


    EDIT: The conclusion, then, is that there is some other reason the charge was made on ipod touch owners and not iphone owners. A commercial one, no doubt.



    One potential reason for the iPhone accounting model is a strategic move. By releasing free rich phone updates Apple can knock the competition even more off kilter. Other phone vendors either look bad by comparison by not offering the same level of rich updates to their line up or they have to compete in ways that Apple has the clear upper hand by virtue of having a very simple and linear HW lineup that is cheaper and easier than other vendors who have many models with many different configurations and who tend to sell unit per model than Apple.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 71 of 90
    of course not all people upgrade their ipod touch. what does apple expect when the make the upgrade FREE on the iphone and charge 17,90 euro on the ipod touch! it's actually quite unfair to charge the ipod users while giving it away for free to the iphone owners. i wish i hadn't paid twice (upgrade to 2.0 and to 3.0), it was like a fine from apple for being so bad and not buying an iphone to avoid monthly overpaid fees.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 72 of 90
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bodypainter View Post


    it's actually quite unfair to charge the ipod users while giving it away for free to the iphone owners. i wish i hadn't paid twice (upgrade to 2.0 and to 3.0), it was like a fine from apple for being so bad and not buying an iphone to avoid monthly overpaid fees.



    It?s interesting because I?ve read many times since the Touch arrived that Apple is unfair for charging so much for the unsubsidized, retail price of the iPhone while the Touch with the same capacity is so much cheaper yet is only missing some phone components. If you are saving a few hundred the actual HW costs and not being required to get a phone contract with your purchase then I?d think that $5-$10 for the update wouldn?t be a big deal by comparison.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 73 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    It?s interesting because I?ve read many times since the Touch arrived that Apple is unfair for charging so much for the unsubsidized, retail price of the iPhone while the Touch with the same capacity is so much cheaper yet is only missing some phone components. If you are saving a few hundred the actual HW costs and not being required to get a phone contract with your purchase then I?d think that $5-$10 for the update wouldn?t be a big deal by comparison.



    wow, paying less for the same capacity while not being providing the same hardware, great stuff.



    that makes the 5-20$ more palatable, especially when it comes with reduced usability.



    If Microsoft could update their zune models a year or so ago with no charges to the userbase, perhaps apple should start using the same accounting model as the iphone or apple tv. But that would provide them less profit.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 74 of 90
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post


    If Microsoft could update their zune models a year or so ago with no charges to the userbase, perhaps apple should start using the same accounting model as the iphone or apple tv. But that would provide them less profit.



    Why is looking at the big picture so difficult for some? If it?s just about getting more profit from paid updates then why doesn?t Apple charge users for their updates? If the accounting model reason is bogus then why are the iPhone and AppleTV even on a different accounting model? I don?t know the answers but if no one can answer those simple questions rationally and objectively then making blanket statements that it?s just about corporate greed makes absolutely no sense since they aren?t doing it across the board.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 75 of 90
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    Ignore. Answered above.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 76 of 90
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    . . .
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 77 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sdbryan View Post


    The point of the article is the contrast between 95% and 55%. If ignorance is the main factor that would imply that iPod touch owners are a much more ignorant group. I don't find that a very compelling thesis.



    Not talking about intelligence.



    Ignorance as to ignore. Thus lack of knowing.



    I contend that a significant number of iPod touch users don't know and don't care to know about upgrading their devices.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 78 of 90
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member
    If this causes developers to not use new APIs, and the overall experience of the device to not be as good as it could, and a competitor gets in - well it serves Apple right for charging for updates.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 79 of 90
    I really only use my touch for playing music, so don't need the upgrade. However, after the price dropped to $5, I went ahead and did it anyway. What's different now?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 80 of 90
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Undo Redo View Post


    I really only use my touch for playing music, so don't need the upgrade. However, after the price dropped to $5, I went ahead and did it anyway. What's different now?



    Quite an extensive list?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.