... The beauty of FaceTime is that you don't have to sign in or anything. Once you setup you email then you don't have to keep the app open on your Mac because it uses Push Notifications. iChat is different because it is a full text and video chat client and require you to sign in and keep the app open in order to communicate. iChat also require you to have either a MobileMe or an AIM account.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinemagic
$0.99 for an add-on to an older OS is very reasonable..
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'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuffe
More accurate, perhaps, but think if Facetime as what Apple sell it as, videocalling. It's like the phone. You have no idea if they are available to answer before placing a call, and it does one thing, but does it well, which is video - should the other person answer!
iChat is quite a complex thing in comparison to a phone. It does text chatting, audio, video, file sharing, screen sharing, status notifications, availability indications - might sound as clear as day to you or I, but when I gave my brother my old Macbook last month (he's not much for computers other than using Facebook...) he hadn't got a clue what had happened when after waking it up from sleep the first thing he got an iChat dialogue box asking if now that he's back he should set his status to "available" - it still confuses the hell out of him, and the only reason he runs it all the time is because it's what I use to screenshare when he messes something up, and it's better to have it running all the while rather than asking him to find it and start it manually each time he needs it (he really is that dumb, but a lot of users are).
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.
The accounting standard causing the $0.99 charge from Apple for Facetime is focused around Revenue Recognition.
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.
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.
Don't get hung up on credentials. If you can't understand it, then don't necessarily believe it.
Don't get hung up on credentials. If you can't understand it, then don't necessarily believe it.
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.
Video calling is always going to be a novelty. Most people just don't want it.
You are thinking only of face-to-face chatting. There are many serious uses for video communications between people and machines. Imagination needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan
Greed, unadulterated greed will be the downfall of Apple inc.
Don't you find it a little bit convenient that Apple should invoke the Sarbannes-Oxley Act as an excuse to do exactly what it likes to do: squeeze every penny out of Mac and iPhone buyers?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Brother 84
I think it is pretty shabby, when we pay for a premium product and operating system, to then be expected to pay for Facetime. It is also very short-sighted of Apple when they need widespread market adoption to make it work.
Hopefully we will see the integration of iChat and Facetime in Lion to present a reasonable alternative to Skype. And hopefully it will be FREE!
Didn't take liong to hear from the "free-tard" crowd did it.
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.
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.
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 can't take credit for my post. It was posted by a user named benson304 on MacRumors. It and subsequent posts help form a very good explanation of why this most likely is going on. I don't have an accounting background, but thankfully some CPA's at a few of the Big 4 chimed in on the matter.
Well, you could take credit. Whether you should, is another matter!
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly
none of that actually says a company has to charge for anything.
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by walshbj
I'd say this move was designed to get people into the App Store on the Mac and buy something. There are plenty of Mac users without iOS devices, this lets them see what it's like to buy something.
I know I haven't bought anything in the App Store, free or paid.
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."
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by apple4life07
That is HORRIBLE logic. If that were the case, I wouldn't have believed a damn thing I was taught in college.
Well, the older you get, the more you'll have to unlearn what you learned in school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko
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?
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.
Agreed. Is there any reason to charge for this aside form "because we can"?
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.
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.
Conservatively speaking, if Apple doesn't charge for it, there's nothing to account for.
Quote:
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,
Yes, sure, it's tied into the OS in the same way Internet Explorer was tied into Windows at the time of antitrust investigations.
Quote:
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.
But App Store checks for updates in the background--it's "tied into" the OS, too.
Quote:
Also, is the App store still in beta?
No, it's version 1.0.
Quote:
Well, the older you get, the more you'll have to unlearn what you learned in school.
The most important thing is for people to learn to think for themselves. Everything else follows naturally from that.
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.
Comments
... The beauty of FaceTime is that you don't have to sign in or anything. Once you setup you email then you don't have to keep the app open on your Mac because it uses Push Notifications. iChat is different because it is a full text and video chat client and require you to sign in and keep the app open in order to communicate. iChat also require you to have either a MobileMe or an AIM account.
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.
$0.99 for an add-on to an older OS is very reasonable..
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'.
More accurate, perhaps, but think if Facetime as what Apple sell it as, videocalling. It's like the phone. You have no idea if they are available to answer before placing a call, and it does one thing, but does it well, which is video - should the other person answer!
iChat is quite a complex thing in comparison to a phone. It does text chatting, audio, video, file sharing, screen sharing, status notifications, availability indications - might sound as clear as day to you or I, but when I gave my brother my old Macbook last month (he's not much for computers other than using Facebook...) he hadn't got a clue what had happened when after waking it up from sleep the first thing he got an iChat dialogue box asking if now that he's back he should set his status to "available" - it still confuses the hell out of him, and the only reason he runs it all the time is because it's what I use to screenshare when he messes something up, and it's better to have it running all the while rather than asking him to find it and start it manually each time he needs it (he really is that dumb, but a lot of users are).
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.
Holy crap. A buck?!
It's 1/3 the cost of one gallon of gas!
Only 1/2 a litre of petroleum over here. :-(
The accounting standard causing the $0.99 charge from Apple for Facetime is focused around Revenue Recognition.
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."
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.
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.
Don't get hung up on credentials. If you can't understand it, then don't necessarily believe it.
Agreed. Is there any reason to charge for this aside form "because we can"?
Thanks to "the law", this is the way it is.
Don't get hung up on credentials. If you can't understand it, then don't necessarily believe it.
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.
Video calling is always going to be a novelty. Most people just don't want it.
You are thinking only of face-to-face chatting. There are many serious uses for video communications between people and machines. Imagination needed.
Greed, unadulterated greed will be the downfall of Apple inc.
Don't you find it a little bit convenient that Apple should invoke the Sarbannes-Oxley Act as an excuse to do exactly what it likes to do: squeeze every penny out of Mac and iPhone buyers?
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.
Especially since Apple wants this to be popular and a standard and open-source, open-source doesn't mean charging for it.
PS. this is directed at absolutely everyone who complains about a damn dollar.
I think it is pretty shabby, when we pay for a premium product and operating system, to then be expected to pay for Facetime. It is also very short-sighted of Apple when they need widespread market adoption to make it work.
Hopefully we will see the integration of iChat and Facetime in Lion to present a reasonable alternative to Skype. And hopefully it will be FREE!
Didn't take liong to hear from the "free-tard" crowd did it.
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.
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?
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.
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?
I can't take credit for my post.
Well, you could take credit. Whether you should, is another matter!
none of that actually says a company has to charge for anything.
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.
I'd say this move was designed to get people into the App Store on the Mac and buy something. There are plenty of Mac users without iOS devices, this lets them see what it's like to buy something.
I know I haven't bought anything in the App Store, free or paid.
Only thing that makes sense to me...
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."
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.
That is HORRIBLE logic. If that were the case, I wouldn't have believed a damn thing I was taught in college.
Well, the older you get, the more you'll have to unlearn what you learned in school.
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?
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.
Agreed. Is there any reason to charge for this aside form "because we can"?
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.
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.
Conservatively speaking, if Apple doesn't charge for it, there's nothing to account for.
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,
Yes, sure, it's tied into the OS in the same way Internet Explorer was tied into Windows at the time of antitrust investigations.
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.
But App Store checks for updates in the background--it's "tied into" the OS, too.
Also, is the App store still in beta?
No, it's version 1.0.
Well, the older you get, the more you'll have to unlearn what you learned in school.
The most important thing is for people to learn to think for themselves. Everything else follows naturally from that.
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.
enormous strawman knockdown - awsome