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.
Actually it's perfectly good logic. If someone with qualifications on the subject can't explain it in an understandable fashion, then it should not necessarily be believed. For all you know, they could just as easily be talking out their @ss or--unbelievable as it might seem--be in error.
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.
All right... drink your juice box, eat a graham cracker and take a nap - you're all excited. Then when you wake up kiss your Steve Jobs photo next to your bed and you'll see the world is still revolving.
I like Apple, too, but it's a b.s. to say they must charge for new software. As someone else stated the Mac App Store was a free OS download upgrade. Google gives free software all the time in the name of calling it a 'beta' for 10 years. iTunes is always a free download, that's software. Etc etc.
I'll stick with Skype, Yahoo and MSN Messenger - most my friends/family are on Windows-PCs anyway and I can still video chat from my Mac or iPhone - with a free app that does more than FaceTime.
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.
It's not about the 99 cents. It's about being told the truth. I defy anyone to show me, with the appropriate references, why a company is compelled to charge anything for a product. I can't prove a negative, and you shouldn't blindly believe some of the bullshit that's served up on the Internet.
You can blather on about GAAP and so on, but until someone point outs to me where and why a company MUST charge for a product, I remain skeptical.
Moreover, why would believe someone from the big4 at face value?
Conservatively speaking, if Apple doesn't charge for it, there's nothing to account for.
Apple can't afford not to charge for Macs. That's the "it" you're talking about, not FaceTime.
So long as Apple charges for Macs, adding substantially new features to the Mac operating system would change the "Macintosh product" being accounted for.
By the way, i'm not defending the GAAP. Just explaining it as i recall it from a few years ago when this came up with the iPod Touch. I thought those GAAP rules were stupid then. I still think they're stupid. Thank you very much you greedy bastards at Enron, Tyco, WorldCom et al for bringing the Sarbanes?Oxley Act upon us!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
But App Store checks for updates in the background
Only if you have the application open and running. It doesn't have a background process checking for updates when the app isn't running. That makes it a standalone product, like Safari.
FaceTime, on the other hand, doesn't need to be running for your Mac to receive an incoming connection. Therein lies the difference.
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. People like us might grumble about it, but only until this summer when Lion comes out and you can get it for "free" (as part of Lion). Of course Snow Leopard users will still be out-of-luck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
The most important thing is for people to learn to think for themselves. Everything else follows naturally from that.
Agreed. If only they taught people how to think for themselves in school! In fairness, some schools do. But far too many schools are simply programming ?droids. This problem is nothing new, though. Mark Twain said: Don?t let schooling interfere with your education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So why was Safari free when it came out of beta? Or are you not old enough to remember that?
Safari was a free standalone app initially. It was subsequently bundled with the OS. Or are you not old enough to remember that?
You can blather on about GAAP and so on, but until someone point outs to me where and why a company MUST charge for a product, I remain skeptical.
I think this is a grey area of the law. One interpretation is that a company should do this. Apple has looked at the problem and decided the benefits don't outweigh the risk, so they play it safe and charge. Sure, they'll torque off a few customers, but most will see the cost as nominal and not think twice about it, and Apple avoids any potential legal trouble with regulators. It's the safest thing for them to do.
I'm willing to bet FaceTime will be included as part of Lion. The charge is only for Snow Leopard users.
Apple can't afford not to charge for Macs. That's the "it" you're talking about, not FaceTime.
No, that's the "it" you're trying to justify.
Quote:
By the way, i'm not defending the GAAP. Just explaining it as i recall it from a few years ago when this came up with the iPod Touch.
It's called rationalization. Just because something can be rationalized to a degree doesn't mean it's right.
Quote:
FaceTime, on the other hand, doesn't need to be running for your Mac to receive an incoming connection. Therein lies the difference.
Does background operation really matter? The App Store is only for Mac OS X, not for Windows, not for Linux, not for iOS. FaceTime and App Store are both Mac OS X enhancements.
Quote:
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.
You're then basically saying App Store is being charged for because Apple has decided to, not because the law decidedly requires it.
Quote:
Safari was a free standalone app initially. It was subsequently bundled with the OS. Or are you not old enough to remember that?
Best way to make facetime even more of a novelty? Gets me a bit nervous about what else they might start charging for.
Update: The 99 cent fee has been confirmed to be a result of regulatory fees associated with software updates. The situation is similar to when Apple charged a fee for users to unlock 802.11n functionality with a software update years ago. The Sarbannes-Oxley Act requires that companies charge for significant features added to already-purchased products.
Agreed. Is there any reason to charge for this aside form "because we can"?
Update: The 99 cent fee has been confirmed to be a result of regulatory fees associated with software updates. The situation is similar to when Apple charged a fee for users to unlock 802.11n functionality with a software update years ago. The Sarbannes-Oxley Act requires that companies charge for significant features added to already-purchased products.
IMHO, charging 99 cents is the best way to kill facetime on the mac. I'm sure they are trying to get more people to sign up with the offer, but I just don't want to see a $129 OS X upgrade where I have go to and spend an additional $50 for upgrades.
Update: The 99 cent fee has been confirmed to be a result of regulatory fees associated with software updates. The situation is similar to when Apple charged a fee for users to unlock 802.11n functionality with a software update years ago. The Sarbannes-Oxley Act requires that companies charge for significant features added to already-purchased products.
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!
Update: The 99 cent fee has been confirmed to be a result of regulatory fees associated with software updates. The situation is similar to when Apple charged a fee for users to unlock 802.11n functionality with a software update years ago. The Sarbannes-Oxley Act requires that companies charge for significant features added to already-purchased products.
WTF? Congress did away with Sarbannes-Oxley accounting a year or so ago, and Apple has already switched over to the new accounting method. That's why they now offer free firmware upgrades to iPod Touch users. Your update doesn't make sense!?!
It's irks me they're charging for facetime. I ain't paying. Will wait till Lion, or when i buy a new Mac, whichever comes first.
Also, if Sarbannes-Oxley were the reason for the 99¢ charge, how could they offer the beta for free? Something just doesn't jive here. I'm calling BS on this one.
Update: The 99 cent fee has been confirmed to be a result of regulatory fees associated with software updates. The situation is similar to when Apple charged a fee for users to unlock 802.11n functionality with a software update years ago. The Sarbannes-Oxley Act requires that companies charge for significant features added to already-purchased products.
So how does this differ from the beta? I have 0.9 (92) and it seems to do all that this article state (except 720p HD video which my 2007 iMac doesn't support anyway).
It should. It has a 1.3mp camera. Software controls the resolution and iChat is limited to 640x480. You should be able to adjust the resolution and record something in QuickTime.
Safari was a free standalone app initially. It was subsequently bundled with the OS. Or are you not old enough to remember that?
Yeah? And it came out of beta for free long before it was bundled with any version of Mac OS X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic
Update: The 99 cent fee has been confirmed to be a result of regulatory fees associated with software updates. The situation is similar to when Apple charged a fee for users to unlock 802.11n functionality with a software update years ago. The Sarbannes-Oxley Act requires that companies charge for significant features added to already-purchased products.
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.
Actually it's perfectly good logic. If someone with qualifications on the subject can't explain it in an understandable fashion, then it should not necessarily be believed. For all you know, they could just as easily be talking out their @ss or--unbelievable as it might seem--be in error.
I think they explained the subject matter perfectly at a 10,000 foot view. However, the details of what's really going on would require a far too lengthy post and too much technical jargon. If Stephen Hawking met with me to explain how a blackhole works, I'm fairly confident I might get lost...that doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about.
In short, go back to post #35 on page 1 and reread. "...there may actually be a legit reason that they're charing $0.99 for it." Please note the may in that sentence. All I was trying to do was provide some insight from someone who seemed to know what they were talking about on the matter. I never said one way or the other if it was 100% true or not. Next time, don't infer so much from a simple post that was merely trying to help out the topic in question.
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.
+1
I don't care about the 99 cents. That's less than a cup of coffee. But I'd like to know the truth. Is there an Apple press release that provides this rationale (Sarbannes-Oxley excuse) or is it just conjecture and speculation by somebody rushing to defend Apple?
I don't see how anybody can say it's a "major feature" either. You already have iChat on the computer, which enables video chatting. FaceTime is merely a standard. It's just like downloading another videochat client. By this rationale, if Apple built-in FaceTime into iChat, they'd have to charge people for it?
Something doesn't seem quite right here. Either the law is wrong here (and it should be changed if it is....that's just anti-consumer), or Apple is. I'd like to see more on who's at fault here.
Best way to make facetime even more of a novelty? Gets me a bit nervous about what else they might start charging for.
Actually, not having a Windows client is what keeps this thing a novelty. But I wonder, if they have to charge Mac users, does that mean they'll have to charge Windows users too?
Mac users might pony up the buck, because it's an easy buy on the Mac App Store. Not that many Windows users are going to go through the trouble of downloading and making a credit card payment for this, unless they know tons of people using FaceTime.
Apple can't afford not to charge for Macs. That's the "it" you're talking about, not FaceTime.
So long as Apple charges for Macs, adding substantially new features to the Mac operating system would change the "Macintosh product" being accounted for.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
Does background operation really matter?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
The App Store is only for Mac OS X, not for Windows, not for Linux, not for iOS. FaceTime and App Store are both Mac OS X enhancements.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Hawkeye_
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Hawkeye_
Safari was a free standalone app initially. It was subsequently bundled with the OS.
Did Apple charge for it?
No. It was always free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Hawkeye_
Safari was a free standalone app initially. It was subsequently bundled with the OS.
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.
Comments
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.
Actually it's perfectly good logic. If someone with qualifications on the subject can't explain it in an understandable fashion, then it should not necessarily be believed. For all you know, they could just as easily be talking out their @ss or--unbelievable as it might seem--be in error.
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.
All right... drink your juice box, eat a graham cracker and take a nap - you're all excited. Then when you wake up kiss your Steve Jobs photo next to your bed and you'll see the world is still revolving.
I like Apple, too, but it's a b.s. to say they must charge for new software. As someone else stated the Mac App Store was a free OS download upgrade. Google gives free software all the time in the name of calling it a 'beta' for 10 years. iTunes is always a free download, that's software. Etc etc.
I'll stick with Skype, Yahoo and MSN Messenger - most my friends/family are on Windows-PCs anyway and I can still video chat from my Mac or iPhone - with a free app that does more than FaceTime.
LEGALLY they can't give you a new feature your computer didn't ship with without you paying for it.
So why was Safari free when it came out of beta? Or are you not old enough to remember 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.
It's not about the 99 cents. It's about being told the truth. I defy anyone to show me, with the appropriate references, why a company is compelled to charge anything for a product. I can't prove a negative, and you shouldn't blindly believe some of the bullshit that's served up on the Internet.
You can blather on about GAAP and so on, but until someone point outs to me where and why a company MUST charge for a product, I remain skeptical.
Moreover, why would believe someone from the big4 at face value?
Conservatively speaking, if Apple doesn't charge for it, there's nothing to account for.
Apple can't afford not to charge for Macs. That's the "it" you're talking about, not FaceTime.
So long as Apple charges for Macs, adding substantially new features to the Mac operating system would change the "Macintosh product" being accounted for.
By the way, i'm not defending the GAAP. Just explaining it as i recall it from a few years ago when this came up with the iPod Touch. I thought those GAAP rules were stupid then. I still think they're stupid. Thank you very much you greedy bastards at Enron, Tyco, WorldCom et al for bringing the Sarbanes?Oxley Act upon us!
But App Store checks for updates in the background
Only if you have the application open and running. It doesn't have a background process checking for updates when the app isn't running. That makes it a standalone product, like Safari.
FaceTime, on the other hand, doesn't need to be running for your Mac to receive an incoming connection. Therein lies the difference.
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. People like us might grumble about it, but only until this summer when Lion comes out and you can get it for "free" (as part of Lion). Of course Snow Leopard users will still be out-of-luck.
The most important thing is for people to learn to think for themselves. Everything else follows naturally from that.
Agreed. If only they taught people how to think for themselves in school! In fairness, some schools do. But far too many schools are simply programming ?droids. This problem is nothing new, though. Mark Twain said: Don?t let schooling interfere with your education.
So why was Safari free when it came out of beta? Or are you not old enough to remember that?
Safari was a free standalone app initially. It was subsequently bundled with the OS. Or are you not old enough to remember that?
You can blather on about GAAP and so on, but until someone point outs to me where and why a company MUST charge for a product, I remain skeptical.
I think this is a grey area of the law. One interpretation is that a company should do this. Apple has looked at the problem and decided the benefits don't outweigh the risk, so they play it safe and charge. Sure, they'll torque off a few customers, but most will see the cost as nominal and not think twice about it, and Apple avoids any potential legal trouble with regulators. It's the safest thing for them to do.
I'm willing to bet FaceTime will be included as part of Lion. The charge is only for Snow Leopard users.
Apple can't afford not to charge for Macs. That's the "it" you're talking about, not FaceTime.
No, that's the "it" you're trying to justify.
By the way, i'm not defending the GAAP. Just explaining it as i recall it from a few years ago when this came up with the iPod Touch.
It's called rationalization. Just because something can be rationalized to a degree doesn't mean it's right.
FaceTime, on the other hand, doesn't need to be running for your Mac to receive an incoming connection. Therein lies the difference.
Does background operation really matter? The App Store is only for Mac OS X, not for Windows, not for Linux, not for iOS. FaceTime and App Store are both Mac OS X enhancements.
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.
You're then basically saying App Store is being charged for because Apple has decided to, not because the law decidedly requires it.
Safari was a free standalone app initially. It was subsequently bundled with the OS. Or are you not old enough to remember that?
Did Apple charge for it?
Best way to make facetime even more of a novelty? Gets me a bit nervous about what else they might start charging for.
Update: The 99 cent fee has been confirmed to be a result of regulatory fees associated with software updates. The situation is similar to when Apple charged a fee for users to unlock 802.11n functionality with a software update years ago. The Sarbannes-Oxley Act requires that companies charge for significant features added to already-purchased products.
Agreed. Is there any reason to charge for this aside form "because we can"?
Update: The 99 cent fee has been confirmed to be a result of regulatory fees associated with software updates. The situation is similar to when Apple charged a fee for users to unlock 802.11n functionality with a software update years ago. The Sarbannes-Oxley Act requires that companies charge for significant features added to already-purchased products.
IMHO, charging 99 cents is the best way to kill facetime on the mac. I'm sure they are trying to get more people to sign up with the offer, but I just don't want to see a $129 OS X upgrade where I have go to and spend an additional $50 for upgrades.
Update: The 99 cent fee has been confirmed to be a result of regulatory fees associated with software updates. The situation is similar to when Apple charged a fee for users to unlock 802.11n functionality with a software update years ago. The Sarbannes-Oxley Act requires that companies charge for significant features added to already-purchased products.
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!
Update: The 99 cent fee has been confirmed to be a result of regulatory fees associated with software updates. The situation is similar to when Apple charged a fee for users to unlock 802.11n functionality with a software update years ago. The Sarbannes-Oxley Act requires that companies charge for significant features added to already-purchased products.
WTF? Congress did away with Sarbannes-Oxley accounting a year or so ago, and Apple has already switched over to the new accounting method. That's why they now offer free firmware upgrades to iPod Touch users. Your update doesn't make sense!?!
It's irks me they're charging for facetime. I ain't paying. Will wait till Lion, or when i buy a new Mac, whichever comes first.
Also, if Sarbannes-Oxley were the reason for the 99¢ charge, how could they offer the beta for free? Something just doesn't jive here. I'm calling BS on this one.
All this concern over 99¢...
Update: The 99 cent fee has been confirmed to be a result of regulatory fees associated with software updates. The situation is similar to when Apple charged a fee for users to unlock 802.11n functionality with a software update years ago. The Sarbannes-Oxley Act requires that companies charge for significant features added to already-purchased products.
Shit dude. Is there an echo in the room?
So how does this differ from the beta? I have 0.9 (92) and it seems to do all that this article state (except 720p HD video which my 2007 iMac doesn't support anyway).
It should. It has a 1.3mp camera. Software controls the resolution and iChat is limited to 640x480. You should be able to adjust the resolution and record something in QuickTime.
See this -> http://macdaddyworld.com/2007/06/28/...-more-details/
Safari was a free standalone app initially. It was subsequently bundled with the OS. Or are you not old enough to remember that?
Yeah? And it came out of beta for free long before it was bundled with any version of Mac OS X.
Update: The 99 cent fee has been confirmed to be a result of regulatory fees associated with software updates. The situation is similar to when Apple charged a fee for users to unlock 802.11n functionality with a software update years ago. The Sarbannes-Oxley Act requires that companies charge for significant features added to already-purchased products.
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.
Actually it's perfectly good logic. If someone with qualifications on the subject can't explain it in an understandable fashion, then it should not necessarily be believed. For all you know, they could just as easily be talking out their @ss or--unbelievable as it might seem--be in error.
I think they explained the subject matter perfectly at a 10,000 foot view. However, the details of what's really going on would require a far too lengthy post and too much technical jargon. If Stephen Hawking met with me to explain how a blackhole works, I'm fairly confident I might get lost...that doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about.
In short, go back to post #35 on page 1 and reread. "...there may actually be a legit reason that they're charing $0.99 for it." Please note the may in that sentence. All I was trying to do was provide some insight from someone who seemed to know what they were talking about on the matter. I never said one way or the other if it was 100% true or not. Next time, don't infer so much from a simple post that was merely trying to help out the topic in question.
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.
+1
I don't care about the 99 cents. That's less than a cup of coffee. But I'd like to know the truth. Is there an Apple press release that provides this rationale (Sarbannes-Oxley excuse) or is it just conjecture and speculation by somebody rushing to defend Apple?
I don't see how anybody can say it's a "major feature" either. You already have iChat on the computer, which enables video chatting. FaceTime is merely a standard. It's just like downloading another videochat client. By this rationale, if Apple built-in FaceTime into iChat, they'd have to charge people for it?
Something doesn't seem quite right here. Either the law is wrong here (and it should be changed if it is....that's just anti-consumer), or Apple is. I'd like to see more on who's at fault here.
All this concern over 99¢...
For some of us, it really is the principle of the matter.
Best way to make facetime even more of a novelty? Gets me a bit nervous about what else they might start charging for.
Actually, not having a Windows client is what keeps this thing a novelty. But I wonder, if they have to charge Mac users, does that mean they'll have to charge Windows users too?
Mac users might pony up the buck, because it's an easy buy on the Mac App Store. Not that many Windows users are going to go through the trouble of downloading and making a credit card payment for this, unless they know tons of people using FaceTime.
Apple can't afford not to charge for Macs. That's the "it" you're talking about, not FaceTime.
So long as Apple charges for Macs, adding substantially new features to the Mac operating system would change the "Macintosh product" being accounted for.
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.
Does background operation really matter?
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.
The App Store is only for Mac OS X, not for Windows, not for Linux, not for iOS. FaceTime and App Store are both Mac OS X enhancements.
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.
Safari was a free standalone app initially. It was subsequently bundled with the OS.
Did Apple charge for it?
No. It was always free.
Safari was a free standalone app initially. It was subsequently bundled with the OS.
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.