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.
FaceTime's not tied to Apple hardware, either. Apple could easily release a version for Windows, so I'm a little confused at your reasoning.
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?.
Not unless you can figure out a way that a Windows Facetime app could be construed as part of the Macinotsh hardware product.
I doubt Apple would be interested in producing a Windows client, however. Too much work to support the various hardware configurations, and not that important to driving the adoption of the Facetime standard. It's iOS devices which will drive it (or not). The Mac client is just a way to add more value to the Mac platform.
FaceTime's not tied to Apple hardware, either. Apple could easily release a version for Windows, so I'm a little confused at your reasoning.
That's already been addressed. Short recap: Facetime app construed as part of Mac OS X because it has a background process. Therefore it's considered as "adding a major new feature" to the Mac hardware product. Therefore it's subject to GAAP.
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?
I tend to agree that it's one heck of a weak "major new feature." But it's a grey area which could be argued either way. Apple is simply trying to protect its ass from the regulators and lawyers by not taking any chances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
Something doesn't seem quite right here. Either the law is wrong here
Bingo! 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 Jetz
(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.
Actually, the law was changed. Well, the GAAP was changed, and that's what this is all about. It's the same issue which prompted Apple to charge for iOS updates for the iPod Touch, but not the very same updates on the iPhone. The two devices were accounted for differently. Apple lobbied to have the GAAP changed, it was, and Apple restated their accounting as a result (and at some expense).
Same issue here. Apple has two choices: Restate all their Mac hardware sales accounting, at considerable expense, or just charge a nominal fee until Lion comes out. Apple isn't going to do the former. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't accomplish the task before Lion ships anyhow. So you have two choices: Pay the 99¢, or wait until Lion. I'm opting for the latter, myself. Your mileage may vary.
Comments
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.
FaceTime's not tied to Apple hardware, either. Apple could easily release a version for Windows, so I'm a little confused at your reasoning.
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?.
Not unless you can figure out a way that a Windows Facetime app could be construed as part of the Macinotsh hardware product.
I doubt Apple would be interested in producing a Windows client, however. Too much work to support the various hardware configurations, and not that important to driving the adoption of the Facetime standard. It's iOS devices which will drive it (or not). The Mac client is just a way to add more value to the Mac platform.
FaceTime's not tied to Apple hardware, either. Apple could easily release a version for Windows, so I'm a little confused at your reasoning.
That's already been addressed. Short recap: Facetime app construed as part of Mac OS X because it has a background process. Therefore it's considered as "adding a major new feature" to the Mac hardware product. Therefore it's subject to GAAP.
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?
I tend to agree that it's one heck of a weak "major new feature." But it's a grey area which could be argued either way. Apple is simply trying to protect its ass from the regulators and lawyers by not taking any chances.
Something doesn't seem quite right here. Either the law is wrong here
Bingo! Thank you very much you greedy bastards at Enron, Tyco, WorldCom et al for bringing the Sarbanes?Oxley Act upon us!
(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.
Actually, the law was changed. Well, the GAAP was changed, and that's what this is all about. It's the same issue which prompted Apple to charge for iOS updates for the iPod Touch, but not the very same updates on the iPhone. The two devices were accounted for differently. Apple lobbied to have the GAAP changed, it was, and Apple restated their accounting as a result (and at some expense).
Same issue here. Apple has two choices: Restate all their Mac hardware sales accounting, at considerable expense, or just charge a nominal fee until Lion comes out. Apple isn't going to do the former. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't accomplish the task before Lion ships anyhow. So you have two choices: Pay the 99¢, or wait until Lion. I'm opting for the latter, myself. Your mileage may vary.