Bluetooth 4.2 consists of a number of features. Some of these features are higher level, like privacy extensions, and can be updated in software. Some features, like the longer packet length, require new hardware.
Either my iPhone 6 came with the 4.2 capable hardware and Apple just didn't implement it in software or it didn't. If it doesn't have all the features of 4.2, it's not 4.2.
No, they do, but if you're not willing to consider current and predicted fluctuations in exchange rates, a VAT, import tariffs, HW and licensing fee requirements, or 3rd-party retailers in your assessment it's not surprising that you're understand what is going on.
I do consider them. And I'd say they make things unfair. Under your argument Apple should be normalizing them, but they aren't, while a $1.99 fee that is only legally mandated in the USA is a fairness issue that needs to be reflected internationally? What nonsense. Sales taxes are legally mandated in the UK, but Apple don't apply a 20% sales tax in the USA for fairness reasons. They don't give a shit about that.
You've pulled this fairness argument out of your ass and it doesn't make any sense.
I do consider them. And I'd say they make things unfair. Under your argument Apple should be normalizing them, but they aren't, while a $1.99 fee that is only legally mandated in the USA is a fairness issue that needs to be reflected internationally? What nonsense. Sales taxes are legally mandated in the UK, but Apple don't apply a 20% sales tax in the USA for fairness reasons. They don't give a shit about that.
You've pulled this fairness argument out of your ass and it doesn't make any sense.
If you're going to make a counter argument that it was just a ridiculously myopic money grab where Apple, a US company, lied about accounting practices, you better back up your conspiracy theory with some actual proof.
Additionally, if there was no legal requirement then why all those accounting changes that arose when Apple decided to offer free, major OS updates? Just trying to keep the lie going, I guess¡ :rolleyes:
I definitely didn't say there was no legal requirement. In fact you, with your "fairness" angle are implying that Apple did what they did for reasons other than legality.
I definitely didn't say there was no legal requirement. In fact you, with your "fairness" angle are implying that Apple did what they did for reasons other than legality.
The lie is yours.
Yes, they do balance their prices across borders, but as I stated, you need to consider several aspects, which you clearly didn't do despite your previous claims.
Those aspects are my counter argument. Apple does not have "fair" prices across territories because of import duties, sales taxes and the costs of business in different countries. These "aspects" means that iPhones cost more in country A than country B. In your simplistic world of "fair" charges across the entire globe for wifi-N activation, Apple would be normalizing the whole thing. They aren't. Apple don't care about fairness in pricing to consumers across borders, they price according to local costs and what the market will bear and how they can profit maximize.
By all means, keep setting up the straw men for me to knock down. A smart move would be to ask me what I actually think rather than making shit up, but the latter seems to be your style, so whatever.
Bluetooth 4.2 consists of a number of features. Some of these features are higher level, like privacy extensions, and can be updated in software. Some features, like the longer packet length, require new hardware.
Either my iPhone 6 came with the 4.2 capable hardware and Apple just didn't implement it in software or it didn't. If it doesn't have all the features of 4.2, it's not 4.2.
It's also entirely possible Apple slipstreamed BT 4.2 hardware into the latest iPhone 6/6+ hardware (built after the 6S/6S+ were released) without updating model numbers or product IDs. It would be a bad thing to do IMO from a software quality assurance perspective, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have done it.
If that were the case, you might still have BT 4.0 in your iPhone 6/6+, but a new iPhone 6/6+ could have BT 4.2.
Those aspects are my counter argument. Apple does not have "fair" prices across territories because of import duties, sales taxes and the costs of business in different countries. These "aspects" means that iPhones cost more in country A than country B. In your simplistic world of "fair" charges across the entire globe for wifi-N activation, Apple would be normalizing the whole thing. They aren't. Apple don't care about fairness in pricing to consumers across borders, they price according to local costs and what the market will bear and how they can profit maximize.
By all means, keep setting up the straw men for me to knock down. A smart move would be to ask me what I actually think rather than making shit up, but the latter seems to be your style, so whatever.
1) You signed up in 2009. Can you learn to fucking use the forum properly instead of your passive-aggressive crap to get the last word in without the other party knowing that you've replied.
2) Those aspects are a large part of why their pricing isn't likely exactly the same as the US cost in dollars at a given moment in time. Those are why its fair.
3) So you're claim is that the US, of all the 150+(?) countries Apple does business is the only one that laws about accounting that would have required any fee, as per your comment "only legally mandated in the USA." Great! Now can you explain what expertise you have in knowing all the accounting laws for all countries? I would doubt any one person at Apple, in their accounting division, would be able to make such a blanket statement about so many nations and so many laws... but you did.
4) Let's say that Mauritius had no such accounting laws in place, and that despite being a US company, there was no US accounting laws that would carry over back to the US. So on apple.com (US) they charge $1.99 for the firmware download, but in Mauritius they can make it free for those dozens(?) of customers with the right Macs, so they do at apple.com/mu/. How long do you think it would take before people realize they can slightly change the website URL to get the SW for free? What happens to those other customers that feel cheated for willingly having paid the $1.99 (think about what happened when Apple dropped the 4GB iPhone and dropped the price of the 8GB iPhone months later)? What happens with Apple when the law realizes they used such a lame solution to skate the law (think about the ridiculous inquiries they get every year as it is)?
5) Try to be fair, try to be objective, and most of all, try not let your emotion cloud your judgement.
I do consider them. And I'd say they make things unfair. Under your argument Apple should be normalizing them, but they aren't, while a $1.99 fee that is only legally mandated in the USA is a fairness issue that needs to be reflected internationally? What nonsense. Sales taxes are legally mandated in the UK, but Apple don't apply a 20% sales tax in the USA for fairness reasons. They don't give a shit about that.
You've pulled this fairness argument out of your ass and it doesn't make any sense.
Google Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
That made it ILLEGAL to deliver Products (including rolling out additional functionality) after the product has been paid and accounted for.
So Apple had to defer income from all sold products by three years in order to accommodate for functionality added through software updates (the iPhone was set up to be accounted for in this way from the start). In turn, they could finally make software updates entirely free.
1) You signed up in 2009. Can you learn to fucking use the forum properly instead of your passive-aggressive crap to get the last word in without the other party knowing that you've replied.
I don't recognise your definition of using "the forum properly". I want to reply, I click the reply button. I dislike excessive quoting when it's really not necessary. You should be able to see that someone has replied in a thread you're posted in. If not, no matter. It's not meant passive-aggressively, it's how every other forum I use works, and I can't be bothered to change. I don't see any rules of using the forum posted anywhere here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismY
2) Those aspects are a large part of why their pricing isn't likely exactly the same as the US cost in dollars at a given moment in time. Those are why its fair.
So why are you using a completely different rule to claim that a $1.99 charge applied globally would be fair, even if it were not legally required in other territories? Your logic makes no sense. Either uneven global pricing is fair because of local laws, and the $1.99 charge is unfair because local laws do not mandate it; or uneven global pricing as a response to local laws is unfair, and the global $1.99 is fair. Your distinction seems arbitrary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismY
3) So you're claim is that the US, of all the 150+(?) countries Apple does business is the only one that laws about accounting that would have required any fee, as per your comment "only legally mandated in the USA." Great! Now can you explain what expertise you have in knowing all the accounting laws for all countries? I would doubt any one person at Apple, in their accounting division, would be able to make such a blanket statement about so many nations and so many laws... but you did.
Nope, never made that claim. My "on?ly legally mandated in the USA" text was setting out what your claim was, not mine. I also don't claim or even imply the accountancy expertise that you're trying to shame me into admitting ignorance of. I'm ok with that, and don't think it's particularly relevant. Other countries have certainly not implemented Sarbanes-Oxley; it's a US law.
However, (you didn't ask what i actually thought, but I'll offer it anyway) as the law in question is an accountancy law, I'm not so sure that it doesn't "apply" to every territory that Apple does business in anyway, since it concerns how Apple books the revenue, not the local terms of the sale. I'm not sure how this sits in relation to Apple's structure and revenue holding of overseas sales, but if the global sales are being recorded on their US GAAP returns, then the accountancy rules may apply wherever the sale was.
But that has never been the argument. The dispute is about your categorical statement that the $1.99 charge was about fairness, which is bogus, and certainly not something that you have any certain knowledge about.
PS. "your"
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismY
4) Let's say that Mauritius had no such accounting laws in place, and that despite being a US company, there was no US accounting laws that would carry over back to the US. So on apple.com (US) they charge $1.99 for the firmware download, but in Mauritius they can make it free for those dozens(?) of customers with the right Macs, so they do at apple.com/mu/. How long do you think it would take before people realize they can slightly change the website URL to get the SW for free? What happens to those other customers that feel cheated for willingly having paid the $1.99 (think about what happened when Apple dropped the 4GB iPhone and dropped the price of the 8GB iPhone months later)? What happens with Apple when the law realizes they used such a lame solution to skate the law (think about the ridiculous inquiries they get every year as it is)?
I may be wrong, but from recollection I think the software in question was pushed through the App Store, or maybe Software Update. That localisation and Apple's control would prevent the majority of regular users from doing what you describe. Some clever users could doubtless access App Stores for other countries, but hardly a major concern.
If your argument is shifting to say that the blanket charge was Apple's hedge and convenient catch all solution against being accidentally in breach of the accountancy law from those clever users, I think you may be more on the mark there. But that's a fair shift from your original stance that it was about fairness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismY
5) Try to be fair, try to be objective, and most of all, try not let your emotion cloud your judgement.
Most of all I'm trying not to let the made up shit you're saying to cloud my argument. Would help if you just respond to things I actually say, not stuff that you imagine I might be saying.
That made it ILLEGAL to deliver Products (including rolling out additional functionality) after the product has been paid and accounted for.
So Apple had to defer income from all sold products by three years in order to accommodate for functionality added through software updates (the iPhone was set up to be accounted for in this way from the start). In turn, they could finally make software updates entirely free.
I know what the act is thanks. That isn't the issue.
Also, some who are more familiar with the inner workings of accountancy and the particular provisions of Sarbanes Oxley than I am think Apple didn't really need to charge extra, providing they were properly recognising revenue in the first place (and surely they were), they were probably just playing it safe (and earning a little extra change never hurts): http://www.phirephoenix.com/1463/hey-apple-stop-hiding-behind-sarbanes-oxley/
So according to an article over at Ars, the BT 4.2 features that are implementable in a firmware update are the privacy features, "Privacy features may be available via firmware update, but it does ultimately depend on the manufacturer implementation. With Bluetooth 4.2, Bluetooth beacons attempting to connect to and track your device can't do so unless you've given them permission."
As far as the other features, "The increased speed and packet size features will require a hardware update."
Since unrestricted beacon tracking was by far the creepiest BT 4.0 feature, it's good that privacy around that can be addressed on a firmware/software basis. Hopefully, someone at one of the tech sites will drill down on this...
This new updates about bluetooth 4.2 left most scratching their balls/head. Did Apple originally ship iphone 6 or ipad air 2 capable with BT 4.2 chip and just firmware update is required to bring it to full IEEE Standard 4.2 level which just finalized or Apple quietly slipping-in BT 4.2 capable chip(replacing older) into iphone 6 and ipad air 2 being build ? How do you test your iphone 6 or ipad air 2 is BT 4.2 capable and at what level of functionalities ?
Will upcoming Apple TV supports BT 4.2 ? Too many questions and Apple may want to put out some short of explanation to help users understand 4.2 update a bit better.
Comments
If my Iphone 6
Bluetooth 4.2 consists of a number of features. Some of these features are higher level, like privacy extensions, and can be updated in software. Some features, like the longer packet length, require new hardware.
Either my iPhone 6 came with the 4.2 capable hardware and Apple just didn't implement it in software or it didn't. If it doesn't have all the features of 4.2, it's not 4.2.
Which is it? What BT chip is in iPhone 6s? I could not find it on iFixit's teardown of the iP6.
You've pulled this fairness argument out of your ass and it doesn't make any sense.
If you're going to make a counter argument that it was just a ridiculously myopic money grab where Apple, a US company, lied about accounting practices, you better back up your conspiracy theory with some actual proof.
Additionally, if there was no legal requirement then why all those accounting changes that arose when Apple decided to offer free, major OS updates? Just trying to keep the lie going, I guess¡ :rolleyes:
The lie is yours.
Yes, they do balance their prices across borders, but as I stated, you need to consider several aspects, which you clearly didn't do despite your previous claims.
By all means, keep setting up the straw men for me to knock down. A smart move would be to ask me what I actually think rather than making shit up, but the latter seems to be your style, so whatever.
It's also entirely possible Apple slipstreamed BT 4.2 hardware into the latest iPhone 6/6+ hardware (built after the 6S/6S+ were released) without updating model numbers or product IDs. It would be a bad thing to do IMO from a software quality assurance perspective, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have done it.
If that were the case, you might still have BT 4.0 in your iPhone 6/6+, but a new iPhone 6/6+ could have BT 4.2.
1) You signed up in 2009. Can you learn to fucking use the forum properly instead of your passive-aggressive crap to get the last word in without the other party knowing that you've replied.
2) Those aspects are a large part of why their pricing isn't likely exactly the same as the US cost in dollars at a given moment in time. Those are why its fair.
3) So you're claim is that the US, of all the 150+(?) countries Apple does business is the only one that laws about accounting that would have required any fee, as per your comment "only legally mandated in the USA." Great! Now can you explain what expertise you have in knowing all the accounting laws for all countries? I would doubt any one person at Apple, in their accounting division, would be able to make such a blanket statement about so many nations and so many laws... but you did.
4) Let's say that Mauritius had no such accounting laws in place, and that despite being a US company, there was no US accounting laws that would carry over back to the US. So on apple.com (US) they charge $1.99 for the firmware download, but in Mauritius they can make it free for those dozens(?) of customers with the right Macs, so they do at apple.com/mu/. How long do you think it would take before people realize they can slightly change the website URL to get the SW for free? What happens to those other customers that feel cheated for willingly having paid the $1.99 (think about what happened when Apple dropped the 4GB iPhone and dropped the price of the 8GB iPhone months later)? What happens with Apple when the law realizes they used such a lame solution to skate the law (think about the ridiculous inquiries they get every year as it is)?
5) Try to be fair, try to be objective, and most of all, try not let your emotion cloud your judgement.
You guys slay me! SMH
Google Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
That made it ILLEGAL to deliver Products (including rolling out additional functionality) after the product has been paid and accounted for.
So Apple had to defer income from all sold products by three years in order to accommodate for functionality added through software updates (the iPhone was set up to be accounted for in this way from the start). In turn, they could finally make software updates entirely free.
1) You signed up in 2009. Can you learn to fucking use the forum properly instead of your passive-aggressive crap to get the last word in without the other party knowing that you've replied.
I don't recognise your definition of using "the forum properly". I want to reply, I click the reply button. I dislike excessive quoting when it's really not necessary. You should be able to see that someone has replied in a thread you're posted in. If not, no matter. It's not meant passive-aggressively, it's how every other forum I use works, and I can't be bothered to change. I don't see any rules of using the forum posted anywhere here.
2) Those aspects are a large part of why their pricing isn't likely exactly the same as the US cost in dollars at a given moment in time. Those are why its fair.
So why are you using a completely different rule to claim that a $1.99 charge applied globally would be fair, even if it were not legally required in other territories? Your logic makes no sense. Either uneven global pricing is fair because of local laws, and the $1.99 charge is unfair because local laws do not mandate it; or uneven global pricing as a response to local laws is unfair, and the global $1.99 is fair. Your distinction seems arbitrary.
3) So you're claim is that the US, of all the 150+(?) countries Apple does business is the only one that laws about accounting that would have required any fee, as per your comment "only legally mandated in the USA." Great! Now can you explain what expertise you have in knowing all the accounting laws for all countries? I would doubt any one person at Apple, in their accounting division, would be able to make such a blanket statement about so many nations and so many laws... but you did.
Nope, never made that claim. My "on?ly legally mandated in the USA" text was setting out what your claim was, not mine. I also don't claim or even imply the accountancy expertise that you're trying to shame me into admitting ignorance of. I'm ok with that, and don't think it's particularly relevant. Other countries have certainly not implemented Sarbanes-Oxley; it's a US law.
However, (you didn't ask what i actually thought, but I'll offer it anyway) as the law in question is an accountancy law, I'm not so sure that it doesn't "apply" to every territory that Apple does business in anyway, since it concerns how Apple books the revenue, not the local terms of the sale. I'm not sure how this sits in relation to Apple's structure and revenue holding of overseas sales, but if the global sales are being recorded on their US GAAP returns, then the accountancy rules may apply wherever the sale was.
But that has never been the argument. The dispute is about your categorical statement that the $1.99 charge was about fairness, which is bogus, and certainly not something that you have any certain knowledge about.
4) Let's say that Mauritius had no such accounting laws in place, and that despite being a US company, there was no US accounting laws that would carry over back to the US. So on apple.com (US) they charge $1.99 for the firmware download, but in Mauritius they can make it free for those dozens(?) of customers with the right Macs, so they do at apple.com/mu/. How long do you think it would take before people realize they can slightly change the website URL to get the SW for free? What happens to those other customers that feel cheated for willingly having paid the $1.99 (think about what happened when Apple dropped the 4GB iPhone and dropped the price of the 8GB iPhone months later)? What happens with Apple when the law realizes they used such a lame solution to skate the law (think about the ridiculous inquiries they get every year as it is)?
I may be wrong, but from recollection I think the software in question was pushed through the App Store, or maybe Software Update. That localisation and Apple's control would prevent the majority of regular users from doing what you describe. Some clever users could doubtless access App Stores for other countries, but hardly a major concern.
If your argument is shifting to say that the blanket charge was Apple's hedge and convenient catch all solution against being accidentally in breach of the accountancy law from those clever users, I think you may be more on the mark there. But that's a fair shift from your original stance that it was about fairness.
5) Try to be fair, try to be objective, and most of all, try not let your emotion cloud your judgement.
Most of all I'm trying not to let the made up shit you're saying to cloud my argument. Would help if you just respond to things I actually say, not stuff that you imagine I might be saying.
Google Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
That made it ILLEGAL to deliver Products (including rolling out additional functionality) after the product has been paid and accounted for.
So Apple had to defer income from all sold products by three years in order to accommodate for functionality added through software updates (the iPhone was set up to be accounted for in this way from the start). In turn, they could finally make software updates entirely free.
I know what the act is thanks. That isn't the issue.
Also, some who are more familiar with the inner workings of accountancy and the particular provisions of Sarbanes Oxley than I am think Apple didn't really need to charge extra, providing they were properly recognising revenue in the first place (and surely they were), they were probably just playing it safe (and earning a little extra change never hurts): http://www.phirephoenix.com/1463/hey-apple-stop-hiding-behind-sarbanes-oxley/
So according to an article over at Ars, the BT 4.2 features that are implementable in a firmware update are the privacy features, "Privacy features may be available via firmware update, but it does ultimately depend on the manufacturer implementation. With Bluetooth 4.2, Bluetooth beacons attempting to connect to and track your device can't do so unless you've given them permission."
As far as the other features, "The increased speed and packet size features will require a hardware update."
Since unrestricted beacon tracking was by far the creepiest BT 4.0 feature, it's good that privacy around that can be addressed on a firmware/software basis. Hopefully, someone at one of the tech sites will drill down on this...
Nice of Apple to ignore other Bluetooth 4.0 devices capable of at least being upgraded to 4.1, like the 5s.
What BT 4.1 features were you hoping to get, that wouldn't require new hardware (i.e. strictly via firmware update)?
This new updates about bluetooth 4.2 left most scratching their balls/head. Did Apple originally ship iphone 6 or ipad air 2 capable with BT 4.2 chip and just firmware update is required to bring it to full IEEE Standard 4.2 level which just finalized or Apple quietly slipping-in BT 4.2 capable chip(replacing older) into iphone 6 and ipad air 2 being build ? How do you test your iphone 6 or ipad air 2 is BT 4.2 capable and at what level of functionalities ?
Will upcoming Apple TV supports BT 4.2 ? Too many questions and Apple may want to put out some short of explanation to help users understand 4.2 update a bit better.
http://www.facebook.com/KSOFT.CC/videos/729395580499090/