As far as iLife updates to support new cameras: that is providing already-advertised features. Apple market Macs, OS X and iLife as coming with all the latest drivers necessary to use the latest cameras etc., so these updates ensure that the advertised capability of your Mac and software is maintained.
They advertise a list of supported cameras, they don't say they support all the latest cameras. Over the course of the year, the list of supported cameras grows, RAW support gets added for Nikons, new Canon models etc.
Same with iSync. The list of supported phones now is very different from the list at the time you bought a copy of OSX.
However, as has been pointed out already, this is a new law so what happened in the past may not be what happens now or in the future. If I'm understanding it correctly, the days of free software updates that include more than just bug fixes are over. That's plainly stupid as it puts American companies at a competitive disadvantage.
In Europe we wouldn't exactly consider a building dated 1926 "heritage".
If you would like to waste a 1626-1726 building you *might* get a reaction though.
Age is not the only factor for determining a buildings historic significance. Architecture didn't stand still since the turn of the century, even in Europe.
Having seen pictures of the house, I can see why it is not to his tastes (it's very large and hardly keeping with his minimal aesthetic). However, that doesn't really excuse running it into the ground in an attempt to circumvent the legal system - regardless of whether the house shou;d/shouldn't be protected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
In explaining its decision, the court claimed that Jobs had not shown proof that it would be unfeasible to bring the 1926 building back to its former glory...
He might struggle with this one a bit?? Being forced to restore the structure would be bitter tasting medicine.
If you just want to talk networking firmware, in the past Apple have also added WPA2 support and not charged for it. IMHO that's a more direct parallel.
If the SOX law is basically saying that you can't now add extra features to a product post sale without having to recognise some of the revenue in the quarter the new feature shipped?
Of course it's relevant. 802.11g becoming 802.11n is not getting an "extra feature". It's like getting a new hardware. How this is such a difficult concept to grasp, I do not understand.
WPA2??? WTF???? Look, if you buy an 802.11g device (router, AP, wireless LAN card, you name it), there is NO WAY that in the future you can turn it into an 802.11n device. No way. Just like if you buy an XGA display, there is no way you can magically change it into a UXGA display via firmware update. That's just how it is.
The ONLY reason something like that is possible this time around is because Apple actually shipped machines that ARE capable of 802.11n.... but didn't make that public. Adding "features" (like WPA2, or QoS, or whatever) via software/firmware update is NOT a more direct parallel. I'm sorry.
Age is not the only factor for determining a buildings historic significance. Architecture didn't stand still since the turn of the century, even in Europe.
Having seen pictures of the house, I can see why it is not to his tastes (it's very large and hardly keeping with his minimal aesthetic). However, that doesn't really excuse running it into the ground in an attempt to circumvent the legal system - regardless of whether the house shou;d/shouldn't be protected.
He might struggle with this one a bit?? Being forced to restore the structure would be bitter tasting medicine.
J
To me, it seems like California lefties. Really, it's a huge dilapidated house. Of course it's within his means to restore it, he's a billionaire. Bill Gates is rich enough to clone himself, that doesn't mean he's going to (or should) do it. Jobs also happens to OWN it and should be allowed to do just about whatever he wants to it. As far as I can tell, it's not listed on the National Register of Historic Places and even it if were, owners are still free to do as they want. So, it must be some State or Local issue, which is absurd.
That being said, I do understand historic significance. However, I think it's safe to say that most people know of this house simply because of the issues Jobs has been having with it, and not for some other reason.
WPA2??? WTF???? Look, if you buy an 802.11g device (router, AP, wireless LAN card, you name it), there is NO WAY that in the future you can turn it into an 802.11n device. No way. Just like if you buy an XGA display, there is no way you can magically change it into a UXGA display via firmware update. That's just how it is.
But people weren't buying a device capable of just 802.11g. The Core2Duo Macs when bought were capable of 802.11n even if it wasn't advertised. Apple isn't magically transplanting extra HARDWARE into them, they're enabling an existing unadvertised feature by software. Under the rules of SOX, any significant feature has a value that has to be recognised at the time it's enabled or the sale is not complete.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rawhead
The ONLY reason something like that is possible this time around is because Apple actually shipped machines that ARE capable of 802.11n.... but didn't make that public. Adding "features" (like WPA2, or QoS, or whatever) via software/firmware update is NOT a more direct parallel. I'm sorry.
That is EXACTLY like when they sold Airport Routers that weren't advertised as capable of supporting WPA2 but then later added that feature via a firmware update. The difference is that Apple are saying a software update from 802.11g support to 802.11n support is significant enough to fall foul of Sarbanes-Oxley.
I don't know the rules on what constitutes a 'significant' feature to SOX but that would seem to be the important point deciding at which point a company has to charge for the update.
If the law is new and Apple is attempting to comply with it by charging this fee, then history is not relevant.
If Apple feels they must start charging for other upgrades (like new templates, camera support, etc.) they will. And we the customers will gripe - hopefully gripe to our legislators and get them to change this onerous law. If enough companies inconvenience their customers to comply, and enough of them complain to Congress, the law will change.
(Things could get interesting if companies start reporting each other to the Feds for non-compliance. e.g. Apple reports MS because MS releases an update that Apple believes MS should charge for. How long before the lawyers start siccing the SEC (or whoever's responsible for SOX enforcement) on each other's companies?)
RE: The mansion
If the locality wants the house preserved then they should buy it or reimburse the owner (Steve) for lost use. I can't see how he would be legally obligated to preserve or restore the house if it was declared preservation worthy AFTER he bought the property.
If he wants to play hard ball he could probably set up a trust or shell corporation, sell or donate the property to it somehow, and disavow all association with the mansion. Play the old "sure, I have billions of dollars, but the new owner has no money and needs to tear the place down because of liability concerns."
If the locality wants the house preserved then they should buy it or reimburse the owner (Steve) for lost use. I can't see how he would be legally obligated to preserve or restore the house if it was declared preservation worthy AFTER he bought the property.
If he wants to play hard ball he could probably set up a trust or shell corporation, sell or donate the property to it somehow, and disavow all association with the mansion. Play the old "sure, I have billions of dollars, but the new owner has no money and needs to tear the place down because of liability concerns."
I'd threaten to move my multi-billion dollar company to another state.
Um, yes there is. If they were to charge for these fixes, you could sue for exactly the same thing. They sold you something that was less than the specification. Most of these are bug fixes which means the software does not behave in a way that was suggested at the time of sale.
What about the touchpad updates to allow two-finger scrolling in older notebooks? Or the 5G iPod update to make it something like 5.25G? Some searching functions were added and you could now play add-in games.
I don't know when SOX went into effect with respect to those updates though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rawhead
Those are the parallels you should be drawing. You bought a machine that does 802.11g, and suddenly you're going to have 802.11n.
The machine bought was advertised as "g" but it already contained "n" hardware in the same chip, so basically you are paying more to fully use the hardware you already have.
In Europe we wouldn't exactly consider a building dated 1926 "heritage".
If you would like to waste a 1626-1726 building you *might* get a reaction though.
Part of the reason the US doesn't have a whole lot from centuries ago is because of being too quick to demolish without considering the long term implications and this is the fix to curtail reckless demolition. In a local city, the city hall in a from last century was taken down less than 50 years ago due to the urban renewal fad, and now there's plenty of regret about it because many people only realized its architectural significance in the last two decades. And a recent developer wanted to demolish the new city hall despite Calder's work on the building, so said developer can build a new hotel. Thankfully that was stopped.
In some areas of Europe, buildings from 1926 almost don't exist because major cities were destroyed. Preserving the few buildings left in those cities from that era would be seen as a priority. Demolishing the last remaining Stalingrad building (now the center of a memorial) would erase the tragedy of the period. As noted, who owned it, who designed it and relevance to architecture are also considerations.
In Europe we wouldn't exactly consider a building dated 1926 "heritage".
If you would like to waste a 1626-1726 building you *might* get a reaction though.
1926 - could be Art Deco, and lots of Art Deco buildings in Europe are listed - Arsenal's old stadium, Highbury, the East and West stands are listed buildings because of the art deco design.
OK, it's not that I don't believe you, but what I want to see is a clear-cut example of a (in this case) motherboard that shipped without any indication that it can or will be able to in the future (through a BIOS update) allow HT to be turned on or become compatible with future hardware, and later provided that to you for free.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm always buying M/Bs under the premise that BIOS updates will be provided in the future for compatibility with future hardware.
In this case, NOBODY bought a late 2006 iMac (or whatever) under the premise that there was an 802.11n (draft) chip in it that will become activated. Some people (e.g., ppl who frequent these boards) may have known about that chip, but nobody SHOULD HAVE expected Apple to switch it on. So if they never did, none of us would have had the right to complain.
And Apple could have done that, if they wanted to make more dough through selling 802.11n cards. They simply would not have provided us with that patch. But they decided to, and suddenly people start bitching. I really don't get it.
We had a Compaq D530 at an old contract job I was on: he had to replace the CPU and the only one we had on hand was a HT proc, it would boot, but not utilize ht, after running this update HT worked...the computer had no HT marking, HT wasnt in the spec, but it worked, and we got HT and the thing flew through Autocad, to the end-users delight!
I think this one is is really inappropriate of Apple. In the Uk, no one is going to see the name as 'secur' 'ipod' they will read it as 'securi' 'pod' because there is a large and well known security firm called Securicor and the products intended function is obviously more closely related to a security function than an audio one.
From what I understand of trademark law (at least I think it's trademark law) you have to be seen to actively protect your trademark to keep it. If you do not actively protect your trademark, you could lose it to another company. Part of actively protecting it involves legally taking action against any company that even comes close to using your trademark, ie. suing any company that could be seen as using your trademark. Apple really has little choice in the matter, if they don't complain, a later lawsuite could use it against them. It often involves doing a lot of "frivolous" lawsuits in some cases. In this case, they may be too close..
Maybe a real lawyer can correct any mistakes I've made.
I don't know when SOX went into effect with respect to those updates though.
I believe SOX was passed in 2002, not sure if it went into effect in 02 or 03. Basically, it was such a nebulous piece of legislation (both in the requirements that needed to be met and the fines that would be applied), that most companies erred on the side of caution to ensure compliance by implementing processes and accounting controls that most would consider draconian. Only now are companies starting to figure out where the "sweet spot" of compliance is. And again, given all the attention Apple's accounting practices have been getting in the past several months, it's not surprising that they may be overly aggressive in their SOX compliance rigor.
To me, it seems like California lefties. Really, it's a huge dilapidated house. .....
I thought the argument was that SteveJ *let* the house go into a decayed state since he bought it. That is, there was some argument it was well taken care off and all good, then he bought it, and it sat for several(?) years while it rotted away as he waited to demolish it...
I'd threaten to move my multi-billion dollar company to another state.
LOL Moving Apple out of the SF Bay Area would kill their momentum. 8) ...They'd have to ship all their super-top-secret labs and stuff to another city. Mui Messy. Mui not Bueno. (yeah my Spanish is crrap)...
I thought the argument was that SteveJ *let* the house go into a decayed state since he bought it. That is, there was some argument it was well taken care off and all good, then he bought it, and it sat for several(?) years while it rotted away as he waited to demolish it...
I really doubt that a house in good repair will rot away due to not being lived in. The most I would expect would be heavy dust. Having people in the house doesn't make it more durable. If the roof fell in because no one was around to fix it when it showed signs of damage, well, it was already a poorly constructed roof to begin with. Make sense? Start with junk, end with junk.
I kinda read the article as meaning that the house was aesthetically displeasing AND in disrepair.
(btw, the roof thing is just my analogy. I have no idea if there is anything wrong with the roof.)
I guess the fact that this SOX thing is new, and that Apple's moves this time around may have been influenced by the recent backdating debacle, what has happened in the past, for Apple or any other company, is really irrelevant.
However, any enhancements that can be achieved by software or firmware updates I think is generally understood as something that potentially "could" be provided for free of charge, and generally, the users can and should expect a company to do so. So a firmware update to include new, improved security features (e.g., WPA2) or a BIOS update to accommodate cutting-edge technology (HT), etc., are all fine. Apple has done things like that in the past many times over for free and we all know it.
So, those of you nay-sayers, why don't you just ask yourself "Why this time?" Has Apple suddenly turned evil greedy? I mean, as a company, they've always been greedy, but this is nickels and dimes for them. So why? There must be a good reason.
I still maintain that this "patch" is fundamentally different from the addition of WPA2 to a wireless router or supporting HT on an M/B. Again those are all things that can (and WERE) achieved by software/firmware updates.
On the other hand, you cannot morph an 802.11g chip into an 802.11n chip via software/firmware update. YES YES I know these machines shipped with 802.11n. That's not the point. They were shipped AS 802.11g devices. And it's generally understood that there is NO way you can change an 802.11g chip into an 802.11n.
Now 802.11n chips, being cutting edge, are probably more expensive than 802.11g chips. For argument's sake, let's say the difference is $2 per chip (although that's probably way too high).
So, what if Apple provided the patch for free? It could potentially be seen that Apple had ALREADY charged it's customers the extra $2, even though they didn't provide the enhanced features (namely 802.11n) that the $2 was supposed to deliver. Essentially, it could be seen that Apple has been screwing over its customers for the past several months. Moreover, from every user that, for one reason or another, doesn't "upgrade" the chip (e.g., lacking technical prowess), it can be said that Apple downright stole $2. And from what I read, I believe that is precisely the kind of thing this SOX is supposed to prevent.
So rather, they don't factor in those $2 to the original selling price of the computers. And now they give the option (mind you, they're not MAKING you pay anything) to its customers to pay $2 to receive new technology for which the customers had NOT paid when they purchased the machine. Of course, not everybody will buy/apply the patch, so Apple will be losing $2 for each one of those people. But Apple "losing" money is OK. So long as they're not seen to have (and for certain customers continue to) "stolen" money from its customers.
Now, how exactly did the pricing go? I don't know. It's likely that it was all built-in to the price. Perhaps Apple got a deal and the 802.11n chips didn't cost a penny more than 802.11g chips. Perhaps Apple WILL actually profit from this patch ($2 minus however much it costs them to set up a system to collect that money -- let's not forget all the money they'll be paying the credit card companies for accepting VISA etc. payments). Who knows?
And frankly, at $2 for a feature I'd love to have, I don't give a crap. What's important for me is that Apple won't get involved in another scandal (and potentially threaten Jobs's position). And call me a fanboy, but if it requires me to cough up $2 (again, I DON'T have to pay a single penny if I don't want to) for this patch to secure Jobs's reign, I'm happy to shell it out.
Comments
As far as iLife updates to support new cameras: that is providing already-advertised features. Apple market Macs, OS X and iLife as coming with all the latest drivers necessary to use the latest cameras etc., so these updates ensure that the advertised capability of your Mac and software is maintained.
They advertise a list of supported cameras, they don't say they support all the latest cameras. Over the course of the year, the list of supported cameras grows, RAW support gets added for Nikons, new Canon models etc.
Same with iSync. The list of supported phones now is very different from the list at the time you bought a copy of OSX.
However, as has been pointed out already, this is a new law so what happened in the past may not be what happens now or in the future. If I'm understanding it correctly, the days of free software updates that include more than just bug fixes are over. That's plainly stupid as it puts American companies at a competitive disadvantage.
"1926 building" ... "Uphold Our Heritage"
How cute.
In Europe we wouldn't exactly consider a building dated 1926 "heritage".
If you would like to waste a 1626-1726 building you *might* get a reaction though.
Age is not the only factor for determining a buildings historic significance. Architecture didn't stand still since the turn of the century, even in Europe.
Having seen pictures of the house, I can see why it is not to his tastes (it's very large and hardly keeping with his minimal aesthetic). However, that doesn't really excuse running it into the ground in an attempt to circumvent the legal system - regardless of whether the house shou;d/shouldn't be protected.
In explaining its decision, the court claimed that Jobs had not shown proof that it would be unfeasible to bring the 1926 building back to its former glory...
He might struggle with this one a bit??
J
"1926 building" ... "Uphold Our Heritage"
How cute.
In Europe we wouldn't exactly consider a building dated 1926 "heritage".
If you would like to waste a 1626-1726 building you *might* get a reaction though.
Not entirely true...
.
.
Irrelevant.
If you just want to talk networking firmware, in the past Apple have also added WPA2 support and not charged for it. IMHO that's a more direct parallel.
If the SOX law is basically saying that you can't now add extra features to a product post sale without having to recognise some of the revenue in the quarter the new feature shipped?
Of course it's relevant. 802.11g becoming 802.11n is not getting an "extra feature". It's like getting a new hardware. How this is such a difficult concept to grasp, I do not understand.
WPA2??? WTF???? Look, if you buy an 802.11g device (router, AP, wireless LAN card, you name it), there is NO WAY that in the future you can turn it into an 802.11n device. No way. Just like if you buy an XGA display, there is no way you can magically change it into a UXGA display via firmware update. That's just how it is.
The ONLY reason something like that is possible this time around is because Apple actually shipped machines that ARE capable of 802.11n.... but didn't make that public. Adding "features" (like WPA2, or QoS, or whatever) via software/firmware update is NOT a more direct parallel. I'm sorry.
Age is not the only factor for determining a buildings historic significance. Architecture didn't stand still since the turn of the century, even in Europe.
Having seen pictures of the house, I can see why it is not to his tastes (it's very large and hardly keeping with his minimal aesthetic). However, that doesn't really excuse running it into the ground in an attempt to circumvent the legal system - regardless of whether the house shou;d/shouldn't be protected.
He might struggle with this one a bit??
J
To me, it seems like California lefties. Really, it's a huge dilapidated house. Of course it's within his means to restore it, he's a billionaire. Bill Gates is rich enough to clone himself, that doesn't mean he's going to (or should) do it. Jobs also happens to OWN it and should be allowed to do just about whatever he wants to it. As far as I can tell, it's not listed on the National Register of Historic Places and even it if were, owners are still free to do as they want. So, it must be some State or Local issue, which is absurd.
That being said, I do understand historic significance. However, I think it's safe to say that most people know of this house simply because of the issues Jobs has been having with it, and not for some other reason.
WPA2??? WTF???? Look, if you buy an 802.11g device (router, AP, wireless LAN card, you name it), there is NO WAY that in the future you can turn it into an 802.11n device. No way. Just like if you buy an XGA display, there is no way you can magically change it into a UXGA display via firmware update. That's just how it is.
But people weren't buying a device capable of just 802.11g. The Core2Duo Macs when bought were capable of 802.11n even if it wasn't advertised. Apple isn't magically transplanting extra HARDWARE into them, they're enabling an existing unadvertised feature by software. Under the rules of SOX, any significant feature has a value that has to be recognised at the time it's enabled or the sale is not complete.
The ONLY reason something like that is possible this time around is because Apple actually shipped machines that ARE capable of 802.11n.... but didn't make that public. Adding "features" (like WPA2, or QoS, or whatever) via software/firmware update is NOT a more direct parallel. I'm sorry.
That is EXACTLY like when they sold Airport Routers that weren't advertised as capable of supporting WPA2 but then later added that feature via a firmware update. The difference is that Apple are saying a software update from 802.11g support to 802.11n support is significant enough to fall foul of Sarbanes-Oxley.
I don't know the rules on what constitutes a 'significant' feature to SOX but that would seem to be the important point deciding at which point a company has to charge for the update.
RE: SOX
If the law is new and Apple is attempting to comply with it by charging this fee, then history is not relevant.
If Apple feels they must start charging for other upgrades (like new templates, camera support, etc.) they will. And we the customers will gripe - hopefully gripe to our legislators and get them to change this onerous law. If enough companies inconvenience their customers to comply, and enough of them complain to Congress, the law will change.
(Things could get interesting if companies start reporting each other to the Feds for non-compliance. e.g. Apple reports MS because MS releases an update that Apple believes MS should charge for. How long before the lawyers start siccing the SEC (or whoever's responsible for SOX enforcement) on each other's companies?)
RE: The mansion
If the locality wants the house preserved then they should buy it or reimburse the owner (Steve) for lost use. I can't see how he would be legally obligated to preserve or restore the house if it was declared preservation worthy AFTER he bought the property.
If he wants to play hard ball he could probably set up a trust or shell corporation, sell or donate the property to it somehow, and disavow all association with the mansion. Play the old "sure, I have billions of dollars, but the new owner has no money and needs to tear the place down because of liability concerns."
- Jasen.
RE: The mansion
If the locality wants the house preserved then they should buy it or reimburse the owner (Steve) for lost use. I can't see how he would be legally obligated to preserve or restore the house if it was declared preservation worthy AFTER he bought the property.
If he wants to play hard ball he could probably set up a trust or shell corporation, sell or donate the property to it somehow, and disavow all association with the mansion. Play the old "sure, I have billions of dollars, but the new owner has no money and needs to tear the place down because of liability concerns."
I'd threaten to move my multi-billion dollar company to another state.
Um, yes there is. If they were to charge for these fixes, you could sue for exactly the same thing. They sold you something that was less than the specification. Most of these are bug fixes which means the software does not behave in a way that was suggested at the time of sale.
What about the touchpad updates to allow two-finger scrolling in older notebooks? Or the 5G iPod update to make it something like 5.25G? Some searching functions were added and you could now play add-in games.
I don't know when SOX went into effect with respect to those updates though.
Those are the parallels you should be drawing. You bought a machine that does 802.11g, and suddenly you're going to have 802.11n.
The machine bought was advertised as "g" but it already contained "n" hardware in the same chip, so basically you are paying more to fully use the hardware you already have.
"1926 building" ... "Uphold Our Heritage"
How cute.
In Europe we wouldn't exactly consider a building dated 1926 "heritage".
If you would like to waste a 1626-1726 building you *might* get a reaction though.
Part of the reason the US doesn't have a whole lot from centuries ago is because of being too quick to demolish without considering the long term implications and this is the fix to curtail reckless demolition. In a local city, the city hall in a from last century was taken down less than 50 years ago due to the urban renewal fad, and now there's plenty of regret about it because many people only realized its architectural significance in the last two decades. And a recent developer wanted to demolish the new city hall despite Calder's work on the building, so said developer can build a new hotel. Thankfully that was stopped.
In some areas of Europe, buildings from 1926 almost don't exist because major cities were destroyed. Preserving the few buildings left in those cities from that era would be seen as a priority. Demolishing the last remaining Stalingrad building (now the center of a memorial) would erase the tragedy of the period. As noted, who owned it, who designed it and relevance to architecture are also considerations.
So, if this is all about Sarbanes-Oxley, will there be a charge in countries which does not have this law too?
No, because the law affects the company regardless. The law corresponds to the location of the company, not of the customer.
"1926 building" ... "Uphold Our Heritage"
How cute.
In Europe we wouldn't exactly consider a building dated 1926 "heritage".
If you would like to waste a 1626-1726 building you *might* get a reaction though.
1926 - could be Art Deco, and lots of Art Deco buildings in Europe are listed - Arsenal's old stadium, Highbury, the East and West stands are listed buildings because of the art deco design.
OK, it's not that I don't believe you, but what I want to see is a clear-cut example of a (in this case) motherboard that shipped without any indication that it can or will be able to in the future (through a BIOS update) allow HT to be turned on or become compatible with future hardware, and later provided that to you for free.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm always buying M/Bs under the premise that BIOS updates will be provided in the future for compatibility with future hardware.
In this case, NOBODY bought a late 2006 iMac (or whatever) under the premise that there was an 802.11n (draft) chip in it that will become activated. Some people (e.g., ppl who frequent these boards) may have known about that chip, but nobody SHOULD HAVE expected Apple to switch it on. So if they never did, none of us would have had the right to complain.
And Apple could have done that, if they wanted to make more dough through selling 802.11n cards. They simply would not have provided us with that patch. But they decided to, and suddenly people start bitching. I really don't get it.
We had a Compaq D530 at an old contract job I was on: he had to replace the CPU and the only one we had on hand was a HT proc, it would boot, but not utilize ht, after running this update HT worked...the computer had no HT marking, HT wasnt in the spec, but it worked, and we got HT and the thing flew through Autocad, to the end-users delight!
I think this one is is really inappropriate of Apple. In the Uk, no one is going to see the name as 'secur' 'ipod' they will read it as 'securi' 'pod' because there is a large and well known security firm called Securicor and the products intended function is obviously more closely related to a security function than an audio one.
From what I understand of trademark law (at least I think it's trademark law) you have to be seen to actively protect your trademark to keep it. If you do not actively protect your trademark, you could lose it to another company. Part of actively protecting it involves legally taking action against any company that even comes close to using your trademark, ie. suing any company that could be seen as using your trademark. Apple really has little choice in the matter, if they don't complain, a later lawsuite could use it against them. It often involves doing a lot of "frivolous" lawsuits in some cases. In this case, they may be too close..
Maybe a real lawyer can correct any mistakes I've made.
I don't know when SOX went into effect with respect to those updates though.
I believe SOX was passed in 2002, not sure if it went into effect in 02 or 03. Basically, it was such a nebulous piece of legislation (both in the requirements that needed to be met and the fines that would be applied), that most companies erred on the side of caution to ensure compliance by implementing processes and accounting controls that most would consider draconian. Only now are companies starting to figure out where the "sweet spot" of compliance is. And again, given all the attention Apple's accounting practices have been getting in the past several months, it's not surprising that they may be overly aggressive in their SOX compliance rigor.
To me, it seems like California lefties. Really, it's a huge dilapidated house. .....
I thought the argument was that SteveJ *let* the house go into a decayed state since he bought it. That is, there was some argument it was well taken care off and all good, then he bought it, and it sat for several(?) years while it rotted away as he waited to demolish it...
I'd threaten to move my multi-billion dollar company to another state.
LOL
I thought the argument was that SteveJ *let* the house go into a decayed state since he bought it. That is, there was some argument it was well taken care off and all good, then he bought it, and it sat for several(?) years while it rotted away as he waited to demolish it...
I really doubt that a house in good repair will rot away due to not being lived in. The most I would expect would be heavy dust. Having people in the house doesn't make it more durable. If the roof fell in because no one was around to fix it when it showed signs of damage, well, it was already a poorly constructed roof to begin with. Make sense? Start with junk, end with junk.
I kinda read the article as meaning that the house was aesthetically displeasing AND in disrepair.
(btw, the roof thing is just my analogy. I have no idea if there is anything wrong with the roof.)
However, any enhancements that can be achieved by software or firmware updates I think is generally understood as something that potentially "could" be provided for free of charge, and generally, the users can and should expect a company to do so. So a firmware update to include new, improved security features (e.g., WPA2) or a BIOS update to accommodate cutting-edge technology (HT), etc., are all fine. Apple has done things like that in the past many times over for free and we all know it.
So, those of you nay-sayers, why don't you just ask yourself "Why this time?" Has Apple suddenly turned evil greedy? I mean, as a company, they've always been greedy, but this is nickels and dimes for them. So why? There must be a good reason.
I still maintain that this "patch" is fundamentally different from the addition of WPA2 to a wireless router or supporting HT on an M/B. Again those are all things that can (and WERE) achieved by software/firmware updates.
On the other hand, you cannot morph an 802.11g chip into an 802.11n chip via software/firmware update. YES YES I know these machines shipped with 802.11n. That's not the point. They were shipped AS 802.11g devices. And it's generally understood that there is NO way you can change an 802.11g chip into an 802.11n.
Now 802.11n chips, being cutting edge, are probably more expensive than 802.11g chips. For argument's sake, let's say the difference is $2 per chip (although that's probably way too high).
So, what if Apple provided the patch for free? It could potentially be seen that Apple had ALREADY charged it's customers the extra $2, even though they didn't provide the enhanced features (namely 802.11n) that the $2 was supposed to deliver. Essentially, it could be seen that Apple has been screwing over its customers for the past several months. Moreover, from every user that, for one reason or another, doesn't "upgrade" the chip (e.g., lacking technical prowess), it can be said that Apple downright stole $2. And from what I read, I believe that is precisely the kind of thing this SOX is supposed to prevent.
So rather, they don't factor in those $2 to the original selling price of the computers. And now they give the option (mind you, they're not MAKING you pay anything) to its customers to pay $2 to receive new technology for which the customers had NOT paid when they purchased the machine. Of course, not everybody will buy/apply the patch, so Apple will be losing $2 for each one of those people. But Apple "losing" money is OK. So long as they're not seen to have (and for certain customers continue to) "stolen" money from its customers.
Now, how exactly did the pricing go? I don't know. It's likely that it was all built-in to the price. Perhaps Apple got a deal and the 802.11n chips didn't cost a penny more than 802.11g chips. Perhaps Apple WILL actually profit from this patch ($2 minus however much it costs them to set up a system to collect that money -- let's not forget all the money they'll be paying the credit card companies for accepting VISA etc. payments). Who knows?
And frankly, at $2 for a feature I'd love to have, I don't give a crap. What's important for me is that Apple won't get involved in another scandal (and potentially threaten Jobs's position). And call me a fanboy, but if it requires me to cough up $2 (again, I DON'T have to pay a single penny if I don't want to) for this patch to secure Jobs's reign, I'm happy to shell it out.