The actually asked accounting experts (there's a concept!). While Apple didn't have to charge a fee, it is the best of the three possibilities. The other two: sell it as a standalone app so that you establish a market price, or give it away and don't book any revenues until it's enabled (meaning the total revenues for Apple computers in the past quarter would be only from selling the 17" iMacs that don't have 'n' capability).
Get over it, already.
How many people who bought the 1.6 million Macs sold last quarter are going to buy a 3rd party 'n' router (so they would need to pay for the enabler)? Maybe 10%? That's $320,000, which won't even cover half the legal fees Apple has to pay to the bloggers they sued. It's not a moneymaker.
The actually asked accounting experts (there's a concept!). While Apple didn't have to charge a fee, it is the best of the three possibilities. The other two: sell it as a standalone app so that you establish a market price, or give it away and don't book any revenues until it's enabled (meaning the total revenues for Apple computers in the past quarter would be only from selling the 17" iMacs that don't have 'n' capability).
Get over it, already.
How many people who bought the 1.6 million Macs sold last quarter are going to buy a 3rd party 'n' router (so they would need to pay for the enabler)? Maybe 10%? That's $320,000, which won't even cover half the legal fees Apple has to pay to the bloggers they sued. It's not a moneymaker.
The article says what I'm saying.
I'll get over it when everyone stops talking about it.
So some laptops already have it enabled? This is BS. I purchased a 15" MacBook Pro 2.33Ghz a week ago today and it didn't have it enabled, so this begs the question which ones were already enabled?
Look at your statement.
I wouldn't have commented except for the derogitory 'BS' that you just had to add.
Your first 2 sentences is BS.
Read the article again. There is no mention that, "…some laptops already have it enabled.
I never said that Apple was screwing their customers. But, they are being disingenuous in their explanation.
Ok, so what is being disingenuous about saying, we are choosing the most cost effective solution to sell our products, offer our customers additional features, and not tank the stock price - and oh, by the way, we followed the laws that govern these choices?
Apple's loyalty is first to its share holders and then to its customers. This business savy solution is not going to scare away many customers and it is going to keep more people buying their stock.
You and your kind really need to stop whining, as I said in my original post.
I'll get over it when everyone stops talking about it.
Your arguements are getting thin little man and every reasonable arguement you proposed has been shot down.
We all know now that there were choices setup and restricted by GAAP and Sarbanes-Oxley. And yes, it ultimately was a financial and monetary decision that Apple made, but did you really expect anything different? They chose the one with the least financial impact to the company. This is the sign of a responsible corporate entity. They are a company - one that intends on staying in business, brining its customers advanced products and one that stays within the laws of our country (or atleast trying).
I wouldn't have commented except for the derogitory 'BS' that you just had to add.
Your first 2 sentences is BS.
Read the article again. There is no mention that, "…some laptops already have it enabled.
OK so if you're right then only the iMac's & Mac Pro's have it enabled, Prove It!
When you can show proof without a doubt that 0 laptops had it installed already let me know. Then I will apologize for my comments, until then the article says Mac and the last I checked a MacBook Pro was a Mac...
I wonder how many suckers will pay Apple for a friggin driver!
I believe that Apple could sling dung on some people and those people would swear it was Apple pie instead of dung as they beg for more "pie" goodies from father Apple.
Sorry Apple but this is wrong and you should be ashamed for creating that BS excuse.
Ok, so what is being disingenuous about saying, we are choosing the most cost effective solution to sell our products, offer our customers additional features, and not tank the stock price - and oh, by the way, we followed the laws that govern these choices?
Apple's loyalty is first to its share holders and then to its customers. This business savy solution is not going to scare away many customers and it is going to keep more people buying their stock.
You and your kind really need to stop whining, as I said in my original post.
That wasn't what they said. If they said that, the controversy would not have occurred. They had said that accounting rules require us to charge this fee, which they do not.
As I'm a stockholder with a fair amount of money tied up in Apple, I appreciate their attempt to do the best for the company.
Look, I was one of the first here to defend them. But, I prefer they just explained what they were doing.
I'm certain their statement was vetted by their lawyers to be accurate. But, in doing so, they also made it sound as though there would be a penalty?meaning that they would not have obeyed the law, if they didn't charge this fee.
We are arguing at cross purposes here.
I understand what Apple is doing. What I'm not happy about is that they attempted to make it sound as though they were forced into it for reasons other than the ones that prevailed.
Your arguements are getting thin little man and every reasonable arguement you proposed has been shot down.
We all know now that there were choices setup and restricted by GAAP and Sarbanes-Oxley. And yes, it ultimately was a financial and monetary decision that Apple made, but did you really expect anything different? They chose the one with the least financial impact to the company. This is the sign of a responsible corporate entity. They are a company - one that intends on staying in business, brining its customers advanced products and one that stays within the laws of our country (or atleast trying).
STFD.
You can stop with the derogatory remarks. They don't make your statements any more worthy.
I'll say it again.
I have nothing against what Apple is doing.
I don't like how they stated it.
If you want to argue with someone who will disagree with what they are doing, argue with Mkane, for example, not me.
Having the enabler installed, does not mean that it is enabled.
Yes it does. read above. They give a way to tell if its installed and the way to tell is if the Network utility shows your network adapter as an 802.11 with an "n" in the list.
This update is recommended for all Intel-based Macintosh computers and provides compatibility with AirPort Extreme base stations and networks.
01/25/2007
before installing the enabler did the trick.
Yes excellent. This was an important Airport update that came out a few days ago. Related to AirportExtreme Base Stations and Airport Extreme cards (802.11n or g) in Intel Macs.
Seriously read the whole article (or even the sniplet I took in the last post). It clearly states that you should check to see if it's installed and to do that go to your network utility and see if it says 802.11a/b/g/n and if so then you do not need to purchase it for $2. Just actually read before commenting, novel idea I know but at least humor me, please....
Oooooh, I have 802.11a ...!! whoop dee doo.... 5ghz operation !! @ 54mbit/sec though. No 802.11N because this is MacBook Core[1]Duo. In any case I am running of a 802.11B router. Mmmm.... low speeed........ Wireless connectivity is awesome on the MacBook though, in terms of range.
Sorry to hear about MacPro/ iMac wireless problems. I did not know about this previously.
Much more important that all this accounting nitpickery, methinks, is which non-Airport pre-N routers will our machines work properly with? :-) Off to do some hunting ...
Virtually everthing built up to this stage, AFAIK. IEEE 802.11n Draft 1.0 something like that. The Airport Card in the Macs which support 802.11N should be able to connect to any pre-N router running @ 2.4ghz 802.11n ONLY, 5ghz 802.11n ONLY, or 2.4ghz 802.11n/g or 2.4ghz 802.11n/g/b or 5ghz 802.11a.
Those MBP requirements don't exclude ANy of the previous models. Does that mean my 1.83 Ghz model (the first model) is good?
Use SpotLight or Go to Applications > Utilities and open Network Utility. There will be a list of ports, one will be your Airport. It will tell you 8). My MacBook Core[1]Duo 2ghz shows 802.11a/b/g. I got "a" (!) but no "n"
Hopefully for us they'll find a way to release a new airport card, like they used to in the ppc days, I don't know how possible that is with the current design internally though...
Here it is in the MacBook:
This looks suspiciously very similar to the format of Intel branded 802.11n "Centrino" cards:
The three white "blobs" at the top of the card are connectors for the three antennas (MIMO here has 3 radios)
Apparently this is the "Mini PCIe Card" form factor...
Comments
Stop promulgating this nonsense. This has already been shown to be untrue.
Read the articles in the WSJ and the NYTimes that came out weeks ago. The tax authorities have already debunked this claptrap.
Why don't you read this article on CNET, with more detail than I've seen anywhere else?
http://news.com.com/2100-1044_3-6151...-0-5&subj=news
The actually asked accounting experts (there's a concept!). While Apple didn't have to charge a fee, it is the best of the three possibilities. The other two: sell it as a standalone app so that you establish a market price, or give it away and don't book any revenues until it's enabled (meaning the total revenues for Apple computers in the past quarter would be only from selling the 17" iMacs that don't have 'n' capability).
Get over it, already.
How many people who bought the 1.6 million Macs sold last quarter are going to buy a 3rd party 'n' router (so they would need to pay for the enabler)? Maybe 10%? That's $320,000, which won't even cover half the legal fees Apple has to pay to the bloggers they sued. It's not a moneymaker.
I also own a MB CD. Will I be able to upgrade my MB with new hardware to accept the N stuff, or will I need to get a new MB with a C2D?
I do realize that I'll also need a new router. No problem with that!
Why don't you read this article on CNET, with more detail than I've seen anywhere else?
http://news.com.com/2100-1044_3-6151...-0-5&subj=news
The actually asked accounting experts (there's a concept!). While Apple didn't have to charge a fee, it is the best of the three possibilities. The other two: sell it as a standalone app so that you establish a market price, or give it away and don't book any revenues until it's enabled (meaning the total revenues for Apple computers in the past quarter would be only from selling the 17" iMacs that don't have 'n' capability).
Get over it, already.
How many people who bought the 1.6 million Macs sold last quarter are going to buy a 3rd party 'n' router (so they would need to pay for the enabler)? Maybe 10%? That's $320,000, which won't even cover half the legal fees Apple has to pay to the bloggers they sued. It's not a moneymaker.
The article says what I'm saying.
I'll get over it when everyone stops talking about it.
So some laptops already have it enabled? This is BS. I purchased a 15" MacBook Pro 2.33Ghz a week ago today and it didn't have it enabled, so this begs the question which ones were already enabled?
Look at your statement.
I wouldn't have commented except for the derogitory 'BS' that you just had to add.
Your first 2 sentences is BS.
Read the article again. There is no mention that, "…some laptops already have it enabled.
I never said that Apple was screwing their customers. But, they are being disingenuous in their explanation.
Ok, so what is being disingenuous about saying, we are choosing the most cost effective solution to sell our products, offer our customers additional features, and not tank the stock price - and oh, by the way, we followed the laws that govern these choices?
Apple's loyalty is first to its share holders and then to its customers. This business savy solution is not going to scare away many customers and it is going to keep more people buying their stock.
You and your kind really need to stop whining, as I said in my original post.
The article says what I'm saying.
I'll get over it when everyone stops talking about it.
Your arguements are getting thin little man and every reasonable arguement you proposed has been shot down.
We all know now that there were choices setup and restricted by GAAP and Sarbanes-Oxley. And yes, it ultimately was a financial and monetary decision that Apple made, but did you really expect anything different? They chose the one with the least financial impact to the company. This is the sign of a responsible corporate entity. They are a company - one that intends on staying in business, brining its customers advanced products and one that stays within the laws of our country (or atleast trying).
STFD.
Look at your statement.
I wouldn't have commented except for the derogitory 'BS' that you just had to add.
Your first 2 sentences is BS.
Read the article again. There is no mention that, "…some laptops already have it enabled.
OK so if you're right then only the iMac's & Mac Pro's have it enabled, Prove It!
When you can show proof without a doubt that 0 laptops had it installed already let me know. Then I will apologize for my comments, until then the article says Mac and the last I checked a MacBook Pro was a Mac...
The article says what I'm saying.
I'll get over it when everyone stops talking about it.
I believe that Apple could sling dung on some people and those people would swear it was Apple pie instead of dung as they beg for more "pie" goodies from father Apple.
Sorry Apple but this is wrong and you should be ashamed for creating that BS excuse.
Ok, so what is being disingenuous about saying, we are choosing the most cost effective solution to sell our products, offer our customers additional features, and not tank the stock price - and oh, by the way, we followed the laws that govern these choices?
Apple's loyalty is first to its share holders and then to its customers. This business savy solution is not going to scare away many customers and it is going to keep more people buying their stock.
You and your kind really need to stop whining, as I said in my original post.
That wasn't what they said. If they said that, the controversy would not have occurred. They had said that accounting rules require us to charge this fee, which they do not.
As I'm a stockholder with a fair amount of money tied up in Apple, I appreciate their attempt to do the best for the company.
Look, I was one of the first here to defend them. But, I prefer they just explained what they were doing.
I'm certain their statement was vetted by their lawyers to be accurate. But, in doing so, they also made it sound as though there would be a penalty?meaning that they would not have obeyed the law, if they didn't charge this fee.
We are arguing at cross purposes here.
I understand what Apple is doing. What I'm not happy about is that they attempted to make it sound as though they were forced into it for reasons other than the ones that prevailed.
It hasn't changed. You haven't been careful in reading what I've been saying here all along.
Your arguements are getting thin little man and every reasonable arguement you proposed has been shot down.
We all know now that there were choices setup and restricted by GAAP and Sarbanes-Oxley. And yes, it ultimately was a financial and monetary decision that Apple made, but did you really expect anything different? They chose the one with the least financial impact to the company. This is the sign of a responsible corporate entity. They are a company - one that intends on staying in business, brining its customers advanced products and one that stays within the laws of our country (or atleast trying).
STFD.
You can stop with the derogatory remarks. They don't make your statements any more worthy.
I'll say it again.
I have nothing against what Apple is doing.
I don't like how they stated it.
If you want to argue with someone who will disagree with what they are doing, argue with Mkane, for example, not me.
I've downloaded the Airport Extreme 802.11n Enabler and then tried to install it. I get this message:
"You cannot install Airport Extreme 802.11n Enabler on this volume. This volume does not meet the requirements for this update."
This is my computer:
Machine Name
Machine Model
Processor Name
Processor Speed
Number Of Processors
Total Number Of Cores
L2 Cache (per processor)
Memory
Bus Speed
Boot ROM Version
SMC Version
Any help?
Yes, I got this too. Run Software Update and there should be an Airport uodate.
Steve
Machine Name
Machine Model
Processor Name
Processor Speed
Number Of Processors
Total Number Of Cores
L2 Cache (per processor)
Memory
Bus Speed
Boot ROM Version
SMC Version
Having the enabler installed, does not mean that it is enabled.
Yes it does. read above. They give a way to tell if its installed and the way to tell is if the Network utility shows your network adapter as an 802.11 with an "n" in the list.
Thanks, Vinney. Installing this:before installing the enabler did the trick.
Yes excellent. This was an important Airport update that came out a few days ago. Related to AirportExtreme Base Stations and Airport Extreme cards (802.11n or g) in Intel Macs.
Seriously read the whole article (or even the sniplet I took in the last post). It clearly states that you should check to see if it's installed and to do that go to your network utility and see if it says 802.11a/b/g/n and if so then you do not need to purchase it for $2. Just actually read before commenting, novel idea I know but at least humor me, please....
Oooooh, I have 802.11a ...!! whoop dee doo.... 5ghz operation !! @ 54mbit/sec though. No 802.11N because this is MacBook Core[1]Duo. In any case I am running of a 802.11B router. Mmmm.... low speeed........ Wireless connectivity is awesome on the MacBook though, in terms of range.
Sorry to hear about MacPro/ iMac wireless problems. I did not know about this previously.
Much more important that all this accounting nitpickery, methinks, is which non-Airport pre-N routers will our machines work properly with? :-) Off to do some hunting ...
Virtually everthing built up to this stage, AFAIK. IEEE 802.11n Draft 1.0 something like that. The Airport Card in the Macs which support 802.11N should be able to connect to any pre-N router running @ 2.4ghz 802.11n ONLY, 5ghz 802.11n ONLY, or 2.4ghz 802.11n/g or 2.4ghz 802.11n/g/b or 5ghz 802.11a.
Those MBP requirements don't exclude ANy of the previous models. Does that mean my 1.83 Ghz model (the first model) is good?
Use SpotLight or Go to Applications > Utilities and open Network Utility. There will be a list of ports, one will be your Airport. It will tell you 8). My MacBook Core[1]Duo 2ghz shows 802.11a/b/g. I got "a" (!) but no "n"
Hopefully for us they'll find a way to release a new airport card, like they used to in the ppc days, I don't know how possible that is with the current design internally though...
Here it is in the MacBook:
This looks suspiciously very similar to the format of Intel branded 802.11n "Centrino" cards:
The three white "blobs" at the top of the card are connectors for the three antennas (MIMO here has 3 radios)
Apparently this is the "Mini PCIe Card" form factor...
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3469