With all due respect, "sabotage" is flat out idiotic.
Sure, none of us are privy to all the details of apple's finances and strategies.
But anyone with minimal common sense can see that the claim that apple HAD to charge 20 bucks and had no other alternative is complete bullshit.
Apple has provided major updates to other products for free (yes, not just the two with the new funky accounting system). And plenty of other companies have done the same. Nobody is buying the whole "no free upgrades" thing, it comes off as apologist and sycophantic.
With all due respect, "sabotage" is flat out idiotic.
Sure, none of us are privy to all the details of apple's finances and strategies.
But anyone with minimal common sense can see that the claim that apple HAD to charge 20 bucks and had no other alternative is complete bullshit.
Apple has provided major updates to other products for free (yes, not just the two with the new funky accounting system). And plenty of other companies have done the same. Nobody is buying the whole "no free upgrades" thing, it comes off as apologist and sycophantic.
"With all due respect?" Geez, if you're just going to name call and make statements without backing them up with reason, there's no need to sugarcoat it.
Yes, common sense makes a $20 charge seem unreasonable. I thought it at first too, which is why i did some fucking research. it's not about being privy to apple's books. it's about having even a cursory understanding of what deferred revenue models are.
common sense is great and all, but you can't rely on it solely. you've got to back it up with knowledge and facts.
I paid the twenty dollars for the IPOD Touch upgrade from Apple, but the more I think and learn about Apple giving all the new unit the upgrade included for free and sold at the same price I'm MAD!! My unit is only six weeks old. I truely hope that Apple will rethink this and credit everyone who has paid for this unfair charge.Apple
"With all due respect?" Geez, if you're just going to name call and make statements without backing them up with reason, there's no need to sugarcoat it.
Hmm. Saying that any complaint about apple is an attempt to sabotage the stock sure sounds like name calling and statements made with no reason to back them up.
Pot, I've got a kettle I'd like you to meet.
If you've really done research on this, you sure haven't given any evidence of it here.
Apple has said that they have no choice but to charge what they charged, and you've done nothing but mindlessly parrot the party line. Just because apple makes an excuse, that doesn't mean that it's true. Sure, they blamed SOX. But I haven't seen any evidence that it really applies in this sort of situation (what specifically does it say in SOX that would forbid giving these apps for free?) PLUS apple and other companies add features via updates to software and hardware all the time. And what part of SOX insists that a tiny update like this has to cost $20 and not $5 or even $1? In the previous case where apple used this excuse (and has apple even said that their hands were tied in this case? I've just heard the sycophants make that excuse so far) they upped wireless network speed by a large factor and only charged $5 for it.
Frankly, I'm tired of your hypocritical accusations of not discussing the facts while you have nothing to back up your claims beyond "But apple says it's SOX fault!"
And, to nick the phrase from mr. h, "added functionality" is completely different from fixing bugs.
So why aren't new purchasers of the Touch paying an extra $20 for this "added functionality"? Even a writer at Macworld magazine called the "subtracted functionality" of the original Touch "more than a little arbitrary."
So why aren't new purchasers of the Touch paying an extra $20 for this "added functionality"?
This is standard practice for significant OS upgrades or application enhancements/additions.
You own an old Mac - you have to pay for Leopard (even if you got your Mac just a few weeks before Leopard came out) whilst new Mac purchasers get it for free. You have to pay for iLife '08 whilst new Mac purchasers get it for free.
People have to realise that iPod touch is actually a miniature computer, and as such it is hardly surprising that the traditional rules of OS/application enhancement apply. And, let's just say it one more time - an iPod touch bought a few weeks ago still does everything it could when it was bought. If it didn't fulfill someone's needs, they shouldn't have bought it. Now, faced with the option of extra applications that provide additional functionality people can choose whether it is worth $20 to them and either purchase it and get the apps, or not purchase it and not get the apps.
Even a writer at Macworld magazine called the "subtracted functionality" of the original Touch "more than a little arbitrary."
That I agree with, but the point is moot. It ignores the fact that if any potential purchaser found the missing apps "more than a little arbitrary", and needed/wanted the apps, they shouldn't have bought the iPod touch.
I'm still steamed over the lack ofpdates in 1.1.3, more than not getting the Apps free. But the fact that new users get them for free really takes the cake. That's just flat out wrong.
Anyway, has anyone clicked the iPod touch January Software update button in iTunes lately? Every time I do (I want to look at the pages and so forth again. Also want to check something mentioned elsehwere) I get an error claiming my network connection tmed out. The rest of the Store works fine.
I'm still on 7.5. Could that be it? That doesn't seem right because I was able to see the pages fine at first.|
I simply will not go to 7.6. I've been warned it's going to jack my iTunes window for an App Pack ad.
This is standard practice for significant OS upgrades or application enhancements/additions.
You own an old Mac - you have to pay for Leopard (even if you got your Mac just a few weeks before Leopard came out) whilst new Mac purchasers get it for free. You have to pay for iLife '08 whilst new Mac purchasers get it for free.
People have to realise that iPod touch is actually a miniature computer, and as such it is hardly surprising that the traditional rules of OS/application enhancement apply. And, let's just say it one more time - an iPod touch bought a few weeks ago still does everything it could when it was bought. If it didn't fulfill someone's needs, they shouldn't have bought it. Now, faced with the option of extra applications that provide additional functionality people can choose whether it is worth $20 to them and either purchase it and get the apps, or not purchase it and not get the apps.
Sony has been giving me free updates to the PSP for years, hell they even added a web browser, an internet radio, RSS feeds, and Flash support for free...Apple is nickeling and dimeing users.
Any excuses for apologizing or comparing the apps to Leopard is just a stretch beyond reason. People know OS and software updates are coming, and they are also major updates. The apps for the Touch are small potatoes in comparison.
Hell, even the POS Apple TV got free updates, and it's still crap. But it was probably losing money or something, and Apple can't let it me a total failure.
But the major sticking point, is the arbitrary line picked, of letting new Touch users have the apps, the older ones - $20. It's not a question of money, it's just just a pathetic cash grab attempt from Apple. Free apps for some, and a kick in the teeth for early adopters.
It's not a moot point at all. I'm trying to get you to acknowledge that if the iPod touch didn't fulfill your needs when you bought it, you shouldn't have bought it.
Those "other users" are:
1.) iPhone users who are paying a rather high monthly fee to AT&T, a share of which Apple receives.
2.) New iPod touch purchasers who have not had the benefit of owning the iPod touch for however long you've owned one for.
I'm not changing the subject. You are the one avoiding the central points:
1.) If it's not worth $20 to you, don't buy it. In this case there is no "gouging"; if you think it's "gouging", don't buy! You don't have to be a sheep that blindly purchases upgrades just because they exist rather than because you actually need them. If you really need them that badly $20 isn't that much; it also begs the repitition of the point that if you really need them, why did you buy the iPod touch when it didn't have them?
2.) You have no right to expect additional functionality for free.
To be frank, your logic is flawed and it's annoying how you keep pushing it. It's not that iPod touch fulfilled my needs, it's just that the pros outweighed the cons. I wanted the product, so I bought it. I bought it because I had faith in Apple. Excuse me for learning to trust a company because they've had wonderful customer service for ten years. I bought it amid the screen errors and the hissing sounds, etc. I knew Apple would fix this. I expected them to fix the lack of apps a little bit after the release of iPhone as well. I knew iPhone had them by the balls, but I didn't expect this shit. They have changed as a company, iPhone is their number one priority and they don't really give a shit about iPod users. The iPod product line (partially responsible for iPhone's success) has become a slave to iPhone. It's fucking bullshit. They added some functionality, I'm able to add events to my calendar, they didn't charge me $2 for it.
I've owned an iPod touch for a small while, big fucking whoop. I have to pay for those apps because Apple already has me sold. They don't give a shit, I already bought it. So they go suck the dicks of potential buyers, and I'm upset. It's shitty PR to shaft your current users. It sure as hell didn't get them anywhere they are today. They tried shafting current iPhone users, it didn't work. iPhone users had a mega bitchfit and Apple succumbed to them. $100 gift card. Oh right, they also get a monthly check from the iPhone users, they don't get that from iPod touch users, so who gives a shit at Apple? No one.
It's not that I don't need them. They would be nice to have. It's not a new OS, it's a medium sized update early in the product's cycle. Everyone should have it. iPod Nanos have fucking notes for Pete's sake, and they don't even have keyboard input! New users get it simply because they are going to be giving Apple $$. Not-as-new users don't get it because we've been sold and Apple couldn't care less. You're completely right, as a product owner, I have no right to expect added functionality that is STANDARD on the product I own. I have no right, especially because I already paid.
It's bullshit.
Why are you defending Apple so vigorously after they've fucked up? Are you an iPhone owner? A shareholder? What gives?
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfyearsun
According to what I've been reading, it actually happened before with the 802.11n upgrade. I almost agree with charging a more minimal fee, but I have heard it said that the regulations might require more than a token fee, in which case, $4 per app is fairly competitive with the rate of apps for other devices, as far as i can tell.
And really, I was honestly disappointed that they're charging for the apps too. I think apple should do more to explain why. But I don't think I could go so far as to claim such extremes as gouging and screwing over their loyal customers.
And people do bring up the $100 iphone rebate. While it wasn't equivalent to the price drop, i've never even imagined any american company offering any kind of concessions for something that could easily say "that's the market, that's life" and walk away from. I was impressed by that, and I think people are taking that for granted...they made extra effort towards customer service, and people are turning it back around against them.
I agree with most of your above points. I hope they're accurate, it makes sense. I still feel shafted though and I wish Apple would do more to explain it. Ignoring the outcry isn't great PR, I hope they do something in the coming week. React somehow.
They can't do that to iPhone users. iPhone is the heart of the company right now. A sour one, if you ask me. They tried to get away with it , it didn't work. The negative reaction was overwhelming and rightfully so. So they did something their PR agent suggested. I don't think "that's the market, that's life" would've gone over too well. One would hope that consumers are not such sheep, and evidently they're not. The public lash out was enormous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
That I agree with, but the point is moot. It ignores the fact that if any potential purchaser found the missing apps "more than a little arbitrary", and needed/wanted the apps, they shouldn't have bought the iPod touch.
Once again, this logic is flawed. Those few overpriced apps should not stop anyone from buying an iPod touch. There is so much more that is desired. They should be an included plus, and they are for new users. I hope Apple's not hoping their free AppleTV update is outshining the negativity of their shitty move toward iPod users.... it's not.
To be frank, your logic is flawed and it's annoying how you keep pushing it. It's not that iPod touch fulfilled my needs, it's just that the pros outweighed the cons. I wanted the product, so I bought it. I bought it because I had faith in Apple. Excuse me for learning to trust a company because they've had wonderful customer service for ten years. I bought it amid the screen errors and the hissing sounds, etc. I knew Apple would fix this. I expected them to fix the lack of apps a little bit after the release of iPhone as well. I knew iPhone had them by the balls, but I didn't expect this shit. They have changed as a company, iPhone is their number one priority and they don't really give a shit about iPod users. The iPod product line (partially responsible for iPhone's success) has become a slave to iPhone. It's fucking bullshit. They added some functionality, I'm able to add events to my calendar, they didn't charge me $2 for it.
I've owned an iPod touch for a small while, big fucking whoop. I have to pay for those apps because Apple already has me sold. They don't give a shit, I already bought it. So they go suck the dicks of potential buyers, and I'm upset. It's shitty PR to shaft your current users. It sure as hell didn't get them anywhere they are today. They tried shafting current iPhone users, it didn't work. iPhone users had a mega bitchfit and Apple succumbed to them. $100 gift card. Oh right, they also get a monthly check from the iPhone users, they don't get that from iPod touch users, so who gives a shit at Apple? No one.
It's not that I don't need them. They would be nice to have. It's not a new OS, it's a medium sized update early in the product's cycle. Everyone should have it. iPod Nanos have fucking notes for Pete's sake, and they don't even have keyboard input! New users get it simply because they are going to be giving Apple $$. Not-as-new users don't get it because we've been sold and Apple couldn't care less. You're completely right, as a product owner, I have no right to expect added functionality that is STANDARD on the product I own. I have no right, especially because I already paid.
It's bullshit.
Why are you defending Apple so vigorously after they've fucked up? Are you an iPhone owner? A shareholder? What gives?
I agree with most of your above points. I hope they're accurate, it makes sense. I still feel shafted though and I wish Apple would do more to explain it. Ignoring the outcry isn't great PR, I hope they do something in the coming week. React somehow.
They can't do that to iPhone users. iPhone is the heart of the company right now. A sour one, if you ask me. They tried to get away with it , it didn't work. The negative reaction was overwhelming and rightfully so. So they did something their PR agent suggested. I don't think "that's the market, that's life" would've gone over too well. One would hope that consumers are not such sheep, and evidently they're not. The public lash out was enormous.
Once again, this logic is flawed. Those few overpriced apps should not stop anyone from buying an iPod touch. There is so much more that is desired. They should be an included plus, and they are for new users. I hope Apple's not hoping their free AppleTV update is outshining the negativity of their shitty move toward iPod users.... it's not.
My logic is in no way flawed. Your post is just a long-winded explanation as to why you are annoyed that you have to pay for this upgrade.
I understand why people are annoyed, I really do. But none of it explains why anyone should have the right to expect extra stuff for free.
You expected the extra apps to be added. You made the assumption that they'd be delivered for free. Apple never said that they'd even be delivered, let alone for free. Again, without the guarantee that any functionality will be added to the device, why buy it if it doesn't do all you want it to do?
If you needed the missing stuff, you shouldn't have bought it. And if you could use the touch before without this stuff, why do you all of a sudden have to have it? Most of this just smacks of jealousy and people's desire to "keep up with the Joneses" for the sake of it rather than because of any actual need.
All of this "old iPod touch owners have to pay for the update whilst it's bundled for free with new iPod touches" is not a valid argument. If it was a valid argument, it would be just as valid to be dismayed that new OSes for Macs cost money, whilst they are bundled on new Macs for free.
Yes, OSes cost more to develop, but that's why they cost more.
It's Apple's prerogative to charge what they like, and it's your prerogative to either pay and have the apps, or not pay and not have the apps. That's as far as it goes.
Yes, be pissed off that you have to pay. But don't try and pretend that there's any logical argument that proves that Apple should be obliged to give the applications away for free.
My logic is in no way flawed. Your post is just a long-winded explanation as to why you are annoyed that you have to pay for this upgrade.
I understand why people are annoyed, I really do. But none of it explains why anyone should have the right to expect extra stuff for free.
You expected the extra apps to be added. You made the assumption that they'd be delivered for free. Apple never said that they'd even be delivered, let alone for free. Again, without the guarantee that any functionality will be added to the device, why buy it if it doesn't do all you want it to do?
If you needed the missing stuff, you shouldn't have bought it. And if you could use the touch before without this stuff, why do you all of a sudden have to have it? Most of this just smacks of jealousy and people's desire to "keep up with the Joneses" for the sake of it rather than because of any actual need.
All of this "old iPod touch owners have to pay for the update whilst it's bundled for free with new iPod touches" is not a valid argument. If it was a valid argument, it would be just as valid to be dismayed that new OSes for Macs cost money, whilst they are bundled on new Macs for free.
Yes, OSes cost more to develop, but that's why they cost more.
It's Apple's prerogative to charge what they like, and it's your prerogative to either pay and have the apps, or not pay and not have the apps. That's as far as it goes.
Yes, be pissed off that you have to pay. But don't try and pretend that there's any logical argument that proves that Apple should be obliged to give the applications away for free.
Very weak. You're ignoring points and suggesting your logic is great when people are giving you proof it sucks. They're not obliged to give anything away for free, yet they do. They're not obliged to overprice their shit and they do.
You're making it simpler than it is. "If it wasn't what you wanted, you shouldn't have bought it. " Awesome! Keep repeating yourself and ignoring counter arguments.
I'm not here to change your mind, I'm finished arguing. It's dumb and repetitive. You know what I think, but you just shrugged off my above post as a 'long-winded explanation as to why I'm annoyed that i have to pay for this upgrade'. It was actually an explanation of what I think and some counterpoints to your over simplified points.
That OS argument is SO bogus. They are a few apps, not a whole OS. An iPod touch OS upgrade should cost $20, not a firmware update with some apps. I understand the development of an OS is expensive, but the development of the apps was already paid for by current iPod touch users just as much as it's being paid for by new users. The price hasn't changed! It's just more for us.
I realize Apple can do whatever they want, but they usually make people happy, not anger them.
You're ignoring the fact that it was a SHITTY fucking PR move on Apple's part.
I don't really care about the $$, I got the updates from Apple. It's a long story, there were major issues with my iPod; Apple was at fault and I was reimbursed with an exchange and credit. I am showing my displeasure toward a wrong move by Apple.
You're just saying the same shit over and over to justify your annoyance with people's sense of entitlement. I could do that too, but you can just refer here: http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=147. Take notes, do as you please.
I'm not going to make accusations,but there is irrationality here. You won't change your mind, I won't change mine. It's child's play. I'm finished. Keep on trucking with your same replies to different posts and points.
I'm still steamed over the lack ofpdates in 1.1.3, more than not getting the Apps free. But the fact that new users get them for free really takes the cake. That's just flat out wrong.
Mr. H makes a good point. Apple didn't offer free versions of Leopard and iLife' 08 to everyone that purchased an iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook or MacBook Pro*.
* If you bought your Mac within the past two weeks of the new OS arrival they did offer it for free. They will probably do the same for iPod Touches purchased since January 1st, too. I know why. Do you know why?
I understand why people are annoyed, I really do. But none of it explains why anyone should have the right to expect extra stuff for free.
You expected the extra apps to be added. You made the assumption that they'd be delivered for free. Apple never said that they'd even be delivered, let alone for free. Again, without the guarantee that any functionality will be added to the device, why buy it if it doesn't do all you want it to do?
If you needed the missing stuff, you shouldn't have bought it. And if you could use the touch before without this stuff, why do you all of a sudden have to have it? Most of this just smacks of jealousy and people's desire to "keep up with the Joneses" for the sake of it rather than because of any actual need.
All of this "old iPod touch owners have to pay for the update whilst it's bundled for free with new iPod touches" is not a valid argument. If it was a valid argument, it would be just as valid to be dismayed that new OSes for Macs cost money, whilst they are bundled on new Macs for free.
Yes, OSes cost more to develop, but that's why they cost more.
It's Apple's prerogative to charge what they like, and it's your prerogative to either pay and have the apps, or not pay and not have the apps. That's as far as it goes.
Yes, be pissed off that you have to pay. But don't try and pretend that there's any logical argument that proves that Apple should be obliged to give the applications away for free.
You sir need to look at the facts.
Fact 1: Home Screen Reorganising, Lyrics and WebClips are not Apps.
Fact 2: 3/5 of these "apps" are widgets. Widgets are free on Mac OS X and Windows. And on OS X Mobile iPhone Edition (Yes, that's right, a skew of a skew of an OS)
Fact 3: £199 is a substantial cost for an 8GB Media Player, one which carries with it a certain level of service quality expectation whether Apple likes it or not.
Fact 4: Apple may not have said ahead of time that I'd get new apps, let alone free ones, but they damn sure didn't tell me they would be selling updates to existing software. That sir is the rub.
Fact 5: By including updates to existing software in the App Pack, Apple is forcing users who do not want these apps to buy them for features they themselves (Apple) include on cheaper, and even non-premium products (iPod classic, iPod nano respectively. Both have Home Screen customisation and lyrics support)
Fact 6: There is more to it than simply suggesting that we hold off because these things weren't there. We were basing our buying decisions on then-current information (Not 20/20 hindsight, as you are), which suggested that the Apps on iPhone and not iPod touch were only meant for iPhone. We weighed the pros and cons at that time and decided to buy. Had we known that some of he cons would be rectified, it's possible some of us would have held off.
I bought an iPod touch because I want(/ed) a widescreen video iPod and not a phone. I staved off Jailbreaking it because I had faith that Apple would fix my biggest software quibble - that damn missing icon. Low and behold, 2 ways of fixing this are announced for OS X Mobile 1.1.3
Oh, wait. No. Just the iPhone edition. Wait, what? According to the less attractive new Dock, the two distros of OS X Mobile should be getting closer, not more different. So that makes absolutely zero sense.
But, surely iPod touch's distribution of OS X Mobile should get that functionality too, it's only fair. Oh sure it does.
Well, only if you pay £12.99 for 5 apps you may have already decided you didn't want to pay for.
Are you getting it now? Apple is trying to force me to buy something I already decided I did not want to pay for by bundling something I'm more likely to have wanted with it. For the exact same reason you say we should lay down and let Apple charge the £12.99, that we did not know the iPod touch would get this pack, we have every reason to be outraged.
And I don't give a damn about some half-hearted legal explanation using a redundant interpretation of a law that barely applies. Rule number one of business: don't piss off the people who will form your future revenue model. You know. iTunes Store customers. IE, almost every iPod owner in territories with an iPod Store. People like me.
Hmm. Saying that any complaint about apple is an attempt to sabotage the stock sure sounds like name calling and statements made with no reason to back them up.
Pot, I've got a kettle I'd like you to meet.
If you've really done research on this, you sure haven't given any evidence of it here.
Apple has said that they have no choice but to charge what they charged, and you've done nothing but mindlessly parrot the party line. Just because apple makes an excuse, that doesn't mean that it's true. Sure, they blamed SOX. But I haven't seen any evidence that it really applies in this sort of situation (what specifically does it say in SOX that would forbid giving these apps for free?) PLUS apple and other companies add features via updates to software and hardware all the time. And what part of SOX insists that a tiny update like this has to cost $20 and not $5 or even $1? In the previous case where apple used this excuse (and has apple even said that their hands were tied in this case? I've just heard the sycophants make that excuse so far) they upped wireless network speed by a large factor and only charged $5 for it.
Frankly, I'm tired of your hypocritical accusations of not discussing the facts while you have nothing to back up your claims beyond "But apple says it's SOX fault!"
It's been fun, but I'm done with this nonsense.
damn. now i know i've been wasting my breath
-when i defended the sabotage statement, i said it was because encouraging griping about a company you own stock in is akin to sabotage. That is reason. not name calling.
-i did talk about details. if you wanted mla citations, you came to the wrong place. i didn't just say "it's sox fault" i went on to say why deferred revenue is not practical to apply to all products, and why 802.11n had no established market value whereas the mobile apps in ipod touch do. pay some attention, and please, either stop using the word sycophant or learn how to use a thesaurus.
glad you're done with this nonsense. it's not like you actually read what anyone was saying anyway.
And I don't give a damn about some half-hearted legal explanation using a redundant interpretation of a law that barely applies. .
it's about time someone actually challenged whether or not the aforementioned law applies or not, rather than simply ignoring it and saying "there's no reason for apple to do this."
can you go into detail...explain why it doesn't apply?
it's about time someone actually challenged whether or not the aforementioned law applies or not, rather than simply ignoring it and saying "there's no reason for apple to do this."
can you go into detail...explain why it doesn't apply?
No one seems to be able to state why the Act doesn't apply or why it does applies at $20 and not for a lesser amount if Apple was forced to charge a fee.
Jeez. I'd rather not have paid $20, but... Is it really that big of a deal?
Word. People are totally losing their shit over freakin' twenty bucks?
Apple's move here counts as annoying.
You know what else is annoying? The way that every time Apple does pretty much anything a bunch of people show up here expressly to carry on like Apple broke into their house and killed their dog and then made them pay to have it stuffed and then stole that.
And how they then launch into extended diatribes about what Apple "must" do to set things right, and how Apple is "obligated" to do exactly as they desire, and how Apple "better" get on it or there will be some kind of unspecified "trouble".
Really, some of ya'll need to get a grip. A twenty buck gouge calls for a little grumbling, not extended caterwauling and rending of the garments.
To me it's simple, if you bought a new iPod Touch the new apps are on it (well that's the impression I get from the apple website) so they should therefore be a free upgrade.
I bought an iPod Touch only a week ago, so I'm a little annoyed with this. The only features I want are to be able to move the icons and save book marks to the home screen.
Comments
Sure, none of us are privy to all the details of apple's finances and strategies.
But anyone with minimal common sense can see that the claim that apple HAD to charge 20 bucks and had no other alternative is complete bullshit.
Apple has provided major updates to other products for free (yes, not just the two with the new funky accounting system). And plenty of other companies have done the same. Nobody is buying the whole "no free upgrades" thing, it comes off as apologist and sycophantic.
With all due respect, "sabotage" is flat out idiotic.
Sure, none of us are privy to all the details of apple's finances and strategies.
But anyone with minimal common sense can see that the claim that apple HAD to charge 20 bucks and had no other alternative is complete bullshit.
Apple has provided major updates to other products for free (yes, not just the two with the new funky accounting system). And plenty of other companies have done the same. Nobody is buying the whole "no free upgrades" thing, it comes off as apologist and sycophantic.
"With all due respect?" Geez, if you're just going to name call and make statements without backing them up with reason, there's no need to sugarcoat it.
Yes, common sense makes a $20 charge seem unreasonable. I thought it at first too, which is why i did some fucking research. it's not about being privy to apple's books. it's about having even a cursory understanding of what deferred revenue models are.
common sense is great and all, but you can't rely on it solely. you've got to back it up with knowledge and facts.
"With all due respect?" Geez, if you're just going to name call and make statements without backing them up with reason, there's no need to sugarcoat it.
Hmm. Saying that any complaint about apple is an attempt to sabotage the stock sure sounds like name calling and statements made with no reason to back them up.
Pot, I've got a kettle I'd like you to meet.
If you've really done research on this, you sure haven't given any evidence of it here.
Apple has said that they have no choice but to charge what they charged, and you've done nothing but mindlessly parrot the party line. Just because apple makes an excuse, that doesn't mean that it's true. Sure, they blamed SOX. But I haven't seen any evidence that it really applies in this sort of situation (what specifically does it say in SOX that would forbid giving these apps for free?) PLUS apple and other companies add features via updates to software and hardware all the time. And what part of SOX insists that a tiny update like this has to cost $20 and not $5 or even $1? In the previous case where apple used this excuse (and has apple even said that their hands were tied in this case? I've just heard the sycophants make that excuse so far) they upped wireless network speed by a large factor and only charged $5 for it.
Frankly, I'm tired of your hypocritical accusations of not discussing the facts while you have nothing to back up your claims beyond "But apple says it's SOX fault!"
It's been fun, but I'm done with this nonsense.
And, to nick the phrase from mr. h, "added functionality" is completely different from fixing bugs.
So why aren't new purchasers of the Touch paying an extra $20 for this "added functionality"? Even a writer at Macworld magazine called the "subtracted functionality" of the original Touch "more than a little arbitrary."
So why aren't new purchasers of the Touch paying an extra $20 for this "added functionality"?
This is standard practice for significant OS upgrades or application enhancements/additions.
You own an old Mac - you have to pay for Leopard (even if you got your Mac just a few weeks before Leopard came out) whilst new Mac purchasers get it for free. You have to pay for iLife '08 whilst new Mac purchasers get it for free.
People have to realise that iPod touch is actually a miniature computer, and as such it is hardly surprising that the traditional rules of OS/application enhancement apply. And, let's just say it one more time - an iPod touch bought a few weeks ago still does everything it could when it was bought. If it didn't fulfill someone's needs, they shouldn't have bought it. Now, faced with the option of extra applications that provide additional functionality people can choose whether it is worth $20 to them and either purchase it and get the apps, or not purchase it and not get the apps.
Even a writer at Macworld magazine called the "subtracted functionality" of the original Touch "more than a little arbitrary."
That I agree with, but the point is moot. It ignores the fact that if any potential purchaser found the missing apps "more than a little arbitrary", and needed/wanted the apps, they shouldn't have bought the iPod touch.
Anyway, has anyone clicked the iPod touch January Software update button in iTunes lately? Every time I do (I want to look at the pages and so forth again. Also want to check something mentioned elsehwere) I get an error claiming my network connection tmed out. The rest of the Store works fine.
I'm still on 7.5. Could that be it? That doesn't seem right because I was able to see the pages fine at first.|
I simply will not go to 7.6. I've been warned it's going to jack my iTunes window for an App Pack ad.
This is standard practice for significant OS upgrades or application enhancements/additions.
You own an old Mac - you have to pay for Leopard (even if you got your Mac just a few weeks before Leopard came out) whilst new Mac purchasers get it for free. You have to pay for iLife '08 whilst new Mac purchasers get it for free.
People have to realise that iPod touch is actually a miniature computer, and as such it is hardly surprising that the traditional rules of OS/application enhancement apply. And, let's just say it one more time - an iPod touch bought a few weeks ago still does everything it could when it was bought. If it didn't fulfill someone's needs, they shouldn't have bought it. Now, faced with the option of extra applications that provide additional functionality people can choose whether it is worth $20 to them and either purchase it and get the apps, or not purchase it and not get the apps.
Sony has been giving me free updates to the PSP for years, hell they even added a web browser, an internet radio, RSS feeds, and Flash support for free...Apple is nickeling and dimeing users.
Any excuses for apologizing or comparing the apps to Leopard is just a stretch beyond reason. People know OS and software updates are coming, and they are also major updates. The apps for the Touch are small potatoes in comparison.
Hell, even the POS Apple TV got free updates, and it's still crap. But it was probably losing money or something, and Apple can't let it me a total failure.
But the major sticking point, is the arbitrary line picked, of letting new Touch users have the apps, the older ones - $20. It's not a question of money, it's just just a pathetic cash grab attempt from Apple. Free apps for some, and a kick in the teeth for early adopters.
It's not a moot point at all. I'm trying to get you to acknowledge that if the iPod touch didn't fulfill your needs when you bought it, you shouldn't have bought it.
Those "other users" are:
1.) iPhone users who are paying a rather high monthly fee to AT&T, a share of which Apple receives.
2.) New iPod touch purchasers who have not had the benefit of owning the iPod touch for however long you've owned one for.
I'm not changing the subject. You are the one avoiding the central points:
1.) If it's not worth $20 to you, don't buy it. In this case there is no "gouging"; if you think it's "gouging", don't buy! You don't have to be a sheep that blindly purchases upgrades just because they exist rather than because you actually need them. If you really need them that badly $20 isn't that much; it also begs the repitition of the point that if you really need them, why did you buy the iPod touch when it didn't have them?
2.) You have no right to expect additional functionality for free.
To be frank, your logic is flawed and it's annoying how you keep pushing it. It's not that iPod touch fulfilled my needs, it's just that the pros outweighed the cons. I wanted the product, so I bought it. I bought it because I had faith in Apple. Excuse me for learning to trust a company because they've had wonderful customer service for ten years. I bought it amid the screen errors and the hissing sounds, etc. I knew Apple would fix this. I expected them to fix the lack of apps a little bit after the release of iPhone as well. I knew iPhone had them by the balls, but I didn't expect this shit. They have changed as a company, iPhone is their number one priority and they don't really give a shit about iPod users. The iPod product line (partially responsible for iPhone's success) has become a slave to iPhone. It's fucking bullshit. They added some functionality, I'm able to add events to my calendar, they didn't charge me $2 for it.
I've owned an iPod touch for a small while, big fucking whoop. I have to pay for those apps because Apple already has me sold. They don't give a shit, I already bought it. So they go suck the dicks of potential buyers, and I'm upset. It's shitty PR to shaft your current users. It sure as hell didn't get them anywhere they are today. They tried shafting current iPhone users, it didn't work. iPhone users had a mega bitchfit and Apple succumbed to them. $100 gift card. Oh right, they also get a monthly check from the iPhone users, they don't get that from iPod touch users, so who gives a shit at Apple? No one.
It's not that I don't need them. They would be nice to have. It's not a new OS, it's a medium sized update early in the product's cycle. Everyone should have it. iPod Nanos have fucking notes for Pete's sake, and they don't even have keyboard input! New users get it simply because they are going to be giving Apple $$. Not-as-new users don't get it because we've been sold and Apple couldn't care less. You're completely right, as a product owner, I have no right to expect added functionality that is STANDARD on the product I own. I have no right, especially because I already paid.
It's bullshit.
Why are you defending Apple so vigorously after they've fucked up? Are you an iPhone owner? A shareholder? What gives?
According to what I've been reading, it actually happened before with the 802.11n upgrade. I almost agree with charging a more minimal fee, but I have heard it said that the regulations might require more than a token fee, in which case, $4 per app is fairly competitive with the rate of apps for other devices, as far as i can tell.
And really, I was honestly disappointed that they're charging for the apps too. I think apple should do more to explain why. But I don't think I could go so far as to claim such extremes as gouging and screwing over their loyal customers.
And people do bring up the $100 iphone rebate. While it wasn't equivalent to the price drop, i've never even imagined any american company offering any kind of concessions for something that could easily say "that's the market, that's life" and walk away from. I was impressed by that, and I think people are taking that for granted...they made extra effort towards customer service, and people are turning it back around against them.
I agree with most of your above points. I hope they're accurate, it makes sense. I still feel shafted though and I wish Apple would do more to explain it. Ignoring the outcry isn't great PR, I hope they do something in the coming week. React somehow.
They can't do that to iPhone users. iPhone is the heart of the company right now. A sour one, if you ask me. They tried to get away with it , it didn't work. The negative reaction was overwhelming and rightfully so. So they did something their PR agent suggested. I don't think "that's the market, that's life" would've gone over too well. One would hope that consumers are not such sheep, and evidently they're not. The public lash out was enormous.
That I agree with, but the point is moot. It ignores the fact that if any potential purchaser found the missing apps "more than a little arbitrary", and needed/wanted the apps, they shouldn't have bought the iPod touch.
Once again, this logic is flawed. Those few overpriced apps should not stop anyone from buying an iPod touch. There is so much more that is desired. They should be an included plus, and they are for new users. I hope Apple's not hoping their free AppleTV update is outshining the negativity of their shitty move toward iPod users.... it's not.
To be frank, your logic is flawed and it's annoying how you keep pushing it. It's not that iPod touch fulfilled my needs, it's just that the pros outweighed the cons. I wanted the product, so I bought it. I bought it because I had faith in Apple. Excuse me for learning to trust a company because they've had wonderful customer service for ten years. I bought it amid the screen errors and the hissing sounds, etc. I knew Apple would fix this. I expected them to fix the lack of apps a little bit after the release of iPhone as well. I knew iPhone had them by the balls, but I didn't expect this shit. They have changed as a company, iPhone is their number one priority and they don't really give a shit about iPod users. The iPod product line (partially responsible for iPhone's success) has become a slave to iPhone. It's fucking bullshit. They added some functionality, I'm able to add events to my calendar, they didn't charge me $2 for it.
I've owned an iPod touch for a small while, big fucking whoop. I have to pay for those apps because Apple already has me sold. They don't give a shit, I already bought it. So they go suck the dicks of potential buyers, and I'm upset. It's shitty PR to shaft your current users. It sure as hell didn't get them anywhere they are today. They tried shafting current iPhone users, it didn't work. iPhone users had a mega bitchfit and Apple succumbed to them. $100 gift card. Oh right, they also get a monthly check from the iPhone users, they don't get that from iPod touch users, so who gives a shit at Apple? No one.
It's not that I don't need them. They would be nice to have. It's not a new OS, it's a medium sized update early in the product's cycle. Everyone should have it. iPod Nanos have fucking notes for Pete's sake, and they don't even have keyboard input! New users get it simply because they are going to be giving Apple $$. Not-as-new users don't get it because we've been sold and Apple couldn't care less. You're completely right, as a product owner, I have no right to expect added functionality that is STANDARD on the product I own. I have no right, especially because I already paid.
It's bullshit.
Why are you defending Apple so vigorously after they've fucked up? Are you an iPhone owner? A shareholder? What gives?
I agree with most of your above points. I hope they're accurate, it makes sense. I still feel shafted though and I wish Apple would do more to explain it. Ignoring the outcry isn't great PR, I hope they do something in the coming week. React somehow.
They can't do that to iPhone users. iPhone is the heart of the company right now. A sour one, if you ask me. They tried to get away with it , it didn't work. The negative reaction was overwhelming and rightfully so. So they did something their PR agent suggested. I don't think "that's the market, that's life" would've gone over too well. One would hope that consumers are not such sheep, and evidently they're not. The public lash out was enormous.
Once again, this logic is flawed. Those few overpriced apps should not stop anyone from buying an iPod touch. There is so much more that is desired. They should be an included plus, and they are for new users. I hope Apple's not hoping their free AppleTV update is outshining the negativity of their shitty move toward iPod users.... it's not.
My logic is in no way flawed. Your post is just a long-winded explanation as to why you are annoyed that you have to pay for this upgrade.
I understand why people are annoyed, I really do. But none of it explains why anyone should have the right to expect extra stuff for free.
You expected the extra apps to be added. You made the assumption that they'd be delivered for free. Apple never said that they'd even be delivered, let alone for free. Again, without the guarantee that any functionality will be added to the device, why buy it if it doesn't do all you want it to do?
If you needed the missing stuff, you shouldn't have bought it. And if you could use the touch before without this stuff, why do you all of a sudden have to have it? Most of this just smacks of jealousy and people's desire to "keep up with the Joneses" for the sake of it rather than because of any actual need.
All of this "old iPod touch owners have to pay for the update whilst it's bundled for free with new iPod touches" is not a valid argument. If it was a valid argument, it would be just as valid to be dismayed that new OSes for Macs cost money, whilst they are bundled on new Macs for free.
Yes, OSes cost more to develop, but that's why they cost more.
It's Apple's prerogative to charge what they like, and it's your prerogative to either pay and have the apps, or not pay and not have the apps. That's as far as it goes.
Yes, be pissed off that you have to pay. But don't try and pretend that there's any logical argument that proves that Apple should be obliged to give the applications away for free.
My logic is in no way flawed. Your post is just a long-winded explanation as to why you are annoyed that you have to pay for this upgrade.
I understand why people are annoyed, I really do. But none of it explains why anyone should have the right to expect extra stuff for free.
You expected the extra apps to be added. You made the assumption that they'd be delivered for free. Apple never said that they'd even be delivered, let alone for free. Again, without the guarantee that any functionality will be added to the device, why buy it if it doesn't do all you want it to do?
If you needed the missing stuff, you shouldn't have bought it. And if you could use the touch before without this stuff, why do you all of a sudden have to have it? Most of this just smacks of jealousy and people's desire to "keep up with the Joneses" for the sake of it rather than because of any actual need.
All of this "old iPod touch owners have to pay for the update whilst it's bundled for free with new iPod touches" is not a valid argument. If it was a valid argument, it would be just as valid to be dismayed that new OSes for Macs cost money, whilst they are bundled on new Macs for free.
Yes, OSes cost more to develop, but that's why they cost more.
It's Apple's prerogative to charge what they like, and it's your prerogative to either pay and have the apps, or not pay and not have the apps. That's as far as it goes.
Yes, be pissed off that you have to pay. But don't try and pretend that there's any logical argument that proves that Apple should be obliged to give the applications away for free.
Very weak. You're ignoring points and suggesting your logic is great when people are giving you proof it sucks. They're not obliged to give anything away for free, yet they do. They're not obliged to overprice their shit and they do.
You're making it simpler than it is. "If it wasn't what you wanted, you shouldn't have bought it. " Awesome! Keep repeating yourself and ignoring counter arguments.
I'm not here to change your mind, I'm finished arguing. It's dumb and repetitive. You know what I think, but you just shrugged off my above post as a 'long-winded explanation as to why I'm annoyed that i have to pay for this upgrade'. It was actually an explanation of what I think and some counterpoints to your over simplified points.
That OS argument is SO bogus. They are a few apps, not a whole OS. An iPod touch OS upgrade should cost $20, not a firmware update with some apps. I understand the development of an OS is expensive, but the development of the apps was already paid for by current iPod touch users just as much as it's being paid for by new users. The price hasn't changed! It's just more for us.
I realize Apple can do whatever they want, but they usually make people happy, not anger them.
You're ignoring the fact that it was a SHITTY fucking PR move on Apple's part.
I don't really care about the $$, I got the updates from Apple. It's a long story, there were major issues with my iPod; Apple was at fault and I was reimbursed with an exchange and credit. I am showing my displeasure toward a wrong move by Apple.
You're just saying the same shit over and over to justify your annoyance with people's sense of entitlement. I could do that too, but you can just refer here: http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=147. Take notes, do as you please.
I'm not going to make accusations,but there is irrationality here. You won't change your mind, I won't change mine. It's child's play. I'm finished. Keep on trucking with your same replies to different posts and points.
Farewell.
I'm still steamed over the lack ofpdates in 1.1.3, more than not getting the Apps free. But the fact that new users get them for free really takes the cake. That's just flat out wrong.
Mr. H makes a good point. Apple didn't offer free versions of Leopard and iLife' 08 to everyone that purchased an iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook or MacBook Pro*.
* If you bought your Mac within the past two weeks of the new OS arrival they did offer it for free. They will probably do the same for iPod Touches purchased since January 1st, too. I know why. Do you know why?
I understand why people are annoyed, I really do. But none of it explains why anyone should have the right to expect extra stuff for free.
You expected the extra apps to be added. You made the assumption that they'd be delivered for free. Apple never said that they'd even be delivered, let alone for free. Again, without the guarantee that any functionality will be added to the device, why buy it if it doesn't do all you want it to do?
If you needed the missing stuff, you shouldn't have bought it. And if you could use the touch before without this stuff, why do you all of a sudden have to have it? Most of this just smacks of jealousy and people's desire to "keep up with the Joneses" for the sake of it rather than because of any actual need.
All of this "old iPod touch owners have to pay for the update whilst it's bundled for free with new iPod touches" is not a valid argument. If it was a valid argument, it would be just as valid to be dismayed that new OSes for Macs cost money, whilst they are bundled on new Macs for free.
Yes, OSes cost more to develop, but that's why they cost more.
It's Apple's prerogative to charge what they like, and it's your prerogative to either pay and have the apps, or not pay and not have the apps. That's as far as it goes.
Yes, be pissed off that you have to pay. But don't try and pretend that there's any logical argument that proves that Apple should be obliged to give the applications away for free.
You sir need to look at the facts.
Fact 1: Home Screen Reorganising, Lyrics and WebClips are not Apps.
Fact 2: 3/5 of these "apps" are widgets. Widgets are free on Mac OS X and Windows. And on OS X Mobile iPhone Edition (Yes, that's right, a skew of a skew of an OS)
Fact 3: £199 is a substantial cost for an 8GB Media Player, one which carries with it a certain level of service quality expectation whether Apple likes it or not.
Fact 4: Apple may not have said ahead of time that I'd get new apps, let alone free ones, but they damn sure didn't tell me they would be selling updates to existing software. That sir is the rub.
Fact 5: By including updates to existing software in the App Pack, Apple is forcing users who do not want these apps to buy them for features they themselves (Apple) include on cheaper, and even non-premium products (iPod classic, iPod nano respectively. Both have Home Screen customisation and lyrics support)
Fact 6: There is more to it than simply suggesting that we hold off because these things weren't there. We were basing our buying decisions on then-current information (Not 20/20 hindsight, as you are), which suggested that the Apps on iPhone and not iPod touch were only meant for iPhone. We weighed the pros and cons at that time and decided to buy. Had we known that some of he cons would be rectified, it's possible some of us would have held off.
I bought an iPod touch because I want(/ed) a widescreen video iPod and not a phone. I staved off Jailbreaking it because I had faith that Apple would fix my biggest software quibble - that damn missing icon. Low and behold, 2 ways of fixing this are announced for OS X Mobile 1.1.3
Oh, wait. No. Just the iPhone edition. Wait, what? According to the less attractive new Dock, the two distros of OS X Mobile should be getting closer, not more different. So that makes absolutely zero sense.
But, surely iPod touch's distribution of OS X Mobile should get that functionality too, it's only fair. Oh sure it does.
Well, only if you pay £12.99 for 5 apps you may have already decided you didn't want to pay for.
Are you getting it now? Apple is trying to force me to buy something I already decided I did not want to pay for by bundling something I'm more likely to have wanted with it. For the exact same reason you say we should lay down and let Apple charge the £12.99, that we did not know the iPod touch would get this pack, we have every reason to be outraged.
And I don't give a damn about some half-hearted legal explanation using a redundant interpretation of a law that barely applies. Rule number one of business: don't piss off the people who will form your future revenue model. You know. iTunes Store customers. IE, almost every iPod owner in territories with an iPod Store. People like me.
It's stupid, it makes no sense and it's not cool.
Hmm. Saying that any complaint about apple is an attempt to sabotage the stock sure sounds like name calling and statements made with no reason to back them up.
Pot, I've got a kettle I'd like you to meet.
If you've really done research on this, you sure haven't given any evidence of it here.
Apple has said that they have no choice but to charge what they charged, and you've done nothing but mindlessly parrot the party line. Just because apple makes an excuse, that doesn't mean that it's true. Sure, they blamed SOX. But I haven't seen any evidence that it really applies in this sort of situation (what specifically does it say in SOX that would forbid giving these apps for free?) PLUS apple and other companies add features via updates to software and hardware all the time. And what part of SOX insists that a tiny update like this has to cost $20 and not $5 or even $1? In the previous case where apple used this excuse (and has apple even said that their hands were tied in this case? I've just heard the sycophants make that excuse so far) they upped wireless network speed by a large factor and only charged $5 for it.
Frankly, I'm tired of your hypocritical accusations of not discussing the facts while you have nothing to back up your claims beyond "But apple says it's SOX fault!"
It's been fun, but I'm done with this nonsense.
damn. now i know i've been wasting my breath
-when i defended the sabotage statement, i said it was because encouraging griping about a company you own stock in is akin to sabotage. That is reason. not name calling.
-i did talk about details. if you wanted mla citations, you came to the wrong place. i didn't just say "it's sox fault" i went on to say why deferred revenue is not practical to apply to all products, and why 802.11n had no established market value whereas the mobile apps in ipod touch do. pay some attention, and please, either stop using the word sycophant or learn how to use a thesaurus.
glad you're done with this nonsense. it's not like you actually read what anyone was saying anyway.
And I don't give a damn about some half-hearted legal explanation using a redundant interpretation of a law that barely applies. .
it's about time someone actually challenged whether or not the aforementioned law applies or not, rather than simply ignoring it and saying "there's no reason for apple to do this."
can you go into detail...explain why it doesn't apply?
it's about time someone actually challenged whether or not the aforementioned law applies or not, rather than simply ignoring it and saying "there's no reason for apple to do this."
can you go into detail...explain why it doesn't apply?
No one seems to be able to state why the Act doesn't apply or why it does applies at $20 and not for a lesser amount if Apple was forced to charge a fee.
Jeez. I'd rather not have paid $20, but... Is it really that big of a deal?
Word. People are totally losing their shit over freakin' twenty bucks?
Apple's move here counts as annoying.
You know what else is annoying? The way that every time Apple does pretty much anything a bunch of people show up here expressly to carry on like Apple broke into their house and killed their dog and then made them pay to have it stuffed and then stole that.
And how they then launch into extended diatribes about what Apple "must" do to set things right, and how Apple is "obligated" to do exactly as they desire, and how Apple "better" get on it or there will be some kind of unspecified "trouble".
Really, some of ya'll need to get a grip. A twenty buck gouge calls for a little grumbling, not extended caterwauling and rending of the garments.
I bought an iPod Touch only a week ago, so I'm a little annoyed with this. The only features I want are to be able to move the icons and save book marks to the home screen.
Rich