Yeah and that's not counting Australasia, the rest of Europe, contracts ending, a 3G iPhone, even larger storage and the possibility this year of an iPhone nano. I'm going to call it 25 million.
Yeah and that's not counting Australasia, the rest of Europe, contracts ending, a 3G iPhone, even larger storage and the possibility this year of an iPhone nano. I'm going to call it 25 million.
How exactly would an iPhone Nano work? The screen on the iPhone would be unusable if shrunk down and a non-touch screen version would totally defeat the idea of the iPhone. I can't see it, but I'm willing to here your views as I could be missing something.
I have a Powerbook from 2004 and a G5 iMac. I.e., no Intel processors. I'll probably upgrade to a MBP later in the year, but since I work in the nonprofit industry I can't really afford to make major computer purchases very frequently.
Too bad Apple doesn't seem to offer discounts to nonprofit organizations other than educational institutions...
1) There is still a $99 fee just to allow access to your free software. etc etc
You're obviously angry about something that Apple did to you. That's OK.
But, please allow me to point out that you're naive if you think there's some such thing as "free." The water you drink from your faucet is not "free" - you pay a water bill every month; your use of your TV is not "free" - you pay an electricity bill; this post that you just made is not "free" - you paid your cable or telephone or satellite provider so that you could.
$99 for something that (you hope) will be a blockbuster and make you rich and famous as a software developer is not such a big deal.
How exactly would an iPhone Nano work? The screen on the iPhone would be unusable if shrunk down and a non-touch screen version would totally defeat the idea of the iPhone. I can't see it, but I'm willing to here your views as I could be missing something.
Dude! Never ask Ireland about an iPhone Nano. He has, like, drawings and renderings and marketing plans and a terrifying, unshakable faith.
When I first saw the iPhone, on the web, i thought it was too big. But when I saw it in person for the first time at work, I could not imagine it being any smaller, thinner, or less wide.
Also, what a pain it would be for developers to design an interface for 2 differently sized iPhones? Ugh.
I'm facing the same situation with my Airport Extreme base station. I went and bought that and a nice 500gb hard drive in anticipation of wireless back up that was one of the features of Leopard.
I think that that is a very different situation to what we have here with the iPod touch. On Leopard's information pages at Apple's website, before Leopard was released, Apple clearly stated that wireless backup would be possible using Airport Extreme + external HDD, but this info was removed around the time of Leopard's release.
Hopefully a 10.5.x or a (free) AE firmware update will fix this, otherwise you and a lot of others got shafted.
How exactly would an iPhone Nano work? The screen on the iPhone would be unusable if shrunk down and a non-touch screen version would totally defeat the idea of the iPhone. I can't see it, but I'm willing to here your views as I could be missing something.
Whilst folk such as Ireland believe it's possible whilst keeping a touch-screen, I don't see why this is necessary. I'd still prefer to have a standard candy-bar form-factor mobile phone with integrated iPod from Apple rather than from some other company. I'm confident that Apple could do this better than Nokia or Sony Ericsson, particularly on the music-playing aspect of the phone.
The iPod shuffle has no screen and no click-wheel, but it's still an iPod. The iPhone Nano should have a non-touch-screen and physical 0-9 buttons etc., but it'll still be an iPhone in as much as it's a mobile phone/iPod hybrid made by Apple.
$99 for something that (you hope) will be a blockbuster and make you rich and famous as a software developer is not such a big deal.
So what about the software developers that just want to release their stuff for free and not earn anything from it such as myself?
I can front up $99 even if it's free software but many open source projects are run on a totally no costs basis. There's also the issue of who owns the licence on an open source project that often has many developers and that may change.
From what I can gather, you pay the $99 for access to the Apps Store, not the SDK. Maybe sourceforge.net will front up one licence so projects can release code for free using a single licence to the App Store.
Or, what about developing apps for clients of mine that aren't supposed to be publicly available?
Anyway, I don't imagine it's a big hurdle, but it's still a pity you have to go through the App Store or somehow qualify for their enterprise installer. I suspect also it'll be broken in a matter of days anyway so that installing outside the Apps Store will be simple.
The complaints about having to upgrade to 2.0 before you can even run 3rd party apps is also with some merit if you're not actually getting any new features in the 2.0 update. Are there any new features in 2.0 other than the announced ActiveSync support, which unless you're in an MS dweeb ran company is totally meh ?
I hope the App Store quality control rottwieller is used as a mechanism to ensure apps conform to standard user interface guidelines. It will obviously protect iPhones from malicious software and oppose jailbreaking/contract circumventing apps.
WRONG. By the time I purchased my iPod touch the SDK was promised.
But by the time I had purchased my new iMac in august, apple had already promised leopard many months before. I think that until they're actually shipping the device with the software update they don't owe anyone anything.
Or, what about developing apps for clients of mine that aren't supposed to be publicly available?
Apparently they are working on a non public way of distributing applications too. I can't remember when they mentioned it but it was mentioned in the keynote.
I hope the App Store quality control rottwieller is used as a mechanism to ensure apps conform to standard user interface guidelines. It will obviously protect iPhones from malicious software and oppose jailbreaking/contract circumventing apps.
I really hope NOT. If Apple are to vet all apps then it will stifle innovation in UI design. You'd not have Delicious Library for instance if they had to stick to the Apple HIG.
The complaints about having to upgrade to 2.0 before you can even run 3rd party apps is also with some merit if you're not actually getting any new features in the 2.0 update.
Look at it its not a 1.1.5 update its a full 2.0 update. So their are very likely to be some significant changes that Apple did not announce yet.
Technically, it's the accounting model, not the monthly fee from ATT. It's just easier to explain it in layman's terms by saying monthly fee.
The subscription accounting model, applied to the iphone and apple tv, defers the revenue from the accounting books over a period of time, 2 years, I believe. It's less profitable in the short term, but allows them to make the updates necessary to stay competitive without charging.
Ipods (and the Ipod touch) are not under this accounting model. So when the ipod touch is purchased, that revenue is claimed in full immediately. Thus, any such updates are required by law to carry a charge consistent with market value.
Thank you so much for restoring some sense to this discussion.
Yes, the reason has to do with Federal law and the way Apple accounts for its products (and no, it isn't directly related to the fact iPhone users pay a bill to AT&T). Apple is required by Federal law to either account for the sale in the quarter in which the product was sold, or carry it over a two-year period and a depreciate its value over that time. The iPhone and AppleTV are carried as a subscription method, but all computers and iPods are put on the books when they're sold.
There is no LEGAL way Apple can fundamentally enhance the value of an iPod (like the touch) with a software/firmware upgrade without charging the end user for that enhancement. Go look it up if you have doubts: Sarbanes-Oxley, which was a law passed 5 or 6 years ago as a result of the bookkeeping scams run by Enron and other companies over the 90s.
The whiner here is missing the fundamental truth of these upgrades: The owner of the touch is under no obligation to download and pay for those upgrades. Without the upgrades, the touch will do EXACTLY what the box said it would do. Downloading the upgrades ADDS features and functionality to the touch, which changes the value of the product Apple carried on its books.
If you don't want to pay the charge, then don't download the upgrade. Life rarely gets any easier than that. Your touch will continue as it was before and you are at no disadvantage whatsoever. As the old adage states, you can't lose what you never had.
If you decide that you want the added feature of being able to download and install apps to your touch, then man up and pay the fee. You're making a decision that you want something MORE than what you originally paid for, so accept the consequences which go with that decision.
Either way, for God's sake, stop with the whining. You're entitled to a product which works as advertised when you bought it, but not to unlimited additions of features and functions you didn't pay for in the first place.
Comments
I was looking forward to trying this out, but not if I have to buy a new Mac to do it.
I was looking forward to trying this out, but not if I have to buy a new Mac to do it.
How old is your Mac that you can't run Leopard?
I do! Make it 15 million.
Yeah and that's not counting Australasia, the rest of Europe, contracts ending, a 3G iPhone, even larger storage and the possibility this year of an iPhone nano. I'm going to call it 25 million.
How old is your Mac that you can't run Leopard?
"iPhone SDK will run on Intel-based Macs..."
Yeah and that's not counting Australasia, the rest of Europe, contracts ending, a 3G iPhone, even larger storage and the possibility this year of an iPhone nano. I'm going to call it 25 million.
How exactly would an iPhone Nano work? The screen on the iPhone would be unusable if shrunk down and a non-touch screen version would totally defeat the idea of the iPhone. I can't see it, but I'm willing to here your views as I could be missing something.
"iPhone SDK will run on Intel-based Macs..."
Thanks, I obviously missed that part.
This is a grand day, Wilco. You finally posted a non-hostile, helpful reply. Keep up the good work.
How old is your Mac that you can't run Leopard?
I have a Powerbook from 2004 and a G5 iMac. I.e., no Intel processors. I'll probably upgrade to a MBP later in the year, but since I work in the nonprofit industry I can't really afford to make major computer purchases very frequently.
Too bad Apple doesn't seem to offer discounts to nonprofit organizations other than educational institutions...
To answer your points 1 at a time
1) There is still a $99 fee just to allow access to your free software. etc etc
You're obviously angry about something that Apple did to you. That's OK.
But, please allow me to point out that you're naive if you think there's some such thing as "free." The water you drink from your faucet is not "free" - you pay a water bill every month; your use of your TV is not "free" - you pay an electricity bill; this post that you just made is not "free" - you paid your cable or telephone or satellite provider so that you could.
$99 for something that (you hope) will be a blockbuster and make you rich and famous as a software developer is not such a big deal.
How exactly would an iPhone Nano work? The screen on the iPhone would be unusable if shrunk down and a non-touch screen version would totally defeat the idea of the iPhone. I can't see it, but I'm willing to here your views as I could be missing something.
Dude! Never ask Ireland about an iPhone Nano. He has, like, drawings and renderings and marketing plans and a terrifying, unshakable faith.
Run. Run if you want to live.
Also, what a pain it would be for developers to design an interface for 2 differently sized iPhones? Ugh.
I'm facing the same situation with my Airport Extreme base station. I went and bought that and a nice 500gb hard drive in anticipation of wireless back up that was one of the features of Leopard.
I think that that is a very different situation to what we have here with the iPod touch. On Leopard's information pages at Apple's website, before Leopard was released, Apple clearly stated that wireless backup would be possible using Airport Extreme + external HDD, but this info was removed around the time of Leopard's release.
Hopefully a 10.5.x or a (free) AE firmware update will fix this, otherwise you and a lot of others got shafted.
How exactly would an iPhone Nano work? The screen on the iPhone would be unusable if shrunk down and a non-touch screen version would totally defeat the idea of the iPhone. I can't see it, but I'm willing to here your views as I could be missing something.
Whilst folk such as Ireland believe it's possible whilst keeping a touch-screen, I don't see why this is necessary. I'd still prefer to have a standard candy-bar form-factor mobile phone with integrated iPod from Apple rather than from some other company. I'm confident that Apple could do this better than Nokia or Sony Ericsson, particularly on the music-playing aspect of the phone.
The iPod shuffle has no screen and no click-wheel, but it's still an iPod. The iPhone Nano should have a non-touch-screen and physical 0-9 buttons etc., but it'll still be an iPhone in as much as it's a mobile phone/iPod hybrid made by Apple.
$99 for something that (you hope) will be a blockbuster and make you rich and famous as a software developer is not such a big deal.
So what about the software developers that just want to release their stuff for free and not earn anything from it such as myself?
I can front up $99 even if it's free software but many open source projects are run on a totally no costs basis. There's also the issue of who owns the licence on an open source project that often has many developers and that may change.
From what I can gather, you pay the $99 for access to the Apps Store, not the SDK. Maybe sourceforge.net will front up one licence so projects can release code for free using a single licence to the App Store.
Or, what about developing apps for clients of mine that aren't supposed to be publicly available?
Anyway, I don't imagine it's a big hurdle, but it's still a pity you have to go through the App Store or somehow qualify for their enterprise installer. I suspect also it'll be broken in a matter of days anyway so that installing outside the Apps Store will be simple.
The complaints about having to upgrade to 2.0 before you can even run 3rd party apps is also with some merit if you're not actually getting any new features in the 2.0 update. Are there any new features in 2.0 other than the announced ActiveSync support, which unless you're in an MS dweeb ran company is totally meh ?
WRONG. By the time I purchased my iPod touch the SDK was promised.
But by the time I had purchased my new iMac in august, apple had already promised leopard many months before. I think that until they're actually shipping the device with the software update they don't owe anyone anything.
Or, what about developing apps for clients of mine that aren't supposed to be publicly available?
Apparently they are working on a non public way of distributing applications too. I can't remember when they mentioned it but it was mentioned in the keynote.
I hope the App Store quality control rottwieller is used as a mechanism to ensure apps conform to standard user interface guidelines. It will obviously protect iPhones from malicious software and oppose jailbreaking/contract circumventing apps.
I really hope NOT. If Apple are to vet all apps then it will stifle innovation in UI design. You'd not have Delicious Library for instance if they had to stick to the Apple HIG.
The complaints about having to upgrade to 2.0 before you can even run 3rd party apps is also with some merit if you're not actually getting any new features in the 2.0 update.
Look at it its not a 1.1.5 update its a full 2.0 update. So their are very likely to be some significant changes that Apple did not announce yet.
Technically, it's the accounting model, not the monthly fee from ATT. It's just easier to explain it in layman's terms by saying monthly fee.
The subscription accounting model, applied to the iphone and apple tv, defers the revenue from the accounting books over a period of time, 2 years, I believe. It's less profitable in the short term, but allows them to make the updates necessary to stay competitive without charging.
Ipods (and the Ipod touch) are not under this accounting model. So when the ipod touch is purchased, that revenue is claimed in full immediately. Thus, any such updates are required by law to carry a charge consistent with market value.
Thank you so much for restoring some sense to this discussion.
Yes, the reason has to do with Federal law and the way Apple accounts for its products (and no, it isn't directly related to the fact iPhone users pay a bill to AT&T). Apple is required by Federal law to either account for the sale in the quarter in which the product was sold, or carry it over a two-year period and a depreciate its value over that time. The iPhone and AppleTV are carried as a subscription method, but all computers and iPods are put on the books when they're sold.
There is no LEGAL way Apple can fundamentally enhance the value of an iPod (like the touch) with a software/firmware upgrade without charging the end user for that enhancement. Go look it up if you have doubts: Sarbanes-Oxley, which was a law passed 5 or 6 years ago as a result of the bookkeeping scams run by Enron and other companies over the 90s.
The whiner here is missing the fundamental truth of these upgrades: The owner of the touch is under no obligation to download and pay for those upgrades. Without the upgrades, the touch will do EXACTLY what the box said it would do. Downloading the upgrades ADDS features and functionality to the touch, which changes the value of the product Apple carried on its books.
If you don't want to pay the charge, then don't download the upgrade. Life rarely gets any easier than that. Your touch will continue as it was before and you are at no disadvantage whatsoever. As the old adage states, you can't lose what you never had.
If you decide that you want the added feature of being able to download and install apps to your touch, then man up and pay the fee. You're making a decision that you want something MORE than what you originally paid for, so accept the consequences which go with that decision.
Either way, for God's sake, stop with the whining. You're entitled to a product which works as advertised when you bought it, but not to unlimited additions of features and functions you didn't pay for in the first place.