I can see the advantages of the iPhone 3G S, it really is a nice upgrade (better camera, video recording, faster hardware), but as an iPod Touch 2G user... the benefits really don't add to much (this is personal opinion based on the usage of my iPod, others may disagree as they have different needs). I don't really like landscape mode as I've already come used to portrait, spotlight search is no useful for me as I have all the applications I need on the first two homepages, which means I've got no use for two extra homepages...
...I'm not cheap, it's just that that my iPod doesn't have the hardware to take the advantages I would need/like of OS 3, so for me, it's just not worth paying for things I'm rarely gonna use if at all...
The $10 fee kind of bugs me, although the fact that I can apply the upgrade to all the iPod Touch units I have is more than fair enough. I don't know what Apple actually does with the fee, but I like to think that the developers saw at least a little bit of that money.
Why would Apple be giving money to developers?! This is an upgrade that Apple worked on.
I'm amazed that AppleInsider or one of the other major gadget sites hasn't picked up on the problems Touch customers are having with the 3.0 upgrade. Maybe that's why there's been such a slow adoption rate. I wish I had waited. Check Apple's support websites and see all the issues people currently have with 3.0 "bricking" their units, wireless problems, connectivity problems with once working automobile interfaces, totally unpredictable behaviors, the list goes on and on. Try this link to see for yourself: http://discussions.apple.com/categor...tart=0#threads. That's just one of 10 that I've searched trying to find a solution.
Add in the fact that there is no clear way to downgrade back to 2.x.x and the user community is beside itself. Whether you go to a MINI or BMW or other interface providers' forum communities, everyone is screaming about the upgrade causing these units to stop functioning normally. Fortunately, I only updated two of my three Touch's so I have one that I can still utilize. My 3GS iphone works fine with V3, but nothing else does.
I think this release needs an immediate fix or a clear, workable way to downgrade the software, and Apple should refund everyone's $10 purely as a gesture of apology for releasing this bag of dirt called an upgrade.
the problem is really bigger than a simple idea that apple is doing this to make money. In fact, apple, being a Consumer Electronics Company, has every intention of selling hardware and giving the software (tools) to sell it away. So, the SEC legal rumblings are not untrue - but rather complicated. The stock price alone, might be 50% higher at this moment if wall street recognized the true earnings of the company. Don't forget, ATT is paying them up front the 350.00 plus per phone and it could be recognized in the quarter report instead of amortized over 720 days. As hard to believe as it is - wall street does not recognize all that cash as profit until it is shown as actual profit divided out over the life (720 days) of the phone. This is not ideal for apple, investors or ipod touch users. However, you can't skin a cat two ways in this case - as the relationship with ATT is with a subscription model. Apple did not invent it - and in fact started out selling their phones for full price without it. However, the phone business requires the subscription model to be successful (see competition). So, can anyone bitching about the $10.00 stop and realize you can't have a subscription model with the phone (software free) and then give it away with the touch for free without a subscription model. it isn't rocket science. it is business and following the complex legal requirements of the SEC and public markets we invest in. AS it is, the SEC has enough corruption and cheating to go around for everyone. Do you think Apple should just not follow the law to keep your little hearts happy? Well, they are not following the law to make $10!!!
The $10 has to show fair value for what is set up in the subscription model for upgrades. it is called a standard. it has to be reasonable and not subject to question. In fact, it is much harder to justify $10 than $20 and not the other way around with giving it away for a dollar as some suggest here as solutions (see you in jail). AGAIN.. Apple did not invent the subscription model. If any other company comes out with a two product line up - phone and touch example, they will have to do some very fancy accounting to avoid what is already a standard in accounting practices with similar circumstances to what Apple has encountered. AGAIN.. APPLE DIDN'T COME UP WITH THIS PLAN ON PURPOSE - THEY CAME UP WITH IT BECAUSE THEY HAD NO CHOICE WITH A SUBSCRIPTION BUSINESS FORMAT THAT HAPPENS TO CROSS OVER INTO THE IPOD TOUCH PRODUCT USING THE SAME SOFTWARE.
DO YOU REALLY THINK APPLE COULD GIVE A CRAP ABOUT THE $10?.. WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS SELL HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE. THE NAME AFTER APPLE IS "CONSUMER ELECTRONICS" .. ARE YOU ALL JUST STUCK IN A COMPUTER MIND SET OR CAN YOU ADAPT TO WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON NOW FOR OVER TWO YEARS?
D
If i was you buddy i would fix my post to stop screaming .
Dude ease the f up We are only discussing WHY. And after discussing it we now understand .we don;t agree but we get it .
So why don't we charge the iphone the same $10 software upgrade?
While I admit it's not a slam-dunk, i think you are being a tad disingenuous here.
I was talking "computers" (Apple is formerly and still primarily a computer company), not "consumer devices. Cell phones (traditionally or traditional models at least), and the iPod classic are not really in this category for starters. You do have a point with the Apple TV. I didn't think of that device when I made my comments and it now makes me wonder if they are going to do some kind of content subscription model with that eventually. In any case, despite the fact that the Apple TV *is* a computer, most of it's users probably don't think of it as one.
Things like iPods are right on the bubble in that we never used to really think of them as "computers" per se, but now (especially with the iPod touch we do. Also, having owned many many PDAs I can tell you that OS upgrades for them as a category are most definitely not always free. It's such a big category that covers so much history and so many devices that you can't rally say much about that at all, at least not in such general terms.
The comparison between the iPod touch and an iMac that I made is (IMO) much, much closer to reality than the examples you gave, in that both of these things actually run OS-X, but with one running a modified, slightly dumbed down variety. Clearly it won't be long before the horsepower of these mobiles and the OS they run is virtually identical to the desktop machines as well.
My argument therefore is more that since the iPod touch is the first device in a new mobile computing platform, (that doesn't use the subscription model like the iPhone), if Apple allowed the updates to be for free, it would most definitely reflect on their desktop line.
Especially now people are getting used to lower and lower prices for OS updates (a new development being pushed almost entirely by Apple BTW), if they start giving them away for free, it won't long at all before people start to wonder why they have to pay for an OS update at all.
Concomitant to that, I would argue that it's just rude for people to complain about this given the incredible amount of work that goes into the update, the ridiculously *low* price that Apple is charging, the fact that Apple is in fact leading the way to lower and lower prices all the time, the fact that the last time people complained the price was cut in half, the likelihood that the price might be lowered even further, and the fact that Apple purposely leaves their servers open so people can basically rip it off and distribute it for free on teh Internets (if you're that kind of person that likes to rip stuff off.
I understand why people are confused by the whole thing, but just because a lot of stupid people cry like babies about it doesn't make me feel sympathetic.
Well my friend the avg. joe smoe knows nothing about gapp and stuff. He only see's the iphone people not being charged while he is being charged. Its that simple. It is not so well thought out or as diabolcal as you make it out to be.
I see the point of people not upgrading yet. I jumped at the opportunity of upgrading my 2nd generation Ipod touch with the 3.0 OS. I didn't mind the $10 at all. Other mp3 players don't even offer updates at a cost.
But... I noticed that my iPod seems slower, mainly because transitions from one screen to another are choppier (you can see the frame rate flicker when pressing the home button and the current application screen minimizes and gives way to the home screen). Also, I noticed, there's chopiness when swiping the other way to access the Spotlight search page. It just seems to hesitate a bit, which is unacceptable. I know the device is fast enough for a simple screen change. Just a matter of quality control on Apple's part. I wouldn't have released this update like this. I'm sure an update is coming.
$10 isn't nothing to be upset about, Microsoft announced the Vista upgrade to Windows 7 prices today.
Or should I say the paid 'patch to fix Vista'
Quote:
The full version of Windows 7 Home Premium is priced at $199, with an upgrade from Vista or XP costing $119. The full version of Windows 7 Professional is $299, with upgrades going for $199. Windows 7 Ultimate is priced at $319, with the upgrade version at $219.
I can understand some iPhone owners waiting to see if the 3.0 Update causes problems or is wrought with bugs and issues like the 2.0 Update was. The 3.0 Update however, at least thus far, seems to be pretty solid. I'm not having any of the problems I had last year (as some people here are currently reporting about the 3.0 Update). If you are having problems since updating to 3.0, I'd suggest doing a clean restore of your iPhone (not from a backup) and then practicing the wise habit of cycling off and on your iPhone each time you update any of your apps to clear the cache. Turning your iPhone off once a day (e.g., when you go to bed at night) to clear the cache is also a good habit to get into as well.
As for the iPod Touch, it's an iPod, not a full-fledged PDA (and Apple isn't billing it as such), though many are clearly using it as a PDA. It's amazing how much Apple has brought to the Touch (and the entire iPod line, quite frankly). 3.0 adds even more functionality to a device that's already performing above and beyond its original intention. But it seems like the people complaining about the $9.95 upgrade fee expect more (or even expected the more they're now getting from the start) for nothing. The subscription model explains/justifies the fee. And the less-than-$10 fee seems entirely reasonable for a major OS Update. All the .x updates to the iPhone OS have all been (and should continue to be) free.
The iPhone/iPod Touch product lines are more akin to personal computers than consumer products like gaming consoles, lesser cell phones or even the lesser iPods (though they're gaining more functionality all the time). Steve Jobs referred to these products as "Post PC Devices" and more people should start recognizing them as complex and powerful computers rather than dismissing them as trinkets to be taken for granted. The software engineering that enables these devices to do what they're capable of is nothing less than amazing, and the software engineers and designers responsible should be rewarded for their efforts. I'm honestly surprised the iPhone OS 2.0 and 3.0 Updates didn't cost $9.95 for both iPod Touch and iPhone owners. It's about the software and it makes sense (to me) that this new mobile computing platform that Apple is helping (re)define follow the model already in place in the computer market: major OS (or X.0) Updates are paid upgrades and incremental (or .x) Updates to the major releases are free as they're usually bug and security fixes.
The improved performance and added features should make the 3.0 Update a no brainer for iPhone users. As an iPhone owner, I'd have gladly paid for the 3.0 Update if required (as I would have for the 2.0 Update last year). But minus the phone features, I can see how the upgrade fee could be a tougher sell for iPod Touch users.
Of their users, over 50% of Touch owners had upgraded to OS 3.0 by two days ago.
And the fee probably made a difference: over 75% of iPhone users had.
Which is not to say AdMob's collecting bad data--this is just one developer--but it's something to wonder about. Maybe Tapbots just has a certain user base who leans towards early adoption. But 50% vs. 1% is a huge difference.
Charging for OS updates is not the norm for consumer devices.
Let's take a look:
Cell phones - always free
PDAs - always free
Consoles - always free
Apple TV - always free
iPod classic - always free
iPod touch - $10 a time
It's the iPod touch and not the iPhone that's the abnormaility.
I paid for the v2.0 because it added a feature (the app store) that, to me, was worth the money. However, most of the v3.0 features are really only useful to iPhone users. I won't be upgrading.
Oddly your list left out another Apple product with free point updates which I hear is still being manufactured: computers.
Of course, one key word in that sentence is "point" - if not for the "free" upgrade to iPhone users (from whom Apple gets a $$ cut from ATT every month) - it could be logically argued that 3.0 is more like going from Tiger to Leopard, i.e., a fully newly architected version rather than an upgrade. That is, I got like, what, 11 free point upgrades to the former (and a number for iLife and iWork), but was not offered a free copy of Leopard, and most of Appledom assembled seems copasetic with that as the "way it's done" with OS X.
I still don't fully understand the arcane workings of Sarbanes-Oxley (but feel in general it's a flawed law from what I can grok of it), nor why Apple accounts for iPod Touch sales differently than it does for Mac sales - dividing by 730, etc., ad nauseum. But even if there are clear reasons for the diff, there's still no mandate to make the price a half sawbuck, especially comparing the relatively tiny impact on the bottom line of the incremental revenue vs. the teeth-gnashing and headslaps generated.
If half of current touch owners upgrade over the next year, and you factor in download costs (server power, db updating and bandwidth, e.g.) and subtract the revenue from 3.0 apps not sold because they won't run on the un-upgraded installed base, you might in fact be looking at a net loss of revenue AND profit. And good will.
So my two cents is that if a fee must be charged for to serve the gods of GAAP (generally accepted accounting practices), everyone (including Apple) would benefit from the price being $1.99 or $2.99 so it would seem trivial and palatable, and I would certainly advise them to look beyond the glare from their green eyeshades.
Does the iPhone 3.0 OS enhance game performance? If not, then that's why so few have upgraded.
The teens and young adults don't care about cut'n'paste. There's no new hardware being added by the software update (somehow sending a new processor over the wire would be cool) and the rest is pretty phone specific.
While I appreciate the conclusions drawn here, there are a couple of points regarding the data: First, couldn't there also be a conclusion that some people are just cheap, for example, if a person chooses a free app (with ads) over the paid version (which in my limited experience so far - I've noticed that most "free" apps with ads offer a 'full' version if you pay), so couldn't one also conclude that most of the Touch owners buy the update and pay for their apps? Second, not free apps use the ad model, in fact, I tend to avoid those. And third, this data is for Saturday, couldn't it be that there's a difference to how the majority of iPhone users and iPod Touch users interact with their devices? I mean if you're an iPhone user the update has a lot more to offer you, but if you a touch users, well, I can seen these folks taking a little more time to update. I'd like to see this data for this coming Saturday.
My point here is that I think the conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt as it has some holes.
So users will pay $10 for an app but not to update their device. Makes no sense.
It is what it is, I guess. Personally, I find it worth the $10, even though Safari seems to have been marginally crippled by the update. It's much slower and has trouble viewing more web sites.
How can there be a law which makes it illegal for companies to give away free stuff? If Apple's interpretation of the law is correct, then the Senate has some explaining to do.
To say bluetooth is poorly implemented is gross understatement! It is flat out terrible .. I have tried 3 different sets of blutooth headphones, and one set of speakers, and the ipod will not remain connected to them for more than about 30 seconds.
This was a WASTE of $10.
On a related note, streaming audio over the iPod touch seems to automatically end at about 15 minutes every time I use an app for that. Is this a typical bug in the touch?
They should know by now that most consumer only want to buy thing from the App Store at 0.99$ or get it for FREE.
Get into the program and release a lite version for FREE or at most sell it for 0.99$ and you will get ton of purchase...
But the funny thing is that I wont even surprise if its the way a lot of consumer are thinking now. Especially looking at the downward spiral for the pricing on the App Store, one day a game is $9.99, then drop to $4.99 and shortly after to $0.99
If i was you buddy i would fix my post to stop screaming .
Dude ease the f up We are only discussing WHY. And after discussing it we now understand .we don;t agree but we get it .
So why don't we charge the iphone the same $10 software upgrade?
It's not the 10 dollars its feeling cheated .
9
sorry if i read screaming. why don't you read what i said. if you feel cheated you would have to change the laws to change it. Don't get off subject on this and whine whine whine.. This isn't about apple choosing the way to handle subscription accounting presented by ATT and the competition. This is the way they are handling it. And, it is not because it is easier as mentioned in another post. it is because they simply had to go along with subscription method accounting in order to lower the price from $600 to $200 and be competitive on the street.
i don't think you get itl? or why would you feel cheated? you are really not getting it at all?
Comments
...I'm not cheap, it's just that that my iPod doesn't have the hardware to take the advantages I would need/like of OS 3, so for me, it's just not worth paying for things I'm rarely gonna use if at all...
The $10 fee kind of bugs me, although the fact that I can apply the upgrade to all the iPod Touch units I have is more than fair enough. I don't know what Apple actually does with the fee, but I like to think that the developers saw at least a little bit of that money.
Why would Apple be giving money to developers?! This is an upgrade that Apple worked on.
Add in the fact that there is no clear way to downgrade back to 2.x.x and the user community is beside itself. Whether you go to a MINI or BMW or other interface providers' forum communities, everyone is screaming about the upgrade causing these units to stop functioning normally. Fortunately, I only updated two of my three Touch's so I have one that I can still utilize. My 3GS iphone works fine with V3, but nothing else does.
I think this release needs an immediate fix or a clear, workable way to downgrade the software, and Apple should refund everyone's $10 purely as a gesture of apology for releasing this bag of dirt called an upgrade.
the problem is really bigger than a simple idea that apple is doing this to make money. In fact, apple, being a Consumer Electronics Company, has every intention of selling hardware and giving the software (tools) to sell it away. So, the SEC legal rumblings are not untrue - but rather complicated. The stock price alone, might be 50% higher at this moment if wall street recognized the true earnings of the company. Don't forget, ATT is paying them up front the 350.00 plus per phone and it could be recognized in the quarter report instead of amortized over 720 days. As hard to believe as it is - wall street does not recognize all that cash as profit until it is shown as actual profit divided out over the life (720 days) of the phone. This is not ideal for apple, investors or ipod touch users. However, you can't skin a cat two ways in this case - as the relationship with ATT is with a subscription model. Apple did not invent it - and in fact started out selling their phones for full price without it. However, the phone business requires the subscription model to be successful (see competition). So, can anyone bitching about the $10.00 stop and realize you can't have a subscription model with the phone (software free) and then give it away with the touch for free without a subscription model. it isn't rocket science. it is business and following the complex legal requirements of the SEC and public markets we invest in. AS it is, the SEC has enough corruption and cheating to go around for everyone. Do you think Apple should just not follow the law to keep your little hearts happy? Well, they are not following the law to make $10!!!
The $10 has to show fair value for what is set up in the subscription model for upgrades. it is called a standard. it has to be reasonable and not subject to question. In fact, it is much harder to justify $10 than $20 and not the other way around with giving it away for a dollar as some suggest here as solutions (see you in jail). AGAIN.. Apple did not invent the subscription model. If any other company comes out with a two product line up - phone and touch example, they will have to do some very fancy accounting to avoid what is already a standard in accounting practices with similar circumstances to what Apple has encountered. AGAIN.. APPLE DIDN'T COME UP WITH THIS PLAN ON PURPOSE - THEY CAME UP WITH IT BECAUSE THEY HAD NO CHOICE WITH A SUBSCRIPTION BUSINESS FORMAT THAT HAPPENS TO CROSS OVER INTO THE IPOD TOUCH PRODUCT USING THE SAME SOFTWARE.
DO YOU REALLY THINK APPLE COULD GIVE A CRAP ABOUT THE $10?.. WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS SELL HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE. THE NAME AFTER APPLE IS "CONSUMER ELECTRONICS" .. ARE YOU ALL JUST STUCK IN A COMPUTER MIND SET OR CAN YOU ADAPT TO WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON NOW FOR OVER TWO YEARS?
D
If i was you buddy i would fix my post to stop screaming .
Dude ease the f up We are only discussing WHY. And after discussing it we now understand .we don;t agree but we get it .
So why don't we charge the iphone the same $10 software upgrade?
It's not the 10 dollars its feeling cheated .
9
While I admit it's not a slam-dunk, i think you are being a tad disingenuous here.
I was talking "computers" (Apple is formerly and still primarily a computer company), not "consumer devices. Cell phones (traditionally or traditional models at least), and the iPod classic are not really in this category for starters. You do have a point with the Apple TV. I didn't think of that device when I made my comments and it now makes me wonder if they are going to do some kind of content subscription model with that eventually. In any case, despite the fact that the Apple TV *is* a computer, most of it's users probably don't think of it as one.
Things like iPods are right on the bubble in that we never used to really think of them as "computers" per se, but now (especially with the iPod touch we do. Also, having owned many many PDAs I can tell you that OS upgrades for them as a category are most definitely not always free. It's such a big category that covers so much history and so many devices that you can't rally say much about that at all, at least not in such general terms.
The comparison between the iPod touch and an iMac that I made is (IMO) much, much closer to reality than the examples you gave, in that both of these things actually run OS-X, but with one running a modified, slightly dumbed down variety. Clearly it won't be long before the horsepower of these mobiles and the OS they run is virtually identical to the desktop machines as well.
My argument therefore is more that since the iPod touch is the first device in a new mobile computing platform, (that doesn't use the subscription model like the iPhone), if Apple allowed the updates to be for free, it would most definitely reflect on their desktop line.
Especially now people are getting used to lower and lower prices for OS updates (a new development being pushed almost entirely by Apple BTW), if they start giving them away for free, it won't long at all before people start to wonder why they have to pay for an OS update at all.
Concomitant to that, I would argue that it's just rude for people to complain about this given the incredible amount of work that goes into the update, the ridiculously *low* price that Apple is charging, the fact that Apple is in fact leading the way to lower and lower prices all the time, the fact that the last time people complained the price was cut in half, the likelihood that the price might be lowered even further, and the fact that Apple purposely leaves their servers open so people can basically rip it off and distribute it for free on teh Internets (if you're that kind of person that likes to rip stuff off.
I understand why people are confused by the whole thing, but just because a lot of stupid people cry like babies about it doesn't make me feel sympathetic.
Well my friend the avg. joe smoe knows nothing about gapp and stuff. He only see's the iphone people not being charged while he is being charged. Its that simple. It is not so well thought out or as diabolcal as you make it out to be.
. PEACE
9
That and how much more money do they want?
I already paid to upgrade the software twice. A 3rd time? No.
But... I noticed that my iPod seems slower, mainly because transitions from one screen to another are choppier (you can see the frame rate flicker when pressing the home button and the current application screen minimizes and gives way to the home screen). Also, I noticed, there's chopiness when swiping the other way to access the Spotlight search page. It just seems to hesitate a bit, which is unacceptable. I know the device is fast enough for a simple screen change. Just a matter of quality control on Apple's part. I wouldn't have released this update like this. I'm sure an update is coming.
Or should I say the paid 'patch to fix Vista'
The full version of Windows 7 Home Premium is priced at $199, with an upgrade from Vista or XP costing $119. The full version of Windows 7 Professional is $299, with upgrades going for $199. Windows 7 Ultimate is priced at $319, with the upgrade version at $219.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/...on=All+Stories
Yea, Mac site, nobody cares and yes I don't know why I even bother with Windows, perhaps because I'm a masochism or something.
As for the iPod Touch, it's an iPod, not a full-fledged PDA (and Apple isn't billing it as such), though many are clearly using it as a PDA. It's amazing how much Apple has brought to the Touch (and the entire iPod line, quite frankly). 3.0 adds even more functionality to a device that's already performing above and beyond its original intention. But it seems like the people complaining about the $9.95 upgrade fee expect more (or even expected the more they're now getting from the start) for nothing. The subscription model explains/justifies the fee. And the less-than-$10 fee seems entirely reasonable for a major OS Update. All the .x updates to the iPhone OS have all been (and should continue to be) free.
The iPhone/iPod Touch product lines are more akin to personal computers than consumer products like gaming consoles, lesser cell phones or even the lesser iPods (though they're gaining more functionality all the time). Steve Jobs referred to these products as "Post PC Devices" and more people should start recognizing them as complex and powerful computers rather than dismissing them as trinkets to be taken for granted. The software engineering that enables these devices to do what they're capable of is nothing less than amazing, and the software engineers and designers responsible should be rewarded for their efforts. I'm honestly surprised the iPhone OS 2.0 and 3.0 Updates didn't cost $9.95 for both iPod Touch and iPhone owners. It's about the software and it makes sense (to me) that this new mobile computing platform that Apple is helping (re)define follow the model already in place in the computer market: major OS (or X.0) Updates are paid upgrades and incremental (or .x) Updates to the major releases are free as they're usually bug and security fixes.
The improved performance and added features should make the 3.0 Update a no brainer for iPhone users. As an iPhone owner, I'd have gladly paid for the 3.0 Update if required (as I would have for the 2.0 Update last year). But minus the phone features, I can see how the upgrade fee could be a tougher sell for iPod Touch users.
http://tapbots.com/blog/news/iphone-os-30-adoption-rate
Of their users, over 50% of Touch owners had upgraded to OS 3.0 by two days ago.
And the fee probably made a difference: over 75% of iPhone users had.
Which is not to say AdMob's collecting bad data--this is just one developer--but it's something to wonder about. Maybe Tapbots just has a certain user base who leans towards early adoption. But 50% vs. 1% is a huge difference.
Charging for OS updates is not the norm for consumer devices.
Let's take a look:
Cell phones - always free
PDAs - always free
Consoles - always free
Apple TV - always free
iPod classic - always free
iPod touch - $10 a time
It's the iPod touch and not the iPhone that's the abnormaility.
I paid for the v2.0 because it added a feature (the app store) that, to me, was worth the money. However, most of the v3.0 features are really only useful to iPhone users. I won't be upgrading.
Oddly your list left out another Apple product with free point updates which I hear is still being manufactured: computers.
Of course, one key word in that sentence is "point" - if not for the "free" upgrade to iPhone users (from whom Apple gets a $$ cut from ATT every month) - it could be logically argued that 3.0 is more like going from Tiger to Leopard, i.e., a fully newly architected version rather than an upgrade. That is, I got like, what, 11 free point upgrades to the former (and a number for iLife and iWork), but was not offered a free copy of Leopard, and most of Appledom assembled seems copasetic with that as the "way it's done" with OS X.
I still don't fully understand the arcane workings of Sarbanes-Oxley (but feel in general it's a flawed law from what I can grok of it), nor why Apple accounts for iPod Touch sales differently than it does for Mac sales - dividing by 730, etc., ad nauseum. But even if there are clear reasons for the diff, there's still no mandate to make the price a half sawbuck, especially comparing the relatively tiny impact on the bottom line of the incremental revenue vs. the teeth-gnashing and headslaps generated.
If half of current touch owners upgrade over the next year, and you factor in download costs (server power, db updating and bandwidth, e.g.) and subtract the revenue from 3.0 apps not sold because they won't run on the un-upgraded installed base, you might in fact be looking at a net loss of revenue AND profit. And good will.
So my two cents is that if a fee must be charged for to serve the gods of GAAP (generally accepted accounting practices), everyone (including Apple) would benefit from the price being $1.99 or $2.99 so it would seem trivial and palatable, and I would certainly advise them to look beyond the glare from their green eyeshades.
Their call, though.
I upgraded my original iPhone to the 3.0 software and have not noticed anything being faster at all.
Same here for my Touch- not that I'm complaining mind you. I basically got it for bluetooth.
The teens and young adults don't care about cut'n'paste. There's no new hardware being added by the software update (somehow sending a new processor over the wire would be cool) and the rest is pretty phone specific.
My point here is that I think the conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt as it has some holes.
So users will pay $10 for an app but not to update their device. Makes no sense.
It is what it is, I guess. Personally, I find it worth the $10, even though Safari seems to have been marginally crippled by the update. It's much slower and has trouble viewing more web sites.
To say bluetooth is poorly implemented is gross understatement! It is flat out terrible .. I have tried 3 different sets of blutooth headphones, and one set of speakers, and the ipod will not remain connected to them for more than about 30 seconds.
This was a WASTE of $10.
On a related note, streaming audio over the iPod touch seems to automatically end at about 15 minutes every time I use an app for that. Is this a typical bug in the touch?
They should know by now that most consumer only want to buy thing from the App Store at 0.99$ or get it for FREE.
Get into the program and release a lite version for FREE or at most sell it for 0.99$ and you will get ton of purchase...
But the funny thing is that I wont even surprise if its the way a lot of consumer are thinking now. Especially looking at the downward spiral for the pricing on the App Store, one day a game is $9.99, then drop to $4.99 and shortly after to $0.99
Fred
If i was you buddy i would fix my post to stop screaming .
Dude ease the f up We are only discussing WHY. And after discussing it we now understand .we don;t agree but we get it .
So why don't we charge the iphone the same $10 software upgrade?
It's not the 10 dollars its feeling cheated .
9
sorry if i read screaming. why don't you read what i said. if you feel cheated you would have to change the laws to change it. Don't get off subject on this and whine whine whine.. This isn't about apple choosing the way to handle subscription accounting presented by ATT and the competition. This is the way they are handling it. And, it is not because it is easier as mentioned in another post. it is because they simply had to go along with subscription method accounting in order to lower the price from $600 to $200 and be competitive on the street.
i don't think you get itl? or why would you feel cheated? you are really not getting it at all?