Apple to impose 802.11n upgrade fee on Intel Mac owners

2456711

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 205
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    I'm skeptical of that claim. I won't say it isn't true, but I've never heard of such provision, so I'll wait for some expert second opinion on this before going along with it. I didn't know that all features had to be advertised, if that's true, then it is screwed up. I don't have a problem with the cost, but I don't want to be paying the money if it's just Apple blowing smoke again, and it isn't as if Apple has never done that.
  • Reply 22 of 205
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SirROM View Post


    What I want to know is when will Apple make "n" cards available for those of us with slightly older machines, such as the MacBook 1.0? I would buy a new Airport Extreme card for my Book in a heartbeat, but there seems to be no word on if these will even be made available.



    Anyone else hear anything hopeful?



    The biggest concern I've heard of is that "n" uses three antennas and the older machines don't have three antenna connections. If they do it, it's probably a mail-in or carry-in type thing to install a third antenna, assuming there is a way to put one in.
  • Reply 23 of 205
    Any idea whether older (1 year) Intel iMacs can take advantage of the 802.11n speeds?
  • Reply 24 of 205
    spykyspyky Posts: 55member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lou View Post


    Well i ordered my macbook on saturday, after the 802.11n confirmation, so i ordere it knowing it has n, also i'm in the Uk, so this act is irrevelant. Any guesses on if this will still count?



    Apple is based in the US and is subject to US accounting laws. I may be wrong, but I think it's sort of irrelevant where they sell the product, they still have to obey US accounting laws.



    I do agree that the whole affair seems a bit odd, but I guess maybe they are trying to make sure they dot every i and cross every t after the options scandal.



    Enjoy the new machine, I've had mine for a few weeks now. I also waited until they had pre-n built-in to purchase, although I just waited until I heard confirmation that the hardware existed. I sort of assumed a patch would come along. Good thing I wasn't wrong.



    -Derek
  • Reply 25 of 205
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    I am angry about this. $5 is nothing - but the 802.11n hardware that has been shipped in Macs has never worked properly.



    It is galling to be told that I can upgrade to 250megabit performance if I pay $5. After months of problems we still don't have reliable 802.11g hardware. We are owed a bug-fix. For free!



    C.
  • Reply 26 of 205
    OK, US$4-99 to activate a feature that already exists is the shipped hardware - now that is a bit steep. Of course the expense Apple has gone to to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act needs to be recovered from somewhere, I just rather it wasn't as a secondary impost, or tax on my new MBP!!!



    Say doesn't this sound like taxation without representation? We all remember what happened last time. . .
  • Reply 27 of 205
    bentonbenton Posts: 161member
    Are Dell, HP, IBM or Lenovo doing the same as Apple?
  • Reply 28 of 205
    The question about whether previous updates installed new features misses the point somewhat.

    Let's say Apple released an update to OS X 10.4 that included a new application, or an update to an existing one, it wouldn't require a fee.

    But installing a feature that was then locked up until the spec for it was agreed, then unlocking it... that's different. Macs being sold today, and appearing on the order books, would technically be the same as models selling yesterday that weren't the same, but are now...



    You know what? It's complicated. It all works out fine in my head, so let's leave it at that.

    I guess $5 is the lowest nominal fee that would get around the issue. It costs money to collect small payments, so anything below a certain figure is a loss, which would cause more problems than it's worth, and... oh sod it. I couldn't care less!
  • Reply 29 of 205
    You know there is egregious fanboyism happening when people here are easily justifying a $5.00 fee which, especially if Apple's hands are tied by this law, they are fully justified to understand and <i> then be annoyed by! </i>



    I really hope there is no law requiring an extra fee for each song the ipod holds past apple's advertised rounded numbers.



    Though it would explain the perpetual 2001 feel and featureset of .Mac
  • Reply 30 of 205
    inklinginkling Posts: 772member
    Looks like there's yet more fallout from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Like "campaign reform" that meant less free speech, when Congress tries to do good, it ends up botching it. What is blue blazes did Enron have to do with improving an already shipping product? And if Apple wants to avoid accounting costs, why not just allow untracked downloads and call it a fix for a problem?



    One test of Apple's sincerity about this is whether currently shipping Macs will have 802.11n enabled. There shouldn't be any legal messiness about doing that, it wouldn't be an "unadvertised new feature of an already sold product." It'd be a promised feature for a not-yet-sold product.



    So what about it Apple. Will you enable "n" in all Macs shipping from some date or not?
  • Reply 31 of 205
    shanmugamshanmugam Posts: 1,200member
    accounting problem? their CAs, MBAs cannot solve this accounting problem???



    take it as loss or something else ... and pay for the license or patent ...



    $5 is not big, this is NOT way ask the customer, we shipped something we do not know either you do not know, but we are charging 5 bucks to enable that and will see whether still it works fine or not ...



    i am big apple fan boy myself, this looks WEIRD



    (next time will they underclock CPU and ask money to over clock again ???)
  • Reply 32 of 205
    So is this the reason why owners of later PowerBooks and iBooks don't have multipoint contextual menus as an option for their trackpads?
  • Reply 33 of 205
    ksecksec Posts: 1,569member
    And if you think of it as your Macbook has 802.11 N inside doesn't it make you think you actually got a better deal?
  • Reply 34 of 205
    Well, it probably costs Apple more than $5 to add a new product and do the admin for something like this, so they have my sympathy if Sarbanes-Oxley really is to blame. It's always great to see the unintended consequences of poorly thought out legislation, rushed out by politicians because they want to cash in on some issue that happens to be headlining the evening news a few days in a row. (Of course, as a Brit I really shouldn't be complaining if it means most new company offerings are appearing in London rather than on Nasdaq or NYSE as a result, but that's another matter :-)
  • Reply 35 of 205
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jongleur View Post


    OK, US$4-99 to activate a feature that already exists is the shipped hardware - now that is a bit steep. Of course the expense Apple has gone to to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act needs to be recovered from somewhere, I just rather it wasn't as a secondary impost, or tax on my new MBP!!!



    Say doesn't this sound like taxation without representation? We all remember what happened last time. . .



    First point, it wasn't an advertised feature and wasn't even known initially. I wonder how many found 'n' a deal maker? Second, 5 bucks for what is effectively a "hardware" upgrade? Bargain. Third, taxation without representation? Rubbish, you vote by not buying an Apple product. And I suggest that anyone who decides to no longer buy Apple products because of this is petty in the extreme.
  • Reply 36 of 205
    eaieai Posts: 417member
    I'd imagine that if this rule exists, the spirit of it is that the cost of the new feature must match its value. Hence, giving it away for 1 cent, would still get them into trouble. Someone has probably had to write a large document analyzing the value of having a pre-n wifi card, and came up with something close to $4.99. That said, I don't really think they're going to complain much if you bittorrent it.



    On another note, I don't believe that companies do have to comply with SOX where ever they are selling products outside the US. I worked for a large multinational financial company in the UK and they were complying with SOX but purely because they expected similar regulation to come into force here (and standardization across the company). I imagine Apple will charge the same everywhere though (well, they always charge the UK too much, but thats another story!)
  • Reply 37 of 205
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lou View Post


    Well i ordered my macbook on saturday, after the 802.11n confirmation, so i ordere it knowing it has n, also i'm in the Uk, so this act is irrevelant. Any guesses on if this will still count?



    Wow, I always thought UK was State 51!
  • Reply 38 of 205
    pmjoepmjoe Posts: 565member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    According to the editor, the fee stems from a law called the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which supposedly prohibits Apple from giving away an unadvertised new feature of an already sold product without enduring some onerous accounting measures.



    "Because of the Act, the company believes that if it sells a product, then later adds a feature to that product, it can be held liable for improper accounting if it recognizes revenue from the product at the time of sale, given that it hasn?t finished delivering the product at that point," he wrote.



    This has to be the stupidest excuse I've ever heard. If Apple wants to charge $4.99 for the update, fine, but don't give out lame excuses.
  • Reply 39 of 205
    If you sell something and don't deliver it you can not book the revenue. It becomes a liability you must carry on your books until you complete the sale by delivering the total product. This is a hardware feature set that is being enabled and not a software feature. It's no surprise that in the wake of Enron the Congress might seek to clarify our accounting rules and that is what the Sarbanes Oaxley Act is.



    I imagine that at 5 bucks they are still losing money on this transaction and there is bound to be some aspect of the rules that prevents it from being a token fee. Enron cheated by claiming profits on goods never shipped. Apple ships goods never sold (n compatibility) and to stay on the right side of the law they need to charge a fee, so what.



    As a stock holder I'm glad to see them another lawsuit. And I'm glad to say that my confidence in buying their stock is now making it easier to buy their great products since it all can be paid for with profits on their actions.



    I may have had to postpone a hardware purchase or 2 to put together the nut but now I get to buy new toys with an even bigger smile. Prior to this I'd laid out tens of thousands buying Apple hardware and software since '84.



    Happy Mac'ing
  • Reply 40 of 205
    Yes, I'm a fan boy, so it alllows me to see the optimistic side very clearly.



    Did anyone consider that apple has already taken the hit and given this card away for free. If you want to use it, then pay for it...



    Meh, probably very unlikeley, but as I said, I'm a fan boy!
Sign In or Register to comment.