Briefly: 802.11n fee, Jobs' mansion woes, Apple targets British firm
Apple has lowered the price of entry for recent Intel Mac owners who want 802.11n access. At the same time, Steve Jobs' initially approved demolition of a classic home has been denied. And yet another device maker has suffered the wrath of Apple's legal team over alleged trademark misuse.
Apple confirms, lowers 802.11n Enabler fee
Apple tonight confirmed a circulating story that it would charge owners of recent Airport-equipped Macs for a patch that will enable 802.11n wireless in Mac OS X. The company, however, appears to have changed its mind about the privately documented $4.99 fee following customer reaction and will now plans to charge just $1.99
Apple spokeswoman Lynn Fox additionally confirmed that the Sarbannes-Oxley Act was largely to blame for the fee. The law's provisions require that companies charge for significant features added to already-purchased products, Fox said.
Speculation about retroactive updates to the faster Wi-Fi standard arose when dissections of the MacBook Pro and other computers released since August revealed hidden 802.11n support in their chipsets.
Jobs denied demolition rights
In a surprising turn of events, local authorities last week revoked the permit initially granted to Apple chief exeuctive Steve Jobs that would have let him demolish a decaying mansion on his property.
The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco overturned a previous decision that was to have seen the Jackling estate -- which Jobs infamously characterized as an "abomination" -- razed in favor of building a new, smaller home.
In explaining its decision, the court claimed that Jobs had not shown proof that it would be unfeasible to bring the 1926 building back to its former glory, drawing in part on the arguments made by a preservation group named Uphold Our Heritage.
Although the permit had been granted dating back 2001, just a year after Jobs moved out of the property, UOH successfully blocked the demolition last January when presiding Judge Marie Weiner agreed with the group's argument that Jobs had not proven restoring the house was beyond his means.
British firm in hotseat for alleged iPod trademark violation
Apple is continuing to squeeze companies it believes are treading on its coveted iPod trademark, AppleInsider has learned. A young British company named Securipod Ltd. said on Thursday that it received a Cease and Desist letter from the Cupertino firm, claiming that the inclusion of "ipod" in its name might create confusion.
The Watford, UK-based startup flatly rejected the notion, saying that its upcoming first product had very little to do with Apple's signature music device and that the legal action was ironic given Apple's current lawsuit troubles. "[Our] directors are bemused as to how a biometric wallet could be confused with an iPod MP3 player, but an Apple iPhone could not be confused with a Cisco iPhone," Securipod said in a statement.
Though the fledgling company still hopes for a June release of its wallet, named Biouno, design and marketing manager Mark Watson observed that Apple's flippant attitude towards trademarks was potentially ruinous for smaller companies. "The 'silly tiff' [of a trademark dispute] as referred to by Apple can cost businesses tens of thousands of pounds in legal fees to fight for the right to protect their names," he said.
Apple confirms, lowers 802.11n Enabler fee
Apple tonight confirmed a circulating story that it would charge owners of recent Airport-equipped Macs for a patch that will enable 802.11n wireless in Mac OS X. The company, however, appears to have changed its mind about the privately documented $4.99 fee following customer reaction and will now plans to charge just $1.99
Apple spokeswoman Lynn Fox additionally confirmed that the Sarbannes-Oxley Act was largely to blame for the fee. The law's provisions require that companies charge for significant features added to already-purchased products, Fox said.
Speculation about retroactive updates to the faster Wi-Fi standard arose when dissections of the MacBook Pro and other computers released since August revealed hidden 802.11n support in their chipsets.
Jobs denied demolition rights
In a surprising turn of events, local authorities last week revoked the permit initially granted to Apple chief exeuctive Steve Jobs that would have let him demolish a decaying mansion on his property.
The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco overturned a previous decision that was to have seen the Jackling estate -- which Jobs infamously characterized as an "abomination" -- razed in favor of building a new, smaller home.
In explaining its decision, the court claimed that Jobs had not shown proof that it would be unfeasible to bring the 1926 building back to its former glory, drawing in part on the arguments made by a preservation group named Uphold Our Heritage.
Although the permit had been granted dating back 2001, just a year after Jobs moved out of the property, UOH successfully blocked the demolition last January when presiding Judge Marie Weiner agreed with the group's argument that Jobs had not proven restoring the house was beyond his means.
British firm in hotseat for alleged iPod trademark violation
Apple is continuing to squeeze companies it believes are treading on its coveted iPod trademark, AppleInsider has learned. A young British company named Securipod Ltd. said on Thursday that it received a Cease and Desist letter from the Cupertino firm, claiming that the inclusion of "ipod" in its name might create confusion.
The Watford, UK-based startup flatly rejected the notion, saying that its upcoming first product had very little to do with Apple's signature music device and that the legal action was ironic given Apple's current lawsuit troubles. "[Our] directors are bemused as to how a biometric wallet could be confused with an iPod MP3 player, but an Apple iPhone could not be confused with a Cisco iPhone," Securipod said in a statement.
Though the fledgling company still hopes for a June release of its wallet, named Biouno, design and marketing manager Mark Watson observed that Apple's flippant attitude towards trademarks was potentially ruinous for smaller companies. "The 'silly tiff' [of a trademark dispute] as referred to by Apple can cost businesses tens of thousands of pounds in legal fees to fight for the right to protect their names," he said.
Comments
Although the permit had been granted dating back 2001, just a year after Jobs moved out of the property, UOH successfully blocked the demolition last January when presiding Judge Marie Weiner agreed with the group's argument that Jobs had not proven restoring the house was beyond his means.
That bugs me. Where do they get the right to tell Jobs that he has to restore a house that he doesn't want just because it's old? That's just stupid.
That bugs me. Where do they get the right to tell Jobs that he has to restore a house that he doesn't want just because it's old? That's just stupid.
If it is a historic house, he must preserve it.
Apple spokeswoman Lynn Fox additionally confirmed that the Sarbannes-Oxley Act was largely to blame for the fee. The law's provisions require that companies charge for significant features added to already-purchased products, Fox said.
Speculation about retroactive updates to the faster Wi-Fi standard arose when dissections of the MacBook Pro and other computers released since August revealed hidden 802.11n support in their chipsets.
Will someone please explain to me why applying a software patch to a piece of already included hardware just to enable a function that it was capable of when it was purchased is any different than me downloading the latest OS X.4.48 that makes the widgets on my destop do something new and better than what it did when I first paid for it? I am clearly getting a better OS experience without having to pay for it. Are we introuble and will never see another free update again?
Will someone please explain to me why applying a software patch to a piece of already included hardware just to enable a function that it was capable of when it was purchased is any different than me downloading the latest OS X.4.48 that makes the widgets on my destop do something new and better than what it did when I first paid for it?
Yes:
Apple did not advertise or make public in any way that the Apple hardware you were buying contained 802.11n-capable wireless, let alone imply that the feature may be enabled in the future. They advertised and sold to you a 802.11g-enabled computer - you got exactly what Apple said you would get.
Moving from 802.11g to 802.11n is a significant upgrade, Apple have never provided a similar significant upgrade in a 10.x.y update.
Yes:
Apple did not advertise or make public in any way that the Apple hardware you were buying contained 802.11n-capable wireless, let alone imply that the feature may be enabled in the future. They advertised and sold to you a 802.11g-enabled computer - you got exactly what Apple said you would get.
Moving from 802.11g to 802.11n is a significant upgrade, Apple have never provided a similar significant upgrade in a 10.x.y update.
Ok, the OS was just an example and I can't disprove your really generic 'never a significant up grade in a 10.x.y' statement as 'significant upgrade' is highly subjective.
Did not apple have the two fingered track pads in some early PowerBooks only to later enable them with an os upgrade? This is a significant change in the behavior of my trackpad, yet no money was charged for it. Why this time?
And more to my point, what is to stop Apple from now charging $4.99 for each System Update for the percieved 'significance' of the patch?
Ok, the OS was just an example and I can't disprove your really generic 'never a significant up grade in a 10.x.y' statement as 'significant upgrade' is highly subjective.
Did not apple have the two fingered track pads in some early PowerBooks only to later enable them with an os upgrade? This is a significant change in the behavior of my trackpad, yet no money was charged for it. Why this time?
And more to my point, what is to stop Apple from now charging $4.99 for each System Update for the percieved 'significance' of the patch?
According to MacWorld.com, the fee is--at least partially--used to pay for royalties of using an 802.11n device. I'm sure more info is to come.
Apple spokeswoman Lynn Fox additionally confirmed that the Sarbannes-Oxley Act was largely to blame for the fee. The law's provisions require that companies charge for significant features added to already-purchased products, Fox said.
'Cause we all know that Apple would never be greedy!
A young British company named Securipod Ltd.
Bah! they can just add another 'o' to their name. It would go well with the typical storage location of their product.
If it is a historic house, he must preserve it.
Says who? It's an f-ing building, not a person.
Says who? It's an f-ing building, not a person.
Three words: court of law
How is this article dated for Friday? I live on the East coast and it's only 8:30 here. Are you guys located in England???
Backdating and Forwarddating is all the rage these days 8)
I wonder if Uphold Our Heritage has any connection to Greenpeace?
Heh. The Environment conservationists are very different from the older, quilt-making, nosy geriatrics crowd that comprises the SuburbanHeritage conservationists. Gotta give those old people something to whine about...
Did not apple have the two fingered track pads in some early PowerBooks only to later enable them with an os upgrade? This is a significant change in the behavior of my trackpad, yet no money was charged for it. Why this time?
I don't remember this, which OS upgrade was this? I mean, I do know that certain PowerBooks (like my PowerBook 12" I had before my MacBook) shipped with a trackpad that could do that and later I was able to apply a third-party patch (or was it a modification to the OF?) that let me utilize it. BUT, I don't remember Apple officially giving us a solution to this.
And more to my point, what is to stop Apple from now charging $4.99 for each System Update for the percieved 'significance' of the patch?
Umm, isn't that what an OS upgrade is? I mean, we're talking $129 instead of $5, but it's the same idea. So basically, it's just like bitching about Leopard costing $129, because all Leopard does is "enhance the hardware that is already there".
In direct answer to your question, no, there isn't anything to stop Apple from charging $4.99 for each .1 System Update. There never was. It's just that they don't.
I guess some people are just too used to getting stuff for free. So this one thing happens where for one reason or another Apple needs to (or feel strongly that they should) charge a very minimal fee for the update, and people go bonkers. Amazing.
If you don't approve of Apple's practice, don't buy the update. It will cost you no money to not, and your Mac will do everything that it promised to do the day you bought it. Feel free to later add on a Airport Express card w/802.11n for $100. That is your choice.
hell, just last week, there was an update for iPhoto that added more templates and book/card features...that was a FREE update...
In direct answer to your question, no, there isn't anything to stop Apple from charging $4.99 for each .1 System Update. There never was. It's just that they don't.
Um, yes there is. If they were to charge for these fixes, you could sue for exactly the same thing. They sold you something that was less than the specification. Most of these are bug fixes which means the software does not behave in a way that was suggested at the time of sale.
Three words: court of law
Like I say in the real estate business "it's nothin' 5 gallons of gas and a match won't cure!"
Not technically a historic building. Google Jackling Estate. I think the town of Woodside needs to pony up and buy it if they want to keep it.