So some laptops already have it enabled? This is BS. I purchased a 15" MacBook Pro 2.33Ghz a week ago today and it didn't have it enabled, so this begs the question which ones were already enabled?
No where in this report did it say that some laptops already have it enabled.
[QUOTE=melgross;1034790]You obviously haven't read the articles in question, or you wouldn't be making the statement that those (reporters) have an agenda, so we can disregard the writing, so your comments about them are worthless. If you had, you would have read the statements from those who wrote those laws, and rules. Their comments are most relevant. No one else is dismissing them as you are, so apparently you haven't read them in context.
The same conclusions have also been reached by other tax authorities in academia..
[\\QUOTE]
From one of those that you quote,["To be certain, GAAP does not require companies to charge customers," said Gerard Carney, a spokesman for the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), which updates and maintains GAAP standards for accounting. "Further, GAAP does not tell companies how to run their business," he wrote in an e-mail.]
He is misleading you in a very subtle way. When he says, GAAP does not 'require companies to charge customers' he is being very true and then you stopped listening because it supported your wrong theory. But his statement is true only because the ONLY other option is to hold the revenue of all of their MBP sales.
As for GAAP "not telling companies how to run their business" is also very misleading. He means that GAAP does not make the business or finanancial decisions for the company. But the choices that Apple can make are clearly defined by the RULES that the GAAP sets up. GAAP makes the rules - Apple makes the business decision of which method is used.
You are failing to educate yourself and falling for the sound bite summary that is being promoted by every one that wants to slam apple for every little thing.
You obviously haven't read the articles in question, or you wouldn't be making the statement that those (reporters) have an agenda, so we can disregard the writing, so your comments about them are worthless. If you had, you would have read the statements from those who wrote those laws, and rules. Their comments are most relevant. No one else is dismissing them as you are, so apparently you haven't read them in context.
The same conclusions have also been reached by other tax authorities in academia..
[\\QUOTE]
From one of those that you quote,["To be certain, GAAP does not require companies to charge customers," said Gerard Carney, a spokesman for the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), which updates and maintains GAAP standards for accounting. "Further, GAAP does not tell companies how to run their business," he wrote in an e-mail.]
He is misleading you in a very subtle way. When he says, GAAP does not 'require companies to charge customers' he is being very true and then you stopped listening because it supported your wrong theory. But his statement is true only because the ONLY other option is to hold the revenue of all of their MBP sales.
As for GAAP "not telling companies how to run their business" is also very misleading. He means that GAAP does not make the business or finanancial decisions for the company. But the choices that Apple can make are clearly defined by the RULES that the GAAP sets up. GAAP makes the rules - Apple makes the business decision of which method is used.
You are failing to educate yourself and falling for the sound bite summary that is being promoted by every one that wants to slam apple for every little thing.
Then show some evidence that Apple would have had to pay that penalty. I'm not confused here. There are no "penalties to income" that you agreed to. There are tax advantages to doing what Apple has done. It is a choice they have made. They have indicated that they were forced into this by law. They were not.
No where in this report did it say that some laptops already have it enabled.
Quote:
The company recommends that customers check to make sure that their Mac does not already have the 802.11n enabler installed before purchasing the software patch. To do so, Intel Mac owners should open the "Network Utility" application (found in the Applications > Utilities folder), choose "Network Interface (en1)" under the "Info" tab, and then inspect the information provided under "Model: Wireless Network Adapter." If it says "(802.11a/b/g/n)," the Mac already has the 802.11n enabler installed. If it says (802.11a/b/g), the Mac does not have the 802.11n enabler installed.
Then show some evidence that Apple would have had to pay that penalty. I'm not confused here. There are no "penalties to income" that you agreed to. There are tax advantages to doing what Apple has done. It is a choice they have made. They have indicated that they were forced into this by law. They were not.
The penalty was that they would have to hold the sales from Q4 and their stock price would have plumeted because they didn't meet their expected targets.
This is not a plenalty to income, but simply when it is reported on the books.
Take your monthly subscription to 'How to be a shill' magazine. They bill you for 12 months of service and 1 publication per month. They are not allowed to report the full subscription fee as income the day that you hand over the check. They are required by the same laws that apple is following to report 1/12 of your check as income for each issue they mail you and defer the rest in a seperate register of undelivered orders. They are allowed to report money paid to them as income ONLY when they have shipped you the product.
Apple shipped MBP owners a complete product with no promises. Apple gets to record all revenue in the quarter. End of story.
If Apple had stated that the product was 'incomplete' and would be upgraded at another time. The sale from that incomplete item would have to be defered on the register as unfulfilled sales and not count towards the revenues generated for that quarter.
Done end of story. This is purely a 'business decision' that is framed around accounting laws and has nothing to do with apple screwing its customers.
I'm not sure if anyones mentioned this but has anybody thought of the idea of a thrid party company unlocking the ability via their own firmware. I mean the hardware is there and accessible. It couldnt be THAT hard could it?
I'm not sure if anyones mentioned this but has anybody thought of the idea of a thrid party company unlocking the ability via their own firmware. I mean the hardware is there and accessible. It couldnt be THAT hard could it?
Having the enabler installed, does not mean that it is enabled.
Seriously read the whole article (or even the sniplet I took in the last post). It clearly states that you should check to see if it's installed and to do that go to your network utility and see if it says 802.11a/b/g/n and if so then you do not need to purchase it for $2. Just actually read before commenting, novel idea I know but at least humor me, please....
Apple will receive favorable tax accounting IF they charge this fee.
But, IF they don't, there are no penalties involved over normal accounting practices.
By charging this fee, they are actually receiving a tax bonus.
That's very different.
No, they are avoiding an earnings reporting requirement that would force a restatement of some portion of earnings from previously shipped systems. I agree they would not have to restate the total purchase prices, that would be ridiculous. While this is not a penalty in the sense that Apple would expend $$ to some government agency, restatements for any reason are nearly always penalized in short term stock price trading pushing share values down.
This would also change tax reporting some, can't argue with that, but I would hardly call avoiding a larger than required tax burden a tax bonus. If any earnings were restated into a new quarter than that income is not as easily offset by expenses, a NASTY problem when moving income across tax year boundaries.
If you mean "favorable" by not taking it up the ol' corporate a$$ due to paper-based income shuffles not reflected in real world delivery dates you would be correct.
Remember Steve has a sense of humor. <cue paperboy>I want my two dollars!!!
If apple charged $75 for the same upgrade, then there would be that market for some developer to unlock the hardware and sell it for $50. I suspect that apple wanted a price low enough to discourage developers from making a profit off of the 'enhanced' driver.
It would be near impossible to undercut apples price for the limited number of MBPs that have been sold and still make a profit as a developer.
Dumb question, but it has already been decided that absolutely none of the Core Duo MBPs have the Draft N in it right? I bought it a while ago and I'm not yet financially able to get a new one yet (Stupid college ) Is there some other way to test if you can enable it?
Hopefully for us they'll find a way to release a new airport card, like they used to in the ppc days, I don't know how possible that is with the current design internally though.
Your signature sure doesn't make it seem like your strapped for cash though.
I know everyone's defending the cost or not defending the cost but my problem is this and so far no one has mentioned it: Why not just release the machines with this patch in the first place, they're no way they made the chip inside the computers saying "we'll make a patch later." They did it so they could release the new airport extreme first which makes no sense because if people are downloading this they weren't getting it anyways. They didn't need to hold n back to protect airport extreme sales, it's a friggin patch. Insead of why does this cost anything it should be why is this even necessary?
Much more important that all this accounting nitpickery, methinks, is which non-Airport pre-N routers will our machines work properly with? :-) Off to do some hunting ...
Why not just release the machines with this patch in the first place,
Because:
1) the driver wasn't done
2) the specification hadn't progressed as much.
The second part is important. The chipsets in the Macs are all "pre-N". They don't correspond to the final 802.11n spec, because there is no such thing yet. Now that a few months have passed, it has become increasingly certain that the chips will work fine with other 802.11n devices in the future, or will be easily patchable to increase compatibility. Back then, however, it was quite uncertain, to the point that there were two completely different, mutually incompatible technologies, and it was for quite a while very unclear which of the two would prevail.
By not announcing the feature (the n capability of the chips) to begin with, Apple thus left the possibility open that, if the chips don't work together with other devices as well as they need to, Apple will simply never release an Enabler. Nothing would be lost or gained, and nobody would feel screwed over, since the feature had never been advertised to begin with.
Now that it's known that the chips work fine, Apple can prepare a driver and release it.
The second part is important. The chipsets in the Macs are all "pre-N". They don't correspond to the final 802.11n spec, because there is no such thing yet. Now that a few months have passed, it has become increasingly certain that the chips will work fine with other 802.11n devices in the future, or will be easily patchable to increase compatibility. Back then, however, it was quite uncertain, to the point that there were two completely different, mutually incompatible technologies, and it was for quite a while very unclear which of the two would prevail.
By not announcing the feature (the n capability of the chips) to begin with, Apple thus left the possibility open that, if the chips don't work together with other devices as well as they need to, Apple will simply never release an Enabler. Nothing would be lost or gained, and nobody would feel screwed over, since the feature had never been advertised to begin with.
Now that it's known that the chips work fine, Apple can prepare a driver and release it.
Of course, those reasons make it even more interesting.
If it wasn't certain that the feature would work properly, if at all, when it came on the machines, and so, Apple didn't supply software for it, then it couldn't really be called a feature at all.
Comments
So some laptops already have it enabled? This is BS. I purchased a 15" MacBook Pro 2.33Ghz a week ago today and it didn't have it enabled, so this begs the question which ones were already enabled?
No where in this report did it say that some laptops already have it enabled.
The same conclusions have also been reached by other tax authorities in academia..
[\\QUOTE]
From one of those that you quote,["To be certain, GAAP does not require companies to charge customers," said Gerard Carney, a spokesman for the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), which updates and maintains GAAP standards for accounting. "Further, GAAP does not tell companies how to run their business," he wrote in an e-mail.]
He is misleading you in a very subtle way. When he says, GAAP does not 'require companies to charge customers' he is being very true and then you stopped listening because it supported your wrong theory. But his statement is true only because the ONLY other option is to hold the revenue of all of their MBP sales.
As for GAAP "not telling companies how to run their business" is also very misleading. He means that GAAP does not make the business or finanancial decisions for the company. But the choices that Apple can make are clearly defined by the RULES that the GAAP sets up. GAAP makes the rules - Apple makes the business decision of which method is used.
You are failing to educate yourself and falling for the sound bite summary that is being promoted by every one that wants to slam apple for every little thing.
You obviously haven't read the articles in question, or you wouldn't be making the statement that those (reporters) have an agenda, so we can disregard the writing, so your comments about them are worthless. If you had, you would have read the statements from those who wrote those laws, and rules. Their comments are most relevant. No one else is dismissing them as you are, so apparently you haven't read them in context.
The same conclusions have also been reached by other tax authorities in academia..
[\\QUOTE]
From one of those that you quote,["To be certain, GAAP does not require companies to charge customers," said Gerard Carney, a spokesman for the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), which updates and maintains GAAP standards for accounting. "Further, GAAP does not tell companies how to run their business," he wrote in an e-mail.]
He is misleading you in a very subtle way. When he says, GAAP does not 'require companies to charge customers' he is being very true and then you stopped listening because it supported your wrong theory. But his statement is true only because the ONLY other option is to hold the revenue of all of their MBP sales.
As for GAAP "not telling companies how to run their business" is also very misleading. He means that GAAP does not make the business or finanancial decisions for the company. But the choices that Apple can make are clearly defined by the RULES that the GAAP sets up. GAAP makes the rules - Apple makes the business decision of which method is used.
You are failing to educate yourself and falling for the sound bite summary that is being promoted by every one that wants to slam apple for every little thing.
Then show some evidence that Apple would have had to pay that penalty. I'm not confused here. There are no "penalties to income" that you agreed to. There are tax advantages to doing what Apple has done. It is a choice they have made. They have indicated that they were forced into this by law. They were not.
No where in this report did it say that some laptops already have it enabled.
The company recommends that customers check to make sure that their Mac does not already have the 802.11n enabler installed before purchasing the software patch. To do so, Intel Mac owners should open the "Network Utility" application (found in the Applications > Utilities folder), choose "Network Interface (en1)" under the "Info" tab, and then inspect the information provided under "Model: Wireless Network Adapter." If it says "(802.11a/b/g/n)," the Mac already has the 802.11n enabler installed. If it says (802.11a/b/g), the Mac does not have the 802.11n enabler installed.
Great way to read....
Then show some evidence that Apple would have had to pay that penalty. I'm not confused here. There are no "penalties to income" that you agreed to. There are tax advantages to doing what Apple has done. It is a choice they have made. They have indicated that they were forced into this by law. They were not.
The penalty was that they would have to hold the sales from Q4 and their stock price would have plumeted because they didn't meet their expected targets.
This is not a plenalty to income, but simply when it is reported on the books.
Take your monthly subscription to 'How to be a shill' magazine. They bill you for 12 months of service and 1 publication per month. They are not allowed to report the full subscription fee as income the day that you hand over the check. They are required by the same laws that apple is following to report 1/12 of your check as income for each issue they mail you and defer the rest in a seperate register of undelivered orders. They are allowed to report money paid to them as income ONLY when they have shipped you the product.
Apple shipped MBP owners a complete product with no promises. Apple gets to record all revenue in the quarter. End of story.
If Apple had stated that the product was 'incomplete' and would be upgraded at another time. The sale from that incomplete item would have to be defered on the register as unfulfilled sales and not count towards the revenues generated for that quarter.
Done end of story. This is purely a 'business decision' that is framed around accounting laws and has nothing to do with apple screwing its customers.
Great way to read....
Having the enabler installed, does not mean that it is enabled.
I'm not sure if anyones mentioned this but has anybody thought of the idea of a thrid party company unlocking the ability via their own firmware. I mean the hardware is there and accessible. It couldnt be THAT hard could it?
No, but?*two dollars?
Having the enabler installed, does not mean that it is enabled.
Seriously read the whole article (or even the sniplet I took in the last post). It clearly states that you should check to see if it's installed and to do that go to your network utility and see if it says 802.11a/b/g/n and if so then you do not need to purchase it for $2. Just actually read before commenting, novel idea I know but at least humor me, please....
Or, if you're not in middle school or high school then $2 shouldn't be that big of a deal.
Maybe it's not the money, it's the principal of it.
That's not quite true.
Apple will receive favorable tax accounting IF they charge this fee.
But, IF they don't, there are no penalties involved over normal accounting practices.
By charging this fee, they are actually receiving a tax bonus.
That's very different.
No, they are avoiding an earnings reporting requirement that would force a restatement of some portion of earnings from previously shipped systems. I agree they would not have to restate the total purchase prices, that would be ridiculous. While this is not a penalty in the sense that Apple would expend $$ to some government agency, restatements for any reason are nearly always penalized in short term stock price trading pushing share values down.
This would also change tax reporting some, can't argue with that, but I would hardly call avoiding a larger than required tax burden a tax bonus. If any earnings were restated into a new quarter than that income is not as easily offset by expenses, a NASTY problem when moving income across tax year boundaries.
If you mean "favorable" by not taking it up the ol' corporate a$$ due to paper-based income shuffles not reflected in real world delivery dates you would be correct.
No, but?*two dollars?
Remember Steve has a sense of humor. <cue paperboy>I want my two dollars!!!
Remember Steve has a sense of humor. <cue paperboy>I want my two dollars!!!
If apple charged $75 for the same upgrade, then there would be that market for some developer to unlock the hardware and sell it for $50. I suspect that apple wanted a price low enough to discourage developers from making a profit off of the 'enhanced' driver.
It would be near impossible to undercut apples price for the limited number of MBPs that have been sold and still make a profit as a developer.
Dumb question, but it has already been decided that absolutely none of the Core Duo MBPs have the Draft N in it right? I bought it a while ago and I'm not yet financially able to get a new one yet (Stupid college
Hopefully for us they'll find a way to release a new airport card, like they used to in the ppc days, I don't know how possible that is with the current design internally though.
Your signature sure doesn't make it seem like your strapped for cash though.
I know everyone's defending the cost or not defending the cost but my problem is this and so far no one has mentioned it: Why not just release the machines with this patch in the first place, they're no way they made the chip inside the computers saying "we'll make a patch later." They did it so they could release the new airport extreme first which makes no sense because if people are downloading this they weren't getting it anyways. They didn't need to hold n back to protect airport extreme sales, it's a friggin patch. Insead of why does this cost anything it should be why is this even necessary?
Done end of story. This is purely a 'business decision' that is framed around accounting laws and has nothing to do with apple screwing its customers.
I never said that Apple was screwing their customers. But, they are being disingenuous in their explanation.
Why not just release the machines with this patch in the first place,
Because:
1) the driver wasn't done
2) the specification hadn't progressed as much.
The second part is important. The chipsets in the Macs are all "pre-N". They don't correspond to the final 802.11n spec, because there is no such thing yet. Now that a few months have passed, it has become increasingly certain that the chips will work fine with other 802.11n devices in the future, or will be easily patchable to increase compatibility. Back then, however, it was quite uncertain, to the point that there were two completely different, mutually incompatible technologies, and it was for quite a while very unclear which of the two would prevail.
By not announcing the feature (the n capability of the chips) to begin with, Apple thus left the possibility open that, if the chips don't work together with other devices as well as they need to, Apple will simply never release an Enabler. Nothing would be lost or gained, and nobody would feel screwed over, since the feature had never been advertised to begin with.
Now that it's known that the chips work fine, Apple can prepare a driver and release it.
Because:
1) the driver wasn't done
2) the specification hadn't progressed as much.
The second part is important. The chipsets in the Macs are all "pre-N". They don't correspond to the final 802.11n spec, because there is no such thing yet. Now that a few months have passed, it has become increasingly certain that the chips will work fine with other 802.11n devices in the future, or will be easily patchable to increase compatibility. Back then, however, it was quite uncertain, to the point that there were two completely different, mutually incompatible technologies, and it was for quite a while very unclear which of the two would prevail.
By not announcing the feature (the n capability of the chips) to begin with, Apple thus left the possibility open that, if the chips don't work together with other devices as well as they need to, Apple will simply never release an Enabler. Nothing would be lost or gained, and nobody would feel screwed over, since the feature had never been advertised to begin with.
Now that it's known that the chips work fine, Apple can prepare a driver and release it.
Of course, those reasons make it even more interesting.
If it wasn't certain that the feature would work properly, if at all, when it came on the machines, and so, Apple didn't supply software for it, then it couldn't really be called a feature at all.