As far as I can tell , my email takes about a hour to show up and I know of at least a dozen that haven't yet. It'll clear up eventually . . .
There is nothing to clear up. As was said, and per my personal experience as well as others, SMTP/POP mail has been 100% functional all week. No delays, no errors, it just works.
If you're referring to webmail, access to that has been working for me since Friday morning via both mac.com and me.com domains. No errors. Perhaps you need to clear your browser caches and/or check with your ISP as to what's going on, because the site is up. Yes, it was down from Wednesday evening through all of Thursday, but it's good now.
I love the look of mobile me... but for some reason the clickers at the top of the page aren't working for me. Is this a common issue?
I had the same problem. It turns out it was because I was using the developers preview of Safari. The site works perfectly with the regular version of Safari.
I accepted this at first, but I've been thinking. Mac OS X, MS Office for Mac, iWork, iLife, etc., etc. are not offered in subscription versions (like software for the iPTouch), and their updates are free.
so what laws exactly are we talking about?
I realize $10 a pop won't materially effect Apple's bottom line, so why leave this issue hanging out there? Or at least give the reasons up front, and if not a revenue generator per se, why not make it the price of an iTunes download, e.g., 99 cents to say $4.99.
So then why was January's update $20 and this one $10? What accounting law BS? What's the difference between these upgrade and any free firmware update on a Blu-ray player, etc?
I accepted this at first, but I've been thinking. Mac OS X, MS Office for Mac, iWork, iLife, etc., etc. are not offered in subscription versions (like software for the iPTouch), and their updates are free.
so what laws exactly are we talking about?
I realize $10 a pop won't materially effect Apple's bottom line, so why leave this issue hanging out there? Or at least give the reasons up front, and if not a revenue generator per se, why not make it the price of an iTunes download, e.g., 99 cents to say $4.99.
One of the things the Sarbanes-Oxley Law tried to do was put an end to accounting fraud, which in this case, has to do with recording revenue before the full product is delivered. When Apple sells an iPod touch, it records all the revenue on that day. (In contrast, when Apple sells an iPhone or AppleTV, it divides the revenue by 8, and records 1/8th in each of the next eight quarters.) Since Apple records all the iPod touch revenue, it has declared that the iPod touch is complete as it was sold. Therefore, it cannot deliver free new software features for it like the iPhone 2.0 software, for if it did, it would imply that the product was not yet complete when sold, and Apple should thus not yet record all the revenue. Apple can deliver bug fixes for free, which is usually all that is fixed by firmware updates. (I'm simplifying; this whole thing is made more complicated by also considering what the consumer thought he/she was getting when it was bought. I think this additional concept of implied/promised was seen in the Airport Extreme, which had a pre-standard 802.11n chip but was sold for a period with only the capability to use 802.11b/g. Thus, Apple charged a fee to upgrade to 11n. And this concept also accounts for why Apple stopped recording even iPhone revenue once iPhone 2.0 software was announced.)
Apple chose to use a very conservative interpretation of the Law. I believe it was because of the stock options fraud investigation, which was happening at the time. Other companies may choose to be more aggressive in interpretation, and argue later whether something was materially complete or not, or was implied/promised or not.
One good thing: Now that Apple can sell apps for the iPod touch, and sell them as a separate product even if priced as free, we may only get more features for free. Features that must be built into the OS though will likely still incur a fee unless Apple starts to be aggressive legally (Note Apple has a new General Counsel.)
So then why was January's update $20 and this one $10? What accounting law BS? What's the difference between these upgrade and any free firmware update on a Blu-ray player, etc?
As for the price of the upgrade, SOX would expect it to be priced relative to and close to what it cost to make (again, to avoid fraud). The charge may be lower now because the expense is spread over many more units. To reiterate, there is room to argue, but Apple seems to have become very conservative. Which might not be so good for Apple consumers, but is good for Apple stockholders; anything to avoid sending Mr. Steve Jobs to jail is good.
Yesterday Steve Jobs must have been absolutely livid- literally seething at the mouth, "iDiots, iMbeciles, iNsignificants!"
Who got axed? iNquiring minds need to know.
if he was fulminating and upbraiding others, he was passing the buck, no?
Apple's never attempted a roll-out on this scale before -- world-wide, clock synchronized, with over 20 (not so beloved) partners, new system software for the product and previous products, new PC client software to deliver it, new software (552 programs) available on top of that software, major new web software replacing an installed based -- nor did they have to. This could have been phased in in a number of ways.
...now who ultimately is responsible for the decision to do that ALLATONCE?
The answer lies in the intersection between hubris and brilliant marketing, i.e., doing it this way because it would be so cool, such an event, another step in Apple's Phoenix-like resurrection on a scale even they'd never imagined back in the pre Win 3.1 days....
Hint: it wasn't a file clerk. And Steverino is the Marketer-di-tutto-marketer of our times.
I think it will be very interesting if Apple admits this was a fiasco at all, and if so, if they (and SJ specifically) take any responsibility.
My email worked on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and it works today.
Mac.com worked Thursday. It was off Friday.
Me.com worked late Friday night. It worked yesterday, it works today. My syncing began working again early Saturday morning.
My iPod worked fine on 1.1.4 on Thursday. It sat patiently for 2.0 on Friday, it was upgraded to 2.0 late Friday night. It works fantastically on 2.0 today.
I'm first in line to write a letter when I'm displeased by a lack of customers service. Given the less-that-24-hour-outage window I think I'll sit this one out - I simply can't bring myself to be angry about it.
If you're really, truly emotionally wounded about this I'd love to be able to give you a hug. In the absence of that: suck it up, princesses.
I installed the 2.0 update for my V1 iPhone. While the download-install process was seamless, there seems to be considerable hang-time associated with the handset's response to touch.
I installed the 2.0 update for my V1 iPhone. While the download-install process was seamless, there seems to be considerable hang-time associated with the handset's response to touch.
Anyone else experiencing this?
There is a thread on another forum about the newest firmware fixing the
yellowish tint problem. Several people mention the problem you describe.
Why do people reply (sarcastically, angrily, with child-like grammar skills) to a post about issues with the service using only their own experience? Are you really under the impression that if the service worked for you, or worked during a specific timeframe, that everyone else's experience is/was the same? I understand people with low intelligence can't pretend to be smart with any success. Wouldn't staying out of the discussion altogether be a better path than exposing the shortcomings in your cognitive function?
Why do people reply (sarcastically, angrily, with child-like grammar skills) to a post about issues with the service using only their own experience? Are you really under the impression that if the service worked for you, or worked during a specific timeframe, that everyone else's experience is/was the same? I understand people with low intelligence can't pretend to be smart with any success. Wouldn't staying out of the discussion altogether be a better path than exposing the shortcomings in your cognitive function?
Well, insulting the intelligence of others is sure to smooth things out nicely, eh?
Has anyone noticed lagging performance with video podcasts? I also noticed that they changed the way a video fast forwards. Now its a choppy/flip-book style, instead of a smooth foreword motion. This new chop forward makes it extremely difficult to see if you are past the part you didn't want to watch. The old way gave you audio and you could see and hear where you were in the video. New 2.0 way is crap!
One of the things the Sarbanes-Oxley Law tried to do was put an end to accounting fraud, which in this case, has to do with recording revenue before the full product is delivered. When Apple sells an iPod touch, it records all the revenue on that day. (In contrast, when Apple sells an iPhone or AppleTV, it divides the revenue by 8, and records 1/8th in each of the next eight quarters.) Since Apple records all the iPod touch revenue, it has declared that the iPod touch is complete as it was sold. Therefore, it cannot deliver free new software features for it like the iPhone 2.0 software, for if it did, it would imply that the product was not yet complete when sold, and Apple should thus not yet record all the revenue. Apple can deliver bug fixes for free, which is usually all that is fixed by firmware updates.
------
One good thing: Now that Apple can sell apps for the iPod touch, and sell them as a separate product even if priced as free, we may only get more features for free. Features that must be built into the OS though will likely still incur a fee unless Apple starts to be aggressive legally (Note Apple has a new General Counsel.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005
As for the price of the upgrade, SOX would expect it to be priced relative to and close to what it cost to make (again, to avoid fraud). The charge may be lower now because the expense is spread over many more units.
Cogently started, however, I'm still not buying this SOX argument unless you can riddle me this:
How does Apple record revenue for the sale of a MacBook or iMac or Pro? All at once, correct?? A complete product, blah, blah, blah. And both are digital devices with upgradable operating systems, running programs, accessing the internet, playing music, etc., etc. (on the same basic kernel!) And NEITHER is a phone per se (altho an iMac is more one than a Touch because you can Skype on it with Apple's blessings).
Ergo, legally/technologically equivalent to an iPod Touch.
So what's the diff between releasing, say, 10.5.4 and then 10.5.5 and later .6, .7, etc., to all 10.5-10.5.3 owners (with more than bug fixes, but actual feature changes) for free and charging $10 to go from OS X Mobile 1.0 to 2.0?
It can't be because it's a version number change -- that's totally abitrary (NT 1.0 was released as a 3 version, e.g. to bring some internal logic to MS's OS marketing): And Apple could make any point version of Leopard a little bigger and call it the next version of OS X any time they want. It can't be because of new features: my original Tiger 10.4.2 has changed quite a bit by 10.4.11.
Also, does Apple break out the engineering cost of developing and distributing cost of OS X Mobile 2.0 and report it separately to any agency of the government? I'd be surprised. And the costs are bound to overlap with many other parts of Apple's functioning, so how could "the cost of production" be accurately determined??
Finally, what if (since OS number versions are arbitrary, as noted above) Apple adds cut and paste to OS X M 2.2?? That's a "major new feature" (based on how many people keep noting its glaring absence) -- or a landscape keyboard in some modes that lack it now?? Will they have to charge iPT owners for that as well, since the iPT was obviously "incomplete" without these??
I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong -- I've heard pro journalists tossing around SOX as the reason -- but if that's true, again, please tell me what's wrong with my reasoning above.
Well, insulting the intelligence of others is sure to smooth things out nicely, eh?
Good point. I tend to also mock people who have been raised to think it is ok to make noise when they chew gum, or interrupt their own spoken sentences to insert drivel such as "like" or "you know". Clearly I have issues to address.
On a more topical to the tthread front: anoyone else stuck with IE 6.0 at work and a locked-down PC (can't load IR 7.0) so that they are now unable to access .Mac/.Me account from work as before? I'm sad....
Comments
As far as I can tell , my email takes about a hour to show up and I know of at least a dozen that haven't yet. It'll clear up eventually . . .
There is nothing to clear up. As was said, and per my personal experience as well as others, SMTP/POP mail has been 100% functional all week. No delays, no errors, it just works.
If you're referring to webmail, access to that has been working for me since Friday morning via both mac.com and me.com domains. No errors. Perhaps you need to clear your browser caches and/or check with your ISP as to what's going on, because the site is up. Yes, it was down from Wednesday evening through all of Thursday, but it's good now.
I love the look of mobile me... but for some reason the clickers at the top of the page aren't working for me. Is this a common issue?
I had the same problem. It turns out it was because I was using the developers preview of Safari. The site works perfectly with the regular version of Safari.
I accepted this at first, but I've been thinking. Mac OS X, MS Office for Mac, iWork, iLife, etc., etc. are not offered in subscription versions (like software for the iPTouch), and their updates are free.
so what laws exactly are we talking about?
I realize $10 a pop won't materially effect Apple's bottom line, so why leave this issue hanging out there? Or at least give the reasons up front, and if not a revenue generator per se, why not make it the price of an iTunes download, e.g., 99 cents to say $4.99.
So then why was January's update $20 and this one $10? What accounting law BS? What's the difference between these upgrade and any free firmware update on a Blu-ray player, etc?
So I wonder who's getting fired for the worst product launch in Apple history.
Yesterday Steve Jobs must have been absolutely livid- literally seething at the mouth, "iDiots, iMbeciles, iNsignificants!"
Who got axed? iNquiring minds need to know.
I accepted this at first, but I've been thinking. Mac OS X, MS Office for Mac, iWork, iLife, etc., etc. are not offered in subscription versions (like software for the iPTouch), and their updates are free.
so what laws exactly are we talking about?
I realize $10 a pop won't materially effect Apple's bottom line, so why leave this issue hanging out there? Or at least give the reasons up front, and if not a revenue generator per se, why not make it the price of an iTunes download, e.g., 99 cents to say $4.99.
One of the things the Sarbanes-Oxley Law tried to do was put an end to accounting fraud, which in this case, has to do with recording revenue before the full product is delivered. When Apple sells an iPod touch, it records all the revenue on that day. (In contrast, when Apple sells an iPhone or AppleTV, it divides the revenue by 8, and records 1/8th in each of the next eight quarters.) Since Apple records all the iPod touch revenue, it has declared that the iPod touch is complete as it was sold. Therefore, it cannot deliver free new software features for it like the iPhone 2.0 software, for if it did, it would imply that the product was not yet complete when sold, and Apple should thus not yet record all the revenue. Apple can deliver bug fixes for free, which is usually all that is fixed by firmware updates. (I'm simplifying; this whole thing is made more complicated by also considering what the consumer thought he/she was getting when it was bought. I think this additional concept of implied/promised was seen in the Airport Extreme, which had a pre-standard 802.11n chip but was sold for a period with only the capability to use 802.11b/g. Thus, Apple charged a fee to upgrade to 11n. And this concept also accounts for why Apple stopped recording even iPhone revenue once iPhone 2.0 software was announced.)
Apple chose to use a very conservative interpretation of the Law. I believe it was because of the stock options fraud investigation, which was happening at the time. Other companies may choose to be more aggressive in interpretation, and argue later whether something was materially complete or not, or was implied/promised or not.
One good thing: Now that Apple can sell apps for the iPod touch, and sell them as a separate product even if priced as free, we may only get more features for free. Features that must be built into the OS though will likely still incur a fee unless Apple starts to be aggressive legally (Note Apple has a new General Counsel.)
So then why was January's update $20 and this one $10? What accounting law BS? What's the difference between these upgrade and any free firmware update on a Blu-ray player, etc?
As for the price of the upgrade, SOX would expect it to be priced relative to and close to what it cost to make (again, to avoid fraud). The charge may be lower now because the expense is spread over many more units. To reiterate, there is room to argue, but Apple seems to have become very conservative. Which might not be so good for Apple consumers, but is good for Apple stockholders; anything to avoid sending Mr. Steve Jobs to jail is good.
Yesterday Steve Jobs must have been absolutely livid- literally seething at the mouth, "iDiots, iMbeciles, iNsignificants!"
Who got axed? iNquiring minds need to know.
if he was fulminating and upbraiding others, he was passing the buck, no?
Apple's never attempted a roll-out on this scale before -- world-wide, clock synchronized, with over 20 (not so beloved) partners, new system software for the product and previous products, new PC client software to deliver it, new software (552 programs) available on top of that software, major new web software replacing an installed based -- nor did they have to. This could have been phased in in a number of ways.
...now who ultimately is responsible for the decision to do that ALLATONCE? Hint: it wasn't a file clerk. And Steverino is the Marketer-di-tutto-marketer of our times.
I think it will be very interesting if Apple admits this was a fiasco at all, and if so, if they (and SJ specifically) take any responsibility.
Mac.com worked Thursday. It was off Friday.
Me.com worked late Friday night. It worked yesterday, it works today. My syncing began working again early Saturday morning.
My iPod worked fine on 1.1.4 on Thursday. It sat patiently for 2.0 on Friday, it was upgraded to 2.0 late Friday night. It works fantastically on 2.0 today.
I'm first in line to write a letter when I'm displeased by a lack of customers service. Given the less-that-24-hour-outage window I think I'll sit this one out - I simply can't bring myself to be angry about it.
If you're really, truly emotionally wounded about this I'd love to be able to give you a hug. In the absence of that: suck it up, princesses.
In the absence of that: suck it up, princesses.
If that widnows guy had called AI readers princesses instead of dumbasses, would
you still have banned him? If not, please give a list of names that are ok to call
people, and a list of names which will get a person banned.
Anyone else experiencing this?
I installed the 2.0 update for my V1 iPhone. While the download-install process was seamless, there seems to be considerable hang-time associated with the handset's response to touch.
Anyone else experiencing this?
There is a thread on another forum about the newest firmware fixing the
yellowish tint problem. Several people mention the problem you describe.
Why do people reply (sarcastically, angrily, with child-like grammar skills) to a post about issues with the service using only their own experience? Are you really under the impression that if the service worked for you, or worked during a specific timeframe, that everyone else's experience is/was the same? I understand people with low intelligence can't pretend to be smart with any success. Wouldn't staying out of the discussion altogether be a better path than exposing the shortcomings in your cognitive function?
Well, insulting the intelligence of others is sure to smooth things out nicely, eh?
One of the things the Sarbanes-Oxley Law tried to do was put an end to accounting fraud, which in this case, has to do with recording revenue before the full product is delivered. When Apple sells an iPod touch, it records all the revenue on that day. (In contrast, when Apple sells an iPhone or AppleTV, it divides the revenue by 8, and records 1/8th in each of the next eight quarters.) Since Apple records all the iPod touch revenue, it has declared that the iPod touch is complete as it was sold. Therefore, it cannot deliver free new software features for it like the iPhone 2.0 software, for if it did, it would imply that the product was not yet complete when sold, and Apple should thus not yet record all the revenue. Apple can deliver bug fixes for free, which is usually all that is fixed by firmware updates.
------
One good thing: Now that Apple can sell apps for the iPod touch, and sell them as a separate product even if priced as free, we may only get more features for free. Features that must be built into the OS though will likely still incur a fee unless Apple starts to be aggressive legally (Note Apple has a new General Counsel.)
As for the price of the upgrade, SOX would expect it to be priced relative to and close to what it cost to make (again, to avoid fraud). The charge may be lower now because the expense is spread over many more units.
Cogently started, however, I'm still not buying this SOX argument unless you can riddle me this:
How does Apple record revenue for the sale of a MacBook or iMac or Pro? All at once, correct?? A complete product, blah, blah, blah. And both are digital devices with upgradable operating systems, running programs, accessing the internet, playing music, etc., etc. (on the same basic kernel!) And NEITHER is a phone per se (altho an iMac is more one than a Touch because you can Skype on it with Apple's blessings).
Ergo, legally/technologically equivalent to an iPod Touch.
So what's the diff between releasing, say, 10.5.4 and then 10.5.5 and later .6, .7, etc., to all 10.5-10.5.3 owners (with more than bug fixes, but actual feature changes) for free and charging $10 to go from OS X Mobile 1.0 to 2.0?
It can't be because it's a version number change -- that's totally abitrary (NT 1.0 was released as a 3 version, e.g. to bring some internal logic to MS's OS marketing): And Apple could make any point version of Leopard a little bigger and call it the next version of OS X any time they want. It can't be because of new features: my original Tiger 10.4.2 has changed quite a bit by 10.4.11.
Also, does Apple break out the engineering cost of developing and distributing cost of OS X Mobile 2.0 and report it separately to any agency of the government? I'd be surprised. And the costs are bound to overlap with many other parts of Apple's functioning, so how could "the cost of production" be accurately determined??
Finally, what if (since OS number versions are arbitrary, as noted above) Apple adds cut and paste to OS X M 2.2?? That's a "major new feature" (based on how many people keep noting its glaring absence) -- or a landscape keyboard in some modes that lack it now?? Will they have to charge iPT owners for that as well, since the iPT was obviously "incomplete" without these??
I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong -- I've heard pro journalists tossing around SOX as the reason -- but if that's true, again, please tell me what's wrong with my reasoning above.
Well, insulting the intelligence of others is sure to smooth things out nicely, eh?
Good point. I tend to also mock people who have been raised to think it is ok to make noise when they chew gum, or interrupt their own spoken sentences to insert drivel such as "like" or "you know". Clearly I have issues to address.
On a more topical to the tthread front: anoyone else stuck with IE 6.0 at work and a locked-down PC (can't load IR 7.0) so that they are now unable to access .Mac/.Me account from work as before? I'm sad....