I would imagine 1st gen itouch owners would be better off not upgrading, since 3.0 runs slower than frozen molasses on those older systems.
I'm glad someone brought this up. The newer OS updates *don't* actually run very well on the older hardware. That's a good reason not to upgrade that is hardly ever taken into account.
I only have the 1st gen touch and I don't use it, but OS 3.1 runs like crap on an iPhone 3G unless you have gigabytes of free space, and even then it's slow and crashie. These reports assume that there are no problems running the newer OS and that people would "obviously" want to if they could, but that's not necessarily true.
I'm in India and a lot of my friends don't have access to any Wi-Fi network. They've bought iPod touchs only for its movie capability and UI. I hope I've got my point across well.
Apple must put wireless inernet capability on its iPod touchs.
Great idea - I even have an idea about what they could call it!
Touch users also get the short end of the stick with capabilities. GPS, Camera are what I want. Yes it would cost more...but I'm not paying the monthly fees necessary for the iPhone.
What's the world coming to when people just complain complain complain!?! You're not getting "the short end of the stick" - you're getting what you paid for! If you want those other functions, there is a product for sale that has them. You chose not to buy it. You also chose not to MAKE the product. So, that's life - you buy the product you want. If you REALLY think it's worth it, buy and unlocked iPhone and don't activate phone service on it. An iPod touch is $200, an unlocked iPhone somewhere around $600.
Quote:
And BTW, I get the latest OS for my first gen iPod Touch. Its pretty cheap for new capabilities. I don't expect something for nothing.
You do expect something for nothing, you just said so above. You want it, you CAN get it for a price, you'd rather complain that it's not on your iPod instead of going out and getting it. That's the definition of wanting something for nothing.
We have three iPod Touches and only I have upgraded. Yet when I asked my son and wife why they hadn't, they claimed they didn't know anything about it. To which I reminded them that I had informed them immediately after it came out, and a number of times since. And it is free to them, I already paid for the upgrade.
Their point: Why? Do I have to. I am quite happy, don't mess with it.
The same holds true for many of my friends, colleagues and clients who are still behind in their touches as well, much like their OS's. Everytime I troubleshoot their Macs, I even have to tell them how to upgrade either their OS or apps.
Cripes, look how many times people here have shown their ignorance as well, i.e., not knowing about updates or even how to do it. A lot won't even touch the OK button when automatically notified that an OS/App update is available. Even if free.
Heck, a lot don't even use command-z.
The point of the article is the contrast between 95% and 55%. If ignorance is the main factor that would imply that iPod touch owners are a much more ignorant group. I don't find that a very compelling thesis.
The point of the article is the contrast between 95% and 55%. If ignorance is the main factor that would imply that iPod touch owners are a much more ignorant group. I don't find that a very compelling thesis.
It's not ignorance of the world, but ignorance of their device's capabilities. In my experience (as a computer technician who works with normal people all day every day) that's totally correct. I'm surprised that either number is as high as it is - I would expect the iPhone number to be more like 80% and the Touch, more like 25%.
yes that would definitely be a good idea - though it would require a hardware upgrade and a subscription I would think - what i was suggesting is a way for current Wi-Fi only iPod touch units to get access to the internet in places where there is no Wi-Fi offered by service providers or other hot spots - if you have wired access in a computer that has a Wi-Fi card you can get your iPod Touch on the internet without built in cellular capability or monthly fees.
Ahh.. Yes, good proposition. Labor intensive for the average user...
What's the world coming to when people just complain complain complain!?! You're not getting "the short end of the stick" - you're getting what you paid for! If you want those other functions, there is a product for sale that has them. You chose not to buy it. You also chose not to MAKE the product. So, that's life - you buy the product you want. If you REALLY think it's worth it, buy and unlocked iPhone and don't activate phone service on it. An iPod touch is $200, an unlocked iPhone somewhere around $600.
You do expect something for nothing, you just said so above. You want it, you CAN get it for a price, you'd rather complain that it's not on your iPod instead of going out and getting it. That's the definition of wanting something for nothing.
Well I won't do that since my local AT&T shop WON'T sell me an unlocked iPhone without a 2 year contract. I've checked multiple times thinking it was an ignorant sales person who didn't know better.
And if you read and understand the ORIGINAL POST, you will find that I expect an iPod touch with more capabilities to cost more. I also said that I didn't expect software upgrades to be free.
Do you try to alienate people? Is that you "thing"? If so, you are really really good at it. Maybe someday someone will give you a medal for it.
Well I won't do that since my local AT&T shop WON'T sell me an unlocked iPhone without a 2 year contract. I've checked multiple times thinking it was an ignorant sales person who didn't know better.
And if you read and understand the ORIGINAL POST, you will find that I expect an iPod touch with more capabilities to cost more. I also said that I didn't expect software upgrades to be free.
Did you ever check this great new thing called Google?
I somehow doubt that you'd be willing to pay that price for it.
It's so annoying when people bitch about a product they wish existed. Go create it if you wish it existed. If Apple thought they could make more money by selling it, they would! You know the price of a $199 iPhone 3GS plus ETF, so go pay it and stop complaining on message boards!
I totally agree. Isn't this common sense. iLove my Apple, but iSorta feel touch users get the short end of the stick with these paid updates. Though correct me if I'm wrong, Apple did allow users of the touch to upgrade for free depending on what build of the OS they were running!? Which was announced at the September 2009 event (aka Return of the Jobsian ) (soooo glad he's back)
I have to reply to my ignorant statements, regarding the iPod Touch..... Steve has made it clear that the iPod touch has to be accounted for differently and that's why users are charged a small upgrade fee. Apple has been working hard to get the pricing of that fee lower with each update to a new OS release.
In regards to users "not" upgrading due to the small fee upgrade, that's just a matter of choice and Apple respects that, cause that's what the company encourages CHOICE.
There are too many inconsistencies and no reason why it has to be so expensive. If Apple are being forced to do it, why would they charge $20 for the 2.0 upgrade and $10 for the 3.0? Why not $1 each? $30 is not a trivial amount to add onto the cost of a device for upgrades that are free for the iphone, even on PAYG (non-subscription) tariffs.
Read your link, and Apple clearly is doing what is right. I would blame the SEC regulators and not Apple. Like I mentioned in my post above, Apple has clearly lowered the fee each update. Also if I'm correct 3.0 was free for certain users (depending on the current OS build they had).
What has Apple done wrong here?
I'm trying really hard to understand your argument or even see one? Plus it's a ONE time charge, if a consumer is willing to spend $299 on a iPod Touch then pay for Apps. Why complain about a $10 or even then $20 upgrade one time out of the year?? That sounds like hypocrisy and theirs no room in this world for any of that.
I don't think that decision is very smart because if those ipod touch owners bought 10 x $3 apps that were only 3.0 compatible, they make their revenue back anyway. I know that being forced to pay for upgrades that iphone owners get for free would put me off supporting Apple's entire distribution method. I'd stop spending money on apps and use the ipod just for music.
I can others being put off by it but I know you are aware that there are different accounting methods at play. I think the whole accounting situation is bullocks but I?m not going to be put off by $5?$10 when Apple could have just included that in the price or reduced the cost accordingly to make up the difference. We?ve still got exactly the device that we purchased.
I like your argument about giving away the update to enable more app sales. I?m not sure how accurate it is; perhaps trying to get new Touch HW sales is their primary goal or perhaps people that don?t splurge for the update are simply not candidates for the App Store anyway. I don?t know, but I think it should be considered.
Hopefully, Apple will announce that all iDevices are on the same accounting model so that all updates will be free. It?s the simplest thing for the consumer, which we know Apple likes, and having tech support update iDevices to the latest versions for security and uniformity reasons may save them some extra money on the back on, too.
PS: Could free Mac OS X updates be viable? You get more Macs on the same OS with the same updates and can control more of what Mac users can expect instead of having your OS usage spread across several versions. (Just thought I?d throw that out there)
Read your link, and Apple clearly is doing what is right. I would blame the SEC regulators and not Apple. Like I mentioned in my post above, Apple has clearly lowered the fee each update. Also if I'm correct 3.0 was free for certain users (depending on the current OS build they had).
What has Apple done wrong here?
I'm trying really hard to understand your argument or even see one? Plus it's a ONE time charge, if a consumer is willing to spend $299 on a iPod Touch then pay for Apps. Why complain about a $10 or even then $20 upgrade one time out of the year?? That sounds like hypocrisy and theirs no room in this world for any of that.
" Don't get on me, blame the SEC "
I noted this before, but where is there any proof to the assertion that a company is obliged to charge for what it is offering to the public? The RDF is strong on this one.
I did upgrade my ipod touch to 3.0 ... and it's not working properly ever since.
I now have 2 agendas ... one that say ''on my mac'' and the other '' on mobileMe''. The point of using my ipod touch was to have ONE and only ONE place for all my stuff !
I did upgrade my ipod touch to 3.0 ... and it's not working properly ever since.
I now have 2 agendas ... one that say ''on my mac'' and the other '' on mobileMe''. The point of using my ipod touch was to have ONE and only ONE place for all my stuff !
I noted this before, but where is there any proof to the assertion that a company is obliged to charge for what it is offering to the public? The RDF is strong on this one.
Here are two different reasons as to why companies can’t just give things away or use "slight-of-hand" accounting practices anymore. The former has to do with anti-competitive measures to prevent companies from illegally destroying competition whilst the latter has to do with potentially destroying a stock holder’s investment y masking the true financial status of a company.
Of course, none of this has anything directly to do with the Apple situation—though SOx looks to be in effect for the Touch update cost—but you asked a general question and assumed this is an Apple smokescreen at work to get more money from customers. While Apple’s goal is to make money, if it were just about short term goal of an extra small payment here and there then why offer the iPhone users free updates at all? Why give the give the original iPhone, now 2.5 years old, free updates, presumably until at least next Summer when v4.0 arrives? This seems counter-productive on the surface, especially when MS and others have been making a profit selling their updates OSes and I don’t know of many phones that are still able to get rich updates (not just bug fixes) so long after they HW has been off the market. So, if you are going to argue for it all being an “RDF” then you have to also make a good argument as to why Apple isn’t charging for the iPhone updates, as well.
I noted this before, but where is there any proof to the assertion that a company is obliged to charge for what it is offering to the public? The RDF is strong on this one.
When Apple first started charging small fees for the iPod Touch, they were new as to what they actually should charge the consumer. Apple began with $20, though as we seen through each update that fee has been reduced drastically. Like I keep mentioning 3.0 update was free for certain users.
Apple corrected the problem and will continue to. I will say again that if a consumer want's to pay $299 for a revolutionary device & complain when their politely asked to pay a small fee to upgrade an OS once a year, then the consumer should really say to themselves do I need a iPod Touch or an iPhone. The iPhone is now $99. It doesn't get any sweeter then that.
Here are two different reasons as to why companies can’t just give things away or slight-of-hand accounting practices anymore. One has to do with potentially destroying a stock holder’s investment and the other has to do with anti-competitive measures to illegally destroy competition.
Here are two different reasons as to why companies can?t just give things away or use "slight-of-hand" accounting practices anymore. The former has to do with anti-competitive measures to prevent companies from illegally destroying competition whilst the latter has to do with potentially destroying a stock holder?s investment y masking the true financial status of a company.
Of course, none of this has anything directly to do with the Apple situation?though SOx looks to be in effect for the Touch update cost?but you asked a general question and assumed this is an Apple smokescreen at work to get more money from customers. While Apple?s goal is to make money, if it were just about short term goal of an extra small payment here and there then why offer the iPhone users free updates at all? Why give the give the original iPhone, now 2.5 years old, free updates, presumably until at least next Summer when v4.0 arrives? This seems counter-productive on the surface, especially when MS and others have been making a profit selling their updates OSes and I don?t know of many phones that are still able to get rich updates (not just bug fixes) so long after they HW has been off the market. So, if you are going to argue for it all being an ?RDF? then you have to also make a good argument as to why Apple isn?t charging for the iPhone updates, as well.
first almost every other company out there gives out free firmware updated for their products. too many to name.
second apple gives out a lot of updates to their non-iphone products. Apple TV comes to mind since it just got a major version upgrade. why are there no SOX issues there?
my conspiracy theory is that the ipod touch upgrade money really goes to M$ to pay for MS Exchange licensing
first almost every other company out there gives out free firmware updated for their products. too many to name.
second apple gives out a lot of updates to their non-iphone products. Apple TV comes to mind since it just got a major version upgrade. why are there no SOX issues there?
my conspiracy theory is that the ipod touch upgrade money really goes to M$ to pay for MS Exchange licensing
Get a New argument (If you can), the Microsoft thing gets old ....
Both the iPhone and iPod updates appeared at the same time, yet only the latter featured a charge. However, that’s because Apple accounts for the iPhone on a subscription basis; it accounts for the iPod touch differently, and so it has to charge for an upgraded device, analysts say.
Adding to the confusion is the fact that Apple also announced an Apple TV software update at Macworld Expo that existing Apple TV owners will be able to download for free when it comes out this month. But Apple is able to release that update for free because, like the iPhone, it recognizes Apple TV revenue on a subscription basis. According to the company’s February 1 quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, “For both Apple TV and iPhone, [Apple] indicated it may from time-to-time provide future unspecified features and additional software products free of charge to customers. Therefore, sales of Apple TV and iPhone handsets are recognized under subscription accounting in accordance with SOP No. 97-2.”
Comments
I would imagine 1st gen itouch owners would be better off not upgrading, since 3.0 runs slower than frozen molasses on those older systems.
I'm glad someone brought this up. The newer OS updates *don't* actually run very well on the older hardware. That's a good reason not to upgrade that is hardly ever taken into account.
I only have the 1st gen touch and I don't use it, but OS 3.1 runs like crap on an iPhone 3G unless you have gigabytes of free space, and even then it's slow and crashie. These reports assume that there are no problems running the newer OS and that people would "obviously" want to if they could, but that's not necessarily true.
I'm in India and a lot of my friends don't have access to any Wi-Fi network. They've bought iPod touchs only for its movie capability and UI. I hope I've got my point across well.
Apple must put wireless inernet capability on its iPod touchs.
Great idea - I even have an idea about what they could call it!
"iPhone"
Sounds good, right?
Touch users also get the short end of the stick with capabilities. GPS, Camera are what I want. Yes it would cost more...but I'm not paying the monthly fees necessary for the iPhone.
What's the world coming to when people just complain complain complain!?! You're not getting "the short end of the stick" - you're getting what you paid for! If you want those other functions, there is a product for sale that has them. You chose not to buy it. You also chose not to MAKE the product. So, that's life - you buy the product you want. If you REALLY think it's worth it, buy and unlocked iPhone and don't activate phone service on it. An iPod touch is $200, an unlocked iPhone somewhere around $600.
And BTW, I get the latest OS for my first gen iPod Touch. Its pretty cheap for new capabilities. I don't expect something for nothing.
You do expect something for nothing, you just said so above. You want it, you CAN get it for a price, you'd rather complain that it's not on your iPod instead of going out and getting it. That's the definition of wanting something for nothing.
Perhaps the major difference is simply ignorance.
We have three iPod Touches and only I have upgraded. Yet when I asked my son and wife why they hadn't, they claimed they didn't know anything about it. To which I reminded them that I had informed them immediately after it came out, and a number of times since. And it is free to them, I already paid for the upgrade.
Their point: Why? Do I have to. I am quite happy, don't mess with it.
The same holds true for many of my friends, colleagues and clients who are still behind in their touches as well, much like their OS's. Everytime I troubleshoot their Macs, I even have to tell them how to upgrade either their OS or apps.
Cripes, look how many times people here have shown their ignorance as well, i.e., not knowing about updates or even how to do it. A lot won't even touch the OK button when automatically notified that an OS/App update is available. Even if free.
Heck, a lot don't even use command-z.
The point of the article is the contrast between 95% and 55%. If ignorance is the main factor that would imply that iPod touch owners are a much more ignorant group. I don't find that a very compelling thesis.
The point of the article is the contrast between 95% and 55%. If ignorance is the main factor that would imply that iPod touch owners are a much more ignorant group. I don't find that a very compelling thesis.
It's not ignorance of the world, but ignorance of their device's capabilities. In my experience (as a computer technician who works with normal people all day every day) that's totally correct. I'm surprised that either number is as high as it is - I would expect the iPhone number to be more like 80% and the Touch, more like 25%.
yes that would definitely be a good idea - though it would require a hardware upgrade and a subscription I would think - what i was suggesting is a way for current Wi-Fi only iPod touch units to get access to the internet in places where there is no Wi-Fi offered by service providers or other hot spots - if you have wired access in a computer that has a Wi-Fi card you can get your iPod Touch on the internet without built in cellular capability or monthly fees.
Ahh.. Yes, good proposition. Labor intensive for the average user...
What's the world coming to when people just complain complain complain!?! You're not getting "the short end of the stick" - you're getting what you paid for! If you want those other functions, there is a product for sale that has them. You chose not to buy it. You also chose not to MAKE the product. So, that's life - you buy the product you want. If you REALLY think it's worth it, buy and unlocked iPhone and don't activate phone service on it. An iPod touch is $200, an unlocked iPhone somewhere around $600.
You do expect something for nothing, you just said so above. You want it, you CAN get it for a price, you'd rather complain that it's not on your iPod instead of going out and getting it. That's the definition of wanting something for nothing.
Well I won't do that since my local AT&T shop WON'T sell me an unlocked iPhone without a 2 year contract. I've checked multiple times thinking it was an ignorant sales person who didn't know better.
And if you read and understand the ORIGINAL POST, you will find that I expect an iPod touch with more capabilities to cost more. I also said that I didn't expect software upgrades to be free.
Do you try to alienate people? Is that you "thing"? If so, you are really really good at it. Maybe someday someone will give you a medal for it.
Well I won't do that since my local AT&T shop WON'T sell me an unlocked iPhone without a 2 year contract. I've checked multiple times thinking it was an ignorant sales person who didn't know better.
And if you read and understand the ORIGINAL POST, you will find that I expect an iPod touch with more capabilities to cost more. I also said that I didn't expect software upgrades to be free.
Did you ever check this great new thing called Google?
http://www.buy.com/retail/usersearch...me&display=col
I somehow doubt that you'd be willing to pay that price for it.
It's so annoying when people bitch about a product they wish existed. Go create it if you wish it existed. If Apple thought they could make more money by selling it, they would! You know the price of a $199 iPhone 3GS plus ETF, so go pay it and stop complaining on message boards!
I have to reply to my ignorant statements, regarding the iPod Touch..... Steve has made it clear that the iPod touch has to be accounted for differently and that's why users are charged a small upgrade fee. Apple has been working hard to get the pricing of that fee lower with each update to a new OS release.
In regards to users "not" upgrading due to the small fee upgrade, that's just a matter of choice and Apple respects that, cause that's what the company encourages CHOICE.
I don't buy the suggestion that Apple are being forced to charge users for non-subscription devices:
http://www.macworld.com/article/1319...ipodtouch.html
There are too many inconsistencies and no reason why it has to be so expensive. If Apple are being forced to do it, why would they charge $20 for the 2.0 upgrade and $10 for the 3.0? Why not $1 each? $30 is not a trivial amount to add onto the cost of a device for upgrades that are free for the iphone, even on PAYG (non-subscription) tariffs.
Read your link, and Apple clearly is doing what is right. I would blame the SEC regulators and not Apple. Like I mentioned in my post above, Apple has clearly lowered the fee each update. Also if I'm correct 3.0 was free for certain users (depending on the current OS build they had).
What has Apple done wrong here?
I'm trying really hard to understand your argument or even see one? Plus it's a ONE time charge, if a consumer is willing to spend $299 on a iPod Touch then pay for Apps. Why complain about a $10 or even then $20 upgrade one time out of the year?? That sounds like hypocrisy and theirs no room in this world for any of that.
" Don't get on me, blame the SEC "
Wow, amazing that significantly more people are willing to download a free upgrade, as opposed to a paid one.
Exactly.
I don't think that decision is very smart because if those ipod touch owners bought 10 x $3 apps that were only 3.0 compatible, they make their revenue back anyway. I know that being forced to pay for upgrades that iphone owners get for free would put me off supporting Apple's entire distribution method. I'd stop spending money on apps and use the ipod just for music.
I can others being put off by it but I know you are aware that there are different accounting methods at play. I think the whole accounting situation is bullocks but I?m not going to be put off by $5?$10 when Apple could have just included that in the price or reduced the cost accordingly to make up the difference. We?ve still got exactly the device that we purchased.
I like your argument about giving away the update to enable more app sales. I?m not sure how accurate it is; perhaps trying to get new Touch HW sales is their primary goal or perhaps people that don?t splurge for the update are simply not candidates for the App Store anyway. I don?t know, but I think it should be considered.
Hopefully, Apple will announce that all iDevices are on the same accounting model so that all updates will be free. It?s the simplest thing for the consumer, which we know Apple likes, and having tech support update iDevices to the latest versions for security and uniformity reasons may save them some extra money on the back on, too.
PS: Could free Mac OS X updates be viable? You get more Macs on the same OS with the same updates and can control more of what Mac users can expect instead of having your OS usage spread across several versions. (Just thought I?d throw that out there)
Read your link, and Apple clearly is doing what is right. I would blame the SEC regulators and not Apple. Like I mentioned in my post above, Apple has clearly lowered the fee each update. Also if I'm correct 3.0 was free for certain users (depending on the current OS build they had).
What has Apple done wrong here?
I'm trying really hard to understand your argument or even see one? Plus it's a ONE time charge, if a consumer is willing to spend $299 on a iPod Touch then pay for Apps. Why complain about a $10 or even then $20 upgrade one time out of the year?? That sounds like hypocrisy and theirs no room in this world for any of that.
" Don't get on me, blame the SEC "
I noted this before, but where is there any proof to the assertion that a company is obliged to charge for what it is offering to the public? The RDF is strong on this one.
I now have 2 agendas ... one that say ''on my mac'' and the other '' on mobileMe''. The point of using my ipod touch was to have ONE and only ONE place for all my stuff !
I did upgrade my ipod touch to 3.0 ... and it's not working properly ever since.
I now have 2 agendas ... one that say ''on my mac'' and the other '' on mobileMe''. The point of using my ipod touch was to have ONE and only ONE place for all my stuff !
I suggest you calm down ..... http://www.apple.com/support/ipodtou...uch/#section_5
Me
I noted this before, but where is there any proof to the assertion that a company is obliged to charge for what it is offering to the public? The RDF is strong on this one.
Here are two different reasons as to why companies can’t just give things away or use "slight-of-hand" accounting practices anymore. The former has to do with anti-competitive measures to prevent companies from illegally destroying competition whilst the latter has to do with potentially destroying a stock holder’s investment y masking the true financial status of a company.Of course, none of this has anything directly to do with the Apple situation—though SOx looks to be in effect for the Touch update cost—but you asked a general question and assumed this is an Apple smokescreen at work to get more money from customers. While Apple’s goal is to make money, if it were just about short term goal of an extra small payment here and there then why offer the iPhone users free updates at all? Why give the give the original iPhone, now 2.5 years old, free updates, presumably until at least next Summer when v4.0 arrives? This seems counter-productive on the surface, especially when MS and others have been making a profit selling their updates OSes and I don’t know of many phones that are still able to get rich updates (not just bug fixes) so long after they HW has been off the market. So, if you are going to argue for it all being an “RDF” then you have to also make a good argument as to why Apple isn’t charging for the iPhone updates, as well.
I noted this before, but where is there any proof to the assertion that a company is obliged to charge for what it is offering to the public? The RDF is strong on this one.
When Apple first started charging small fees for the iPod Touch, they were new as to what they actually should charge the consumer. Apple began with $20, though as we seen through each update that fee has been reduced drastically. Like I keep mentioning 3.0 update was free for certain users.
Apple corrected the problem and will continue to. I will say again that if a consumer want's to pay $299 for a revolutionary device & complain when their politely asked to pay a small fee to upgrade an OS once a year, then the consumer should really say to themselves do I need a iPod Touch or an iPhone. The iPhone is now $99. It doesn't get any sweeter then that.
Here are two different reasons as to why companies can’t just give things away or slight-of-hand accounting practices anymore. One has to do with potentially destroying a stock holder’s investment and the other has to do with anti-competitive measures to illegally destroy competition.
Solipsism, Thanks for the links. I was searching for this very thing.
The Microsoft case, should really show Windows users how that company is very bad for the industry.
Here are two different reasons as to why companies can?t just give things away or use "slight-of-hand" accounting practices anymore. The former has to do with anti-competitive measures to prevent companies from illegally destroying competition whilst the latter has to do with potentially destroying a stock holder?s investment y masking the true financial status of a company.Of course, none of this has anything directly to do with the Apple situation?though SOx looks to be in effect for the Touch update cost?but you asked a general question and assumed this is an Apple smokescreen at work to get more money from customers. While Apple?s goal is to make money, if it were just about short term goal of an extra small payment here and there then why offer the iPhone users free updates at all? Why give the give the original iPhone, now 2.5 years old, free updates, presumably until at least next Summer when v4.0 arrives? This seems counter-productive on the surface, especially when MS and others have been making a profit selling their updates OSes and I don?t know of many phones that are still able to get rich updates (not just bug fixes) so long after they HW has been off the market. So, if you are going to argue for it all being an ?RDF? then you have to also make a good argument as to why Apple isn?t charging for the iPhone updates, as well.
first almost every other company out there gives out free firmware updated for their products. too many to name.
second apple gives out a lot of updates to their non-iphone products. Apple TV comes to mind since it just got a major version upgrade. why are there no SOX issues there?
my conspiracy theory is that the ipod touch upgrade money really goes to M$ to pay for MS Exchange licensing
first almost every other company out there gives out free firmware updated for their products. too many to name.
second apple gives out a lot of updates to their non-iphone products. Apple TV comes to mind since it just got a major version upgrade. why are there no SOX issues there?
my conspiracy theory is that the ipod touch upgrade money really goes to M$ to pay for MS Exchange licensing
Get a New argument (If you can), the Microsoft thing gets old ....
Both the iPhone and iPod updates appeared at the same time, yet only the latter featured a charge. However, that’s because Apple accounts for the iPhone on a subscription basis; it accounts for the iPod touch differently, and so it has to charge for an upgraded device, analysts say.
Adding to the confusion is the fact that Apple also announced an Apple TV software update at Macworld Expo that existing Apple TV owners will be able to download for free when it comes out this month. But Apple is able to release that update for free because, like the iPhone, it recognizes Apple TV revenue on a subscription basis. According to the company’s February 1 quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, “For both Apple TV and iPhone, [Apple] indicated it may from time-to-time provide future unspecified features and additional software products free of charge to customers. Therefore, sales of Apple TV and iPhone handsets are recognized under subscription accounting in accordance with SOP No. 97-2.”
Read more to understand why... http://www.macworld.com/article/1319...ipodtouch.html