Topic: iPad...meh

[gbuell]

I never said you did, but to instantly brush off the "legally we couldn't provide you with a free update from us on our own hardware that we make all the rules on" excuse without any proof what so ever simply because they said so, makes it seems like your buying whatever they're selling for the moment.

Is there actually a legal reason as to why they couldn't?
I ask because I really don't know. And like I said before, I'm not saying your wrong, but I've never seen mention of the law that says they can't, and you just brushed it off too easily.

Of course there's proof, I don't believe it "simply because they said so." I didn't brush it off, I looked into it, using the internet.

Here is the reason for it: http://www.pcworld.com/article/142272/accounting_rules_behind_ipod_touch_update_charge.html

So as you can see, they actually DON'T make all the rules on their hardware.

Acting like there's no proof simply because you haven't looked for it is ... well ... I'll be nice, so never mind.

[gbuell]

By the way, no price has been announced for iPod Touch owners to upgrade to 4.0, and the accounting rules in question have changed, largely because of Apple's lobbying efforts, so this question is quite possibly moot.

[TJ Spyke]

They chose to charge $10 for it because they wanted to make as much money from it as they could. If Apple wanted too they could have charged $0.01 for it. Apple has also supposedly changed their accounting since then, so they shouldn't charge for the update this time (especially since iPad users will get it for free, even those who have the non-subscription Wi-Fi model).

[gbuell]

You don't think the accountants in question would call shenanigans on a $0.01 charge? Why wouldn't they charge iPhone owners similarly if they're just after buckets of cash? Anyway, developing new software costs Apple money, so even if there were no such accounting rules, I wouldn't blame Apple for charging for the updates simply to recoup development costs. Anyway you're right, let's complain when and if Apple actually announces a charge for the new software for iPod Touch owners.

[gbuell]

If you want to get technical, Apple wasn't REQUIRED to charge, but here's an article that aptly explains why the rules in question made it a difficult proposition for them not to: http://macalope.com/2007/02/13/must-the-macalope-do-everything/

I just think it's being anti-Apple for the hell of it to imagine them coming up with some complex, Machiavellian scheme to charge $10 for iPod Touch upgrades when they don't do the same thing for other products like the iPhone or Apple TV.

[BlackNMild2k1]

The iPod touch software update released at last month's Macworld Expo added applications that already appeared on the iPhone along with other new features. But it also delivered some confusion among iPod touch owners who wondered why they were being charged $19.99 for a software update.

It turns out Apple didn't have much of a choice about charging for the iPod touch January software update, according to analysts familiar with accounting regulations.

"It's an accounting requirement that if you upgrade a device that's not on a subscription, you have to charge," Needham and Company financial analyst Charles Wolf said. "Apple has a choice of what to charge, but they have to charge."

Does that mean that all those PS3 owners that are about to get the 3D update are gonna be charged to download it?

still sound like BS to me.

They wanted to give it for Free and are free to choose the price so they chose $19.99?
why not $0.99 and rebate it later if they wanted to give it away for free.

The fact that they had to charge may not be BS but the excuse given next to what was actually charged is.

If you want to get technical, Apple wasn't REQUIRED to charge, but here's an article that aptly explains why the rules in question made it a difficult proposition for them not to: http://macalope.com/2007/02/13/must-the-macalope-do-everything/

So what you're saying is that it is infact a BS excuse and if they wanted to give it away for free they could have.

[gbuell]

So what you're saying is that it is infact a BS excuse and if they wanted to give it away for free they could have.

No.... did you read the linked article?

[BlackNMild2k1]

no. I admit I didn't. I just quoted what you said since I have to click send 3 times before my post would post and added in your quote in the last time before it went through("there is a new post", "you might want to review your post before sending" messages).

reading now though.

[gbuell]

We can go round and round on this, but I don't think it's an issue that can be simply boiled down to "Apple is lying." If they were just greedy and after our money, they wouldn't make up such an excuse, and they'd do this with other products as well, like the Apple TV and iPhone, instead of lobbying to change the rules that they're claiming forces them to charge the extra $10 to iPod Touch users. Maybe they could handle this more charitably, but they aren't a charity. They could charge $100 for the upgrade and they wouldn't be "wrong" to do so - the market would simply tell them whether it was a smart idea or not. If they can charge $10 for extra features that users might find useful, more power to them. That's capitalism. If charging for upgrades causes their iPod Touch sales to plummet, I'm sure they'll find a way to stop.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Yes, Apple was technically incorrect in stating that it was “required” by GAAP to charge for the enabler. It could just have easily decided to reopen its books (for the second time in about as many months), taken a charge against prior earnings and potentially affected its future ability to recognize revenue when products ship. That sounds awesome, doesn’t it?

In addition to having a responsibility to its customers, Apple has one to its shareholders, and that option is clearly damaging to shareholders.

So while they could have given it away for free(like they said they wanted to), it wouldn't have made financial sense given the possible repercussion of that action.

But doesn't explain why they charged so much. Just cause they needed to charge something for it, doesn't mean they had to charge that much. They have every right to charge what they wanted, but I wasn't the one to say "Hey, I wanted to give it away for free, but...."

I also understand that the cost of the update was amortized(spread out over a set period of time for those that don't know) for the iPhone so they couldn't just give it away, but was every iPhone user aware that they (technically) were being charged for this upgrade but having it spread out so that they never noticed it on their bill?

But anyway, it doesn't really matter to me since I don't have nor plan on getting an iAnything at any point in the near future.

[gbuell]

was every iPhone user aware that they (technically) were being charged for this upgrade but having it spread out so that they never noticed it on their bill?

Certainly not - are you aware of the nature of the production and R&D costs of every product you buy? More to the point, should you be?

[BlackNMild2k1]

If I'm being charged for it, I would like to know.

the R&D cost of the phone was included in the original purchase, but an update they mark as free should be free. If it's being amortized to some then I think they would want to know how much and for how long since they may not want it.

I really don't know anything about it. I only commented because it did sound like BS.

I assume it doesn't show up on the bill and it is being amortized behind the scenes, but will you be charged for it if your contract ends and you switch carriers before amortization period is over? is that considered a loss and the entire cost is amortized throughout all subscriptions and not just on a phone by phone basis?

I'm not actually expecting you to have those answers, I just wanted to put them out there.
You don't even have to respond since I don't regularly check this thread anyway.

[NWR_insanolord]

If a new version of Windows costs money and a new version of OS X costs money, why shouldn't a new version of the iPhone OS cost money? I bought Snow Leopard last year, and although it was way cheaper than any desktop OS update I've ever seen, it was still three times the price of an iPhone update. The R&D for the device itself is factored into the price of it, but the development of the OS is a continuous process and it's certainly fair to charge for a major update.

[gbuell]

The iPhone's subscription accounting isn't tied to its data contract. You wouldn't be charged for an update no matter what happened to your contract or carrier. The Apple TV has been using the same subscription accounting model as the iPhone, and the Apple TV has no data contract or carrier.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Just to be clear, when I commented, it was never to question the value of the update, it was to question the sincerity of the comment and how it was seemingly just dismissed as fact so easily.

They can charge whatever they want for their products and services and I can in turn choose not to buy them, so there is no problem there. But why say you would've if you could've, when you could've but didn't actually want to.

That was the only reason I commented at all. I don't actually know much about the update situation or what is being updated.

[NWR_insanolord]

I think the argument is that Apple would have no problem with just charging for the update; they wouldn't make up an excuse, because in their mind they wouldn't need an excuse.

I remember a few years back, when the first MacBook Pros with 802.11n shipped, but that wasn't a documented feature, and because of that Apple had to charge $2 to activate it because of this same rule. Apple's not going to make people jump through hoops and pay an extra two bucks on a $1000-plus computer unless they have to.

[nickmitch]

Apple didn't have to charge. They're just recovering their R&D costs. R&D costs are expensed as incurred under US GAAP. The FASB just announced something to the effect that companies will be able to use what's called the "Milestone Method" (IIRC) to account for R&D, which would let Apple go without charging with somewhat lengthy reasons.

There would be reasons where Apple would have to amortize some of their R&D costs, but I doubt they'd be extensive enough to merit $20.

This is just my 2cents as an accounting major.

[Stogi]

I finally found a use for the ipad.

Airplanes.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Someone mentioned something about a Google & Verizon Tablet.

Does anyone here know anything about that?

[TJ Spyke]

The CEO of Verizon said that they are working with Google on a tablet computer, but that's about all that either side is saying. He did not say who would manufacture the tablet and did not mention what role Google will play in it. Supposedly they will unveil it early next year. Here is the Wall Street Journal article from last week on it: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704250104575238680540806288.html

[NWR_insanolord]

Atomic Web is a better iPad browser than Safari for so many reasons, and it'll be even better once third party multitasking arrives.

[gbuell]

Can that sync with Safari bookmarks?

[NWR_insanolord]

Can that sync with Safari bookmarks?

It didn't when I originally tried it out for iPhone, but it's been updated so you can. You have to do it through their site; the app gives you a code which you plug into their site on your desktop and then you upload an exported bookmarks file (from either Safari or Firefox, or more on the Windows side) which will be synced to your device.

It has actual desktop-style tabs, can block ads, and can be set up to appear as a desktop browser so you don't get automatically rerouted to mobile versions of web sites.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I was just checking out some videos on what is Chrome OS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMrzw7JFzA&feature=channel
and I have to say that yes, it is like a juiced up web browser, but that is what makes it seem so nice.

Everyone surfs the web(probably 95% of computer users main reason for having a PC in the first place), everyone knows the basics on how to use a web browser, and the web browser is just the OS UI. I think this OS is perfect for an upcoming Google Tablet will be the casual OS of the future.

I really gotta get around to making that Google thread I've been meaning to make since middle of last year.

[NWR_insanolord]

Chrome OS isn't perfect for anything; there is a better choice of OS in every situation, at least any that I can think of. Web apps are not at a point where they can be relied upon exclusively, and I'm not sure they ever will be.