backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 93 comment(s) - last by dmr9748.. on Jan 25 at 10:51 AM
Want to enable 802.11n in your MacBook or MacBook Pro? Pay up

Apple MacBook and MacBook Pro users rejoiced when it was revealed to them that their notebooks have 802.11n Wi-Fi capabilities. Apple revealed the details when it launched the new Airport Extreme last week at MacWorld that will work with the Apple TV and existing Apple desktops and notebooks. The technology is the successor to 802.11g, and is able to transfer data at a theoretical rate of 108Mbps as apposed to 802.11g's 54Mbps.

Despite the positive news at MacWorld however, Apple late this week revealed that 802.11n features in the MacBook and MacBook Pro units are locked and the only way to unlock the new speed is to pay Apple a fee. Apple wants users to pay $2 USD for a small system update that unlocks 802.11n features. Those who decide to purchase the new 802.11n Airport Extreme however, will receive the necessary update free of charge.

Apple claims that charging for software updates is an acceptable practice and is necessary for accounting purposes. According to Apple spokeswoman Lynn Fox, Apple requires users to pay up for the software update and indicated that it was normal procedure. "The nominal distribution fee for the 802.11n software is required in order for Apple to comply with generally accepted accounting principles for revenue recognition, which generally require that we charge for significant feature enhancements, such as 802.11n, when added to previously purchased products," said Fox.

Interestingly, 802.11n is still under draft and has not yet been finalized by the IEEE. Apple released major updates through the Software Update panel within OS X for free and has never charged for even firmware updates. The company argues that the new 802.11n update is like adding a new piece of hardware into your machine -- despite already having paid for it to begin with.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
already overcharging
By Lazarus Dark on 1/19/2007 8:41:04 AM , Rating: 4
Apple already overcharges for its proprietary hardware. And this? Companies are constantly adding new features to products through firmware and software updates without charging. And in this case? They want to charge for simply enabling a feature that the cripled unnecessarily at the factory. Yeah, its two bucks and most will pony up with little more than a grumble, but its still a slap in the face and I would be offended... that is, IF, I bought that proprietary crap from apple.

Thankfully I don't, but my girlfriend has a mac because her art school convinced her all artists must use mac. And my girlfriends five year old mac wont let her update to the latest photoshop without updating her os. Her os! My windows xp is five years old and would have no problem updating photoshop, and will probably even accept the next two versions of photoshop. Its bs, since you cant upgrade a mac, mac users have to buy a whole new system every two years to keep up.




RE: already overcharging
By teclis1023 on 1/19/2007 9:55:35 AM , Rating: 5
Whether you like Apple's product and pricing structure or not, calling Apple's product offering's 'overpriced proprietary crap' is outrageous. There will always be the die-hard zero-sum PC user (as well as mac user) but the current Mac computers have been flying off the shelves at a relatively alarming rate, at least here in Rochester.

While I understand that it can be tempting to label Macs as expensive, when you truly break it down, I think most people will find that they offer a tremendous value for the money. This isn't a line - I don't work for Apple, nor do I own an Apple. I'm a PC user, but unlike many, I can appreciate the value of all available platforms.

Consider that Apple doesn't really address the sub-$1000 computer market. Their goal is to demonstrate the value of their machines at their price points without having to pander to the "guy who wants the $499 Dell laptop". That guy is not Apple's customer. But unlike Dell/HP/etc., Apple does not sell any piece of hardware which won't fully run every program that it comes with. I'm sorry, but a $499 laptop with 256MB RAM and a celeron processor just doesn't compare to an entry level Macbook with 512/1GB DDR2, Core2Duo, etc.

In terms of software, Apples come loaded with full versions of almost every program you'll need. People complain that they don't have the selection of software that they have on their PCs. Consider that there really are very few genres of home-usage software - it's just that there's a lot of offerings within each genre, almost all of which do the same thing, with varying levels of success and stability. Macintosh software just works, and works well. With the installed programs, you're able to do things that require PC users to buy several suites of software.

Furthermore, consider that each Macbook is built by Apple. While some complain that this makes the hardware and software proprietary, the average user is not looking to mess around with settings and hardware - they just want things to WORK. And Macs work well. Macs come standard with wireless, bluetooth, cameras, firewire and more, all housed within high-quality and well-built products. I would like to buy a Macbook simply because I've found their quality to be higher than almost any PC in that price-bracket.

Of course, that's not to say that PCs can't be well made or high quality, but the high level of variance in build qualities certainly doesn't leave much room for confidence on behalf of the consumer. I KNOW that every macbook is built well, and if there's a problem, AppleCare takes care of things easily and quickly. Neither HP or Dell can boast that, and it's reflected in ratings. AppleCare has been the #1 ranked supportline for home computers for the past few years.

With a Mac straight out of the box, not only can I do all the cool media things that you see on those commercials, but I can use my full email client / calendar client / dictionary / chess / full suite of games / etc. There's simply so much included with the mac that price becomes a positive note for Apple because they're basically giving consumers a solution without a need to go out a buy more and more software.

And as for proprietarity (is that a word?) Consider that the new Macs are compatable in almost every way with PCs - from file types to networking and many things in between. Apple's iPod works with almost every OS out there. Microsoft's Zune doesn't even work with half of the Windows versions. Furthermore, when Vista comes out we'll see just how compatable MS really is, considering that they're warning people now that not all of their XP programs will work, not to mention Win98 and older, so cries about Mac OSX not running every MacOS9 program simply don't match up. Sometimes, in order to move forward, we need to abandon old architecture. THat's just a reality in technology.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, and I know I'll probably get blasted for supporting Macs, but the bottom line in my mind is that Macs present a great value for many people. It's true, not everyone should want/use a mac; however, a large portion of people would probably really enjoy the switch if they learned more about it. Again, this is from a PC user. All I know is that the vast majority of people that I introduce to Macs tend to fall in love with them, and that's enough for me.


RE: already overcharging
By marvdmartian on 1/19/2007 10:20:41 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, yeah, yeah......Apple still sucks! ;) (sarcasm meter pegged, for those who didn't notice)

I'm sure that the $2 fee is just their way of saying, "Look, we built it in, but didn't advertise it, now we want to offer it, but can't just give it to you, cuz we have to follow the law. That same law says we have to charge you, but not how much, and in order to charge you guys something, it's going to cost us, on average, $2 per person to pay an accountant to keep the books straight."

"So pay us $2, and we'll give you a great deal!" :)

The funny thing is, if this happened on a PC-based product, some hacker would probably find a fix for it in 2 days, just to be a windows pirate and keep people from paying the $2 fee......but since it's an Apple product, none of the hackers will care!! ;)


RE: already overcharging
By oTAL (blog) on 1/23/2007 2:25:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The funny thing is, if this happened on a PC-based product, some hacker would probably find a fix for it in 2 days, just to be a windows pirate and keep people from paying the $2 fee......but since it's an Apple product, none of the hackers will care!! ;)


Hmmm... hackers FTW?


RE: already overcharging
By AxemanFU on 1/19/2007 10:23:43 AM , Rating: 2
Macs are great at satisfying their core constituencies. I'm not one of those. I do serious gaming, and run all kinds of non-generic software, third party and shareware apps, etc, and lots of hardware, and what is more, I'm an overclocking cheapskate. Macs are too expensive, and to proprietary for me. To each his own, but if you want to get a "computer for dummies", you almost can't beat a mac. They do work nicely right out of the box with the software they come with..the total platform approach is great for the computer illiterate or the PC is an appliance crowd, or those that want to pay a little extra to have a nice relatively error free experience.


RE: already overcharging
By djcameron on 1/19/2007 10:46:14 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not buying your story, it sounds like pure BS. You claim to be a PC user that does not own a Mac, yet you are introducing people to the "wonders" of the Mac. If you are so enamoured with Macs, why don't you own one?

BTW... I come from a family of mixed Mac and PC users. Yes, Macs crash, the pre-installed software is okay, but not great, and Windows Solitaire smokes any Mac-based Solitaire (So says my father that installed MS Virtual PC for Mac just so he can play Solitaire)!


RE: already overcharging
By teclis1023 on 1/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: already overcharging
By Pirks on 1/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: already overcharging
By rklaver on 1/19/2007 4:45:21 PM , Rating: 2
WinXP runs very well on my MacPro. How can you go wrong with a box that allows you to put any OS you want on it. I have XP installed on a separate drive. If I need something quick I can boot XP into Parallels, if I need full speed I'll boot straight into windows. The only thing that currently miffs me about Apple is the price they sell their FB-DIMM for and the choices of video cards I can use. I was happy to hear I was one of the ones who had an 82.11n card in my puter. But since the "n" standard isn't nailed down yet what's the point in upgrading.


RE: already overcharging
By Pirks on 1/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: already overcharging
By michal1980 on 1/19/07, Rating: 0
Sounds Like BS
By Ard on 1/19/2007 10:38:06 AM , Rating: 2
Apple's rationale for charging for this update seems a bit baseless to me. While it's only $2, this would be akin to Intel or mobo manufacturers charging you for the update that enabled HT, which was never advertised but included (sleeping) in the P4 or Sony (MS) charging you for all the firmware updates to the PSP (360), which have added new, unadvertised features. Ppl would be pissed as all hell and I can't imagine why it should be any different with this unless Mac users like giving their money to Apple.




RE: Sounds Like BS
By Ard on 1/19/2007 10:46:19 AM , Rating: 2
Need a damn edit button, guys. Disregard the Intel example. I just remembered that you were never able to enable HT on older processors. The Sony/MS examples stand though.


RE: Sounds Like BS
By FITCamaro on 1/19/2007 1:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. This is just a first step. If they'll charge you today for a simple update to allow you to use draft-n, whats tomorrow. They themselves claim that charging for software updates is acceptable.

And people say Microsoft is evil. I don't see them charging for Service Packs or updates. I agree that Apply already overcharges for its crap. Now that Macs are using Intel processors you're not even getting the main reason Macs had an advantage in the first place(32 MMX registers on the PowerPC chip and true 64-bit vs. 8 on x86 chips and hybrid 64-bit(x86-64)). A Mac now costs no more to produce than a Dell. But they still charge the premium because "Well ours is pretty and our OS is better".

I own a 14" G4 iBook but I sure as hell didn't pay full price for it (paid the equivalent of $250 for it 3 years ago). And its sole role is as a DVD player on airplanes. OSX's interface sucks.


RE: Sounds Like BS
By blippyII on 1/19/2007 1:43:38 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how Windows fans are feeling now that Microsoft has stated that Windows Vista installs will include all versions written to your hard drive, but that you will have to pay extra for any level above what you originally purchase. Don't believe me? It's all right here:

From CNN 01/19/07

For consumers, Vista will come in four flavors, Home Basic, which retails for $199, Home Premium ($239) Business ($299) and Ultimate ($399). Though consumers will pick one version when they buy a computer, higher versions will be embedded on the machine's hard drive or packaged on discs that come with it.

Anyone who wants to move up the chain -- from Home Basic to Home Premium for another $79, Home Basic to Ultimate ($199), Home Premium to Ultimate ($159), or Business to Ultimate ($139) -- will be able to click a new "Windows Anytime Upgrade" function, pay for the upgrade online and then receive a coded license "key" that will unlock the more expensive edition.



RE: Sounds Like BS
By Ard on 1/19/2007 7:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see your point. All versions of Vista are included on the same disc for convenience. You're upgrading to unlock new features that weren't [i]included[/i] with the version you originally purchased. This is different from what Apple is doing, which is forcing you to pay for something that's [i]already included[/i]. You don't own Vista Premium or Vista Ultimate, you own Vista Basic. However, you DO own a MacBook that is fully capable of supporting 802.11n.

I see what you're trying to say but the analogy doesn't work. Now if you purchased Vista Ultimate and then MS charged you to use a feature that was already included, say Defrag, your analogy would work.


RE: Sounds Like BS
By Christopher1 on 1/21/2007 5:10:40 AM , Rating: 2
Well, he's got a point. It is the same thing really that Microsoft is doing with Windows Vista, though I am loathe to admit it!

Microsoft is installing all parts of Vista on your computer at the beginning installation: all Ultimate Features are there, it's just that some are locked by registry keys, software manipulations, etc.

The new key for Ultimate that you get after you upgrade, just unlocks those software features that are ALREADY installed on your hard drive, and allows Windows Vista to say "Hmm..... you're now authorized to use Media Center, Remote Desktop, etc."

That is basically what Apple is doing, though this is a piece of HARDWARE in the machine that is locked, not software. That's the differentiater for me, and what makes wrong what Apple is doing.


RE: Sounds Like BS
By masher2 (blog) on 1/21/2007 7:49:01 PM , Rating: 3
> "This is different from what Apple is doing, which is forcing you to pay for something that's already included. "

Wrong on two points. First of all, Apple isn't forcing you to buy anything. If you don't want to shell out two bucks, you're free not to. And second, the feature wasn't already included. The hardware to support the feature was...but not the feature itself.


Missing something basic...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/19/2007 10:07:52 AM , Rating: 2
I think everyone here is missing something very basic. Two parties agreed to a transaction-- to exchange a computer with a given feature set, for a certain sum of money. Both parties freely agreed to the deal. And both got exactly what they expected. This is the basis of a free market, and our entire economic system.

Now, if Apple later wishes to offer to unlock additional capabilities, they're free to set whatever cost they wish for them. And any consumer is, of course, free to decline if they feel the price is too high. Claims that people "have a right" to locked, unadvertised features, are no more than thinly-veiled socialism.

The fact that Apple is charging only a token amount, and doing so merely to avoid possible government action, makes all the whining I see even more ludicrous.




RE: Missing something basic...
By silentpc on 1/19/2007 10:25:22 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, I think that was pretty much what I was getting at originally. At $2 a time they're obviously not doing it for the money - probably just covering the cost of the transaction and bit.



RE: Missing something basic...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/19/2007 10:42:54 AM , Rating: 2
But the point I was making was that, even if Apple wanted to charge $200 for this new feature, it would be well within their right, and no one should be upset over it. People did not "already pay for this" as the article headline says.


RE: Missing something basic...
By bplewis24 on 1/19/2007 12:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you wholeheartedly. The headline is misleading ...whether Apple should have charged $2 for this upgrade is up for debate, but to claim the end users already paid for this (especially without it being advertised at the time of purchase) and that Apple has no grounds to charge for this is without merit.

Brandon


RE: Missing something basic...
By Dustin25 on 1/19/2007 12:35:57 PM , Rating: 2
Whatever additional cost Apple incurred in adding an N capable card they sure as hell didn't give this higher cost part away for free. They added it to the total cost at the time of sale. Now they want to charge again for something already paid for. Thinly veiled socialism my ass.


By psychobriggsy on 1/19/2007 2:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
What if Apple have to pay royalties for shipping 802.11n devices? Shipping them as 802.11abg avoided that fee, but to activate n they have to pay that fee.

How about thinking of it as a $2 802.11n card that you download and install?

I guess you could buy a $100 802.11n card and install it yourself if the $2 fee riles you so much.


RE: Missing something basic...
By rklaver on 1/19/2007 4:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
When I bought my Mac it was spec'd out with an 802.11 a/b/g so the fact that I discovered it came with "n" capabilities made me feel even better. I don't use wireless now so big deal. But should I need "n" in the future I have it, and even I only need to pay $2 to activated it instead of buying a $179 Airport base station, then sweet deal. And it still beats having to go purchase a new wireless card as well.


Dumb idea
By OrSin on 1/19/2007 8:46:07 AM , Rating: 2
The $2 fee will piss off people to no end. Alot of mac users got it for the easy of use and many (not all) dont like the idea of give out thier credit card numbers. For the $2 fee youa re forcing peopel to give out credit card numbers when the profit for apple will be very small and hte bad press pretty big. And who is collect the fee. Is Apple doing it directly or some third party. This is also open apple up to phish attempts now. !!!Updates are coming give me your credit card number again!!!

Apple is opening themselfs up to too much stuff with this.




RE: Dumb idea
By icab on 1/19/2007 8:50:47 AM , Rating: 2
In an unrelated topic, screw the IEEE. Yes, I love standards for anything, but 802.11n has been in the making for a gazillion years.


RE: Dumb idea
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/19/2007 10:28:50 AM , Rating: 2
IEEE is the reason technology works properly. The only reason it hasnt been finalized by IEEE is the last set of 802.11n products I Saw, cross compatability and backwards compabability was pure shit.


RE: Dumb idea
By zsouthboy on 1/19/2007 11:11:40 AM , Rating: 2
Trying to go around the IEEE will be a BAD thing.

Do you have any idea why they take so long to design standards? Do you LIKE being able to head to a friends house, and connect to his wireless without a problem?


RE: Dumb idea
By psychobriggsy on 1/19/2007 2:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
Apple's playing everything in the word of the law, they can't afford a mistake.

$2 is such a small fee that I'm astounded that people are calling it 'profiteering'. It'll probably cost Apple nearly that to offer the draft-n driver.

The law sucks, quite clearly. Also you are not forced to buy the driver - no need if you don't have a 802.11n router. You get the driver for free if you buy Apple's 802.11n router.

Hopefully future Macs will come with 802.11n activated by default.


RE: Dumb idea
By THEiNTERNETS on 1/19/2007 8:43:22 PM , Rating: 2
Your idea of phishing is really unfounded. Software Update is built directly into OS X and the only people who have access to it are Apple. Everything that takes place is between your computer and Apple, that's it.

Nothing is being "opened up." Your argument is equivalent to saying that giving Windows Update your credit card is dangerous. However, given Microsoft's track record with security, I might actually agree with you on that one.

The fear you're raising, however, is pretty much near impossible. In order to "phish" an update you'd have to somehow break into OS X's update structure, which, I'm going to guess, is hardly clientside at all since it requires an internet connection. That means OS X Update is probably housed in a bunker somewhere under Apple's HQ in California. Then, to actually get those credit card numbers, you'd have to float your false firmware update on their system without them noticing. Like I said, nearly impossible.

I don't know who upmodded you, but they clearly don't understand much about the OS X's architecture. Phishing this way would take too much time and energy for too little profit (considering the difference in userbases, Windows is a much more valuable target numerically).

However, as a Mac user I think it's pretty stupid to pay for usability in hardware I've already purchased. So I'll add my vote to the "shouldn't have to pay" group.

The one thing people aren't mentioning is that Software Update isn't just for firmware, it also periodically has software updates for Apple-created programs which add functionality not just fix bugs. And that is a very healthy trend. I really wish Microsoft would let me update Word or Powerpoint's usability for free rather than making me pay up with each new year's revision.

I know some people will deride my post for being "a Mac zealot," but I was using windows this time last year, and let me tell you, OS X is a quantum leap in terms of navigation, functionality, ease of use, and sensibility compared to XP. I knew my way around XP pretty well only because I took the time to look up on the internet how to tweak its featureset (msconfig, services, etc.) and how to keep it healthy with the right internet browser, antivirus software, and so forth. When something wasn't working right, even if the help function of the program didn't help (it rarely did) I could at least figure it out by having google crawl forums for my particular issue.

Knowing next to nothing about OS X when I purchased my mac I was able to use it efficiently and sensibly within an hour, something I know would have been next to impossible had I been switching in the other direction. People may cite this as Macs being computers for dummies, which they are to some extent. But the sensibility of the design of OS X is not just for dummies, it's also for intelligent people who don't want to spend hours on the net reading to figure out how to get the computer to do what they want the computer to do.


Misleading Headlines Disgrace Anandtech!!!
By iamright on 1/19/2007 6:30:50 PM , Rating: 2
Customers were not charged for something they had already purchased! They didn't purchase the update originally. How can such headlines be allowed to fly? This is an obvious error and nothing could be further from the truth!




RE: Misleading Headlines Disgrace Anandtech!!!
By Ard on 1/19/2007 7:58:11 PM , Rating: 2
You're not thinking straight. Apple customers purchased an 802.11n capable NIC. By Apple asking for $2 to use that card at full speed, they are essentially asking their customers to pay for that card twice. It'd be like buying a video card that is capable of running at certain speeds but because of a driver issue it's currently capped. NVIDIA/ATI finally get a working driver and then ask you to pay for it to get the speeds you were expecting. That's what Apple is doing. They're asking ppl who bought an 802.11n card to pay to utilize that card.


RE: Misleading Headlines Disgrace Anandtech!!!
By THEiNTERNETS on 1/19/2007 9:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
Your analogy is off.

Let me clarify.

What this is analogous to in terms of videocards is completely different than what you said.

It's not buying a gimped card, and then paying to get it up to speed. It's actually like buying a card that's marketed as DX9, and then ATI or Nvidia saying after the fact, "Actually, it's DX10 compatible. But if you want that feature set you're going to have to pay us $2 to unlock the firmware." (not video drivers, those are much more fluid than 802 standards, apples to oranges there).

Now, tell me, if let's say it was revealed that certain members of the GeForce 7 series or the X1900 series were shown to be DX10 compatible, are you saying you would be outraged to pay two dollars for that functionality? Hell no. Graphics fans would be rejoicing, they'd send their $2 in immediately.

The only difference is that here, we're talking about a wireless standard, not a DirectX standard. You also have to take into consideration that the people paying for this update would somehow already have a wireless router offering 802n (guess what, I bet almost 0% of all Mac users do, given how new it is). If you don't have the router, you can buy Apple's and get the firmware update for free.

So really what are we outraged about here? Simple, the idea of paying, not the price tag. Does it suck that it's not free? Sure. But you can bet that if this was ATI or Nvidia doing this for their legacy videocards and DX10 the delighted indignation we see here would be stifled to non-existent. Dailytech is just sensationalizing the issue with their headline and you guys are buying into it because it's as easy to hate Steve Jobs as it is to hate Bill Gates or Sony.

In a month, no one will remember this happened, because we're making a big deal out of small bones.


RE: Misleading Headlines Disgrace Anandtech!!!
By Ard on 1/19/2007 9:53:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, your analogy is a bit more fitting but I think you've missed the issue. It's not the fact that $2 is a lot of money, far from it. It's the principle of the thing. You shouldn't have to pay for functionality that was included in your card from the get-go. What makes this situation worse than your analogy is the fact that Apple told customers earlier that they were getting 802.11n cards.


By Ard on 1/19/2007 9:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
Edit: Missed the last bit of your post before hitting the damn post button. But yes, it's the principle of the matter that's at issue.


This is ridiculous
By Domicinator on 1/19/2007 11:03:45 AM , Rating: 2
I'm no fan of Apple stuff, not because I have something against the company, but because I don't like the interface of their OS at all, and I don't like that they charge so much more for their stuff. Why is a plastic Mac case full of hardware so much more expensive than a plastic PC case full of hardware? But that's for another post.

iPods, iMacs, iPhones, Macbooks, etc. have been come such elitist tech items that people don't realize they're being taken for a ride. I think that the big Mac fans have a lot of blind faith, and probably don't even think to complain about or question things like this. The true die-hards are very loyal to Steve Jobs and Apple, and will never mind this kind of stuff.

The rest of us who are considered by most Mac users to be on the outside looking in, will sit here and wonder why owners of Apple products sit there and take this kind of thing lying down. For example: my MP3 player is not an iPod. It's a flash based player that uses SD cards. But I can drag and drop my MP3s from wherever to wherever (from player to hard drive and vice versa) without the interference of a piece of proprietary software that has no function other than to eventually make you have to pay for your music all over again because you've transferred it too many times. So why would I want an iPod that requires iTunes to police everything I do with my music? It makes absolutely no sense.

So to Apple fans: I really hope you're not just going to let this go. Wireless N isn't the way to go right now anyway. Don't pay for this patch. I doubt Apple needs your $2 right now. Rage against Steve Jobs, write your congressman or woman (kidding), do whatever you feel you need to do. Or if you do nothing, at least realize that this is unnecessary. Apple already takes enough extra money from you. Don't give them another $2 micro payment.




RE: This is ridiculous
By markwlewis on 1/19/2007 11:44:34 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, yeah, millions of people who depend on Apple hardware daily to do their jobs are "elitist idiots" and YOU, keeper of the true knowlege of the universe, have it all figured out! I thought you people finally pulled your heads out of your ...well, you know...and looked around and saw Windows for what it is. I guess not.

Good thing that Bill Gates has you around to defend his honor. With only 45 billion dollars, how could he possibly afford to HIRE people to troll the public forums and talk down the competitions products? You are a real humanitarian.

NOW, back to the topic. Something that no one has mentioned is that, in some cases, licensing fees have to be paid because of the use of proprietary technology used in a product and the only way to TRACK it is to charge for it (example:MPEG2 codecs).

Does anyone here really think that Apple Corporation can administer a program for ANYTHING that must be tracked and distributed and accounted for and make a profit on $2? What planet have you come from? Are your people carbon-based?

Just to help you stay INFORMED about the things that you don't use or understand and choose to rail about anyway, you can now transfer music from you iPod BACK to your computer. And iTunes is not "a piece of proprietary software that has no function other than to eventually make you have to pay for your music all over again because you've transferred it too many times." You are apparently ignorant about what you are arguing about.

Let me break it down for you: Artists and recording companies would rather you pay for music rather than STEAL it. (Yeah, I know, you would prefer to steal it from "those idiots" that actually pay for it, but try to follow the logic, even if it doesn't agree with your ethics.} Apple provides a way to purchase said music in a legal fashion at a modest price from the iTunes music store. If you do that, iTunes manages the license for the music in a way that is hardly an imposition. (Yeah, I know, you can come up with a "meteor-crashed-into-my-computer" scenario where you would feel screwed, but it is ridiculous.) From the music you buy and download, you can use it on up to three computers SIMUTANEOUSLY or burn it to a CD and give it to anyone. Or burn it to a hundred CDs and give it to EVERYONE. Does that suit your ethics better?

If you use *your* common method of aquisition of music (stealing, presumably), then you would NEVER, and I repeat so you don't misunderstand what I am saying, NEVER have to pay anything to use iTunes to manage your music and populate your iPod. The same is true if you rip your own purchased CDs. Not that you would do that, but the guy who posted the track on LIMEWIRE may have ripped it from a CD that he stole by slashing a parked car's covertible top? Just guessing.

So either you are misinformed and ignorant or maliciously ignorant. The key term here is "ignorant." Have a nice day.


RE: This is ridiculous
By michal1980 on 1/19/2007 12:26:06 PM , Rating: 1
or they could release the patch for free like everyone else.


The hardware is already there. Whats next pay for patches?

When ATI or nvidia release a new driver, should they charge because it might offer a 3-10% speed boost in some games. I mean you were sold on 30 fps, but now you get 33FPS give us 5 bucks?

This is stupid


RE: This is ridiculous
By mindless1 on 1/19/2007 5:04:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yes we're carbon based and yes it's quite possible to make a profit on $2. Odds are Apple didn't do a heck of a lot, just took the wifi code and sat on it for awhile before release.


RE: This is ridiculous
By Domicinator on 1/19/2007 8:42:25 PM , Rating: 1
I actually never steal music. I buy CDs and immediately rip them to my computer so that I never have to mess with them again. I like having actual hard copies of my music in case a hard drive crashes, a player breaks, etc. and I like having the album art as well. I have a career in the music business, and therefore do not condone that anyone steals music, movies, software, etc., especially because it just drives up the price of these things for those of us who choose to pay for their media.

I also don't believe I ever used the phrase "elitist idiots". I don't think anyone is an idiot for using a Mac. If I did indeed call anyone that, then I apologize. I just feel that both PC and Mac do everything pretty well these days. I happen to really hate the interface of Mac OS. And to discredit your other claim that I don't own a Mac or understand them, I use my wife's Macbook from her work quite a bit. I also use my Dell notebook quite a bit. They're both great machines. I just like the Windows interface better. In fact, pretty much all the computers I learned on when I was growing up were all Macs. For me personally, they're just not the way to go. I should also tell you that I understand very well how to use an iPod. The reason for that is because I'm always having to help my friends either un-freeze their iPods or figure out the wonky iTunes interface.

PC users are delusional about some things too. Don't worry, you're not alone. And there are some programs that are designed to work better on a Mac OS interface. That's fine and good, but it doesn't make the actual Mac any better than a PC. It just simply tells me that the software is better for a Mac.

And I will close by saying that I can tell you're a Mac user, because only Mac users react this strongly when people criticize their format of choice. The only way to calm them down is to tell them Steve Jobs is releasing a brand new Mac mouse and they all stop what they're doing and walk like zombies to the nearest Mac store. ;)


This is BS
By dmr9748 on 1/19/2007 5:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
I think that we need to focus more on what people really purchased. If you look online, the most inexpensive 802.11n card run no less than $50. Apple is charging people $2 to activate the built-in 802.11n card. So apple is only charging 2 dollars for 802.11n? BS. Apple may not have put the card into the original specs of the laptop but that doesn't mean that Apple didn't charge the consumer for an 802.11n card.

Like any other laptop manufacturer, Apple has to pay for every single part in that laptop and charge their customers a fair amount in order to pay for those components. Until I see a detailed list of the individual parts in that laptop with the individual prices, I would have to say that every single person that purchased one of those laptops were charged for the 802.11n card and were told that it was an 802.11g.

Above all, Apple has lied to the consumers as to what they were buying which, in my opinion, is false advertising. Who knows if it would have been cheaper to purchase the 802.11n card seperate or to pay what Apple tells you to pay for an item that you didn't even know you purchased. Also, what about all those people that have already purchased an 802.11n card and not know that they already have one built into the laptop?

In any case, I think Apple should pay for this shady deal because people are not being told what they purchased, how much they could have saved, and how much the undisclosed part really cost.

This is nothing more than Apple shafting their customers for more money.




RE: This is BS
By Christopher1 on 1/21/2007 5:13:13 AM , Rating: 2
You happen to be right. It is false advertising if Apple said the card was one standard, and it's actually the BETTER standard, just software locked.
That is illegal. That would be like Linksys having me buy a Wireless-G Router, then telling me "Oh, it's actually Wireless-N, you just have to pony up money to get the functionality that should have been built in anyway!"
It's ridiculous, and anyone with half a brain can see it's ridiculous.


RE: This is BS
By masher2 (blog) on 1/21/2007 7:56:26 PM , Rating: 2
> "Apple may not have put the card into the original specs of the laptop but that doesn't mean that Apple didn't charge the consumer for an 802.11n card.... "

I really wish logic was a required course in the public school system. Then perhaps, statements such as the above would be a little less common.

When a buyer and seller agree to the terms of a sale, the only thing that matters is what each agrees to. A sum of money, for a product fitting a particular description. That's it. By your ill-begotten attempt at logic, if Apple was taking a loss on the sale of each laptop, they could simple say they didn't charge for a feature or two, and demand more money accordingly.

> "This is nothing more than Apple shafting their customers for more money"

$2 per person, minus the costs of administering the program and handling the extra accounting? Apple will LOSE money on each sale.


RE: This is BS
By dmr9748 on 1/23/2007 12:59:50 PM , Rating: 2
You did not understand my logic at all. There is a large price difference between 802.11g and 802.11n. So now Apple is charging 2 dollars for 802.11n? It could be seen as Apple taking a loss but it can also be seen as Apple has already charged these customers for the 802.11n hardware, told them that it was an 802.11g, and now wants 2 bucks to activate the hardware that they may have or may not have already paid for.

By your one-sided logic, Apple will always take a loss. By my logic, Apple may have already charged these customers for the 802.11n and told them that it was the 802.11g. This is why I want to see an individual parts list with prices per part listed. That is the only thing that can confirm if Apple is taking a loss or screwing their customers.

Come on, masher, you need to think outside of the box. I mean common sense should tell you that any company in any industry is out there to make money, not lose money.


Apple is doing this because the law is stupid.
By Eug on 1/19/2007 1:11:34 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it's dumb that Apple has to charge for this.

I've seen a lot of people posting to sad it's sad they have to pay to get the included 802.11n in their Core2Duo Macs. However, I've also seen a lot of accountants and engineers who are dealing with this law right now who say that while Apple is being very conservative with its interpretation of this law, it is perfectly justified and indeed smart for doing so, given the potential problems in the future if they don't.

Yes, this $1.99 charge is stupid, but blame the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, not Apple, especially when it's completely obvious that Apple won't be making boatloads of cash off this $1.99 charge. Hell, that's less than I pay for coffee.




RE: Apple is doing this because the law is stupid.
By bobdelt on 1/19/2007 1:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
SOX has nothing to do with revenue recognition. That was US GAAP and FASB is for. Please explain what part of sox deals with revenue?

2nd, as mention above $2 is not a material amount-they wont get in trouble for it even if it was in violation of proper revenue recognition, which it isnt.

If they advertised of having 802.11n, and now just delievered, that could be an issue. But updating is not a rev recon problem.


By npoe1 on 1/19/2007 4:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
Why other companies are not taking in account this law? For example nVidia.

Will Microsoft start charging for SP or WinFS upgrade?


It's not BS, but required
By AppleMaster on 1/19/2007 2:57:39 PM , Rating: 2
Remember when all you had to do was buy Norton, Mcaffee, or whatever you used for ant-virus and it just updated automatically every month with the latest dat files? Well I do.

This same law prevents that also. You must now have a subscription to get regular updates, or just buy the latest defs from the manufacturer. No free updates.

It's not a BS explanation from Apple, or conspiracy, or greed, or anything like that.

For $1.99, you people need to chill out.
Geesh! You would have thought it was a $600 cell phone or something like that.




RE: It's not BS, but required
By michal1980 on 1/19/2007 3:03:23 PM , Rating: 1
^ wrong.

virus makers went to sub's for YEARS now. why? more money for them.


RE: It's not BS, but required
By AppleMaster on 1/19/2007 4:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it has been years now. I don't know about YEARS...but it has been a while.

Yes, they are making money off of subscriptions. Either that or you would to have to buy a new software update every month. Which would you rather do?

For those who weren't in the computer industry 10 - 12 years ago here is what happened:

The IRS deemed virus updates to be actual software (not patches or updates) with an actual value to them (much like enabling 802.11n) and hence were taxable by the IRS. One of two things would happen:

1) Every virus company would be paying taxes on a product that it gave away for free, and the IRS would have determined the value of that product and taxed them what the IRS felt it should be getting for that value. No business (or citizen) in their right mind would allow that to happen.
or
2) start a subscription service to keep the computers updated, set their own value to the product, and still pay taxes.

Oversimplified, and lacking details, but that's it in a nutshell.

Complain and moan and point fingers all you want. You're still going to have to shell out 2 bucks for the update regardless of if you believe me or not.


Error in Article
By Perium on 1/19/2007 11:56:17 AM , Rating: 2
Wikipedia shows 802.11n speeds to be max of 540mbit/sec and 200mbits/sec typical. The article is wrong when it states that N is only twice as fast as current G network equipment.

Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11n#802.11n




RE: Error in Article
By mikecel79 on 1/19/2007 2:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
Until the standard has been ratified there is no set speed for the standard.

Wikipedia may say 540mbit but this sites say 200mbit.

http://www.deviceforge.com/articles/AT5096801417.h...


Call it UPDATE but charge it like UPGRADE.
By crystal clear on 1/20/2007 4:33:50 AM , Rating: 2
"The company argues that the new 802.11n update is like adding a new piece of hardware into your machine -- despite already having paid for it "

Lets decide if the is an UPDATE OR UPGRADE.
If it s an upgrade then to charge for it is normal/accepted.
If it is an Update then NO Charge.

Apple calls it an Update but actually treats the issue as UPGRADE.
You can Upgrade for FREE or be charged for it.

Apple gives us explainations like-

"Apple requires users to pay up for the software update and indicated that it was normal procedure."

This is plain trash-NOT ACCEPTABLE.

"The nominal distribution fee for the 802.11n software is required in order for Apple to comply with generally accepted accounting principles for revenue recognition, which generally require that we charge for significant feature enhancements, such as 802.11n, when added to previously purchased products," said Fox.

If you are talking accounting principles-THEN BACKDATING
of stock options is also not acceptable.

Soon you will hear/read Steve Jobs will be under investigations for this(Backdating) & will forced to pay up
all the gains he made & ofcourse RESIGN.
Backdating is plain FRAUD with a flashy name- just like Pretexting-In Simple words FRAUD & A CRIME.

Apple GIVE IT FREE-it good for your future sales or the buyers will dump you for other brands(plenty)




By crystal clear on 1/20/2007 5:33:31 AM , Rating: 2
Slippery Slope
By Ard on 1/21/2007 8:13:05 PM , Rating: 2
First they'll charge you for a minor update to use the card you already bought, and next they'll charge you for the ability to dual-boot:

http://www.macscoop.com/articles/2007/01/20/apple-...




RE: Slippery Slope
By Wightout on 1/22/2007 2:27:38 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think that will happen. As they did advertise that the machine would be able to boot up using the Windows OS.

The problem that they are claiming is that they need to assign and charge a Value for each and everything they sell or add. Why this is, I don't know. Sorry am not an accountant.


FOr GOD'S sake IT IS 2 $ !!!!
By karolz on 1/25/2007 9:56:13 AM , Rating: 2
What is the problem !?

It is 2$ not even a price for a BigMAc Menu.

And you don t have to buy new wlan card or new Mac to enjoy the latest wlan hardware/services.

Most of the wlan hardwers can t be upgraded and you just throw it away and buy new ones for 40-50$!


So this is a problem????? 2$ ??????? Really?






RE: FOr GOD'S sake IT IS 2 $ !!!!
By dmr9748 on 1/25/2007 10:51:03 AM , Rating: 2
The problem that I see is that Apple could have sold you an 802.11g and charged you for an 802.11n.

What if people do not want to upgreade to 802.11n because of their own reasons? What if they spent money on the wireless g router and they do not want to spend the 130 bucks on a wireless n router?

If Apple actually told the customer what they are getting, the customer wouldn't have spent the money on the wireless g and skipped to the wireless n.

I am pretty sure that Apple did not take a loss on the intergrated 802.11n card (but I could be wrong) but Apple is like any other company, they are in the business to make money and seeing that the cheapest price for any 802.11n card runs about 50 bucks, 2 bucks in no way covers the cost of the card. All signs are pointing to Apple charging for the hardware at purchase of the laptop.


Locked you say?
By Wightout on 1/22/2007 2:23:35 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone know how one would go about unlocking it without paying the fee?

From what I understand is that I already have it in my machine. Is it software that is blocking me or a hardware issue?

Just a thought. Odds are I will end up paying the $2.00




Apple does it again...
By Trisped on 1/22/2007 8:50:38 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, I have an 802.11g router and network card from 2 years ago that does 108Mb/s. Why would I pay for this? It isn't really 802.11n, it does the same thing 802.11g does (if you get the faster version).

Is apple playing off their customer's lack of computer knowledge? If so that is very bad form.

PS your headline needs the first "for" removed.




Folks are oversimplifying
By spwatkins on 1/19/2007 1:28:45 PM , Rating: 1
I think it may be oversimplifying to say that they shipped the laptop with the hardware capability "crippled" or that they "merely enabled" the functionality in the laptop. Most likely, they included an FPGA (essentially downloadable hardware) which contained an implementation of '11G. Now they have gone through the entire engineering process of developing the '11N interface and are prepared (in essence) to put a new chip on the system. It is the cool aspect of FPGAs that this process is software only, but shouldn't undermine the cost and value to users of this new capability.

In a way, it would be like saying that my computer "came with" Photoshop because the manufacturer provided a CPU with vector processing instructions and a high-powered GPU.




RE: Folks are oversimplifying
By michal1980 on 1/19/07, Rating: 0
yeah, except
By silentpc on 1/19/07, Rating: -1
RE: yeah, except
By bobdelt on 1/19/2007 8:25:34 AM , Rating: 5
I'm an accountant and I don't see the accounting issue, since the laptops were sold with 802.11n in it already, just not active, they should be able to record the revenue for it right away. They could have just made the update free and there would be no accounting issues - there is no 'revenue recognition' when the product is free.


RE: yeah, except
By icab on 1/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: yeah, except
By RamarC on 1/19/2007 9:12:52 AM , Rating: 2
your/the apple rep's interpretation of sarbanes-oxley is (ridiculously) broad to say the least. s-o is intended to curb stock option misuse, excessive executive compensation and loans, and insider trading. it's not aimed at basic accounting.



RE: yeah, except
By AxemanFU on 1/19/2007 10:17:50 AM , Rating: 3
Except the way it is is written and the way it effectively works, it does affect basic inventory accounting. My corporation had to make massive changes in the way we handled the smallest details of invetory of captial assets to accomodate SOx, and we were compliant before SOx. And we're just a run of the mill operation, nothing exceptional or out of the ordinary. SOx compliance is a pain in the ass sometimes, to say the least, but it increased the employment and pay of accountants, so they've go no problem with it :). It should have been called the "Accountant Consultant Employment Act", just like the Income Tax should be called the "Accountant Employment Security Program".

I have friends and family that are accountants, and they'll admit the same thing.


RE: yeah, except
By fic2 on 1/19/2007 12:24:33 PM , Rating: 5
Funny how Apple wasn't that concerned with SOx when they were backdating all the executive options and "holding" a ficticious (sp?) board of directors meeting to "issue" the options.


RE: yeah, except
By gramboh on 1/19/2007 1:09:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not an expert in US GAAP/SOX, but I do some work in it and am a professional accountant (I'm in Canada). There is a basis for their argument in revenue recognition because the 802.11n could be thought of as part of the delivery or performance of a contract/arranagement. However, there is an argument against it, namely materiality. It is bizarre that they are marketing it as an issue of GAAP, very strange. If they truly wanted to charge a nominal amount it would be $0.01.



RE: yeah, except
By gramboh on 1/19/2007 1:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
As an aside, has anyone ever experienced SEC comment letters on revenue recognition around this issue? I've never heard of it happening, it seems bizarre and a cop-out by Apple.



RE: yeah, except
By Oregonian2 on 1/19/2007 3:43:50 PM , Rating: 2
Seems like they'd be losing money just in the collection of that penny.


RE: yeah, except
By Durtee on 1/19/2007 1:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
I could care less regarding 802 anything in the Apples but fwiw

Sarbanes-Oxley requires:
1. creation of Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB)

2. Companies must evaluate the effectiveness of their own internal controls as it regards financial review/reporting and they must disclose the results of these evaluations. This doesn't mean that they must change how they perform accounting; this refrs to internal audit departments for risk mitigation not accounting.

3. Financial reports (public documents filed with the SEC) must be signed by CEOs and CFO's (or equivilent executive level officers)

4. Companies must submit to independent audits and must submit to certain rules regarding auditing (again, this doesn't affect how they recognize revenue per se, simply that they must use someone like a Ernst & Young or other independent auditor - yeah, its like Christmas for auditors/accountants)

5. Publically traded companies must submit to further review by having their relationship between them and their independent reviewer reviewed. This means that not only do they need to perform internal audit reviews, not only do they have to have independent auditors, but their relationship with the independent auditors will be audited as well (again, this isn't a financial audit per se).

6. Executive loans have been greatly decreased and limited in scope and are subject to review (this is one of those perks most people never realize happens but some executive level officers take "modest" salaries and use heavy loans to finance things).

7. Rules put in place to theoretically streamline reporting of insider trading violations including pension fund blackout periods. Processes added to protect corporate whistleblowing employees who alert the SEC or law enforcement officials to wrongdoing.

8. Penalties for violations of securities laws strengthened and jail sentences for corporate executives who misstate financial earnings or falsify reports.

Using Sarbanes-Oxley as a defense of this action may be why Apple did what they did but I'd love to see what provision they point to and the language in particular that's use to explain why they had to charge to recognize revenue this way.


RE: yeah, except
By AxemanFU on 1/19/2007 2:54:40 PM , Rating: 2
Apple is being AR about it and WAY over-applying SOx, but basically they are doing a "service" by doing this since it wasn't part of the package they originally sold. In SOx accounting, EVERYTHING must have a value, and that value must be accounted for in every fiscal year. You can no longer really do transactions "off the books" by assigning things or services no monetary value, but packaging them with other items or making them an incentive in a deal. SOx basically forces you to give everything a REAL and reasonable value all of the time in your internal accounting. I guess the bean counters at Apple wanted this real value they assigned to the service of programming the update and providing it to the field to be realized as capital value transfer to the customer since the hardware to do it is already deployed and availble and the software just enables it, instead of an expense to Apple itself, which they would have to show if they did it gratis.

SOx was good in some ways, but all it really leads to is more creative loopholes.



RE: yeah, except
By gramboh on 1/19/2007 3:34:07 PM , Rating: 2
SOX doesn't have much to do with accounting, as said below US GAAP (e.g. FASB etc) are the authority.

Dealing with the costing issue, whether or not you charge customers has nothing to do with assigning a value to the update. You could cost in the update based on labour of techs/distribution costs into the accounting records with no revenue. I have no idea now why there is revenue recognition being discussed.


RE: yeah, except
By Durtee on 1/19/2007 3:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
And therein lay my intent. Its not that I doubt Apple's desire to assign a value to the work; its the "necessity" of collecting from the customer that I doubt when the foundation for the claim is SOx.


RE: yeah, except
By masher2 (blog) on 1/19/2007 4:51:01 PM , Rating: 2
I am far from an expert on SOX, but even I know it strengthened rules on revenue recognition. If you release a product, then later substantially upgrade it, you either charge for it, ensuring the upgrade is treated as a separate product, or you don't, whereas the case could be made that you have recognized revenue from a product before you fully shipped the product itself.

Apple's stance therefore is justified. It's a small risk of government action here...but why take any risk whatsoever? And regardless of the SOX issue, the other facts are clear. No one "paid" for 802.11n functionality. If Apple wants to provide it later, they're free to charge whatever they want, be it fifty cents or five hundred dollars. If you don't like the price, don't buy it. Simple.


RE: yeah, except
By TomZ on 1/19/2007 10:06:31 PM , Rating: 1
The only problem I see is that it is a potential PR or customer satisfaction issue. I.e., if I paid $1800 (or whatever they cost) for a macbook, and then Apple wants me to later on ante up another $2 to turn on a feature that is actually included in the hardware, I'd be a bit annoyed. Customers don't give a hoot about SOx, GAAP, etc. They will draw their own different conclusions about Apple's motive probably.


RE: yeah, except
By MrTeal on 1/20/2007 9:48:15 AM , Rating: 3
I can understand that Apple is free to charge whatever they'd like for the upgrade, but I don't understand the necessity of charging for it. By that logic, wouldn't Microsoft be in violation of SOx for providing a free upgrade with 1080p support when the console was originally advertised as 720 only? That's a fairly major feature that was added at no cost.

I just seems to me that Apple wants to charge for the draft-n upgrade, and is reaching for something to justify to their customers why this one will cost them while the others were free.


RE: yeah, except
By masher2 (blog) on 1/20/2007 4:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
> " By that logic, wouldn't Microsoft be in violation of SOx for providing a free upgrade with 1080p support when the console was originally advertised as 720 only?.."

Yes, though the case could be made that 802.11n support, as it could be made available through expansion cards even without this patch, is a slightly larger risk.

The key word here is risk. I'm sure both Apple's and Microsoft's accountants advised them of a tiny, but not nonexistent risk. Microsoft decided the risk was worth it...Apple decided to dodge the bullet entirely.


RE: yeah, except
By Kilim on 1/21/2007 12:16:40 AM , Rating: 2
Just wanted to say, MrTeal, that's a really good point.


RE: yeah, except
By tuteja1986 on 1/19/2007 6:56:46 PM , Rating: 3
$2 x 2million user = 4million dollars !! Apple happy

Now Microsoft should charge people for the upcoming SP3 $2

2x 100million = 200million :) Microsoft happy


RE: yeah, except
By h0kiez on 1/19/2007 8:47:00 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah...I've also done some accounting, and while I don't think $2 is something people should get worked up over, it's pretty irritating that Apple would make up such a boges excuse. They are being up-front about the costs, but that reason is garbage.


RE: yeah, except
By icab on 1/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: yeah, except
By JimFear on 1/19/2007 8:51:06 AM , Rating: 3
I'm sure you'll cringe when I mention this but it was suggested that the charge was down to be seing SOx compliant or some hocus pokus like that. Could we then expect Microsoft to start charging for 1080P support? A feature that wasn't in the original spec for the 360 but then given away in a firmware update :)


RE: yeah, except
By miahallen on 1/19/2007 8:30:24 AM , Rating: 4
On the other hand, if I had just dished out $1500-2500 for a new peice of HW and was asked to PAY for the use of part of it (whether it was disclosed or not) I would feel slightly decieved. While two dollars isn't much...wouldn't this be MUCH more positive news if they said they were providing the update for free? It would confim my purchase decision, and probably make me even more loyal to the company. Whereas this definitly has a negative "feel" to it. After all, WHAT'S TWO DOLLARS TO APPLE? Give me a break, they should be focused of customer satisfaction.


RE: yeah, except
By sviola on 1/19/2007 8:37:25 AM , Rating: 4
Not only that, it opens a dangerous path here: the charging for any update with the lame excuse they gave.


RE: yeah, except
By Symmetriad on 1/19/2007 12:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
This is what worries me, personally: The precedent this sets for updates and activations to carry a charge, even when marketed as being a basic part of the hardware package/software license. What if MS started charging $2 to activate your copy of Windows, or ASUS $2 to unlock higher BIOS functions on your motherboard for overclocking? Granted, those are a pretty drastic step up from this, but the fact that Apple initially marketed it as an included feature and then later slipped in the "service/update charge" is unsettling to me. Do we really want the computer industry to start acting like cellphone companies?


RE: yeah, except
By oTAL (blog) on 1/23/2007 2:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
I has been tried.
Creative wanted to charge people for driver updates... It didn't work out.

For crying out loud will someone PLEASE!! turn off the java script that places the cursor focus on the title bar when you are in the middle of writing your comment?


RE: yeah, except
By sviola on 1/19/2007 8:35:29 AM , Rating: 2
I don't agree. If they have already added the hardware capability, it's because they have already charged the cost when they sold the machine (they'd loose money if not everyone would willing to pay the $2).

So it's just plain greed from the company. Hopefully it'll take few days before someone come up with a way to unlock it without the patch.


RE: yeah, except
By miahallen on 1/19/2007 8:42:20 AM , Rating: 5
Is there much of a modding/hacking/pirating community amongst MAC users? I always got the impression they'd just pull out their wallets when they wanted something?


RE: yeah, except
By shortylickens on 1/19/2007 9:01:04 PM , Rating: 2
I know theres a lot of folks who (like Linux lovers) make up there own little apps anytime they wanna do something special.
But I'm not sure about an actual hacking/pirate community. I suspect there probably is but they would be a lot smaller than the Windows pirate community so we wouldnt hear of them very often.
Having said that, I wouldnt be suprised or even feel bad if a hack for this got out.


RE: yeah, except
By Dactyl on 1/19/2007 5:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
$2 is not greed. $2 is chump change. The cost per transaction, and the cost of setting up a program to collect $2 from everyone who will pay, and then distribute the firmware (which they could otherwise give away for free without wasting any time on oversight) all add up.

I'm not saying Apple is going to take a loss, but if they were greedy, they could charge at least $20. (even if only 1/5th as many people paid the higher rate, Apple would make twice as much money)


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki