Comments on: About that $20 upgrade...

It's because it's not a subscription-based product.

[thechristhomson]

I don't find this fair at all. We are early adopters of the iPod touch. We gave Apple feedback. We helped them improve their product. Even if they need to satisfy accounting, why can't they just charge a few dollars for it, not $20. Either way, I suppose it's ok for me, because I love the Mail application, and paid the $20 basically for that. Come on Apple, quit screwing early adopters!

[ripragged]

Yeah, Apple. Just spend all your weekends and holidays writing code and give it to us for free. Make sure it's all perfect, too. We want it free. We want it good. We want it now. Also, we'd like it individualized for individual preferences out of the box. Fetch my slippers. Wax my car. You missed a spot.

[cranfordio]

I may be wrong about this but the AppleTV isn't really gaining any new capabilities other than the ability to play rented movies, it does have an updated interface, but it still is the same thing, therefore no need to charge for an update. Apple receives a part of your monthly bill for the iPhone, so Apple is getting paid monthly for the iPhone, so therefore no need to charge for updates. But since Apple only got paid once for the iPod touch and now there offering additional software for all the previously purchased ones they are charging for it. Basically it would be the same as if you bought a MacBook with iLife 06 and then expected Apple to give you iLife 08 because they started shipping the exact same configuration of the MacBook with iLife 08.

[reneritchie]

Pure speculation and labeled as such:

Could there be some sort of usage or license fee paid to Skyhook per unit for the Wi-Fi Google Maps location service? If so, could the subscription accounting model for iPhone allow this to be expensed against the future recognition for iPhone, and against the immediately recognized revenue of iPod Touches sold from this point on, but for previously (already) recognized iPod Touches, be passed on to the consumer so Apple can expense against the upgrade charge?

Again, pure speculation, and even if there is anything to it, no doubt the debate will rage over whether or not Apple could/should eat it as a gift to early adapters, or how (much) they chose to charge either way...

[brontide]

I call bullocks!

If SOX requires charging for "significant" upgrades then Apple is the only company complying with the new accounting rules. Hello... Windows XP SP3? Windows extras? Apple XCode? Every hardware vendor on the planet?

There are about a billion examples I could point to that show that this is no more than a way to squeeze more money out of their loyal fans. This was software already developed before the iPod touch was released.

As for the enabler, you do realize that it's *PART OF* leopard. So they had to charge Tiger users to upgrade the hardware, but not Leopard users. It was a damn firmware update!

[brogus]

It's not only SOX that forces Apple to charge us $20. It's also because of the WMDs in Iraq. And because not charging $20 would be un-American, which became illegal after McCarthyism. But don't worry, your $20 will be going to Chuck Norris who will use it to single-handedly win the war on terror buy performing a round-house kick on anyone who enough sense to see through this ruse.

One must give credit to Apple where its due. They've been able to construct a working boogeyman out a single phrase uttered only once. The rational mind would be forgiven for thinking that it would have died long ago or been exposed for the straw man that it is. But people like Macalope seem happy to keep the ruse going long after that single phrase brought whole fiasco to life.

Keep up the good work. Steve would proud of you. So would George Orwell.

They sold some Macbooks with 802.11g drivers on it, and then they had to develop a driver for 802.11n

They sold the iPhone with all that software on it. 2 months later they released the iPod Touch, with same hardware but crippled software and a proportionately more expensive price. Then, 200 days later they move some frigging files from an iPhone to an iPod, finally putting in what they could/should have shipped on day 1.

Not the same thing.

[bdegrande]

The accounting issue is silly, Apple could have charged $5 to get around this issue if absolutely neede.

However, I think the added funtionality is not only worth $20, the ability to do mail and maps was enpugh tp convince me to buy an iPod Touch. In my case, I bought a discounted old model and was ahead of the game even after paying the $20.

If you feel that $20 is excessive, jailbreak it and use the free apps available, I'm delighted that Apple has added these features, and this is the first iPod I have considered worth buying. I also have no problem with iPhone owners who bought at the early high price getting a break.

[aarow75]

I have no idea why people are throwing a fit about 20 bucks. I didn't hesitate to upgrade. 20 bucks? If you can't afford it then you obviously can't afford an iPod touch in the first place.

[pbreitenbach]

The WSJ did an article on the subject the last go around and quoted a number of SEC and GAAP experts who confirmed the obvious: Apple's excuse for the fee is bogus.

[Macalope]

That's not exactly what they said. They said that Apple didn't *have* to charge for the enabler but the alternative was to open prior periods -- which is exactly what the Macalope is saying. Apple either charges *something* (and we can argue about how much they *should* charge) and "screws" its customers or it opens up prior periods and screws its investors.

[Arashi2K8]

Nonsense. From what I've heard, the update is 9 KB. That means all of the "new" software in this update was already on the iPod Touch, and was simply disabled until now so it wouldn't cannibalize iPhone sales during the Christmas period. This is not an accounting issue. This is ********, plain and simple. Apple is simply manipulating its customers to help the iPhone marketshare, then ripping people off with a $20 "upgrade" to unlock a bunch of apps that were *already there*. What really pisses me off is that we still can't even *get* the iPhone in Canada (or anywhere else besides the US), but anyone in the world who was dumb enough to buy an iPod Touch has to pay for this $20 "upgrade", even though they could have never bought an iPhone in the first place. Most of the people I know don't want to buy an iPod Touch and end up with half an iPhone; we're waiting for the actual phone to become available here. So obviously I didn't buy an iPod Touch and this doesn't affect me directly, but I feel sorry for anyone who did. By the way, there are several ways to unlock the iPod Touch and enable all those "new" apps without paying the ridiculous $20 fee (or even downloading anything -- which proves that they were already on the device). I probably am not allowed to post links here, but do a little searching around and you can avoid this extortion. It's not that $20 is a lot of money; it's that they are charging you for something you *already had* but was disabled just to encourage people to buy an iPhone instead (even if you live outside of the US and can't get one anyone). If you feel $20 is "reasonable" for a 9 KB update that merely unlocks features you could have had all along, you are an idiot.

[aarow75]

Anybody that thinks that $20 is somehow expensive to activate "dormant" features is a cheap idiot. And this isn't an iPhone debate, the iPod touch is not a phone! That makes them VERY DIFFERENT devices for VERY DIFFERENT purposes, which makes this "Waah!! iPhone has this and iPod doesn't!" argument pointless and is like comparing apples to oranges. I bought the iPod touch before an SDK was announced and no hope that any additional functionality would added to it later (if I wanted the features of the iPhone I would buy an iPhone) and have been happy for what it has offered out of the box. And to me $20 is a lot cheaper than a 2 year service plan for the same applications plus a ubiquitous network. People, get over it already! You didn't buy the touch for it's notepad, mail, and other widgets in the first place. I do concede that Apple could have easily charged $1 or $5, but they could have also charged $100 or not included those apps at all.

[thatgirlismine]

the question is, are we going to have to do this again in a month when Apple releases the developer SDK and we can download third party apps?

[bkharmony]

I suggest all you whiners stop buying Apple products. Really. I think all of you are right and Apple is wrong. So send a message and stop buying their stuff.

Enjoy your Zune.

[molboard]

I bought the touch because I didn't want to pay $100/month in service fees. $20 isn't a big deal, but I have the sneaking suspicion that this is only the beginning. What I won't do is get lured into a defacto subscription. If this is a one-time accounting thing, great. No big deal. If it is not, my touch will just remain jailbroken & I'll just have to rely on 3rd party apps.

[john55440]

All Zune 1.0 owners got Zune 2.0 software/firmware upgrades for free.

Apple's $20 charge is about greed, not accounting.

[windows_xp_hacker]

I was extremely disappointed when I plugged in my Touch and it told me of an upgrade with new programs. I got excited until I saw the $20.00 tag on it. I certainly hope enough people will whine so Steve makes it free. Otherwise, I'll just wait until next month when the developer pack comes out and get free 3rd party apps.

[wfranklin20954]

um ... if that's the accounting rule, why isn't Microsoft required to do the same thing for, let see, Win 2000 SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4; Win XP SP1, SP2, SP3 (shortly); or the various Office 2002, 2003 & 2007 service packs, none of which were sold to consumer via subscription and all of which added incremental functions? Is is Microsoft the good guy here, and Apple the greedy exploiter?

[wouisy]

As far as I am concerned if you have used itunes to purchase music or anything else you are a subscriber. Won't get my $20.00

[gmsantoro]

Free would be nice but I was happy to pay the $20 to get the map and email apps. Please make more apps but unbundle them so I can pay for (ie, buy) just the ones I want. A nice text msg app, a better app for streaming vid from nbc.com, fox.com, etc...

yeah - thats what I want - my ipod touch is more and more like the pda i really wanted

- gerry

[craigbla]

This "accounting" argument is nonsense! Let me get this straight - if I change a product that sells for a fixed price, I have to charge for it or restate my earnings? I hope you're kidding! You don't know anything about tax law or business. Let Apple spin it - they need better help than this...

[rskolin]

I feel for the early adopters that will end up paying $320 with the upgrade (8gb Touch). But many stores are discounting the current Touch so that the $20 upgrade equates to, or is less than the original price. Ex: Amazon is selling the 8gb Touch for $259. Download the upgrade for $20 and your total cost is $279.

I can't see why anyone would want to wait for the new release for $299, when you can buy the current version, get the upgrade and pay $20 less total.

[joseph_gilbert]

I'm very satisfied with the January upgrade, and feel that the "Mail" application alone is worth $20!