[macboi]

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it seems that Cupertino has decided that the Mac faithful's pockets need to be a little deeper!!!

http://news.com.com/2100-1040-979129.html?tag=fd_top

[Atef's Carcase]

If true, this sucks.

paying for .Mac was somewhat defensible, but this would take the cake.

[sideus]

News.com got their info from ThinkSecret, so take it how you see fit.

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/mwsf03apple.html

[JLL]

Originally posted by macboi:
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it seems that Cupertino has decided that the Mac faithful's pockets need to be a little deeper!!!

http://news.com.com/2100-1040-979129.html?tag=fd_top

iMovie 2 was a $49 upgrade for iMovie 1 users.

[Developer]

Good for those who sell alternatives.

[JLL]

"Apple also did not give Jaguar--the first significant upgrade to Mac OS X--to Mac OS X users for free. Instead, the majority of these customers had to pay $129 to receive the upgrade, which was released less than a year after OS X."

15 months = less than a year?

[KidRed]

Originally posted by JLL:
"Apple also did not give Jaguar--the first significant upgrade to Mac OS X--to Mac OS X users for free. Instead, the majority of these customers had to pay $129 to receive the upgrade, which was released less than a year after OS X."

15 months = less than a year?

15 months? We all know X.1 was a beta release, come on

[kovacs]

Hah @*$#@ apple

First 129$ for Jaguar
Then 50$ for .Mac
Now 50$ for just three iApps
What next 129$ for 10.3 ?

Now try to convince a wintel user that a mac is not more expensive than an PC...

I am just a poor student, how am supposed to pay for all this ? I don't want to spen d all my money on just a computer you know.. aah

[Appleman]

iPhoto update would be welcome, but paying again after .Mac?
Why not include a kind of free subscription when being a .Mac member?

[kman42]

I'll pay and I'll be happy to do it. I like the iApps. I think upgrades to the whole lineup for $50 is worth it.

Perhaps they will offer free versions with more advanced features costing $50. Think Secret alluded to this possibility: shareware developers do this all the time.

I'm not sure where everyone developed this notion that quality software should be free. Must be the dotcom generation. Notice how they all went out of business?

It may be that MS offers analogous apps for free. Then again, Apple doesn't have $40B in cash lying around to absorb the loss of the R&D.

kman

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by kovacs:
Hah @*$#@ apple

First 129$ for Jaguar
Then 50$ for .Mac
Now 50$ for just three iApps
What next 129$ for 10.3 ?

Now try to convince a wintel user that a mac is not more expensive than an PC...

I am just a poor student, how am supposed to pay for all this ? I don't want to spen d all my money on just a computer you know.. aah

I hope that's 50 dollar for all iApps toghether with free updates forever !

I am not going to switch to windows or linux yet but this just makes me mad...

I don't know why you're complaining. Ive been using Macs since 1989, and I've never paid for system software, up to and including 10.2.3. That's what CD burners are for.

[::maroma::]

First of all, it's a rumor.

Second of all, if it's true, then tough shite. There's no reason to get your panties in a bunch over it. Just ride it out.

(and no, i'm not an "Apple Zealot" or "Apple Apologist", I'm just someone who doesn't get all worked up over insignificant shite like this.)

[::maroma::]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
I don't know why you're complaining. Ive been using Macs since 1989, and I've never paid for system software, up to and including 10.2.3. That's what CD burners are for.

*clap clap clap*

wow...you're smart.

[wallinbl]

Originally posted by kman42:
I'm not sure where everyone developed this notion that quality software should be free. Must be the dotcom generation. Notice how they all went out of business?

It may be that MS offers analogous apps for free. Then again, Apple doesn't have $40B in cash lying around to absorb the loss of the R&D.

kman

I always assumed it was a benefit of buying an Apple - a premium brand. You pay more for the hardware to get the better software. Now, I guess you'll pay more for both.

I won't pay $50 for those apps. I'll just wait for 10.3, which I will probably have to pay for and will include new versions of those apps. How many times do you want to pay for it?

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by ::maroma:::
*clap clap clap*

wow...you're smart.

No, I'm making a point - it doesn't matter if Apple charges for upgrades. Apple canm charge all they want, and I a) won't pay and b) won't switch.

[Parky]

We are all Apple supporters, but we don't seem willig to give them our money to keep up the good work.

Apple have large development teams working on the iApps and they need paying.

I don't see it as a problem paying $50 for the upgrades, seems like a good business plan to me.

We need to acknowledge that nothing is free in this world.

If you don't want to pay for the update then you have the choice to stay on the version you have.

Of course the current versions will not work with later versions of the OS, but then you will probably not pay for that either.

I use the iApps a great deal and if paying for them secures there development then it's fine by me.

To buy the alternatives (if they even exist) would probably cost more.

Lets support them on this if it comes true and not bitch about it and threaten to move to Windows (which we will never do).

I hope it's part of the .Mac subscription, it would do a lot to boost .Mac and make more sense.

[bigbytez]

It should be free for .Mac subscriber. Apple might do this to increase number of .mac subscriber.

[Appleman]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
b) won't switch.

Of course charging is not going to make people switch, but it still is a fact that when one is used to get something for free, it's not nice/easy to pay.
After a while we are used to it.
And you are not forced to pay, still have the iApps at the moment for free.

You had to pay for Soundjam as well (=pre-iTunes)

[::maroma::]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
No, I'm making a point - it doesn't matter if Apple charges for upgrades. Apple canm charge all they want, and I a) won't pay and b) won't switch.

Your point doesn't make you any smarter. The opposite, in fact.

It's great that you justify your illegal actions with your moral high ground. Tell your story of how Apple is ripping your off so much you have to resort to theft to the judge. I'm sure s/he'll understand.

[dav]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
No, I'm making a point - it doesn't matter if Apple charges for upgrades. Apple canm charge all they want, and I a) won't pay, b) won't switch

, and c) am a parasite.

[::maroma::]

Originally posted by Parky:
We are all Apple supporters, but we don't seem willig to give them our money to keep up the good work.

Apple have large development teams working on the iApps and they need paying.

<snip>

Totally agree with your whole post. Let's stop all the revolution cries, and realize that Apple doesn't charge money for things for the fun of it. They do it for a damn good reason, whatever it is. Some poeple just can't grasp that notion.

[sideus]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
I don't know why you're complaining. Ive been using Macs since 1989, and I've never paid for system software, up to and including 10.2.3. That's what CD burners are for.

Heh, that is why the rest of us have to pay for it now.

[kovacs]

Originally posted by Appleman:
Of course charging is not going to make people switch, but it still is a fact that when one is used to get something for free, it's not nice/easy to pay.
After a while we are used to it.
And you are not forced to pay, still have the iApps at the moment for free.

You had to pay for Soundjam as well (=pre-iTunes)

It may prevent other wintel users from switching, but I agree once you tasted this fruit you're not going to switch just because you have to pay for some cool apps that were free before.

Most iApps are worth the price ( I hope that's 50$ for every iApp ) but I just don't like it when developers make you pay for an app that was free before, can you blame me ? One thing is for sure we don't have to pay for the update, we can still use the current version or use the crippled version. They can't take the free iApps we have now away from us....

[Appleman]

Originally posted by kovacs:
It may prevent other wintel users from switching, but I agree once you tasted this fruit you're not going to switch just because you have to pay for some cool apps that were free before.

Most iApps are worth the price ( I hope that's 50$ for every iApp ) but I just don't like it when developers make you pay for an app that was free before, can you blame me ? One thing is for sure we don't have to pay for the update, we can still use the current version or use the crippled version. They can't take the free iApps we have now away from us....

Belgium and The Netherlands agree

[Parky]

You can always look at it this way :-

Versions pre MWNY - free

New Versions contain new features, if they are worth the $50 then you upgrade, if not you stay with the free versions and stay happy.

You still have your 'free' iApps that Apple gave you, you should therefore be happy.

Treat the new versions as completly new software, many changes, new features, so therefore we pay for them. Simple.

I also find it very suprising that people 'claim' to be Apple fans / supporters, but they are more than happy to rip Apple off.

We seem to complain when Apple don't make enough money, or invest enough, but there seem to be many Apple users out there who want a free ride. You can't have it both ways.

[DoctorW]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
Ive been using Macs since 1989, and I've never paid for system software, up to and including 10.2.3. That's what CD burners are for.

You installed System 1.0 off of a CD-R? That's impressive.

[JLL]

Originally posted by Appleman:
Of course charging is not going to make people switch, but it still is a fact that when one is used to get something for free, it's not nice/easy to pay.
After a while we are used to it.
And you are not forced to pay, still have the iApps at the moment for free.

You had to pay for Soundjam as well (=pre-iTunes)

And switchers would still get the apps for free with their new Mac.

iDVD 2 still costs $20 for iDVD 1 owners.

Is this a new strategy at all?

[Millennium]

Well, they won't be getting any money from me; I don't use those apps anyway.

But the ethics of this aren't just questionable; they're downright absent. If they ever planned to charge for these apps, they should have done it right from the very beginning. This is nothing more than giving the users a taste for years, then gouging them for all they've got. Not a new tactic of Apple's, but a regrettable one.

No, Apple doesn't have $40 billion in the bank. They do, however, have $6 billion; this is still more than enough that they can't justify this. They're a hardware company; this is where they make their money. If they want to go software then by all means go software, but they're taking away one of the Mac's biggest advantages with all of this nickel-and-dime'ing they're doing.

In short, Apple, make up your freaking minds. Your customers aren't going to be able to take this price-gouging forever. If you plan to charge for apps, that's fine, but then don't start them off as free.

[MojoRising022]

Say it ain't so...please just say it ain't so. I can handle underperforming, overpriced hardware. I can handle paying $99 a year for e-mail, a lousy back-up and useless anti-virus programs, and a primitive home page with a bandwith cap and no scripatbility. I can even handle paying full-version prices for incremental operating system upgrades. The one, overwhelmingly positive thing a mac user can still look forward to is the iApps...simple, usefull, breathtaking, FREE applications that make PC users drool. Please don't take this away.

I know it's a rumor, but based on recent trends, it makes sense. Business-wise, it makes sense. Aplle is a business....not our friend and certainly not in the philanthropy business. If they can make money somewhere, they will.

This makes too much sense not too be true.

[DaedalusDX]

Originally posted by kovacs:
It may prevent other wintel users from switching, but I agree once you tasted this fruit you're not going to switch just because you have to pay for some cool apps that were free before.

Most iApps are worth the price ( I hope that's 50$ for every iApp ) but I just don't like it when developers make you pay for an app that was free before, can you blame me ? One thing is for sure we don't have to pay for the update, we can still use the current version or use the crippled version. They can't take the free iApps we have now away from us....

I'm sorry... but charging for iApps won't PREVENT people from switching. Keep in mind that if a Wintel user buys a new Mac after Expo, assuming this rumor is accurate, they won't have to shell out $50 to get the latest versions of iDVD, iMovie, or iPhoto. They'll be preinstalled or on an update CD like Jaguar was.

The only people affected by this are existing mac users.

[JLL]

Originally posted by Millennium:
But the ethics of this aren't just questionable; they're downright absent. If they ever planned to charge for these apps, they should have done it right from the very beginning.

Please remember that this is for upgrades, and Apple DID/DO charge for iMovie 2 and iDVD 2.

[Appleman]

Where do you read the logic that the new iApps are going to be included with OS X.3 or .4 or .5???

Final Cut Pro, AppleWorks, etc. aren't included with the OS.

Charging for apps mean they are going to be NOT included with the OS, imo.

They can, however, make it as a payable download like QuickTime Pro.

[Parky]

I don't think I can agree that Apple are a hardware company. If that is the case then lets hope they release Windows for Mac hardware soon.

I for one think that Apple are a major force in software development and it's a bit of an insult to say they are not.

Also when they started by giving the iApps away it may never have been the intent to charge for them. Business change and so do the way they need to make money.

Apple may have money in the bank, but that does not mean they should give it away. They are here to make money, pure and simple.

It's not a moral issue, it's a 'do we want Apple to be in business at all' issue.

Apple need money to continue and $6Billion may seem a lot, but it can disappear in 3 months if things go wrong. It called working capital, and anyone who understands business knows why they have it.

Revenue is needed to keep Apple in business and if they need to get some from the people who use the software then so be it.

It's not like drugs, people are not addicted to iTunes or the other iApps, no one is taking them away from you, they will still be available to be used if you have them.

Of course all this presumes that the rumor is true, but as stated above, it does seem to make sense.

[JLL]

Originally posted by Appleman:
Where do you read the logic that the new iApps are going to be included with OS X.3 or .4 or .5???

Final Cut Pro, AppleWorks, etc. aren't included with the OS.

Charging for apps mean they are going to be NOT included with the OS, imo.

They can, however, make it as a payable download like QuickTime Pro.

Perhaps this will lower the price of Mac OS X?

Nah!

[BuonRotto]

Originally posted by Millennium:
But the ethics of this aren't just questionable; they're downright absent. If they ever planned to charge for these apps, they should have done it right from the very beginning.

While I think this is a bad idea, isn't this the pattern of the dot-coms too? When free doesn't work (not so sure about that here, but...), try paid. Was AdCritic this unethical?

[Appleman]

Originally posted by JLL:
Perhaps this will lower the price of Mac OS X?

Nah!

I see Denmark does not agree with The Netherlands

[Axel]

Now those "Register iCal" and "Register iSync" items in the apps' menus are starting to make sense...

[Eug]

I think everyone is confused.

iMovie 2.1.1 update already costs $49 today, and iDVD 2.1 update already costs $19.95.

The only one of the three that is currently free is iPhoto. If you could get iMovie, iDVD, and iPhoto for $50 for all three, that would be a $20 DISCOUNT.

I would have been VERY surprised if iMovie 3 and iDVD 3 didn't cost me extra money (unless I bought a new computer).

[JLL]

Originally posted by Axel:
Now those "Register iCal" and "Register iSync" items in the apps' menus are starting to make sense...

I don't think that iSync and iCal will be paid upgrades.

The reason for the Register… in the menus is that the apps aren't included with Mac OS X and Apple just want you to register the apps the same way as they want you to register a new computer or Mac OS X itself.

[kman42]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Well, they won't be getting any money from me; I don't use those apps anyway.

But the ethics of this aren't just questionable; they're downright absent.

A bit rash don't you think? This isn't really a question of ethics, more of businiess sense.

If they ever planned to charge for these apps, they should have done it right from the very beginning. This is nothing more than giving the users a taste for years, then gouging them for all they've got. Not a new tactic of Apple's, but a regrettable one.

They should have charged from the beginning so we would have all paid several hundred dollars by now? How does this line of reasoning make any sense? I suppose your argument is that Apple got you hooked on their products and now they are charging you? Dubious at best.

No, Apple doesn't have $40 billion in the bank. They do, however, have $6 billion; this is still more than enough that they can't justify this.

They have lots of other costs as well. Software development isn't cheap.

They're a hardware company; this is where they make their money. If they want to go software then by all means go software, but they're taking away one of the Mac's biggest advantages with all of this nickel-and-dime'ing they're doing.

Their hardware isn't selling all that well at the mooment. How can you begrudge them a new revenue stream? The iApps are a steal for $50. I bet Gateway wishes they had a software revenue stream right about now.

In short, Apple, make up your freaking minds. Your customers aren't going to be able to take this price-gouging forever. If you plan to charge for apps, that's fine, but then don't start them off as free.

Again, I don't see what's wrong with getting something for free for 3 years. I don't think very many of us were duped into buying a Mac thinking that all future upgrades to the iApps would be free. In all likelihood, they will still come with new Macs.

BTW, I like the idea of .Mac users getting them for free. This is a better revunue stream for Apple anyway, it's recurring on an annual schedule

kman

[DaedalusDX]

Originally posted by Appleman:
Where do you read the logic that the new iApps are going to be included with OS X.3 or .4 or .5???

Final Cut Pro, AppleWorks, etc. aren't included with the OS.

Charging for apps mean they are going to be NOT included with the OS, imo.

They can, however, make it as a payable download like QuickTime Pro.

2 things. the cnet article states:

The move to charge up to $50 for the software trio is potentially the first step in charging for all six "i" applications, which would continue to be bundled for free with new Macs, sources said.

Then, remember that these are the UPDATES that are being charged. This is not new for Apple. As stated before, iMovie 2 cost $49 update for existing iMovie 1 users. iDVD similarly.

The only place where precedence is broken is iPhoto.

The fact of the matter was that iMovie and iDVD were NOT free downloads or totally free software to begin with. iMovie 2 can't be downloaded as it stands, but it has since become standard on every new mac and every version of the OS. iDVD you can't get unless you buy a Superdrive mac. You can order a DVD with iDVD 2 for money if you have an older machine with SUperdrive that didn't come with it.

So in reality, its not really the case that we were used to these pieces of software being totally free. iPhoto maybe, but iMovie and iDVD were charged before... we've just forgotten.

Am i happy about this? of course not. Will i consider paying $50? that i am not sure.

Also, another very important question! If the package really includes iMovie, iDVD and iPhoto as reported, wouldn't that be a waste for non-superdrive users? They'd be paying for a piece of software (iDVD) that they'd never use.

if you ask me, that part of the rumor makes me kind of suspicious.

[OpenStep]

If they start charging its going to be unbelieveable. Whats going to be next... paying to get access to Sherlock services? Millenium is right... if they want money don't bundle the apps and charge them from the begining. Keeping in mind software bundled with a $129 operating system should be free updates, Apple does seem to be screwing the customers for every penny they have. Its about the fact we all had to buy new QT Pro serials, pay to upgrade to jaguar, pay to keep our once free email addresses (and .mac is a joke, its been more reliable when it was free, virex is useless, poor paid support) etc.... Its almost as if Apple is turning into a subscription based software company like microsoft is aiming for.

[Parky]

IT"S A BUSINESS !!!

[Liquidity X]

Don't worry its not true.

[Eug]

I repeat. iMovie 2 already costs $49 and iDVD 2 already costs $20.

[cpac]

Originally posted by Parky:
I don't think I can agree that Apple are a hardware company.

Say it with me now: Apple *is* a hardware company. Apple, as a software company, doesn't not make much money, if any at all. Sure sales of System upgrades, or iApps can help their bottom line somewhat, but if software was all they did, they'd be going under.

Where to they get their money? It's almost all in the hardware.

That said, they are (somewhat) unique as hardware makers go. They are the only ones that control the whole package. Palm used to do this too (before they licensed, and then later spun off the Palm OS segment). In both cases (Apple and original Palm) it was *hardware* sales that drove the company.

---end pseudo off topic rant---

Now, paying for iApps? I believe it'd be yet another kick in the head for the Apple loyal who have had a mess of upgrades to pay for as well as .Mac. Still, they may well do it.

The major reason this rumor doesn't make sense though, is the bundling assertion:

(1) - Not everyone can use iDVD, only those with DVD burners, which although growing, is still a small minority of Mac users.

(2) - iPhoto is very very wrapped up with .Mac. It's how one orders the free prints that came with .Mac, it's how one publishes photo's to the web page. Telling the .Mac members that they have to pay to use some of these features would be weird.

So yeah basically, paying for an iPhoto upgrade would be awkward at best, especially for .Mac users.

Bundling iDVD with the other two would be dumb since the vast majority of people have no use for it.

[Parky]

I love all this speculation :-)

Maybe it will not be $50 for all three.
It could be smaller amounts for each, maybe $19.95 each or $50 for all three (bit of a discount)

iPhoto is not all that integrated with .Mac, only the free photos and the web publish. The free photos will end eventually, plus who says .Mac users won't get the iApps for free anyway.

That would really please me :-)

[Toyin]

Apple can charge whatever they want for the iApps but they're entering an arena with other 3rd party applications. My tolerance for slow, buggy software is much lower for software that I pay for. iPhoto and iMovie(OSX version) are not worth $50 to me. I'd rather upgrade to other 3rd party solutions.

sidenote: If true this is a bummer. I was really debating a PC vs Mac laptop and finally decided on an iBook. That decision might change after the 7th.

[Mac Zealot]

Ok, I say this, I think the ethic is horrible and apple being the lousy immoral company they are is making this even worse.

Not that Microsoft is any better but at least we knew their profile beforehand.

I guess apple is showing their true colors now, right?

Anyway, what can I say? I am allowed about $40 a month in electronic stuff. that translates into printer supplies, replacement parts, and every now and then a program.

Note: This covers *EVERYTHING* under my 6 computer/tv/highly electronic world.

We don't all have bottomless wallets, however I'm not sure about the rest of the madly rich, insanely greedy republicans on macnn.

*shrug*

What I find funny is the rich people always turn out to be the penny pinchers in the end and the ones who suck up are the ones who get screwed.

So let's get to the point. I use iphoto on a daily basis for my digital cam which I was saving up for 5 months to get.... and it's a LOW END CAM.

Yeah, ididn't take all my money and save it for 5 months :rolls eyes: but meh.

Then there's itunes, I use that a *LOT* more than I think of it. I have to pay to get a rendezvous version that was promised long ago? I hope not.

Are they going to charge for mail, and everything else too soon?

Funny, when I think about it, when I bought this mac I didn't get ANYTHING in the first place.

And I dunno about you guys but my getting 10.2 was as lucky as my computer's hard drive being replaced with one that happened to have 10.2 on it. Then my software disks were replaced.

I dunno, money seems to be impossible to save. On the PC side $40 a month was enough to get me a game every month or two, now I find myself having to *gasp* grab things in ways I myself don't like to do, because I CANNOT AFFORD the apps.

What else can I do? Start selling my equipment. If I sold my monitor (which my mom would nearly kill me for because that money came out of a savings I shouldn't have touched until I was ready to go to college anyway, and etc etc etc etc.

I bought a mac to get better hardware, support, and software. So far the only thing that's met the bill is *NOTHING*.

I still have to pay to get the OS even though it was given to me by apple, I still have to pay for things that should have come with the computer in the first place (idvd2), and still need about 2k in apps to get to the state that I was before I switched to PC.

AND PEOPLE CALL ME RICH. Geez.

Right now I feel poore than everyone else because I can't afford these darn upgrades that everyone acts like is nothing.

*shrug*

Next time you think about a $50 upgrade think about who's going to have to shell out for it. :o

[Parky]

I see we have our first Windows Switcher !!

Now let me see, what great 'free apps' can you get for Windows ?

Or better yet, what can you get for $50 ?

Not a great deal, nothing as good as the Apple iApps.

Why of why do people not want to support the company they claim they love ?

I know lets all break in the Apple Stores and steal the machines. Or is that going too far?