Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

butterfly0fdoom · Jan 17, 2008, 08:06 PM

The Mac OS X analogy works in favor of what Apple's doing with the iPod touch, actually. You already pay for major updates. Those cost $129. Should I feel gyped because I had to pay $129 for Leopard while people that bought a Mac after me already had Leopard installed on their computers? Should I feel gyped beause I had to pay $79 for iLife 08 when people that bought a Mac after I did had iLife 08 included in their systems? Apple didn't ask people to pay for 1.1.2 and 1.1.3. They're asking people to pay for 5 applications.

synapse · Jan 17, 2008, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by ::maroma::

Why would you say that? Its the same exact thing as reducing the price on the iPhone by $200, but still selling the exact same phone they did for $600. Only in this case, they are keeping the price the same but adding way more functionality to the product by including these apps. Early iPhone users essentially had to pay $100 to use the same phone as what is on the shelves today. Early Touch users have to pay $20 for the same product that is on the shelves today.

This is "adding value" to a product. Of course there will always be a segment of the user base that feels betrayed, but in the real world of hardcore business this is the game and Apple has to play it. I have a feeling that Apple might lose a few customers over charging $20 for this, but I honestly don't see this making a big dent in their market share.

They also gave customers a $100 gift certificate after everyone got pissed about it as we are

butterfly0fdoom · Jan 17, 2008, 09:08 PM

Hence early iPhone users paid $100, not $200.

Wiskedjak · Jan 17, 2008, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

That Apple will start charging for 10.5.x updates will happen if things progress as they have.. not even Microsith charges for their service packs, but I'm sure Apple will be step ahead of them there as they are in other innovations.

I can see Apple do that, though - given that they thought this 20 dollar "upgrade" price was a good idea.

Bad kharma Steve

V

Excellent Microsoft analogy. I believe MS gave Zune 1 owners a free upgrade to Zune 2 functionality.

mathew_m · Jan 18, 2008, 06:09 PM

After I found out that the 1.1.3 update actually contained all of the apps and I had to pay $20 to unlock them I relented. It just wasn't worth the ongoing frustration I was feeling. I feel hoodwinked by Apple but I'm happy now that my iPod Touch feels complete. Apple can currently get away with this style of business because of their rising market share. However if they continue to nickel and dime their early adopters people will get fed up with it and initial sales of new products will be hurt.

Kenneth · Jan 18, 2008, 06:56 PM

I don't mind it. Fee-based upgrade is everywhere, right?

ximon · 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by butterfly0fdoom

About that $20 upgrade... | The Macalope: An Apple blog - CNET Blogs
"Again, yes, Apple could give the update to iPod touch users for free just like their iPhone-using brethren, but they'd have to open past accounting periods and restate their financials. 802.11n? Any of this ringing a bell?"

Wait, what? I thought they had to charge for 802.11n because it was a hardware feature being unlocked? The iPod update is software. Besides, the iPod could just as easily be seen as a source of continuing income from the iTunes store, plus the 1.1.3 update enables movie rentals too. I'm sure if they really wanted to they could reconcile free iPod updates with current accounting practices.

I don't see why an iPod Touch should be considered any differently from an AppleTV anyway, neither has any specific subscription model for continued income, other than the iTunes store which is common to both.

Anyway, whatever happened to free software? Did 10.4 users have to pay for Quicktime 7? Java updates? iTunes 7 for crying out loud?! All these added fuctionality to already shipped products... or does this mean that iTunes 8 will be $20 too? Go on, explain to me how the iPod Touch isn't a computer, therefore the same rules don't apply... OK then, it's a device; does that mean I'll be paying $20 for my next router firmware update? Or my next DVD player firmware update?

This is bull and you know it. Any way you look at it Apple aren't forced to charge for this update, they have chosen to do it. And to people who come out with that tired old capitalist excuse that "Apple is a business and exists to make money", ask yourself this, just because you can do something does that mean you should do it?

I respect Apple as a company, and this is why I am hoping that that this whole pay-for-standard-apps business is just so Apple can test their application delivery/payment system before the release of official third party apps next month, and that they are planning to credit people who have paid with $20 worth of apps afterwards. Seems like that would be the decent thing to do...

As for me, I'm not sure I want to live in a world where Microsoft updates Zunes from 1.0 to 2.0 for free and Apple try to charge for going from 1.1.2 to 1.1.3... [/melodrama]

Edit: I'm half expecting another Steve Jobs Open Letter™ soon to explain how Apple would love to offer iPod Touch upgrades for free but the Big Bad RIAA™ or those nasty bean-counters at the SEC won't let them, sob sob, sniff...

Originally Posted by Steve Jobs, open letter to iPhone customers

...being in technology for 30+ years I can attest to the fact that the technology road is bumpy. There is always change and improvement, and there is always someone who bought a product before a particular cutoff date and misses the new price or the new operating system or the new whatever... the good news is that if you buy products from companies that support them well, like Apple tries to do, you will receive years of useful and satisfying service from them even as newer models are introduced...

...even though the technology road is bumpy, we need to do a better job taking care of our early iPhone customers as we aggressively go after new ones with a lower price. Our early customers trusted us, and we must live up to that trust with our actions in moments like these.

Emphasis mine.

Wiskedjak · Jan 19, 2008, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by Kenneth

I don't mind it. Fee-based upgrade is everywhere, right?

Where?

Wiskedjak · Jan 19, 2008, 11:17 AM

My take:

iPhone - already had the software to be consistent with other smart phones
iPod Touch - Apple didn't originally include the 1.1.3 in an attempt to drive customers to the iPhone. Plan thwarted by the jailbreak. Apple tries to get a little cash from users who want those apps anyways. If people stay away, they'll probably give up the attempt by 1.1.4
AppleTV - Got a free software upgrade because of it's poor performance to date. The few who would buy an ATV already have. Charging for new software on this device would only serve to stifle sales rather than stimulate them.

I call bullsh*t on those who try to suggest legal reasons as an excuse for Apple charging iPod Touch owners for the iPhone apps. Is there some special law that forbids only Apple from giving away software with charge? Sony and Microsoft appear to be able to get away with it easily. Even Apple can, when it wants to. Earlier iPod updates have added new software features, same with some incremental OS updates (else why do people get so excited over OSX updates ... just for the bug fixes?), and, of course, not all of the ATV new features are revenue based (Flickr and .Mac photo viewing).

imitchellg5 · Jan 23, 2008, 09:32 PM

Just a little update...
They are giving people the app pack for free if you got your touch on December 27th or later - if you bought it at an Apple Store. I got mine on December 27th but I can't get the upgrade since I got it at Fort Carson. Sucks.

Wiskedjak · Jan 23, 2008, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Just a little update...
They are giving people the app pack for free if you got your touch on December 27th or later - if you bought it at an Apple Store. I got mine on December 27th but I can't get the upgrade since I got it at Fort Carson. Sucks.

I got mine 3 weeks ago, but not at an Apple store. It's unfortunate that they appear unable to determine your date of purchase using the same mechanism as they use for warranty purposes. Guess I'll be jailbreaking now.

vmarks · Jan 23, 2008, 11:44 PM

4 applications, 20 dollars.

What does this tell us about new applications that may be available through the iTunes store?

It tells us that $5 an application isn't an unlikely price point.

As for purchasing from an Apple Store or not from an Apple Store, sometimes when products are sold through resellers, the sold date is reflected as the one when the reseller took possession, not when the customer does.

Offer to fax or email the receipt to show otherwise.

Wiskedjak · Jan 24, 2008, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by vmarks

4 applications, 20 dollars.

What does this tell us about new applications that may be available through the iTunes store?

It tells us that $5 an application isn't an unlikely price point.

Yep, that's pretty much how I read it.

Originally Posted by vmarks

As for purchasing from an Apple Store or not from an Apple Store, sometimes when products are sold through resellers, the sold date is reflected as the one when the reseller took possession, not when the customer does.

Offer to fax or email the receipt to show otherwise.

For myself, at this point, even if they made it easy for *everyone* who purchased recently to not pay the $20, I wouldn't take them up on it. Going to 1.1.3 would only make it more difficult to jailbreak later.

If a developer wants to charge for an app, I'll pay for it if it's worth it. But, if Apple insists on taking a cut, or charging a minimum for an app that a developer would otherwise distribute for free, just for giving that app it's blessing, forget it.

And if I have to use iTunes to install that app, as opposed to the more elegant methods currently employed by 3rd party developers, forget it.