[iFan]

How is this justified? Why do they keep biting early adopters in the a**?

[bmwparamedic]

There will always be something better in the future, it's the price you pay for something when you need it now.

[iFan]

That may apply to hardware, but a software upgrade? Totally not the same.

[bmwparamedic]

I think so, look when revisions come on on Word unless it's to address security releases most companies charge software upgrades.

[iFan]

Or you can look at, say, the Zune. If MICROSOFT can give a free upgrade, why can't Apple give us the features that we should have originally had?

[bmwparamedic]

I see your point but I don't think originally had is the right term, did apple say those are what it would have and then pulled it when you got the model. I'm upset because time machine should have been able to backup to NAS but they pulled it, I think it was for time capsule.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Apple never said these features were (or ever would be) a part of the iPod Touch. Why do people always want to get something for nothing? I think iPod Touch users should be grateful it's only going to cost them $20 to get these added features.

[bmwparamedic]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Apple never said these features were (or ever would be) a part of the iPod Touch. Why do people always want to get something for nothing? I think iPod Touch users should be grateful it's only going to cost them $20 to get these added features.

Agreed, I would pay $20 to upgrade my basestation to allow time machine to use it, I think I'm actually going to install personal backup X4 on all the machines and use that instead now and backup to NAS.

[iFan]

Oh please. Apple has you by the balls.

[phobos]

What is Steve thinking????
I wouldn't have a problem paying for third party programs but paying for the software update is just nuts.
And since we're paying for that why not pay for the firmware updates of our routers, dvd burners, graphics cards etc...
Yeah that sounds nice!!
Where do I pay?

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by iFan 

Oh please. Apple has you by the balls.

No, I'm just not one of those people who feel they are entitled to free upgrades of everything I own.

Apple has released plenty of free upgrades, this is not one of them. Reason? Because the added features brings the iPod Touch that much closer to the iPhone in terms of functionality. The ONLY difference, for all practical purposes, is that the iPhone can make phone calls while the iPod Touch cannot.

[::maroma::]

Its $20 for software options you thought you'd never get on the Touch. $20. That's the price of a weeks worth of lattes from Starbucks. Is it really that bad?

[lpkmckenna]

Ok, here's the deal: iTouch isn't subsidized by the phone company like the iPhone is, so you gotta pay for the upgrade. I think it's fair.

[anogee]

In this keynote I can see that Apple has lots touch with its customers and the market in general. I got an iPod Touch a month ago, and since then I have added all the applications which Apple now wants to charge me for, for free. I felt ripped-off when Apple didn't include these on my Touch in the first place, especially when the cost I paid for the Touch really isn't discounted all that much from the iPhone cost.

So now, Apple wants me to pay $20 more for the applications they should have included in the first place? I don't think so. I'll keep my Touch like it is now, thank you.

[phobos]

Oh and guess what!
They have their own conversion rates...
In their mind 20$ converts to 17.99 euros!!!
WHY EXACTLY IS THAT.
A quick conversion check shows that 20$ is 13.433 euros.....

Bravo for one more time!!!

[passmaster16]

I have to disagree with many of the posters here. The issue really isn't the fact that the update costs $20. In fact, personally I don't have a problem with paying for added functionality provided that the functionality cost additional time and development costs. However, these applications were a.) already available on the iPhone and simply needed "ported" to the Touch and b.) the newer versions of the device have the update preinstalled. A few years ago I upgraded my smart phone from Windows Mobile 2003 to 2005, and not even Microsoft charged me for that. I guess my point is be consistent. If you're going to charge for updates, charge for them across the board. It's not as though the Touch is a "cheap" device in the first place. An obvious truth with buying any technology is that it is going to become outdated. I think that Apple should have at least made some provision, even if it was half price, as they have done for OS releases so that people that recently bought or received the device as a gift don't have to pay. Anybody who doesn't think Apple knew what they were doing by releasing the update after the holiday and then charging for it are fooling themselves.

[fhoubi]

Since when got the iPod Touch the same grey-silver dock as the iPhone? 1.1.3? I liked the old mirror dock 1.1.1 much more...

[Visnaut]

It's not the cost, it's the principle of this that I find offensive. Apple didn't even need to "port" the software, the same compiled binaries run on the iPod touch without modification, as the iPhone/iPod touch hacking communities have demonstrated.

No, no one was promised these apps for the iPod touch, that much we can all agree on. But what users were promised was that they would be able to run 3rd party software once the SDK would be made available in February. Jobs said so much. But that will need to be enabled with a future update. And since Apple is not offering a 1.1.3 update for the iPod touch without the extra apps (for free), we can only assume that they will require users to pay for the privilege to run 3rd party apps, which they were tacitly promised.

If it's because of the proper accounting of features, then charge $1.99 for it, like the 802.11n upgrade patch for the MacBooks, not $20.

[andreas_g4]

Unbelievable.

When I bought my iPod touch, I knew the features and applications it had right then, and that's what I paid for. Now, Apple is offering additional apps for a fair price. Also, now the iPod touch is less expensive and has those apps included. That's business, people.

I'm glad to pay 20 bucks, since I like to have the additional features. If you wanted to have those features, you should not have bought an iPod thouch before now.

[rickey939]

Paid the $20 immediately. Awesome!

[passmaster16]

There is something called value added, and I think Apple is missing it here. It cost Apple very little resources to deploy the apps to the device. Again, if these were completely new apps that have never been deployed to the iPhone/Touch platform before, I think you have a legitimate point. Some of you already paid the $20 which is fine. I'll probably end up doing the same, but that doesn't mean it makes sense. At this point, what is more important to Apple, potentially upsetting the early adopter user base of the iPod Touch by charging $20 or simply giving it away for free? Obviously they realized that keeping the initial install base happy with the iPhone price controversy was the right thing to do. Bottom line is that it's not as though they won't have an opportunity to make money on future hardware and even software changes.

[::maroma::]

Its been said before about this, as well as other instances, Apple is in the business to make money, not friends. Just because you feel entitled to "free" stuff, regardless of what you think its worth, doesn't mean you will get it.

Suck it up, pay the measly $20 and get the apps you all bitched about for the last 4 months.

[bemayo]

I would bet this is due to the way they are doing accounting because of the new Sarbanes-Oxley law. Same as they did before with the 802.11n functionality in the iMacs.

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by andreas_g4 

Unbelievable.

When I bought my iPod touch, I knew the features and applications it had right then, and that's what I paid for. Now, Apple is offering additional apps for a fair price. Also, now the iPod touch is less expensive and has those apps included. That's business, people.

I'm glad to pay 20 bucks, since I like to have the additional features. If you wanted to have those features, you should not have bought an iPod thouch before now.

I was thinking about this if I had a touch... at first, I thought, wow $20... here we go... But you're right and I agree with the post I quoted here. You bought the device with those features as it came. Be happy that you are paying $20 to get the new stuff as opposed to having to pay $xxx for a new device that has those features. There have been devices that if I wanted the new features, I had to buy a new device as the old one wouldn't update to the new software... a lot of PDA's used to be like this (If anyone even remembers what one was).

Overall, it's the value to you... If these apps aren't worth the 1/2 tank of gas money... then skip it.. Then just think of how much better it will be next time you upgrade your device!!

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Apple never said these features were (or ever would be) a part of the iPod Touch. Why do people always want to get something for nothing? I think iPod Touch users should be grateful it's only going to cost them $20 to get these added features.

Because I fricken bought the most expensive iPod currently available a month ago and now I have to pay $20 to get software that is standard on a same price product? Because charging for the update would be like charging for 10.4.6? It had a lot of new features, but it was free if you already had it.

[scottiB]

My guess is that this has to do with Sarbanes-Oxley. In contrast to the iPhone, where Apple prorates the income of the sale over 24 months because they plan on providing updates over that time, Apple declares the income for the Touches immediately. Apple is charging $5 each for the apps equaling $20.

Ah, I missed Bemayo's reponse above

[phobos]

I know apple has still a long way to go but this kind of tactics spell out greed.
Especially when we are talking about a software update that's been given for free to all the new buyers.
Even microsoft gave the zune software update for free!!
Anyway just to show what zero effort apple put in to this update.
I had my ipod jailbroken. So I did a software restore and then did the update. To my amazement all the notes I had on the notes application and the last map location I visited where there. Like nothing has changed....

[bmwparamedic]

[scottiB]

Originally Posted by Visnaut 

No, no one was promised these apps for the iPod touch, that much we can all agree on. But what users were promised was that they would be able to run 3rd party software once the SDK would be made available in February. Jobs said so much. But that will need to be enabled with a future update. And since Apple is not offering a 1.1.3 update for the iPod touch without the extra apps (for free), we can only assume that they will require users to pay for the privilege to run 3rd party apps, which they were tacitly promised.

If it's because of the proper accounting of features, then charge $1.99 for it, like the 802.11n upgrade patch for the MacBooks, not $20.

Apple never promised, tacitly or otherwise, that the apps themselves would be free. You may not have been aware when you posted, but Apple has offered 1.1.3 download for the Touch in the meantime for free.

In any case, Apple is offering to sell 4 apps for $20, and we don't have to wait for the SDK in February to run them.

[MikeD]

more money more problems.... I think we all need to think that's just the way things are... I don't know anything about the zune update but ms sure charges a lot for everything else they run I'll tell you that. Or.. maybe the zune update was free because they want people to feel better when their systems and zune crash etc etc. If you don't want it, don't buy it. It's not like you're paying for bug fixes (which should be free)

[voodoo]

I despise Apple for making me pay 18 euros for this, extra much. More than had they made me pay only 20 dollars worth.

The apps were already there, not as if Apple had to write them for the iTouch.

PS: if you are an apologist you will misunderstand my point and reply in a completely bizarre manner. I feel sorry for you.

V

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by scottiB 

You may not have been aware when you posted, but Apple has offered 1.1.3 download for the Touch in the meantime for free.

.

Sadly, that update seems to have done nothing besides add a little Mac Pro-like grill at the bottom of my screen and made Safari slower.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I despise Apple for making me pay 18 euros for this, extra much. More than had they made me pay only 20 dollars worth.

The apps were already there, not as if Apple had to write them for the iTouch.

PS: if you are an apologist you will misunderstand my point and reply in a completely bizarre manner. I feel sorry for you.

V

And if you are a hater, you'll find anything to cry about at any given moment, never listening to anyone else's point of view to the point of posting P.S.'s in your posts stating exactly that.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

And if you are a hater, you'll find anything to cry about at any given moment, never listening to anyone else's point of view to the point of posting P.S.'s in your posts stating exactly that.

So.. you're an apologist huh.. I feel sorry for you.

V

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

So.. you're an apologist huh.. I feel sorry for you.

V

I'm actually whatever you say I am. Because no matter what I say, it won't change your mind. Your stubbornness (not only about this) seems to be a problem for you. Don't feel sorry for me.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

I'm actually whatever you say I am. Because no matter what I say, it won't change your mind. Your stubbornness (not only about this) seems to be a problem for you. Don't feel sorry for me.

Guys. This isn't the PL.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

I'm actually whatever you say I am. Because no matter what I say, it won't change your mind. Your stubbornness (not only about this) seems to be a problem for you. Don't feel sorry for me.

But I *do* feel sorry for you, because like I wrote: *you* as an apologist would not understand my pointand reply in a completely bizarre manner.

Which you did and underlined by your next post.

My mind does not dictate the fact that Apple makes me pay far more for this 'expansion' than people with US accounts.

That's not a matter of opinion. There is no mind that needs changing.

The apps already existed. Also not a matter of opinion.

Your rants about my 'stubborness' is way beyond bizarre.. do you even *know* me? Or just talking out of your ass?

I don't care which, I just feel sorry for you.

V

[lorenkjr]

For $20.00 it makes me happy enough to buy them, at least now I do things I want and need to do. I would certainly rather have the new apps than use web based apps, which I do not like at all. Though I think the mail app needs some work on it yet. It has a way to make a new message but, at least at this point I do not see a way to reply to a message.

[Langdon]

There was no additional development cost for this.
There wasn't even a need to port the software as the jailbreak proved.
And the fact that Apple is including the same apps free on the identical product sold now is insulting to previous owners.

If they saw fit to upgrade the software on previous generation iTVs for free then the 4 add on applications for the Touch should have followed the same model.

I am not paying it. I will wait for the equivalent 3rd party applications or the hack.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Langdon 

And the fact that Apple is including the same apps free on the identical product sold now is insulting to previous owners.

Yep. Especially those who got one for Christmas, or like me just before.

If they saw fit to upgrade the software on previous generation iTVs for free then the 4 add on applications for the Touch should have followed the same model.

Exactly.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Langdon 

There was no additional development cost for this.
There wasn't even a need to port the software as the jailbreak proved.
And the fact that Apple is including the same apps free on the identical product sold now is insulting to previous owners.

If they saw fit to upgrade the software on previous generation iTVs for free then the 4 add on applications for the Touch should have followed the same model.

I am not paying it. I will wait for the equivalent 3rd party applications or the hack.

I did pay for it, but I agree completely with you.



V

[analogika]

Originally Posted by anogee 

I got an iPod Touch a month ago, and since then I have added all the applications which Apple now wants to charge me for, for free. I felt ripped-off when Apple didn't include these on my Touch in the first place

Either you're a complete fool for buying something that left you feeling ripped off, or you're just blowing smoke, here.

Which is it?

[Langdon]

The thing is that there is no need to pay to download the programs.
The applications themselves are part of 1.1.3 which you download free

the $20 buys you a 20kb file that tells the touch to use them
How much time do you really think its going to take until someone finds a way to do that without Apple's help?

[butterfly0fdoom]

Guys, I've said this before, but I don't think Apple intended to market the iPod touch as a phone-less iPhone, but as a specialized iPod. This goes to show that Apple still does not believe the iPod touch is meant to be a phone-less iPhone. It's because people think that the iPod though should have the functionality of the iPhone that there's this outrage. Apple making this available is their acknowledgement of a general misperception fueled by blogs that have the same misperception.

[Langdon]

And I've said it before....

The moment the SDK was announced Apple acknowledged that both the Touch and iPhone were not going to be constrained to the functions they first intended. Users were going to find a way around it one way or another. The fact they include these same 4 applications for free to new buyers means they are showing how the Touch's platform can grow.

That they want to charge us who bought the identical product before today shows someone is a greedy idiot.

[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?"

"The short story for those who got to class late is Apple must charge for substantial enhancements to products that do not have revenue recognized on a subscription basis or it has to restate prior earnings. The iPod touch does not have revenue recognized on a subscription basis. The iPhone does. As does the Apple TV. Hence, they get free updates and the iPod touch does not.

It's a somewhat complicated accounting convention and perhaps you can argue that the iPod touch revenue should also have been recognized on a subscription basis, but then it raises the question as to whether or not all iPods should have their revenue recognized that way and pretty soon it all devolves into communism and everyone's getting everything for free and even Randy Newman doesn't want that.

So you can't argue that Apple shouldn't charge for the update. It's too late.

You do have some recourse, however.

If you think $20 is too much, don't buy the upgrade."

[imitchellg5]

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?"

"The short story for those who got to class late is Apple must charge for substantial enhancements to products that do not have revenue recognized on a subscription basis or it has to restate prior earnings. The iPod touch does not have revenue recognized on a subscription basis. The iPhone does. As does the Apple TV. Hence, they get free updates and the iPod touch does not.

It's a somewhat complicated accounting convention and perhaps you can argue that the iPod touch revenue should also have been recognized on a subscription basis, but then it raises the question as to whether or not all iPods should have their revenue recognized that way and pretty soon it all devolves into communism and everyone's getting everything for free and even Randy Newman doesn't want that.

So you can't argue that Apple shouldn't charge for the update. It's too late.

You do have some recourse, however.

If you think $20 is too much, don't buy the upgrade."

All the triteness in the world won't help one bit.

[passmaster16]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

All the triteness in the world won't help one bit.

Agreed, though every time there's a discussion about the iPod Touch, he has to tell us how the device is not meant to be like the iPhone. Now I'm sure the fact that he owns an iPhone has absolutely nothing to do with his position. Some of us don't own iPhones, not because we can't afford them, but because for one reason or another we don't want them. Personally I have Verizon because it's the only service that works half decently near me. An iPhone/AT&T doesn't do much for me, but I'd still like an iPod with some PDA features which is why I purchased the iPod Touch.

[bearcatrp]

I wouldn't be so upset if they would have charged the iPhone users the same as they do us Touch users. To give them a free update and us touch uses have to pay stinks but guess I will be spending the money. I love my touch to much not to. As for the iPhone in general, won't be getting one. I like my Centro to much with better service with sprint than ATT crap.
Randy

[legacyb4]

Yup, play the jailbreak game!

Personally, I'm going to wait until the February SDK release to see if it's worth upgrading past my jailbroken 1.1.2 Touch.

Originally Posted by butterfly0fdoom 

You do have some recourse, however.