Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Big Mac · Jan 30, 2007, 04:44 PM

Why would Apple release an 802.11n software patch for a $1.99? Shouldn't such software be free? Are Apple updates now going to be dolled out to us by way of iTunes style micro payments?

shifuimam · Jan 30, 2007, 05:04 PM

This has been covered multiple times on MacNN, as well as all over the internet.

http://forums.macnn.com/92/networkin...os-getting-it/
http://forums.macnn.com/92/networkin...upgrades-core/

There's some other threads that I can't find ATM, as well as a lot of articles from iLounge, Engadget, Slashdot, etc.

Apple's excuse is Sarbanes-Oxley. Whether or not it is a legitimate reason for a $2 fee is highly debated.

It's also rumored that the update is available for free from various online resources, if you know where to look. I have no details or confirmation on this.

Big Mac · Jan 30, 2007, 05:12 PM

They really blame Sarbanes-Oxley? That's ridiculous. I'd love to hear that explanation.

frdmfghtr · Jan 30, 2007, 05:42 PM

If I understand it right, by enabling the 802.11n after sale, Apple could conceivably be sued for shipping a product that wasn't "fully functional" but selling it at full price. By charging something (in this case $2) they can say that the feature wasn't functional at purchase therefore wasn't included in the sale price.

Given the litigation-happy state of affairs we live in, it seems to be a reasonable protection. Some needy-for-attention law firm could organize a class-action lawsuit claiming that Apple sold hardware at full price that wasn't complete. In the settlement, we get the enabler and probably some coupon good for $10 towards some computer hardware, and the lawfirm gets millions in fees.

(True story: I was named a party in a class-action suit against Sprint for overcharging a few cents on monthly wireless bills. Class members got a 30 minute Sprint LD calling card {LD is free on my cellphone} and the lawfirm got fees in the neighborhood of $33 million.)

Processing the orders for the enable probably costs Apple more that $2 each, so I highly doubt they are making any money on the deal.

shifuimam · Jan 30, 2007, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by frdmfghtr

If I understand it right, by enabling the 802.11n after sale, Apple could conceivably be sued for shipping a product that wasn't "fully functional" but selling it at full price. By charging something (in this case $2) they can say that the feature wasn't functional at purchase therefore wasn't included in the sale price.

I still call BS, though.

Let's say that Apple sold n-capable Intel Macs "at full price" and is now going to sell the advertised as n-capable Intel Macs "at full price".

How is not charging for an update screwing over the customer? The customer already paid for the functionality; Apple deliberately crippled it because they weren't ready to release their own N-enabled wireless AP when they started shipping n-capable products. So either Apple is knocking off $2 from the price of every new Intel Mac sold with the hardware advertised as N-capable, or they're making extra profit off people who already paid full price for the hardware.

Not only that, but how do you explain how Apple is going to prevent someone from buying a new $180 base station - update included - and installing that update on all their Macs? If they really need to document every Mac that has gotten the update, it wouldn't be this easy. They'd force you to buy the update online, and verify your serial number to make sure you weren't reusing the update on another computer.

I can guarantee you that Apple isn't suddenly paying more for the same hardware just because they're now advertising it as n-capable.

Apple chose not to advertise that their own hardware was capable of a technology they weren't ready to support with pretty access points. They kept it hidden, they crippled the software, and now they're blaming government regulations when in reality they've just found an easy way to make some money.

The example has already been used of Windows XP's Service Pack 2. It introduced brand-new, previously unavailable software technology - the Windows Firewall. Microsoft didn't charge for this update. In reality, the Apple draft-N updater isn't changing the hardware at all. In fact, I'm going to take a guess that it's not exactly changing the firmware on the card, either. It's changing how the computer sees the card, which is a software (as opposed to physical hardware) update.

Pay it or don't pay it. It'll only benefit you if you freqently do large-scale file transfers and media streaming within your home network (e.g. Apple TV). It won't make a lick of difference if you're just connecting to the internet.

sray · Jan 30, 2007, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

... It won't make a lick of difference if you're just connecting to the internet.

Actually, in a way it will. 802.11n has a larger range than 802.11g. I'm sure that range and speed are of equal concern to even casual wifi users (unless you live in a small apartment).

Peter · Jan 30, 2007, 07:02 PM

Apple has enough cash not to worry about a measly $2 per mac they sell.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jan 30, 2007, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by Peter

Apple has enough cash not to worry about a measly $2 per mac they sell.

Unfortunately it seems it costumers would rather bitch and complain all over the internet rather than pay the ridiculously low $2.

Guess it shows how worthless some people consider their time.

frdmfghtr · Jan 30, 2007, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

How is not charging for an update screwing over the customer? The customer already paid for the functionality; Apple deliberately crippled it because they weren't ready to release their own N-enabled wireless AP when they started shipping n-capable products. So either Apple is knocking off $2 from the price of every new Intel Mac sold with the hardware advertised as N-capable, or they're making extra profit off people who already paid full price for the hardware.

Giving the enabler away isn't screwing over the customer; it was probably the best way that Apple's legal team saw to prevent some class-action suit by some law firm alleging that Apple sold hardware that was incomplete or purposely crippled but charging for it anyway.

I think it's silly too--but I'm trying to see it from the eyes of a lawyer.

shifuimam · Jan 31, 2007, 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by sray

Actually, in a way it will. 802.11n has a larger range than 802.11g. I'm sure that range and speed are of equal concern to even casual wifi users (unless you live in a small apartment).

This is a good point. However, when I was still living with my dad and his wife in a two story + basement brick house, he had a single G router (Linksys) on the second floor. I lived in the basement, and I was able to get a clear and full-power signal with the PCI Buffalo card in my desktop and the Intel wireless card in my laptop.

I've heard/read that the Airport Extreme G cards in PPC Macs have range/quality issues compared to other brands of wireless cards, though...

Person Man · Jan 31, 2007, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

I've heard/read that the Airport Extreme G cards in PPC Macs have range/quality issues compared to other brands of wireless cards, though...

Range issues, yes. Quality issues, no.

Most of the issues have to do with PowerBooks and Power Mac G5's because of the metal enclosure and poor antennas in those machines.

ghporter · Jan 31, 2007, 09:36 AM

ALL NETWORKING, ALL THE TIME!!! Moving to where this belongs...

Ryanhdd · Jan 31, 2007, 09:00 PM

Ok so I find this argument really funny. $2.00 I cannot believe People are causing such a fuss over that. I mean thats nothing compared to what you paid for the MAC. I mean if you can afford a MAC then Im sure you can afford $2.00. I mean yeah maybe they were not ready to release the MBP when they did. Maybe for whatever reason they had to. i don't know. I mean what is the big deal. Hey can someone here tell me they would turn down a chance to make some money.

TailsToo · Jan 31, 2007, 10:01 PM

I agree - Apple could have just told us that since it wasn't part of the unit's specs, we wouldn't get an update at all. I can't believe that Apple would really charge $2 in an effort to make money - their cost of distribution is about that much.

brokenjago · Feb 1, 2007, 05:52 AM

Ryanhdd - people don't generally pay for MACs. They pay for Macs. Sorry if I seem rude or like a know it all. It's just a huge pet peeve of mine. I have no idea where people got the ridiculous idea that Mac is to be written exclusively in upper case.

Anyway, back on topic. I don't see $2 as such a big deal, especially since it's a site license. So if you haver two C2D macs, the cost per computer goes down to $1. For 4 it's $.50, 8, $.25, and so on. I think that's pretty cool.