Apple gets a percentage of the revenue generated from the AT&T contracts with iPhones. I have an iPhone, and you know what? I still think it was worth the $500 I paid for my 4gb version almost a year ago.

This thing has so much value built-in that it doesn't matter if a bigger-badder-brother comes out. If I have the spare cash, I just may buy one, but it won't destroy my world or anything if I can't afford it right away.

The touch is a lot cheaper than the iPhone, and they get no monthly stipend from it's users. The only way they can make the updates and everything worth it, is to charge. Can you imagine the cost involved in developing all the features this update will bring? It's got to be in the 10's of millions. I guarantee they are just trying to recoup some of their cost. Can't really blame em for that.

I know it must feel pretty crappy to look at people who have it better, but consider this. You have a Touch. How many of your friends do? Exactly, so be happy that you have one to complain about..

CynicalDriver

also apple tv updates would compare to itunes updates. apple tv is basically itunes on your tv. make sense?

tonyrules

Please, name all of the additional things on the 360, PS3, and PSP that don't involve digital downloads, games that you are buying/have bought, or accessories.

OH wait, most or all do.

tonyrules

The funny things is that most of the things Apple had done has been logical,and it seems that no matter how it's explained, a few people compare it to things that are a different beast of a product. IS it me or are people just looking for a reason to be pissed?

tonyrules

So what type of product or service does need a "nominal fee" to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley? Is there some sort of set rule? Or is there a fair amount of flexibility to companies like Apple when they decide to update an existing product?

chillywilly

davebach

APPLE HAS NEVER STATED THIS.
Apple did make a point of putting out a press release saying that the $1.99 charge for the 802.11n update on the MacBooks was a result of the SOx law, but they have NOT said this about the iPod Touch updates. Since a lot of people are pissed off about this, if it was really a legal requirement why wouldn't they have made a similar press release by now? The only logical conclusion is that this is NOT a legal requirement under the SOx law, and that this is a choice Apple has made.

Let's also not forget that Apple included updates to already existing system software in the iPod Touch 1.1.4 application pack. Users who don't buy it do not get the Web Clips feature, Home Page Editing, or Lyrics. ALL of which are updates to software already on every version of the iPod Touch, and none of which should be part of a PAID upgrade.

It's not the money, it's the principle. I do all my computing on Macs, and I don't mind paying a premium for great hardware and a wonderful OS that's being constantly updated, but after this repeated shafting from Apple I definitely regret my purchase of an iPod Touch.

I'll stick with Apple for computing, but this is probably going to the be last iPod I'll ever buy.

jdpritt

Yet it's perfectly OK for Apple to do that. Why?

Don't give me the stupid "accounting" excuse. SOX applies equally to Apple and Microsoft.

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

janalves

janalves

what's wrong with apple, can't they respect the fact we're sick of paying for every new update? It's not like they're going to be broke any time soon.

janalves

derouselle538

RobotMonkey

well i dont want notes and stocks, so why cant i just pay like 5 bucks for the mail portion

halfpastme

Enjoy teh wait.

someToast

Of course, in Europe we have subsidised phones and 12 month contracts so we're not paying hundreds of dollars for a unit with a two year lock in. In addition Symbian S60v3 has been available on every E or N series Nokia since the E50 and N73 - with the exception of the N90 - so you don't have to upgrade to get the latest version.

Any other inaccurate comments you would like to make or are you done for now?

Sleeper_Service

Apple will never stop me! FIGHT THE MACHINE!!!!!

dontpetthesheep

Moreover. Look at the average product cycle in the mobile industry, it is around 6 months. Instead of blaming Apple buy something different and look at it. The new features will not cost you any further 20 USD but AN ENTIRELY NEW PHONE! Apple is doing with the iPhone what they did with the Macs, and that is the reason why I like Apple so much!

Their products, while costing more (sometimes significantly more) have a far longer product life.

What would you critics have expeced? Some sort of Nokia or SonyEricsson like strategy in which they simply announce a 3G iPhone with all the new features and live the original iPhone owners out in the cold?? You know, that is what happens usually, in case you forgot.

Apple is providing updates and better functionalities for their phones and iPod. They build advanced procuts (hence more expensive) and take time to improve them, instead of building some cheapo phone and tossing it away after six months.
I owned a Microsoft CE phone. If I wanted the newest version of the OS I only could have it by buying a NEW PHONE alltogether. I don't know RIM, but I bet the look a lot like that. Symbian surely does. The new versions of Symbian are ALWAYS available only in new devices.

Maybe in time, after two or three years of ownership of the iPhone, you will see what I mean. Same for the iPod Touch. Apple could have released a new version of the iPod Touch and simply leave us out there having to buy a new one. I am critic to Apple, particularly for their strategy to lock the phone to a carrier!!! They could have simply said: go wherever you want and subscribe to whomever you want but, if you would like new updates for free, then subscribe to our special "Apple care for the iPhone" for a couple of bucks a month.

But I don't blame them for improving product (albeit at a cost for the end user) instead of forcing all of us to throw away our phones and get new ones, like all other manufacturers have been doing for years with no major complaints by the end users.

pinolo

WolfDV

skulldriveshaft

drcullex

pradster

Anyways, was that really necessary?

cookedart

nah, screw that, I still don't want one. Apple blows!

RobotVampire

snitch29

WolfDV

www.google.com

odnet

PS. And before someone says something, the iphone is not in sale here and if i import it, i don´t get the warranty, something really important for me at least...

Daisuash

mrlibrary03

Bodypainter

dantheman1000

dwilljo

Of course, the bigger question would be: how much of this is Apple's call and how much of it is following the exact guidelines of Sarbanes-Oxley? Who sets the rules on what kind of subscription accounting gets dinged for an upgrade fee?

This is where 90% of the iPod touch buying consumer just pays the $20 and says "fuck it!" It's the 10% of us that want answers to something we care to question.

chillywilly

odnet

TVGenius

Keep telling yourself that, while millions... and that's, literally millions of people pick up iPhones and iTouches and enjoy every single minute of interacting with them. Again, whatever floats your boats.

Dearhaw

EspadaCero

Juggrnott

Apple has made products that have allowed me to make a living since 1993, and I am a fan of that.

Mayor McRib

Out2gtcha

tokyobob

ANoel

Why?

Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!

Way to limit decrease sales because people are going to hold off to buy an iPod touch until June. -.-

keehun

The iPhone wasn't defective because once I went outside it held calls fine.

I now have a touch because I like the touch screen ipod but these charges are a joke. I paid $20 the first time but I'm not sure I will again.

What Apple should do is charge $1 for the touch but not have anything on it...blank.

$15 for 'ipod' app.

$10 for youtube app.

$20 for mail,maps and weather.

$15 for safari....etc

Just build your own frankenpod with whatever apps you feel like paying for.

At the end of the day it would cost a person $300 to have every single thing.

redpeppers20xx

"Thanks you sir, may I have another!?"

Noobs-R-Us

The only thing I want now is teh Flash.

loadedthorn

Apple is just being greedy just plane and simple ..

tokyobob

For example, I suppose Apple could have also used subscription accounting for the iPod Touch as well as the iPhone, and offered free updates for life for both. However, they obviously wanted to sweeten the deal for the more profitable iPhone, and maybe there are other reasons as well.

Actually, I think what also fuels the whiners is the difference between software and hardware. No one questions paying for a hardware addition to a product, but people have different expectations for software.

frigg

praevalesco

praevalesco

frigg

Mayor McRib

FTR, I've never been against paying for something. I'm not some blind sheep fan boy that swallows everything Apple comes out with (where's my MacBook Air?? LOL).... but it's always nice to have some sort of explanation, especially so from a company like Apple that's been pretty consumer friendly over the years, of why they do certain things like charging $20 for iPod touch upgrades. If they have already publicized a statement on the reasons, cool. I have yet to find it, though.

We do have a 16gb touch (it's my wife's), but so far, she's not asked for the new apps and I doubt she'll want anything else added to it in the future. But when I purchase a touch later on this year, I'll want a lot of these newer features and will most likely shell out the upgrade fees. Which is why it is nice to understand why. And I think that's all most of these other "whiners" want to know, too.

chillywilly

Yes, but what I'm saying is that for each month I stay contracted with AT&T, AT&T gives Apple (what was it, like $15? a month) from what I'm paying. What that means is that Apple is collecting the overhead from US, iPhone users, to continue developing the iPhone platform. Feeding the benefits of that back to us makes good sense, and frankly, I feel that iTouch users are getting the longer end of the stick because all you have to do is cough up a nominal one-time fee to reap all the benefits, which, again, are largely thanks to us iPhone users. So be grateful ;-)

Also, this upgrade to 2.0 (as well as the addition of those software earlier this year), is so much more than a "firmware update" that only fixes some bugs here and there.

Like I said, both the iPhone and iTouch are mobile computing platforms, and this version 2.0 is much more like going from Palm 4.0 to Palm 5.0 or from Windows Mobile 4.0 to WM 5.0. So the question I have for you is when did they give out those new OSs for free for PDA users?

Dearhaw

Is it just updating the GUI a bit?

The problem with the OSX is that they number them as 10.3, 10.4, etc. If it is a new OS, it should be 11, 12, 13, etc. Very few vendors charge from minor releases, which are what anything numbered after the first number is. Major release is the first number. At least that is what the convention is supposed to be. Basically, Apple needs to change their naming scheme to be compliant with the rest of the industry.

szrimaging

daducttapeartist

Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!

We get *UPGRADES* to the OS for free. These are usually handed out by providers via their own support sites.

New versions of the operating system are something completely different. I don't think Apple have ever given out an entire OS for free either.

legacye

designpreneur

Even though the Apple TV doesn't require a user subscription, Apple still employs subscription accounting when they sell it. It's not as intuitive as the iPhone subscription accounting, but it's what they do. For all I know, they could just as well decide to use subscription accounting for mouse sales. It's just an accounting technique unrelated to whether you, the customer, subscribes to anything yourself.

But, according to the people who quote the law, they claim subscription accounting allows Apple to provide substantial new features w/o charging for them. Otherwise, the idea is that the original product was sold incomplete.

If you buy the whole legal-accounting explanation, the question then becomes how much does a company have to charge to satisfy the law? $1.99? $20? ???

frigg

chillywilly

Are we all clear now?

Sevenfeet

And the only thing making this a major release is some dude over at Apple goes "Hey, we could make money by calling it 2.0 instead of 1.2 or 1.1.5 and charging money for it from people we aren't already sucking all of the blood from."

What do we expect though, they charge for every "new" OS since 10.3. Just another company that wants to nickel and dime. I am not upgrading, leaving my Touch at 1.1.1. And I am not buying music from iTunes anymore (not that I did anyways).

szrimaging

1. Microsoft will collapse due to ongoing lawsuits.
2. Apple is going to see a rise in the next 5 years, followed by a fast decline once they reach the pinnacle of their greed.
3. Google and other open-sourced systems will pick up the slack.

legacye

chillywilly

iPhone is not an option for me, for many reasons. Otherwise, I would buy an iPhone so I can join ranters like yourself pissing on iPod touch owners on comment boards.

chillywilly

suburbancowboy

Sarbanes-Oxley is a true PITA sometimes. And its not just with stuff like this. I work for one of the largest enterprise software companies, and data security is one of the things that keeps CIOs up at night with this legislation. Some of the rules handed down from high up are so hamfisted compared to how we used to do business that it will actually keep us from doing business quickly for our customers. But we have to do it for SOX compliance.

Sevenfeet

LOL, so Apple should've abandoned the idea to stop a few crybabies from whining in blog comments?

The iPod touch was a brilliant idea. It's allowing Apple to spearhead their mobile OS X platform into places the iPhone will never reach.

You also need to keep in mind that most of the people complaining are not iPod touch users and would never consider purchasing one. These are the usual anti-Apple lames who come out with the fire and pitchforks whenever Steve Jobs graces a stage. They are in no way reflective of some sort of growing anger within the community of iPod touch users.

Marty_MacFly

endrewsmith1

Expectations, meet reality.

Spyrojoe

Sevenfeet

Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!

Thought you crashed or something hahaha

Twenty5

Mitch

The iPhone/iTouch is not just an MP3 player, it's a mobile computing platform, and this upgrade to 2.0 is fucking major.

When did Palm not charge for a major update to their base OS? Are new versions of Windows Mobile free for PDAs?

Give me a fucking break.

Dearhaw

Mitch

"Why do iPhone users get it for free while we have to pay $20, waaaaaaaahhhhhh!"

Well I got news for you fuckwads. We iPhone users have been paying a minimum of $40-$60 A MONTH (a good portion of which goes to Apple every month from AT&T).

Dearhaw

But the Apple TV doesn't need a subscription to be used, the iPhone does. I can go down to the Apple store and purchase an Apple TV and use it without paying a monthly fee. The iPhone is useless unless I sign up with AT&T.

I can buy an iPod touch without a monthly fee and use it without restrictions. Rip my own CDs to it. Apple TV... I can have it stream content from the same iTunes library my iPod touch gets it's music and TV shows from.

The question still begs: what's the difference? Why didn't Apple TV customers get charged the recent update?

chillywilly

frigg

Sleeper_Service

Mitch

Im not going to argue with a fanboy. If you think that is the way it should be, then have fun with your silly, random and biased thoughts.

"iTouch = Zune 80" by Marty_MacFly

Twenty5

You could argue about the law or what's a reasonable fee or whatever, but just to let you know, the Apple TV and iPhone are both subscription accounting, the Touch isn't.

frigg

Again I say to you people, look at the company and their motives. Oh sure, they want to make money, but nickel and dimeing people isn't Apple's style....they make enough money off you on the front end. They want to make sure that the SEC has absolutely positively no reason to ever think they aren't flying by the straight and narrow. Again, BLAME CONGRESS. Write your representative. Trust me, Apple doesn't want to do this. It only alienates some of you core (and apparently cheapskate) customers.

Sevenfeet

Because what that update can provide me with is totally worth it.

BTW, I don't think that update will be more expensive than the previous one. Actually I think it will cost less.
Why?
Because Apple is interested in people BUYING commerical software. There will be alot of it.
And I think that it is a stroke of genius to let devs distribute freeware, well, for free.

I talked to a friend about this a few moments ago. He does some cocoa-programming for a local company.
He said that those $99,- are peanuts compared to all the publicity you get. Make a good app, and maybe you'll get hired by a company.

mangochutney

I think this is where confusion sets in. What is it that defines what can previous owners have to pay for, but new owners don't?

And we are not whinners... Good god. We just want direct and concise answers for why we need to pay. And coming from Apple would be nice. Or is there a Sarbanes-Oxley policy that forbids them from explaining why they need to charge?

chillywilly

You'll still get screwed, just like I did. I waited until after MacWorld to order mine so I could get the Email and other features without paying the $20. I thought it worked until I read this. You'll get your Touch with those apps without paying the $20 but then you'll pay $20 each for all future releases. They'll get you somehow, just like they got me.

CruJones

Personally, I dont think they should have made an ipod touch for just this reason. People who bought it are now suffering iphone envy, and it's getting ugly. Let the ipod stay its own device...hell despite the fact that I have an iphone I still get more use out of my 2nd gen ipod...its old, its crusty, the buttons don't always work, the screen is black and white, but its got a 15 GB harddrive and still play music great ;)

Mitch

"The PSP is a good example but I'm sure there's an explanation."

Yes, they're not thieving gypsy bastards.

Sleeper_Service

mitchel_stevens

i understand the frustation in all this "Pay to Upgrade" thing, and even though is true that both devices use the same core OS (the iPhone and the iTouch) you gotta analyze the situation:

For apple, those two devices are totally different, each with a different market and therefore different rules to regulate how they must be upgraded apply.

Microsoft can do this simply because all their Zune products so far fall into the same category: an MP3 player.

As an iPhone owner (and i tell everyone to get an iPhone rather than a iTouch simply because of this) I think that apple is doing the right thing. But ironically, i just cant understand why apple didnt offer the SDK support for free.

I mean, i understand that all the mail and enterprise thing should be charged. But charge to get Free Apps? thats just BS.

They should have released the SDK and apps distribution for free and charge for the Enterprise Features.

Twenty5

now give it true built in GPS, NOW you're declaring war on us early adopters :p

Mitch

Sheesh.

James Cooper - Information Architect

Stop complaining you damn Touch users. I'm walking around with my iPod shuffle because that's all I can afford.

BigFatBill

firesign

Sevenfeet

Then why did Apple charge $1.99 for Macbook owners to enable their 802.11n? It's because that was a trial balloon for these future $20-$30 upgrade charges.

Franklin Comes Alive!

Just think of the revenue that they could generate for developers by giving away the update.

As for a product that has done that, 1 word for you, Zune.

szrimaging

Ok, that's fine and I can see that being a reason, but what makes the iPod touch different than say, an Apple TV, which didn't require the charge?

Where is this defined list of what device needs to be charged for an upgrade and what devices are exempt?

I've google searched and can't find anything remotely concrete that spells this out.

chillywilly

frigg

Mitch

My guess: Apple saw how readily people paid for the 802.11n upgrade to their MacBooks and realized that people are more than willing to pay for software updates from Apple.

phoomp

Operating systems are accounted for over time with personal computers, regardless if the OS came pre-installed or was purchased off-the-shelf. So when Apple sold all those copies of Leopard in the last weeks of 2007, they didn't recognize the revenue all at once. It'll get recognized over time for the next 2-3 years (I'm not sure which). Phones and other embedded devices aren't sold with a separate OS that you can purchase. There will be no "Leopard" upgrade to buy for them...just continuous upgrades on the OS it came with.

Sevenfeet

Mitch

MikeSWelch

Franklin Comes Alive!

Pender

Pender

cdawson2000

Boots_Mcoy

Let's just hope iPhone 2.0 isn't as littered with bugs as AppleTV 2.0 is.

phoomp

berribrand

Marty_MacFly

Another example - Microsoft and Sony are constantly adding new features to the Xbox 360 and PS3 with software updates. By Apple's logic, shouldn't we be paying for these updates?

Franklin Comes Alive!

MikeSWelch

It cost iPod Touch owners 2,000 pennies to get access to 4 apps. My guess is it'll be at least 3,000 pennies to get access to what was announced today.

phoomp

I was waiting for the SDK to upgrade my jailbroken 1.1.1 phone. Now I guess I will upgrade to 1.1.4, jailbreak and wait..........

Skyyboy

So what? By Apple's logic, MS should have had to charge Zune users for the 2.0 update that included lots of new features. Somehow, MS manages to not charge for updates and still comply with Sarbanes-Oxley, but Apple can't figure it out.

Franklin Comes Alive!

You're paying for more features - not repairs.

awesomerobot

awesomerobot

Mitch

I wonder how many of the Jailbreak developers are going to want to give Apple $99/year to post their apps to Apple's App Store ...

phoomp

DUDE the ZUNE is competing AGAINST THE IPOD CLASSIC!

wth is wrong with you? You just cant compare the Zune with the iTouch, they are totally different devices with different platforms.

Cant wait for the 2.0 btw..... i really cant/

Twenty5

Look at those poor Zune users who don't even have the option of turning their doohickey into a PDA powerhouse."

This

Wormfather

Steve, it's time you started thinking about your customers again, before you don't have that many left.

gotenki

macpro2007

THey do charge us. They install windows genuine advantage so I dont get those updates on my hacked software...erm...I mean...my legally licensed software.

Mitch

Mitch

Franklin Comes Alive!

paul96734

LOL!

Sleeper_Service

Look at those poor Zune users who don't even have the option of turning their doohickey into a PDA powerhouse.

Marty_MacFly

Nuff said.

Mitch

senator133

jackfs4

Now bend over!

Wormfather

Mitch

this has to be one of the most retarded statements I've read in a while.

Steve has been saying from, oh, about a month into the iPhone release that the biggest drawback is the data speed. If you don't think a 3G model isn't in the works, you are insane.

aural

Nahh...

There too busy RIMming each other over all the coin they're making..

Jrsy

And before you say "well, no one else does it this way", well how many people make a device like the iPod Touch that's upgradable like this? Anyone? [crickets chirping] Exactly. Not to mention Apple is still being investigated by the SEC and Justice Department over that old backdating thing. Sure, nothing's going to come from that, but you don't thumb your nose at the letter and spirit of accounting rules while you're undergoing an audit from the Feds.

Sevenfeet