tokevino
Rain
join:2001-12-03
AZ
| reply to leXicon5
Re: Apple to charge to unlock 802.11n
Normally, a company would just force your to buy a new draft-n card for $30~40, if not more.
$5 is reasonable to let Apple recover the costs of transaction and accounting and keep the share holders happy as well.
Don't listen to what front-pagers have to say: they have no idea what they were talking about.
--
... |
|
furlonium
Computer Over? Virus equals Very Yes?
join:2002-05-08
Bethlehem, PA | Of course not - nobody else's opinion matters but the zealots, right? And if this were Microsoft's happenings, would the people in the MS forum expect everyone to keep quiet? HELL no, there would be 15 pages of comments of "M$" bashing. |
|
tokevino
Rain
join:2001-12-03
AZ
2 edits | said by furlonium  :Of course not - nobody else's opinion matters but the zealots, right? And if this were Microsoft's happenings, would the people in the MS forum expect everyone to keep quiet? HELL no, there would be 15 pages of comments of "M$" bashing. Amount people who bash, more MS fans than Linux or Apple fans combined...probably at 1000:1 ratio...
--
... |
|
furlonium
Computer Over? Virus equals Very Yes?
join:2002-05-08
Bethlehem, PA
| said by tokevino :said by furlonium :Of course not - nobody else's opinion matters but the zealots, right? And if this were Microsoft's happenings, would the people in the MS forum expect everyone to keep quiet? HELL no, there would be 15 pages of comments of "M$" bashing. Amount people who bash, more MS fans than Linux or Apple fans combined...probably at 1000:1 ratio... Hey - that ratio sounds about right for the amount of Windows users vs. Linux/Apple users 
--
»www.myspace.com/intranet
I once had a dream that Sean Connery stayed at my apt., and he had his laptop with Win98 on it, and he knew how to connect to my wireless network. I don't do drugs  |
|
tokevino
Rain
join:2001-12-03
AZ
2 edits | said by furlonium :said by tokevino :said by furlonium :Of course not - nobody else's opinion matters but the zealots, right? And if this were Microsoft's happenings, would the people in the MS forum expect everyone to keep quiet? HELL no, there would be 15 pages of comments of "M$" bashing. Amount people who bash, more MS fans than Linux or Apple fans combined...probably at 1000:1 ratio... Hey - that ratio sounds about right for the amount of Windows users vs. Linux/Apple users Nope: Mac has roughly 4 to 5 % right now, linux has about 1%, could be higher or lower; so let's say 6% of Mac and Linux users combined, that's a ratio of 15~16:1. (94:6)
--
... |
|
furlonium
Computer Over? Virus equals Very Yes?
join:2002-05-08
Bethlehem, PA
| said by tokevino :Nope: Mac has roughly 5 to 6 % right now, linux has about 1%, could be higher or lower; so let's say 6% of Mac and Linux users combined, that's a ratio of 15~16:1. (94:6) From the commercials I've seen, aren't you Mac people supposed to have a sense of humor? Maybe pick up on a little sarcasm? Right on, jolly-o!
You can count me in with the 94% and the 1%, as I dual boot with Slackware.
--
»www.myspace.com/intranet
I once had a dream that Sean Connery stayed at my apt., and he had his laptop with Win98 on it, and he knew how to connect to my wireless network. I don't do drugs |
|
tokevino
Rain
join:2001-12-03
AZ
| said by furlonium :said by tokevino :Nope: Mac has roughly 5 to 6 % right now, linux has about 1%, could be higher or lower; so let's say 6% of Mac and Linux users combined, that's a ratio of 15~16:1. (94:6) From the commercials I've seen, aren't you Mac people supposed to have a sense of humor? Maybe pick up on a little sarcasm? Right on, jolly-o! You can count me in with the 94% and the 1%, as I dual boot with Slackware. I guess I do miss-count myself....
I am in the 94%, the 5%, as well as the 1%.... Oh, wait! I have 2 94%s, 2 5%s, and 2 1%s....
lol
--
... |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
 ·Digizip
| reply to leXicon5
Frankly, it's analogous to Telcos charging a "Regulatory Recovery Fee". It is totally made up, doesn't relate in any demonstrable way to real cost, and/or costs are so tenuously associated and nebulous, they amount to zilch. Furthermore, "n" capabilty is an existent feature of the hardware that has been previously disabled, not added, and the hardware has already been paid for. It's like wanting to charge an additional fee to purchasers because a new use has been found for any existing, already purchased product. How many purchasers of handheld "massage" devices are going to be charged for the unadvertised x-rated capabilities inherent to the hardware when users apply it to the "right" software patch? |
|
tokevino
Rain
join:2001-12-03
AZ
1 edit | said by ross :Frankly, it's analogous to Telcos charging a "Regulatory Recovery Fee". It is totally made up, doesn't relate in any demonstrable way to real cost, and/or costs are so tenuously associated and nebulous, they amount to zilch. Furthermore, "n" capabilty is an existent feature of the hardware that has been previously disabled, not added, and the hardware has already been paid for. It's like wanting to charge an additional fee to purchasers because a new use has been found for any existing, already purchased product. How many purchasers of handheld "massage" devices are going to be charged for the unadvertised x-rated capabilities inherent to the hardware when users apply it to the "right" software patch? IT is IT, accounting is accounting. You didn't advertise it? then the feature didn't exist. Just like you always expense R&D costs regardless what you did.
--
... |
|
ArchAngel21x
MacFan Pro
Premium
join:2001-10-28
Lincoln, NE
·Internet Nebraska
| reply to leXicon5
Re: Apple to charge to unlock 802.11n
My indifference to this plight stems from the fact that 1) I don't need the 802.11n standard, 2) $5 is already cheap, and 3) Apple is just trying to follow the law. To qualify my statement, I want to add that my reaction would be the same if it was Microsoft or another computer company.
--
Happy new year! | Proud owner of a Mac Book & iPod Nano | A preview of OS X 10.5 |
|
93254336
Weapons Of Masturbation
Premium
join:2001-10-20
| reply to sporkme
said by sporkme :I call BS on the SO excuse. I've downloaded plenty of software from Software Update that has enabled features that were not there before. Precisely... so is Apple now also going to charge a "modest fee" for each SU?
- Dan
--
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger."
|
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| reply to tokevino
Shareholders my butt let Apple foot the bill, customers already paid for a computer and although unaware that they had 802.11N capability it's still something that already came with the machine and it's not something you pay to unlock it's something that should be unlocked free of charge.
It's Apple's fault for not advertising properly, I don't see why us customers must foot a mistake Apple made.
But considering that some people already are shareholders of Apple Inc. It's a typical response from those who do. Luckily I have no reason to complain because I own a first generation Macbook, but nevertheless I won't let people get screwed over and having them listen to the same jargon over and over that it's like a tape recording.
--
The only limits we have are the one's we set ourselves. |
|
MysticGogeta
The Robot Devil
Premium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX
clubs: | reply to leXicon5
If this was Microsoft, dell or who ever I would be pissed. The fact of the matter is why should you pay for someone else's mistake?
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| reply to tokevino
Re: Apple to charge to unlock 802.11n
said by tokevino :IT is IT, accounting is accounting. You didn't advertise it? then the feature didn't exist. Just like you always expense R&D costs regardless what you did. BullShit is BullShit (I spelled it out for you so you won't be confused by the acronyms being hurled about the pasture). Incremental upgrades to a particular piece of hardware's firmware to enable already existent capabilities is NOT the same as providing an advertising to sell a new device with previously unavailable features. If I didn't rely on a non-existent claim of future enhancement of the hardware I was purchasing at the time of purchase, why should I have to pay additional money if a firmware upgrade enables a previously disabled, unadvertised innate capability of the hardware I have already paid for????
Have you never heard of incremantal enhancement of hardware via firmware upgrades? Have you ever owned a router? Have you ever bought a video card that later was able to be enhanced by updating its firmware to enable previously disabled features of the chipset, and providing more processing capability than was advertised?
Apple either should provide the patch for free, or enable the full capabilities of the product from the outset. The reason they didn't is because "pre-N" is not a salable feature until a standard is approved. So asking people to pay extra for a capability before it is an approved standard, isn't going to fly, and you can't advertise a capability as a feature if it relies on unproven, unapproved, and possibly changing, pending standards. This action they've taken is just an attempt to backcharge for hardware already purchased, and paid for. It should have been provided as a nice surprise for Apple's customers, instead of the means to pump Apple's bottom line. It certainly doesn't cost $5.00 per capita to provide the patch for download. |
|
login name
Premium
join:2000-08-11 | reply to leXicon5
Re: Apple to charge to unlock 802.11n
This move by Apple doesn't surprise me at all. |
|
wilbilt
Pronto Resurrected
Premium
join:2004-01-11
Oroville, CA | reply to leXicon5
They distribute security patches for unadvertised future exploits at no charge...
--
We were taking a vote when the ground came up and hit us. |
|
Homunculus
Pipsquack
Premium
join:2000-12-14
Dar al-Harb
clubs: | reply to leXicon5
Gee, Apple finding another way of milking their customers. Well I'll be.
--
Islam is a hate crime: »www.thememriblog.org |
|
