MacWin
join:2003-06-26
Imperial, MO
| reply to hyperjoe
Re: Apple to charge to unlock 802.11n
At least they have a valid reason.
"I’m not going to claim to understand this next part, which really just makes no sense to me at all, but the claim Apple’s making is that it _can’t_ give you the 802.11n-unlocking software for free. The reason: the Core 2 Duo Macs weren’t advertised as 802.11n-ready, and a little law called the Sarbanes-Oxley Act supposedly prohibits Apple from giving away an unadvertised new feature for one of its products. Hence, said the Apple rep, the company’s not distributing new _features_ in Software Update any more, just _bug fixes._ Because of Sarbanes-Oxley. If this is an accurate statement of Apple’s position, which as an attorney (but not one with any Sarbanes background) I find at least plausible, this is really crazy."
»backstage.ilounge.com/index.php/···c2d-mac/ |
|
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ | 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. |
|
bbarrera
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-23
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
 ·SureWest Internet
| said by sporkme  :I call BS on the SO excuse. SOX is causing ripples all over the universe, the excuse isn't that far fetched. Unfortunately I deal with SOX at work and it is a PITA.
Let's parse the 'excuse' for a solution...
quote:
According to the editor, the fee stems from a law called the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which supposedly prohibits Apple from giving away an unadvertised new feature of an already sold product without enduring some onerous accounting measures.
The solution is for Apple to advertise new yet currently unavailable features. Then no problem with later enabling those features via software update. |
|
MacWin
join:2003-06-26
Imperial, MO | "Unfortunately I deal with SOX at work and it is a PITA."
Makes me glad I'm with a private company. |
|
nolancj
join:2002-06-30
Long Beach, CA
| reply to MacWin
I'm in the software business. I can see the reasoning here. It could very well stem not so much from SOX (as it's called), but also existing contracts with gov't pricing schedules. This is a legitimate concern.
SOX rules prohibit you from selling "future features" with an existing sale. For example, if I were to sell you a piece of software, I have to represent what it does TODAY. I cannot give you "future" features. Most Software companies work around this with maintenance fees. You basically cannot sell what you do not have.
So, my guess is Apple is going to sell this as a new feature. Therefore, they can't give it away.
Stupid, but blame the accountants, Enron, MCI, and all the others that SOX came from.
said by MacWin :At least they have a valid reason. "I’m not going to claim to understand this next part, which really just makes no sense to me at all, but the claim Apple’s making is that it _can’t_ give you the 802.11n-unlocking software for free. The reason: the Core 2 Duo Macs weren’t advertised as 802.11n-ready, and a little law called the Sarbanes-Oxley Act supposedly prohibits Apple from giving away an unadvertised new feature for one of its products. Hence, said the Apple rep, the company’s not distributing new _features_ in Software Update any more, just _bug fixes._ Because of Sarbanes-Oxley. If this is an accurate statement of Apple’s position, which as an attorney (but not one with any Sarbanes background) I find at least plausible, this is really crazy." » backstage.ilounge.com/index.php/···c2d-mac/ This is a feature, something |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | reply to bbarrera
Advertising unavailable features is ALSO a violation. |
|
MacWin
join:2003-06-26
Imperial, MO
1 edit | "Advertising unavailable features is ALSO a violation."
Shhh the people on the front page thread might hear you and then what would they be able to bash Apple about. |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | What's that???
 |
|
Maggs
Premium
join:2002-11-29
Woodside, NY | Easy enough
tell Application Airport
{give me my draft N}
end tell
Someone will find a way.
--
It's a SYN, not to ACK your packets. |
|
RIRWIN1983
join:2005-08-30
Columbus, OH | reply to russotto
then how did directv get away with sellng its hr-20 hddvr that had the connections for ota,network,ect... but did not work because they needed to be enabled via software updates once they got the outher bugs fixed. |
|
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."
|
|
yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON
| reply to nolancj
said by nolancj :SOX rules prohibit you from selling "future features" with an existing sale. For example, if I were to sell you a piece of software, I have to represent what it does TODAY. I cannot give you "future" features. Most Software companies work around this with maintenance fees. You basically cannot sell what you do not have. Then how do companies give free lifetime updates to their software? For example Parallels. You buy it once and you get updates for life. All the new betas are adding features that weren't in the first version and they can get away with it. |
|
The Dv8or
DSLReports Forums -- The Mouse House 2.0
Premium
join:2001-08-09
Danbury, CT
clubs:
| The idea is that the software is not currently capable of doing things it can do in the future. The upgrade is an add-on after the fact in a development of doing something better, but you're not specifically hiding a current feature. It's also much more difficult to prove in software than it is in hardware.
--
You're so vain... I bet you think this post is about you. |
|
nolancj
join:2002-06-30
Long Beach, CA
| There are 2 things here:
1. Maintenance fees are how software companies (larger ones mostly) sell new features.
2. Small companies (like parallels) will fly under the radar with regards to these issues. They're also not a public company.
SOX has created a paranoia within companies, espeically those caught in finance scandals, stock option issues, revenue reporting problems, inventory tracking problems, etc.
SOX requires that adequate controls be put in place to manage ALL of the financial reporting within an organization, and requires the officers of the company to attest to their accuracy.
What that has done is put Finance in control of many, many companies. A BAD thing in my opinion. A few bad apples (Enron, MCI, etc), have ruined innovation and freedom in large public companies, in my humble opinion. |
|
tpeng
join:2003-01-30
Forest Hills, NY
clubs:
| reply to The Dv8or
$5 probably will barely (if at all) cover the transaction fees and administrative costs for setting up a system just to collect and account for these costs. In all likelihood, they'd lose money on the deal. It sounds as if this went up the wrong chain or someone raised an alarm from legal and given that they are currently under the SEC's magnifying glass for screwing up recently, they are not taking any chances.
Of course it's silly, and Apple has to know that it will get nothing but bad press out of it. In other circumstances, they probably would just release the software upgrade simply as adding "compatibility with the new Airport extreme", like the WPA upgrade. |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | reply to yabos
Parallels, Inc. is privately held, thus SOX doesn't apply to them.
Apple's unlikely to go private, but it's not impossible. They'd need some deep-pocket investors. |
|
JimF
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA
| reply to nolancj
said by nolancj :Stupid, but blame the accountants, Enron, MCI, and all the others that SOX came from. Put the blame where it belongs. Sarbanes-Oxley came from Congress, and the President that signed it. |
|
ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
 ·Metrocast Communic..
·AT&T DSL Service
·ViaTalk
| said by JimF :said by nolancj :Stupid, but blame the accountants, Enron, MCI, and all the others that SOX came from. Put the blame where it belongs. Sarbanes-Oxley came from Congress, and the President that signed it. Riiiightt.....And Congress just came up with it for no reason?
Tell you what. Tell all those people that lost their retirement funds from Enron, etc that SOX is not a good idea, that there needs to be compliance.
Wow, now Apple can blame the president for charging $5. 
--
"A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest imaginary friend."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org/index.htm |
|
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| reply to The Dv8or
said by The Dv8or :The idea is that the software is not currently capable of doing things it can do in the future. The upgrade is an add-on after the fact in a development of doing something better, but you're not specifically hiding a current feature. It's also much more difficult to prove in software than it is in hardware. How about firmware updates on DVD burners that increase the max burn speed? Drive is advertised as 2x, update makes it 4x. |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| reply to ptrowski
quote:
Tell you what. Tell all those people that lost their retirement funds from Enron, etc that SOX is not a good idea, that there needs to be compliance.
If people got cheated by New York's "Crazy Eddy" and the feds responded by nuking New York, would you blame the nuking on Crazy Eddy? |
|
