leXicon5Pelosi, SHUT YOUR Fing Pie Hole Premium Member join:2000-12-27 Saint Louis, MO |
leXicon5
Premium Member
2007-Jan-15 4:09 pm
Apple to charge to unlock 802.11nWOW....this ought to put some of your panties in a bunch: » www.appleinsider.com/art ··· ?id=2398 |
|
|
The Dv8orJust call me Dong Suck Oh, M.D. Premium Member join:2001-08-09 Denver, CO |
Pretty ballsy, and how convenient to blame the government. Why not charge 99 cents and make it a download in iTunes? |
|
hyperjoe Premium Member join:2000-11-03 Gates Mills, OH |
to leXicon5
considering many who complain about an apple product and fill out class suits because, "days later, the better and newer came out and we were not told", I can understand the charge. |
|
MacWin join:2003-06-26 Imperial, MO |
MacWin
Member
2007-Jan-15 4:20 pm
At least they have a valid reason. "Im not going to claim to understand this next part, which really just makes no sense to me at all, but the claim Apples making is that it _cant_ give you the 802.11n-unlocking software for free. The reason: the Core 2 Duo Macs werent 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 companys not distributing new _features_ in Software Update any more, just _bug fixes._ Because of Sarbanes-Oxley. If this is an accurate statement of Apples position, which as an attorney (but not one with any Sarbanes background) I find at least plausible, this is really crazy." » backstage.ilounge.com/in ··· c2d-mac/ |
|
|
to leXicon5
Meh, its only $4.99, dunno what people are getting so freaked out about. |
|
sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sister MVM join:2000-07-01 Morristown, NJ |
to MacWin
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 MVM join:2000-10-23 Sacramento, CA |
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 |
MacWin
Member
2007-Jan-15 4:53 pm
"Unfortunately I deal with SOX at work and it is a PITA."
Makes me glad I'm with a private company. |
|
M A R S Premium Member join:2001-06-15 Long Island |
to leXicon5
Lame garbage... |
|
|
its coming from appleinsider .... |
|
leXicon5Pelosi, SHUT YOUR Fing Pie Hole Premium Member join:2000-12-27 Saint Louis, MO |
to zeromips
said by zeromips:Meh, its only $4.99, dunno what people are getting so freaked out about. You do know the crowd that you're referring to right? They don't flinch when the iPod they want is $499 but whine and moan about a product they have not seen yet... |
|
|
to leXicon5
If it's a choice between not giving away any more new features and risking Federal "pound me in the ass" prison, management will kill or charge for the features every time.
Time to hoist the Jolly Roger for third party 'n' users, I think. |
|
nolancj join:2002-06-30 Long Beach, CA |
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. "Im not going to claim to understand this next part, which really just makes no sense to me at all, but the claim Apples making is that it _cant_ give you the 802.11n-unlocking software for free. The reason: the Core 2 Duo Macs werent 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 companys not distributing new _features_ in Software Update any more, just _bug fixes._ Because of Sarbanes-Oxley. If this is an accurate statement of Apples position, which as an attorney (but not one with any Sarbanes background) I find at least plausible, this is really crazy." » backstage.ilounge.com/in ··· c2d-mac/ This is a feature, something |
|
|
to bbarrera
Advertising unavailable features is ALSO a violation. |
|
MacWin join:2003-06-26 Imperial, MO 1 edit |
MacWin
Member
2007-Jan-15 5:51 pm
"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. |
|
Michieru2zzz zzz zzz Premium Member join:2005-01-28 Miami, FL |
What's that??? |
|
Maggs Premium Member join:2002-11-29 Jackson Heights, NY |
Maggs
Premium Member
2007-Jan-15 5:58 pm
Easy enough
tell Application Airport
{give me my draft N}
end tell
Someone will find a way. |
|
|
to leXicon5
I'm sure there will be third party apps that do this in no time. Apple just needs to charge to cover their asses. Look at the iBook G3/G4s for example. They were not advertised to have Extended Desktop, but a OpenFirmware hack was released that enabled it without any problems. |
|
HiVolt Premium Member join:2000-12-28 Toronto, ON |
to leXicon5
Bah im sure the day the new AEBS hits the market, that enabler will be spread via Bit Torrent in a flash. |
|
|
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. |
|
1 recommendation |
to leXicon5
Normally, a company would just force your to buy a new draft-n card for $30~40, if not more.
$5 is reasonable to let Apple recover the costs of transaction and accounting and keep the share holders happy as well.
Don't listen to what front-pagers have to say: they have no idea what they were talking about. |
|
|
Of course not - nobody else's opinion matters but the zealots, right? And if this were Microsoft's happenings, would the people in the MS forum expect everyone to keep quiet? HELL no, there would be 15 pages of comments of "M$" bashing. |
|
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$" bashing. Amount people who bash, more MS fans than Linux or Apple fans combined...probably at 1000:1 ratio... |
|
|
said by tokevino:said by furlonium:Of course not - nobody else's opinion matters but the zealots, right? And if this were Microsoft's happenings, would the people in the MS forum expect everyone to keep quiet? HELL no, there would be 15 pages of comments of "M$" 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 |
|
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) |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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 |
|
1 recommendation |
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? |
|
1 edit |
said by ross7: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. |
|
your moderator at work
hidden :
|