Why Apple (may have) made the charge for the apps

Discussion in 'iPod touch Firmware 1.1.3 Discussions' started by parabrand, Jan 18, 2008.

  1. parabrand

    parabrand New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    There has been much fevered debate about why Apple charged us for these Apples that we feel are a "right" when, in fact, are a privilege. If you investigate the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, you will see that this is indeed the reason why Apple had to charge us. (c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act)

    In short, a company cannot freely provide a feature that was unpublicized upon the initial release of a product, i.e., Apple cannot release (without charge) the "5-app-pack" because it was not initially a feature of the iPod Touch. One could argue what does feature mean, but it is fruitless.

    The real question here is why did Apple charge $20? It is my understanding of the Act, that mere cost displaces wrongdoing and so Apple could very well have charged $1 and circumvented this madness.

    Any input?
  2. JonathanB

    JonathanB New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then how come the iphone got a bunch of features updates without paying?
  3. parabrand

    parabrand New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    The applications featured were originally shipped with the iPhone and hence are not new features. As mentioned in my original post, arguing the definition of features leads nowhere. I assume the notion of feature for Apple is: a significant change in the character and functionality of the device. This should not be confused with a bug fix.
  4. iAMboognish

    iAMboognish New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    its all about competing with the iPhone.

    1. They have to dance around AT&T

    2. They have to dance around AT&T

    3. They have to dance around AT&T

    I reckon AT&T are as much to blame as apple. One thing people are forgetting is that Apple DOES want to make you happy. That's why they provided us with a means to get more out of our devices. People were pissed about limitations.... Now that the boundries are being pushed, they are upset about paying for assistance.

    apple should have just bought Tmobile and have been done with it.

    I say THANK YOU APPLE...(and F U AT&T)!!! (if I were to be negative)
  5. stekkerbox

    stekkerbox New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    1
    Because there just as bad and money hungry than M$
  6. lvlln

    lvlln New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2007
    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    1
    It's only a specific interpretation of the law that prevents companies from freely providing new, previously completely unmentioned, features to existing products. Plenty of companies choose not to interpret it that way. For example, Microsoft, with their Zune, did not. When they released the Zune, its wifi was pretty much useless, and they made zero mention of the feature to wirelessly sync your media with your PC. Fastforward to the release of the Zune 2, and they decide to add that function to existing Zunes through a firmware update.

    Same/similar things happen all the time with other products. All 3 major consoles have gotten significant and free new features through updates. This law and the well-known phrase "accounting purposes" that Apple used as a shield back with its 99cent (or was it 1.99?) wifi firmware debacle and also in this iPod Touch app issue is not valid, and is only due to a selective interpretation of the law that Apple chose to make. They could've just as easily done what the other companies did, and not charged for these firmware updates.

    It's not like Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony, Creative, Archos, etc. have ever been criminally charged for offering their customers an unexpected bonus.
  7. SkylarEC

    SkylarEC Super Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,642
    Likes Received:
    129
    Actually, the OP is correct.
  8. luigispinal

    luigispinal New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,204
    Likes Received:
    10
    Device:
    iPod touch
    whats an OP??
  9. SkylarEC

    SkylarEC Super Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,642
    Likes Received:
    129
    Original Poster.
  10. bananaman

    bananaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2007
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    as IvIIn said - how do other companies offer upgrades?

    For eg. huge amounts of funtionality has been added to the PS3 and the 360 - for eg., DivX support - for no cost

    I dont understand why there is no charge if this illegal...

Share This Page