Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Charges For 802.11n, Blames Accounting Law

Posted by kdawson on from the don't-release-early-or-often dept.

If you have a Core 2 Duo Macintosh, the built-in WLAN card is capable of networking using (draft 2) 802.11n. This capability can be unlocked via an update Apple distributes with the new AirPort Extreme Base Station. Or, they will sell it to you for $4.99. Why don't they give it away for free, say with Software Update? Because of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (which was passed in the wake of the Enron scandal). iLounge quotes an Apple representative: "It's about accounting. Because of the Act, the company believes that if it sells a product, then later adds a feature to that product, it can be held liable for improper accounting if it recognizes revenue from the product at the time of sale, given that it hasn't finished delivering the product at that point."

86 of 471 comments (clear)

  1. Don't tell Microsoft! by celardore · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Imagine if they even charged $1 for every patch, for every user. There are more MS patches for a product than every dollar in the asking price for said product. I'm aware that Apple are scared because it's a "new feature", but MS has done that a lot.

    1. Re:Don't tell Microsoft! by BWJones · · Score: 5, Informative

      The issue here is that Apple's patch can be construed as "new functionality" as there is significantly increased network performance in products that have been shipping for months, whereas most of the patches from MS are attempting to fix existing, yet broken functionality.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    2. Re:Don't tell Microsoft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Microsoft add new features too. The security centre & windows firewall for one example.

    3. Re:Don't tell Microsoft! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I guess then it should not be called a "patch" but an "upgrade". A patch implies that it was not working properly in the first place.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Don't tell Microsoft! by Jon+Luckey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Microsoft add new features too. The security centre & windows firewall for one example.

      Wait! You forgot the most important new feature of all: Windows Genuine Advantage®

      Hard to picture how we could get along without it, these days.

      --
      -- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
    5. Re:Don't tell Microsoft! by Lux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I believe MS already defers some of the income from Windows sales by considering the product partially delivered and feeds that into the support teams over time. The practice would predate Enron though, and was probably started to keep the stock price stable. Ie: they can show a more steady income stream on paper despite long product cycles.

      If only Apple were so savvy! :)

      *ducks*

    6. Re:Don't tell Microsoft! by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except software has never really been considered a 'feature'. Free updates that include new functionality in software are not considered a problem.

      It's HARDWARE that has the problem. For example, if Ford sold a car, then six months later said "bring your car in, and we'll turn on Anti-Lock Brakes for free!" that there's a problem. The car really had to include it all along, so it could be considered that this feature wasn't delivered until six months later, so they shouldn't be able to count the income from that feature until it is delivered.

      Although I would think that common sense would say that this would only apply when the feature *WAS* advertised at time of sale, with the caveat that wouldn't be available for some time. "Anti-Lock Brakes included, to be unlocked via a software update in six months!" is selling the ABS, even though you don't get it. The 'free update' six months later means that the customer wasn't sold ABS at time of purchase, so the income to Ford at time of purchase is based on *NOT* including ABS. So they COULD claim ABS as a 'free update'.

      Back to Apple, because they never advertised it as 802.11n, customers couldn't in good conscience be considered to have bought it expecting .11n. Apple never guaranteed .11n functionality at time of purchase, so .11n functionality wasn't something they 'sold'. Any computers sold SINCE the announcement I would say fall under this provision, since Apple has explicitly said that such computers include .11n hardware. Although I would hope that new computers include the enabler by default. (Although neither the Tech Specs pages nor the Store pages on any of the hardware say .11n yet.)

      --
      Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
      The purpose of that site was not known.
    7. Re:Don't tell Microsoft! by aetherworld · · Score: 2

      Correct, but this law only applies to hardware, not to software.

    8. Re:Don't tell Microsoft! by skinfitz · · Score: 5, Informative

      ... enables dormant hardware that isn't being charged for in the purchase of the product.

      Yes it is. If you bought the hardware you paid for everything. There are no 'free parts' - all the components are part of a whole. The fact that something isn't enabled is completely irrelevant - you were charged for it and paid for it.

      What happens if we apply this thinking to patches? Oh I'm sorry - we fixed that last exploit with a new version of Safari that adds xxxxx feature, but because it wasn't there when we sold you the computer, we are going to have to charge you.

      This is nothing more than fleecing users for cash.

    9. Re:Don't tell Microsoft! by Divebus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Upgrade through extortion is not uncommon at all in the high powered computer [graphics] world.

      First, buy a $600,000 Quantel compositing workstation. You want glints, glows and shadows with that? $15,000 later, they send the 60 digit unlock code. No hardware change required. First time I saw that, I said *WTF* so loud they heard it back in England. If it's in there, why can't I use it NOW?

      Same with some of the old 3D modeling software on SGIs etc. Not even an updated piece of software, just a bunch of keys to turn on the features - and expire them.

      Should I remind everyone about QuickTime Pro?

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    10. Re:Don't tell Microsoft! by skinfitz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In 10.4.8 update, Apple added EAP-FAST wireless authentication. That 'feature' was not present when many people 'entered into their contract of sale willingly' with their Macs. Are you saying that all of those people should now be charged for this and any other additional features because it was not there originally?

      Stop apologising for Apple.

    11. Re:Don't tell Microsoft! by skinfitz · · Score: 3, Informative

      If there was a chip license fee, you already paid it when you paid for the computer. 802.11n requires no payment of license to use as the frequency is public band.

      It's profiteering at the expense of users.

    12. Re:Don't tell Microsoft! by dreamlax · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yes it is. If you bought the hardware you paid for everything. There are no 'free parts' - all the components are part of a whole. The fact that something isn't enabled is completely irrelevant - you were charged for it and paid for it.

      Not necessarily. Imagine if there were license costs involved. Apple didn't want to add that to the cost of the Mac as this would decrease revenue and not everyone would use it. If you don't want to use it, you don't pay the licensing fee. So in a sense, you weren't charged for it.

      Think of it like an XBox Live subscription. All XBoxes have the ability/capability to use the Live service, but you need to pay a fee to use it. It's not included in the price you pay (excluding any bundled deals) because not everyone will use it.

      The same example could be said about many things. You commonly buy a collective of objects, but don't always use them all.

    13. Re:Don't tell Microsoft! by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      They didn't have to say anything. If I know that a card can do 'a b and c', but is sold in a bundle that happens to /advertise/ only 'a and b', that didn't magically lower the cost of said hardware for manufacturer, ie "/I/ /paid/ for it.". Your failure to advertise a /known capability/ of that card that is only off through imaginary limitations does not negate the ability of it to do it, nor should I have to pay for it.

      Another example. I want to buy an Audi. I was reading a brochure on it. It tells me that the car is capable of 151mph. It has an asterisk saying "* electronically limited to 130mph in US and Canada". Now, I'm not sure on the inherent legality thereof, but you can bet if I wanted to remove that limiter and took it to my Audi dealer to do so, and they wanted to charge me anything /beyond/ the labor for removing said limiter, I'd be mad as hell.

      Now, you might point to that 'labor' word and say "well, there /is/ labor, and that's what you're being charged for"... I don't buy that. You'd better believe that that wireless card was supplied with a skeletal driver for (a?)/b/g/n, not (a?)/b/g only.

      Apple just found a way to double charge you for the same thing, and apologists like you are defending them.

      Say ATI sells you a new PCIe card. You know through various channels that this card is PCIe. But guess what, it only runs at PCI speeds, and guess what, "$5 gets you the 'upgrade' to use PCIe" - people, here on Slashdot and elsewhere would be screaming bloody murder, diseminating this patch left right and center, and wailing the house down, and you know they would (and rightly so) - but here's yet another free pass for Apple from the "loyal following".

    14. Re:Don't tell Microsoft! by h2g2bob · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey, I'd not pay some money to not have that feature

    15. Re:Don't tell Microsoft! by StrongAxe · · Score: 4, Informative

      When I was in high school, we had an IBM 1130 system. We had a slow line printer. IBM sold two different versions of that printer - a slow one, and a fast one. The fast one cost several thousand dollars more. The difference? one jumper (which, if you switched manually, you voided the warranty).

      Often, manufacturers will sell a range of products, and it's cheaper for them to sell artificially castrated versions of the expensive versions as cheap ones, rather than manufacturing a cheaper product separately.

      If you pay for a cheap unit and they give you an expensive one with the additional features disabled instead, you have no cause to whine about it being disabled, since you didn't pay for it - you got it for free.

    16. Re:Don't tell Microsoft! by Ucklak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That feature has nothing to do with the hardware. Only how the data is handled after the hardware.

      If EAP-FAST wireless authentication added FM tuning, then that is an additional feature.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    17. Re:Don't tell Microsoft! by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Going from memory, the network card is Broadcom, or such, yes?

      I'm a geek. I know what cards do what. I know that an Intel EtherExpress Pro card ran at 10 and 100mbps. That a seller might say "Intel EtherExpress Pro network card, 10mbps networking" is up to them. I am not required to subsidize the fact that they /understated/ the abilities of the hardware. I know the card does this, I made my value judgment on the cost of the computer based on that, and then ran into, through false limitation alone, this underutilization of my hardware. That it was advertised as such is no Get Out Of Jail free. I arbit the value of a product by its contents, not by the marketing budget and accuracy thereof.

    18. Re:Don't tell Microsoft! by gbulmash · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Reminds me of cell phones. It's depressing reading review after review that says the manufacturer put 85 capabilities in a phone, then the phone company that sold it to you has had half of them crippled or shut off entirely in the firmware.

      --
      Start a happiness pandemic
    19. Re:Don't tell Microsoft! by MrMarket · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "If you pay for a cheap unit and they give you an expensive one with the additional features disabled instead, you have no cause to whine about it being disabled, since you didn't pay for it - you got it for free." That's not the point. Apple is pointing to SOX -- saying they MUST charge more. We're saying that rationale is bullocks, and they should just admit that this is a strategy to increase margins.

  2. bs by joesao · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This explanation doesn't hold water -- then why don't they charge for software updates, and why not charge $1.99, or $0.99, or even $0.01, instead?

    1. Re:bs by RFaulder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That seems to make mroe sense, a 99 update over te iTunes network would be simple enough.

    2. Re:bs by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 4, Funny

      I love when people lie and claim you have to pay "every year" even though new versions of OS X come out about every 2 to 3 years. Kudos for silently jacking up the price to $150 as well.

      I seriously doubt you ever used a Mac or quit using it because of that.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    3. Re:bs by Behlal · · Score: 2, Informative
      I love when people lie and claim you have to pay "every year" even though new versions of OS X come out about every 2 to 3 years. Kudos for silently jacking up the price to $150 as well.
      Erm, you aren't exactly 100% correct yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_X. Forgetting 10.0->10.1 because it was a free update, they have released updates pretty much yearly since then. The major exception is Jaguar, which will have had almost two years (though, Tiger was moved forwards, so was less than a year after Panther). The current cost of the OS is $129 (and if wikipedia is right, has been since at least 10.1). So 2-3 years is pretty far off the mark. P.S. I like active development of my software/OS and am very happy with my MBP.
    4. Re:bs by mollymoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      10.1 hasn't been updated since 2002-06-21. 10.2 hasn't been updated since 2004-12-04. With the release of 10.5, 10.3 will cease being updated. Now, it's not like your Mac is likely to get pwned without being patched every month or two, as is the case with 4-year-old copies of Windows, so updates aren't as critical to simply keep your system going. But the fact is if they find a new hole in 10.1 or 10.2 tomorrow, they aren't going to fix it. It remains to be seen if this policy will continue if security holes in Macs actually start getting exploited in the wild, but for the time being Apple really do have extremely short product lifecycles. The lack of product activation (there isn't even a license key, let alone all the bullshit you get with XP) mitigates this a bit if you don't mind a bit of piracy, and family pack licenses mitiagate it if you have multiple Macs, but it still sucks. Me? I take "family pack" literally, so I updated my iBook from my brother's purchased Tiger family pack disks. If they wanted to make it clear it was for a single households, they should have called it a "household pack" :)

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    5. Re:bs by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Love it. You point out that the longest of several iterations is "nearly two years" (emphasis mine), and then chastise the GP for having the gall to call out the GGP's claim that all of the OS X iterations have been "two to three years".

  3. Finally! by Protonk · · Score: 5, Funny
    NOW Apple pays attention to accounting laws!

    :)

  4. mmm.. boooze.... by jythie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sounds like someone had way to much to drink before going live.

    Either that or someone high up in apple is really jumpy right now and it playing it safe to insane degrees.

    1. Re:mmm.. boooze.... by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Either that or someone high up in apple is really jumpy right now and it playing it safe to insane degrees.

      After the stock options issue, you bet that they are being over cautious. Now whether they are interpreting the law correctly, is another matter.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    2. Re:mmm.. boooze.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd be willing to bet that they're deliberately misinterpreting the law. They won't be the only ones, many companies have very publicly complained about how terrible sarbox is and how they are bleeding money just trying to audit where their money is bleeding to, and many of those are clearly performing what amounts to theatrics. (Compare making ridiculous statements such as "sarbox bans us from ever giving foo away for free" to a law requiring all non-folding knives over 5 inches in length to be "sheathed" in public, with people protesting by jabbing their knives into their legs and wailing about how the terrible, terrible law forces them to sheathe their knives in their legs.)

      No different from all the companies who canceled or froze their pension plans after the pension protection act last year. Apparently asking corporations to honor their contractual promises or be liable for the results if they did not take certain steps to help ensure that the pension they're promising can be paid is just so very terrible. Naturally, they're calling for the act to be repealed so they can go back to offering pensions they obviously have no intention of honoring.

  5. Wow by Umbral+Blot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Either a) anyone who offers a patch that fixes a bug or adds a feature and doesn't charge for it (which happens all the time, for example: windows update) is breaking the law or b) Apple is delusional / wanted an excuse to charge you more money.

    I know which one I believe.

    --

    Philosophy.
    1. Re:Wow by steve_bryan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about (c) You are incapable or unwilling to actually read an article before typing your uninformed opinion. The change due to Sarbanes Oxley only applies to new features, not bug fixes. Now you may return to anguished seething about how much you hate Apple and Steve Jobs.

    2. Re:Wow by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Informative

      PowerToys is considered a beta offering. Microsoft will not support it and thus is not a product. From the page:

      We take great care to ensure that PowerToys work as they should, but they are not part of Windows and are not supported by Microsoft. For this reason, Microsoft Technical Support is unable to answer questions about PowerToys. PowerToys are for Windows XP only.
      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Wow by steve_bryan · · Score: 2, Informative

      I suspect Apple is just spreading the pain resulting from Sarbanes-Oxley and as time passes others, probably including Microsoft, will be forced to a similar position. At this point the idea that Apple has to "eek out a profit" is comical. Take a look at the financial numbers for Apple to see how silly that comment is. There are reasons why their stock price is at its highest level ever.

    4. Re:Wow by Trillan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, Microsoft can't possibly argue that PowerToys don't add new features. But PowerToys is not hardware, and it has been out longer than the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

      Apple doesn't need a few hundred people spending $4.95 to be profitable. I think they're on to something here in their interpretation of the law, unfortunately. I'm not a lawyer, but you can bet Apple had their lawyers look at it.

    5. Re:Wow by weg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, SOX doesn't apply in Europe, and I can't find such a product in the European stores.. does that mean that they won't charge the fee over here?

      --
      Georg
    6. Re:Wow by mr_matticus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's NOT a simple upgrade to a driver. It adds an entirely new function to the device on a new protocol not interoperable with other equipment. Enabling it is a simple firmware update, but it is a material change to a shipping product.

      It's not about free patches being illegal, it's about Apple not reporting its hardware properly. You can't make a substantive, material change. From the perspective of government oversight, the products Apple has been shipping did NOT have n-capable hardware. Now they do, but you can't go back and re-file the paperwork. You have to report the upgrade in accounting filings, and you can't report something in your accounting files that doesn't cost anything. With the company being under investigation for its accounting practices, it's best not to take any risks at all while under the probe.

      If federal regulators respond to the story and say "Apple can ship this update for free without worrying about legal implications" you can bet your ass that the $4.99 fee will be dropped. Like they want to deal with handling a bunch of $5 transactions and shipping out physical CDs instead of pushing a software update.

    7. Re:Wow by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 4, Funny

      How much do you want to bet that Apple Legal said "Yep, you can go ahead and release this patch for free." and then when Apple looked at the bill from Legal for this advice, decided that they needed to charge $5/download just to cover the consultation fees.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    8. Re:Wow by steve_bryan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      they needed to charge $5/download just to cover the consultation fees

      You probably meant this to be a humorous comment. On the off chance you were serious it should be pointed out that Apple is a large multinational company and as such they have an entire legal department. They are paid a salary, not consulting fees. Ocassionally they may be given a biscuit for a particularly nice trick.

  6. Doesn't Make Sense to Me by Cap'nPedro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So why does it cost $4.99 for a feature which tas taken very little work to implement?

    OK, so it's fair that they're charging for it - if you believe their excuse, but why not $0.99 or $1?

    1. Re:Doesn't Make Sense to Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Prolly because Apple users don't feel right (ie superior) if they don't pay 200% or more markup on something...

      -Ac

    2. Re:Doesn't Make Sense to Me by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I had the same thought when I heard the pricing on the iPhone and Apple TV.

    3. Re:Doesn't Make Sense to Me by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think they realize that very few people are probably interested in 802.11n, because few have equipment to work with it. In any case, this functionality will almost certainly be included in the next major OS upgrade, so the market for this patch is a very small minority of Mac users, who aren't that huge a market to start off with. I think that's why it's not cheaper (like $1 or $0.01, as others have suggested). It's probably only going to be a few thousand copies that they move anyway, before the next big OS upgrade.

      This whole thing looks more to me like Apple being "once bitten, twice shy" with regards to things that might possibly interest the FTC, rather than any big conspiracy.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    4. Re:Doesn't Make Sense to Me by soft_guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know what doesn't make sense to ME? It is that everyone on Slashdot seems to be assuming that this is real when in fact it comes from some guy's blog and he's reporting it as something that someone said on the floor at MacWorld.

      I think I'll wait until Apple actually announces this before I even think about reacting to it one way or the other.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  7. Well understood by Space+cowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful


    I thought this was common knowledge - I've been arguing that the effects of Sarbanes-Oxley are detrimental for some time now.

    The major problem is that it invites software companies (I'm not making any accusations here) to put out shoddy software, full of bugs and not-ready-for-primetime features, giving themselves the option to *not* charge for upgrades later, perhaps for business-reasons. Bugfixes, you see, are not subject to the S-O ruling. This is not the way I'd like to see the s/w industry go...

    Simon.

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:Well understood by mandelbr0t · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In the words of a SOX-IS Project Manager I once worked with, "Incompetence is an excuse." That certainly doesn't inspire any confidence in me that SOX-IS controls actually do anything useful.

      mandelbr0t

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    2. Re:Well understood by Bogus-Blogus · · Score: 2, Informative
      As someone who sells for a software vendor, I concur on the detrimental effects Sarbox compliance. Sarbox has added levels of complexity to the revenue recognition process that shouldn't be there. It is driving up our cost of sales and making a lot of busy work for lawyers, accountants and auditors.

      Forget whether $4.99 is a fair price. The important issue is whether Apple's explanation is really true, i.e. that they have to charge for it.

      Their spin almost fits -- if you sell a product and then later materially change the product you sold such that the first release would be considered not a product, then you have revenue recognition issues. You might have to re-book the deal because you sold something that did not yet exist.

      In this case, I see this as a new feature to an existing product. New features that don't re-define the product aren't going to cause a Sarbox issue.

      From the sales perspective, if someone says "Sarbox issue", you should be skeptical. Usually "Sarbox issue" means "I'm too lazy to figure out how to get this to market without causing any revenue recognition issues. And I might see some money in it too."

  8. the obvious fix by fishdan · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Is for Apple to leak to a blogger a way to unlock the "feature"...

    Oh, wait....

    --
    Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
  9. And who's going to believe that? by OpenSourced · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's about the most lame excuse I've ever heard. What's with Microsoft updates? They also "complete" the product. What about free updates of all kind?

    And even if they believe their own propaganda, why don't charge one dollar, or even one cent? The accounting principle wouldn't be broken.

    --
    Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
  10. NVIDIA has done this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you have a GeForce/Quadro, it is called 'NVIDIA PureVideo Decoder'.

  11. Re:So does the law require them to charge $4.99? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Has to be at least $1.00. Probably costs 'em several dollars to handle the dollar...

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  12. Re:So does the law require them to charge $4.99? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow, they're taking a huge loss on this whole iTMS thing aren't they?

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!
  13. Upselling features (scum marketing) by gd23ka · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Microsoft started it with their "Vista" XP-successor where you can
    "upgrade" to "Premium" or "Ultimate" versions with your credit card,
    how long before Apple turns around and says

    "I see you are trying to use your bluetooth adapter. For a one-time use
    feature please authorize a $2.99 charge to your credit card. If you want to
    use this feature for longer periods of time the following plans are
    available: 2 weeks of operation $8.99, 4 weeks of operation $14.99.
    Time limited options extend automatically with recurring charges to your
    credit card. Unlimited feature activation $49.99 one time charge."

  14. Link Please... by nonsequitor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can someone please post the link to where I buy the unlocking software? After spending $3K on my C2D MacBook Pro, you really think I care about paying another $5?

    Sure it could have been a penny, but that may have been construed as trying to sell the feature for less than market value. I'm not an accountant, but I know that you can get in trouble for stock options granted at less than estimated market value for a private (unlisted) company, therefore you have the pick the lowest number that can be seen as a reasonable value. I was lucky to get my shares at $0.02 a piece since when I was granted the options the startup company I started working at had yet to make their first sale. A year later they had to grant options at $0.50 and up.

    In all honesty $5 is cheap for a draft-N card. Consider the alternative of buying a PCMCIA Wireless N card and tell me its not a deal?

    1. Re:Link Please... by soft_guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right - there isn't a link because this isn't an official announcement from Apple. This is a rumor on some guy's blog that he heard from someone walking around on the floor at MacWorld.

      Also, even if you believe the "article", you could get the software patch for free by buying the new 802.11n Airport Extreme base station from Apple which in theory you would need anyway in order to use this.

      If you think about it for a second, this idea doesn't even make sense. How is it not just free software that they give in order for the router to work? Apple gives out lots of free software.

      This thing sounds like someone talking out of their ass. Possibly it is a fake rumor that someone at Apple planted to track down a leaker.

      Do you detect a note of skepticism in my post? It is because I don't believe a word of this.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  15. Origin of this whole problem by LunaticTippy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I worked at a place that abused accounting principles. They'd book revenue on hardware that hadn't shipped or even been made, software that wasn't installed or even sold yet, and move all kinds of valid and imaginary revenue from the vague future to the current quarter like crazy.

    I understand why we need laws about when you are supposed to book revenue because I've seen it abused. The whole house of cards collapses hard when growth slows. My job was lost when the dotcom bubble burst and they couldn't hide their baloney in triple digit growth any more. Same thing happened at many other companies.

    This seems like an innocent case, but I thought I'd point out there are other possibilities.

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!
    1. Re:Origin of this whole problem by Brickwall · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I worked at a place that abused accounting principles. They'd book revenue on hardware that hadn't shipped or even been made, software that wasn't installed or even sold yet, and move all kinds of valid and imaginary revenue from the vague future to the current quarter like crazy.

      Oh yeah baby! In the wild days of telecom in the late 80's, a company called Datapoint had a bonus structure based on revenue billed in the quarter. One group of sales managers booked millions of dollars of orders to "Joe Customer", "A. Warehouse", etc., in order to meet or beat their numbers. They collected hundreds of thousands in bonuses, and then quietly shipped the machines to real customers over the next quarter, at which point, they would start the whole game again.

      I'm not a Sarb-Ox expert, but the fines and possible jail sentences are bad enough that a company already under scrutiny over options pricing would be pretty careful to err on the side of caution.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
  16. Option (c) by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Insightful
    They might want to just take a poke at the act because it makes it hard to conduct business.

    This is actually a real problem. If you sell a product that has upgradable firmware then you need to only recognise revenue as you provide the service. For example let's say you sell a device for $1000 and provide free firmware upgrades for 1 year. You might structure this that the base product is worth $900 and the 12 months tech support is worth $100. You then recognise the revenue as $900 at time of sale and $100/12 per month.

    For a product that has free firmware upgrades "forever", you might introduce some reasonable lifetime (like 3 years), perhaps the typical depreciation period for the product.

    Now Apple beancounters fucked up. They recognised all revenue immediately. They should have really defered some of the revenue recognition but they wanted to look all shiny for Wall Street (Enron, on a smaller scale). By chraging for this upgrade they're probably hoping to create a loop hole.

    Needless to say, MS most likely just moons the act and does not care any more than they care about the DOJ nailing them with anti-trust.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Option (c) by bluephone · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But would this still apply if you never promise to upgrade it? TFA says that the clarification from Apple is that they may be accused of selling unfinished products, and recognizing revenue from those unfinished products too early (which is retarded IMO, but then I'm not an accountant). If they never come out and state they WILL offer new features, but DO later with these firmware updates, could they not then claim the product was finished, but these were free bonus features? They can justly state that consumers bought the product as sold with no promises of future expansions, thus the customer wasn't buying some potentially unfulfilled future promise (which, IIRC was the point of anti-Enron laws, to keep companies from spending now money that had to be used to fulfill their obligations).

      Similarly, what if: with the products there's a disclaimer that Apple makes no guarantees that there will be future product enhancements, only bug fixes for the declared product lifespan (like MS does with Windows support lifetime declarations), and that any future product enhancement that MAY exist MAY OR MAY NOT be offered for free to existing users of this product.

      This is where we get asinine workarounds just to comply with poorly drafted and overly expansive laws that are crafted too quickly and reach too far. This is why accounting, and law in general, is so byzantine needed the existence of entire cadres of lawyerbots just to navigate the waters...

      --
      jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
  17. That's the SEC by toonerh · · Score: 4, Informative

    Even before Sarbanes-Oxley (e.g. in the mid-1990's) ethical, conservative CFO's [admitted a rare breed] were very careful about "recognizing revenue" for a product when a newer or better version was in the works. Our "head up the ass" Congress passed Sarbanes-Oxley and now companies have hire many more lawyers to cover their asses. Lots of companies in Apple's situation would simply do NOTHING - no charge, no upgrade: WYSIWYG hardware. Is that in the consumer's best interest? I think not!

  18. Oh, poo on that... by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here's how Apple can get around SOX: Put the update on their site, list it as BETA, let anyone register to be a "Beta Tester" for the application, they have to agree that this is a Beta, and you have to uninstall the product when the final implimentation comes out...kind of like what MS does...then let people have the file. Or they can charge you $4.99 for it, but give you a special once-only keycode that's worth $4.99 off any purchase. Result: a wash, accounting-wise. No odd accounting practices, no shuffling of cards, just people getting the app.
     
    It's funny how BIOS updates and other drivers aren't seemingly worried about SOX...or how Microsoft Update isn't either...

    1. Re:Oh, poo on that... by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      '' Here's how Apple can get around SOX: Put the update on their site, list it as BETA, let anyone register to be a "Beta Tester" for the application, ... ''

      I could imagine that Sarbanes-Oxley is very sensitive about any attempts to get around it.

  19. To be fair... by SnowDog74 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    802.11n was never advertised openly and originally as part of the capabilities of the products in question. For that matter, Quicktime Pro's feature sets are not advertised as part of standard Quicktime... but you don't see anyone complaining that users have to pay a license fee to unlock the Quicktime Pro bundle of features that already exist on your Mac in a disabled state.

    For that matter, the same can be said of many different types of software. If you get a digital converter box from your cable company, by virtue of having the box you aren't granted access to every channel the box can theoretically decode.

  20. Re:Well understood-Give Me A Break by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Funny
    I thought this was common knowledge - I've been arguing that the effects of Sarbanes-Oxley are detrimental for some time now.

    Give me a break. Who among the Slashdot readers besides the .01% group you obviously belong to finds anything common knowledge about Sarbanes-Oxley?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  21. Apple Isn't Charging, Blaming Anything by eggboard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please note that while iLounge's article is interesting, it's based on two unnamed Apple representatives, quoted without their position at the company being mentioned. This is fine, but let's not take this as an official Apple position or statement. I'm a regular print and online journalist, so I asked Apple about the $5 charge. They said they don't comment on rumors and speculation, and repeated that the updater would be available on the CD with the new AirPort Extreme update that will ship in February. To me, that's like saying, "hint, hint." The CD will have an unlocked updater that can be used with any compatible Core 2 Duo or Xeon Macintosh. Thus, Apple may or may not have a Sarbanes-Oxley issue (stranger things have happened), and they may or may not charge $5 for the updater. Nonetheless, an unlocked "enabler" application will be in the hands of thousands of early purchasers (like myself). I've written more about this on my Wi-Fi blog in a post about why I think the $5 charge is unlikely, but unnecessary for anyone to pay even if it's attempted to be levied.

    --
    Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
  22. I, for one by KitsuneSoftware · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't care in the slighest either way. On the one hand, $4.99 is literally and figuratively peanuts (about what I earn in 12 minutes, or a massive half hour if I were on national minimum wage); and on the other, even low-speed WiFi is still faster than my high-speed internet connection.

    I don't care about upgrading, but if I did, their price is lower than the cost of my time to find a trustworthy 3rd party.

  23. IAACPA - I Am A CPA by Steve+Hamlin · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's amazing what gets 'blamed' on Sarbanes-Oxley. And most of the time, completely off base. While there is surely some money-grubbing from Apple, this is probably nothing more than Apple making a conservative decision to apply existing accounting policy more stringently. The previous poster here gets it right.

    I am a forensic accountant - I do large corporate financial investigations, which involve accounting analysis and numerous interviews of management.

    And I can't tell you how many times I've heard people in companies, when asked about $FOO, say "we had to do this because of SOX". Most of the time, they couldn't tell you what SOX is, or why that is the cause of $FOO.

    SOX has turned into the Boogeyman, the shadow lurking in the background of any financial discussion. Unknown reason? SOX made us!

    At its simplest, SOX requires that companies document what they do and how they do it. "404" is just a requirement that companies have a complete set of working documents describing accounting processes and the controls around those processes, and that they have actually tested to see that the processes and controls work properly.

    Along with 404, SOX also heightened the burden on the financial accounting groups. Now CEOs and CFOs sign statements in quaterly and annual SEC filings, under penalties of civil and criminal law, that certify that they are "responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls", including upward reporting from subordinates and subsidiaries, and that the controls have been tested and reported on in the filing.

    As a result, corporate accounting departments have tightened up, More documentation of different types of accounting processes mean that existing, latent accounting issues are being surfaced and addressed. More conservative usually, in the sense that one does not 'push the envelope' of GAAP.

    This is not really 'SOX made us do it', but rather as result of the analysis that SOX calls for. Sematics, but an important difference, I think.

    Accounting Background - What is at work here?

    SOP 97-2 "Revenue Recognition for Software Products with Multiple Deliverables".

    SEC and AICPA: Revenue generally is realized or realizable and earned when all of the following criteria are met:
    - Persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists
    - Delivery has occured or services have been rendered
    - The seller's price to the buyer is fixed or determinable, and
    - Collectibility is reasonably assured

    So, Apple decided that at the time of the sale of the computer with 802.11n (but not yet functional), with no additional amounts due from the customer, that since Apple had not perfected delivery of the complete laptop with 802.11n, they had not finalized all terms of the delivery, and thus had not "earned" all of the revenue from that sale. This would cause them to 'defer' some portion of the revenue (a liability on the balance sheet) until the final piece of the sale (802.11n) was delivered to the customer.

    Under Apple's current policy, the computer is sold without 802.11n, delivery of this total package is complete when the customer receives the laptop, and Apple recognizes that entire sale as current revenue. Then a new $4.99 sales happens when the customer purchases the upgrade.

    See: NY Society of CPA's discussion of SOP 97-2.

    Now, there are certainly valid objections to the scope and scale of 404, but those are fairly focused on the size of companies that SOX should apply to, and how much testing the auditor should demand that they and the company do around 404.

    1. Re:IAACPA - I Am A CPA by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      that since Apple had not perfected delivery of the complete laptop with 802.11n, they had not finalized all terms of the delivery, and thus had not "earned" all of the revenue from that sale.

      Would there be any problem with Apple offering the upgrade for $5 and offering a $5 instant rebate?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  24. Credit card processing minimum charges? by Scareduck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wouldn't be surprised if the reason was that this is the minimal charge that credit card companies (one or more) will accept.

    --

    Dog is my co-pilot.

  25. Because software features aren't accounted for. by mr_matticus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Software products are advertised for their core functionality. They're intended to be fluid products, and accounting doesn't care what features are added or removed in software, as long as Photoshop stays an image editor and Dreamweaver stays a web content editor, the rules are met.

    Not the same with hardware. Any material change in the product has to be accounted for. If Apple already filed its disclosure statements indicating that its products had b/g wireless chipsets in it (which it would have), it can't go back and change that later and say "oops actually it's 802.11n." Doing so would be a "material misstatement" punishable by the PCAOB under Sarbanes-Oxley. By charging for the 'upgrade' they can file current accounting documents saying that the products were upgraded with new functionality.

    1. Re:Because software features aren't accounted for. by DRJlaw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not the same with hardware. Any material change in the product has to be accounted for. If Apple already filed its disclosure statements indicating that its products had b/g wireless chipsets in it (which it would have), it can't go back and change that later and say "oops actually it's 802.11n." Doing so would be a "material misstatement" punishable by the PCAOB under Sarbanes-Oxley.

      Your argument concerning material misstatements is self-contradictory. The original statement that it has a b/g wireless chipset is patently false, because it omits that the chipset is in fact draft-n hardware. The law has a long history of treating omissions as material misstatements.

      More importantly, I don't accept the premise of the argument. Not only have you failed to justify how software is different from hardware under SOX based on the law, you have failed to justify how a clearly upgradable binary object (a.k.a firmware) is hardware rather than software. The chipset did not change. The programmed functionality did.

      The upgrade mechanism does nothing to solve a rational argument concerning material misstatements. If you want to argue hardware, there was one. If you want to argue functionality, there wasn't one. Neither changes thanks to a firmware flash.

    2. Re:Because software features aren't accounted for. by eh2o · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Shouldn't they have disclosed that it contained latent n capability in the first place? I mean, even if it is disabled, it is still *there* and the job of accounting is to describe exactly what is there, not to mention keeping the paper trails consistent which must have already mentioned the n feature at some prior point.

      IMHO, they screwed up and are now using a technical loop-hole to avoid being fined for a material misstatement. Worse, they found a way to turn the loop-hole into profit. Even worse, they probably did it on purpose because it would have been an embarrassment when the mac-dorks discovered the hidden n functionality by reading the financial filings and some 15 year old hacker came out with a kernel patch to enable it before they did.

    3. Re:Because software features aren't accounted for. by mr_matticus · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was sold and marketed as a b/g wireless chipset; it was reported in accounting as a b/g wireless chipset. As far as the documents filed are concerned, it did NOT have the n-capability. Wireless-n did exist in the hardware, but it was activated and it wasn't ready. They were stuck with two subpar options: 1) file that the hardware was 802.11n capable and risk getting in trouble for not supporting advertised features or 2) not advertise the capability and deal with the upgrade later on. Obviously the latter garners less negative publicity.

      You have to look at filings from an accounting perspective to understand this. You report a software unit, and you report your individual component purchases (every screw, every ROM, every PCB). You don't report software features in accounting.

      From an accounting standpoint, the chipset DID change, even though the ability was physically present. 802.11n is a wholly new and non-interoperable feature. It's not a faster 802.11g card; it's not a software improvement. It's a different technology that requires compatible hardware and software to function. Don't overthink it and try to make a technical argument based on the fact that it's an evolutionary standard, because it's not. An 802.11g device will never work as an 802.11n device, nor will it work on an 802.11n network. It WILL work on a mixed-mode network, but that is not the same thing.

      The hardware capabilities did change as apparent to the device. It did not support a technology before, and now it does. Both hardware AND software are needed to make it work, and as far as reported to federal regulators, their products had neither. Adding this "new" physical functionality requires an upgrade not originally reported in their revenue disclosures.

    4. Re:Because software features aren't accounted for. by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Informative

      That makes no sense at all.

      Deferring the income would be selling it as a 802.11n device that will be turned on later.

      Magically converting a device that no one knew was 802.11n to 802.11n is not 'deferring' anyway, anymore than cars have 'deferred' upgrades when the car dealership randomly gives them a free cup holder at their 30,000 mile oil change.

      The law is designed to stop companies from selling things that don't exist yet, and accounting for them now, before they've actually made them. I.e, selling an empty lot and a contract to build a building on it counts as an empty lot now and a building when it's built, you can't count the building now.

      I don't know if that example is strictly true, but that's the theory going on, because companies would use silliness like this to disclose things whenever they were convenient, and sometimes they'd even plan to back out of said contracts in the first place, and do them entirely to make their balance sheet look good.

      I don't know what kind of crack Apple is on, or if this is just a scam, but no law requires anyone to charge for free, unadvertised upgrades, whether on hardware or software.

      Now, what this could have done is magically change the 'value' of their existing inventory, but paradoxically, only because they're charging for a feature. I.e, the value of their inventory that can upgrade to 802.11n are original value + (estimated percentage of people who will upgrade * $4.99). That might screw up their accounting, but they did that to themselves.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    5. Re:Because software features aren't accounted for. by mr_matticus · · Score: 4, Informative

      When Apple started shipping the components, the standard wasn't finished or available to be implemented. Had they announced 802.11n support and something had changed wrt the spec, they would have been completely battered and hung out to dry for not delivering on an advertised feature. By not disclosing the capability, they had absolutely nothing to lose. Keep in mind that they had NO obligation whatsoever to enable the n-mode on these machines, since it was never an advertised or reported feature.

      Exactly as you specified, the law prohibited Apple from marketing the devices as n-compliant, and it also prohibits them from retroactively restating its hardware. They can't go back and say, "oh by the way, the last 800,000 computers we shipped had different hardware than reported in our disclosures." They HAVE to treat material changes as product upgrades, and in order to include it in accounting filings, there has to be money involved. Yes, it is a very strict interpretation of the PCAOB rules, but keep in mind they're being investigated at this very moment for their accounting practices. Now's not the time to play fast and loose with the regulators.

      The law requires ACCURATE reporting of products and services, and expenditures therein. In order to revise an existing product, you must handle each as a new upgrade according to a strict interpretation; anything else represents a material misstatement, something which can come with heavy fines in the post-Enron age. If Intel shipped an update uncrippling its old Celerons to full-blown Pentiums, they'd be in the same boat--those products were sold as Celerons, not as Pentiums.

    6. Re:Because software features aren't accounted for. by mstone · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're confusing the physical capacities of the chips with the law.

      The law says 802.11g and 802.11n are different products. Moving from one to the other is a material change in your computer, and the law doesn't care whether you have to swap out hardware or just patch the firmware.

      When Apple sold the computer, it said the computer had 802.11g functionality. The fact that the chipset was capable of something else is irrelevant. Apple only had to be able to prove that the chips it used did in fact deliver the promised 802.11g functionality.

      If Apple had listed the machine as "802.11n-capable," the law would have required Apple to deliver 802.11n functionality at the time of sale.

      If Apple handed out the patch for free now, you'd have customers getting what the law considers to be a material change in the product at no cost, which comes reasonably close to what the law calls "selling unfinished products." A regulator would have grounds for saying that Apple charged customers for the 802.11n capacity at the time of sale, but didn't deliver that functionality until later.

      That's illegal. According to the law, a company is only allowed to receive money for functionality when it actually delivers that functionality.

      The fact that the law considers 802.11g to be a different product from 802.11n rules out a free upgrade, period. Either Apple delivers 802.11n at the time of sale, or it charges for an upgrade later. Those are its only options.

      By the same token, the price Apple charges for the upgrade has to represent a reasonable fee for the material change, as balanced against the actual cost to Apple of making the change. $4.99 is a lot less than it would cost to swap in new hardware, and it's low compared to the ticket price of most software. I'd imagine it just about covers the fees to the credit companies and Apple's internal processing costs, with a little left over to cover the cost of development.

      This is hardly going to be a cash cow, after all. The absolute number of people who can get this upgrade is relatively small, and all Apple's new machines are being sold as 802.11n-capable.

    7. Re:Because software features aren't accounted for. by mr_matticus · · Score: 2, Informative

      A new resolution isn't a new technology. So long as it had HD support, it is reasonably expected that it should perform to the hardware limits. The only difference separating 720p and 1080p is the number of pixels. Think of it this way: 1080p doesn't require any different hardware than 720p--it just requires sufficiently capable hardware to push the extra pixels, which the 360 has had from the beginning. If the XBox were a consumer electronics device that didn't support HD at all, then the introduction of high-resolution HD support would be problematic in the same way.

    8. Re:Because software features aren't accounted for. by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Agreing with Mr Matticus here - the hardware you bought hasnt changed, in a material way. 802.11n is materially different to g, however 1080p is not to 720p - the latter can be run on the same hardware, as the 360 demonstrates!

      Companies have to tread VERY carefully with SOX; the rules allow us auditors very little room to interpret anymore, which is causing problems, so coupled with the investigation they are currently under they will be being VERY careful about this!

      As for the $5 price - that will be presuambly a fair value appraisal. You generally can't give things away (say if theyd only charged $0.01) unless you want to incur tax liabilities yourself!

  26. Weak Excuse by jay2003 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apple was not obligated to provide updates to 802.11N so there is no revenue recognition issue. Everyone who bought the machine bought it under specs that said 802.11g. If Apple had claimed at the time the machines were sold that 802.11N would be enabled at a future date, then there would be an issue. Additionally, under this interpretation of SOX, Apple would have to hold back money on every sale of every piece of hardware as deferred revenue to pay for patches. Since Apple would already be holding back revenue as deferred revenue in case it needed to patch the drivers for security hole, it simply could used that money rather than charging users more. I think this SOX excuse is a smoke screen to justify grabbing an extra $5.

  27. Re:Sarbanes Oxley by aczisny · · Score: 2, Informative
    Enron got in to trouble because they were booking sales on unshipped product. THe wayapple is looking at this put in enron accounting terms would look something like this. 1) holding company owned by enron agrees to buy 10 barrels of oil from enron. 2) enron books the sale even though they just paid themsleves 3) but they don't book the liability because they just deliver 9 barrels of oil and defer delivery of the tenth to a later date. Here apple is scared that they will get flagged for booking the sale of an incomplete product. I don't really see how this applies but I can see why they are paranoid.

    That sounds exactly like what has happened to apple, except in reverse. Apple advertised a product with some set of features x. But now it turns out they really shipped x+1 and just turned it off in software. I'm not sure of any way to squint at Apple's promotional materials from when these products were sold and somehow think people got less than what they were promised, which is where you would have a problem with Sarbanes/Oxley. It's much closer to say, a baker being in violation of S/O because you ordered a dozen donuts and he gave you thirteen (the proverbial baker's dozen). And what about other hardware companies? If turning things on after selling a product is illegal, HP in the story above this (about having VT turned off and now they're releasing a new bios to enable it) would be violating S/O and I can't imagine their lawyers haven't given this just as much thought as Apple's. This charging five bucks so as not to be in violation of S/O seems to be pretty far fetched to me.

    --
    Now, landing thrusters.. landing thrusters, hmm. Now if I were a landing thruster, which one of these would I be?
  28. Its about shareholders, not customers by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Sarbanes-Oxley is primarily there to protect the shareholders from companies not disclosing that they still owe their customers something (which is a debt against the payment you have received).

    Apple are trying to cover their tracks. If some shareholders want to hound Apple at some point for some less-than-stellar performance on Wall St, they could easily bring up the fact that Apple recognised this revenue too early and thus brough the profits forward a few quarters (meaning that profit that should have happened a few quarters later did not show up). If you had just bought Apple's shares you might have reason to be pissed.

    While the accounting is a drag, it is not that huge a deal. It only takes a few minutes to figure out a revenue realisation policy that you will use for a particular product. The real issue though is that many companies sell unfinished products and want to recognise revenue immediately. This makes for poor products and engineering: "Just ship it to get revenue this quarter. We'll fix it next quarter". Sarbanes-Oxley counters this which is good for product development.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  29. What about Xbox? by Corngood · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How is this different from Microsoft adding 1080p support to the 360 (for free)?

    1. Re:What about Xbox? by Herby+Sagues · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is VERY different. Microsoft is baaad. Apple is gooood.

    2. Re:What about Xbox? by Shifuimam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, you're basically pointing out that Apple is able to scam more money out of their cultist followers by, instead of announcing upcoming features, hiding them from the public until another MacWorld conference or other event. Since they like to make such a big brouhaha over new features, they hide them, then release them, then charge their customers for the new features on existing, already-purchased hardware.

      That's not unethical at all.

      Is Apple going to be raising the prices of ALL their airport-extreme hardware an extra $5 or $10 to compensate for the N capability in newly shipped machines?

      --
      I'm a geek girl. Seriously.
  30. Come on.. by yoyhed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Firstly, anyone owning a Core 2 Duo Mac (that paid for it themself) is not going to have trouble paying an extra $4.99 to enable state-of-the-art wireless technology. Hell, even someone with a minimum-wage job who got it as a gift could shell that out.

    Secondly, everyone's stance on this seems to be "extortion for extra profit". Please. Their reason sounds legitimate to me, but let's look at what Apple even has to gain from this:

    Currently, over 50 million people own an Apple product (I'm getting this from a quick Google search, and all the following numbers are just arbitrary guesses to prove my point). Let's say half of those are iPods. And of the 25 million computers, how many are the new Core 2 Duo mac? Let's say 1 million (that's being generous, I'm sure, as this is a higher-end model, correct?). And how many of the owners of these are going to need (or want) 802.11n? Let's say half. So 500,000 people at $5 a pop, 2.5 million dollars.

    And Apple is what, a multi-billion dollar company? Does everyone here really think they'd do something to upset their customers like this over 2.5 million dollars? I don't think so. They could simply raise the price of every computer $5 for the same effect, with less backlash.

    I realize these numbers are incredibly rough estimates, but my point is there's no way they're making enough money off this (with the bad press and all) for it to be some evil for-profit extortion.

    --
    WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
  31. Re:Were you sold something you didn't get? by SeaFox · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I'm complaining because (assuming the story is accurate) it isn't Apple's decision.

    The story is not accurate, at least in the sense that Apple's excuse is a valid one. The only way this could be considered "a feature of the product that was not delivered until a later time" would be if the laptops were advertised as having this feature to begin with, which they weren't. Nobody was sold these by Apple with the idea that 802.11n support would be forthcoming. Apple is just trying to deflect complainers.

    Given that all 802.11n setups are draft and proprietary at this time, the only way this card is going to be officially supported by Apple is if you're using one of the soon-to-be-released new Apple Airport Extreme base stations, which comes with the patch. So this paid update will only be useful to people who plan to get onto an Apple router but didn't buy it. And if you're in the position to get onto the router, you probably know the owner and can just get the patch from them. I somehow doubt they are going to be tracking these like Excel licenses.