Feelings on Paid iOS Updates

[Mliii]

No, there's no legal grounds to stand on for charging for OS upgrades. That's just purely Apple greed.

Look at the PSP and all the updates it got, for example. All for free.

That's not accurate. There was a GAAP determination that required them to do it for accounting purposes. I don't have the specifics in front of me now, but if I recall correctly there have been modifications made to the various revenue rules that no longer make that a requirement. Prior to this, Apple did freely distribute their x.xx updates.

Here is an article that appeared in MacWorld, but I don't have the Revenue Ruling handy.
http://www.macworld.com/article/131991/2008/02/ipodtouch.html

 

[mike5411]

That's not accurate. There was a GAAP determination that required them to do it for accounting purposes. I don't have the specifics in front of me now, but if I recall correctly there have been modifications made to the various revenue rules that no longer make that a requirement. Prior to this, Apple did freely distribute their x.xx updates.

Here is an article that appeared in MacWorld, but I don't have the Revenue Ruling handy.
http://www.macworld.com/article/131991/2008/02/ipodtouch.html

they had to charge due to a rule with SOX (sarbanes oxley) but the FASB changed the rules so they no longer HAVE to charge. This is also the reason why a long time ago apple charged like 1.99 for the n update for older macbooks. it was an accounting rule that has now changed.

 

[mKTank]

That's not accurate. There was a GAAP determination that required them to do it for accounting purposes. I don't have the specifics in front of me now, but if I recall correctly there have been modifications made to the various revenue rules that no longer make that a requirement. Prior to this, Apple did freely distribute their x.xx updates.

Here is an article that appeared in MacWorld, but I don't have the Revenue Ruling handy.
http://www.macworld.com/article/131991/2008/02/ipodtouch.html

Hm, I stand corrected. Still confuses me why Sony was 'able' to distribute countless PSP updates freely though.

 

[chocboy]

Well, you have to kind of wonder what would justify a paid update. If it's something of a breakthrough- like 3.0 making the iPhone completely independent to download apps, songs, and more importantly, videos, on its own, then that's something I'd pay for. But even 4.0 is something of an eye candy teaser. Basically saying, "don't jailbreak for the background and wifi when asleep and multitasking- we'll give it to you".

 

[Night Spring]

Hm, I stand corrected. Still confuses me why Sony was 'able' to distribute countless PSP updates freely though.

The same way Apple was able to update iPhones for free, while "having" to charge for iPod touch. Some kind of difference in how they accounted for sales of iPhone vs iPods, not that I understand any of it.

 

[coochiekuta]

hell if i were in their shoes i would charge. people already proved they will pay so why not? they charge for os updates that arent leaps and bounds so why not for mobile os?

more money in their pocket is the most important thing to them.

 

[i3igsmooth5769]

dont see why they'd start now....would show some major greediness on their part.

 

[foxnews1]

it is also up to Android pressure. if google keeps pumping out new features for free. apple has to keep up and these features are no longer considered "new" but rather being equal footing with android.