Is there even any subscription service that would work with a mac and an ipod?
None that I know of. Most of the subscription services require "plays for sure" devices, which Apple will absolutely never make work with iPods. Then there's the Zune marketplace, which is some other DRM type that works only with Zune devices.
Is there even any subscription service that would work with a mac and an ipod?
None that I know of. Most of the subscription services require "plays for sure" devices, which Apple will absolutely never make work with iPods. Then there's the Zune marketplace, which is some other DRM type that works only with Zune devices.
The closest thing is Spotify, which is bit like Last.fm. It just had an Ipod/iphone app released.
Apple's pretty famous for using subscription accounting for the iPhone and Apple TV as a way to bend the rules and offer free software updates after purchase -- basically, instead of putting all the money from the sale on the books at once, the company's accountants spread the revenue out over two years, extending the "transaction" to cover upgrades. That's great for iPhone owners, but it's not so great for Apple or its investors, since the company's stock price doesn't always reflect the true amount of iPhone money coming in -- in fact, Apple earnings reports now include a second, unofficial balance sheet that does away with subscription accounting to show off the real numbers. Yeah, it's confusing, but it might finally be about to change, since the Financial Accounting Standards Board just tentatively approved new rules that could allow Apple to do away with subscription accounting and still deliver free updates. That means Apple's quarterly earnings will now feature much larger official revenue and profit figures -- last quarter's official revenue was $8.34 billion, while the unofficial number was $9.74 billion -- the lawyers and accountants will be happy, and we'll still get free iPhone updates. Good deal all around -- except for iPod touch owners, who will still have to pay $9.95 and not get a camera.
So essentially they now can account for iPhone sales all at once instead of subscription, but can still offer free updates. But doubtful that they will extend such courtesy to Touch owners.
ArcSyn on
0
Options
Big Red Tiebeautiful clydesdale style feettoo hot to trotRegistered Userregular
Most of what gets me to buy a song is hearing it in full on internet radio, Pandora, or something of the sort.
i don't see why people feel the need for itunes to be where you both find and purchase music when you can find music on the internet, and download it in itunes
Most of what gets me to buy a song is hearing it in full on internet radio, Pandora, or something of the sort.
i don't see why people feel the need for itunes to be where you both find and purchase music when you can find music on the internet, and download it in itunes
It's not a dealbreaker, but it's always nicer when everything's in one place (particularly when there are many different versions of a song).
Most of what gets me to buy a song is hearing it in full on internet radio, Pandora, or something of the sort.
i don't see why people feel the need for itunes to be where you both find and purchase music when you can find music on the internet, and download it in itunes
Well, for one because I can't listen to Pandora while doing other stuff on the iPhone (grr), and constantly using the network on my portable is a bit of a battery drainer.
Living in the city and walking all the damn time, I really do appreciate the concept of being able to trial a damn near infinite amount of music while mobile. That's what makes the Zune Pass so ace.
So ace, in fact, that if MS made a zPhone w/ exchange support and a mac client, I would jump ship in a heartbeat, but since I don't see that happening any time soon... I guess I just want Apple to make a subscription service.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Apple's pretty famous for using subscription accounting for the iPhone and Apple TV as a way to bend the rules and offer free software updates after purchase -- basically, instead of putting all the money from the sale on the books at once, the company's accountants spread the revenue out over two years, extending the "transaction" to cover upgrades. That's great for iPhone owners, but it's not so great for Apple or its investors, since the company's stock price doesn't always reflect the true amount of iPhone money coming in -- in fact, Apple earnings reports now include a second, unofficial balance sheet that does away with subscription accounting to show off the real numbers. Yeah, it's confusing, but it might finally be about to change, since the Financial Accounting Standards Board just tentatively approved new rules that could allow Apple to do away with subscription accounting and still deliver free updates. That means Apple's quarterly earnings will now feature much larger official revenue and profit figures -- last quarter's official revenue was $8.34 billion, while the unofficial number was $9.74 billion -- the lawyers and accountants will be happy, and we'll still get free iPhone updates. Good deal all around -- except for iPod touch owners, who will still have to pay $9.95 and not get a camera.
So essentially they now can account for iPhone sales all at once instead of subscription, but can still offer free updates. But doubtful that they will extend such courtesy to Touch owners.
As an accounting student, specializing in the area of compliance with government regulation, I can tell you that they never had ANY justification in the first place. There's no government regulation that would force them to charge for the updates. I've run their argument by a bunch of actual accountants as well, who have all said that it is preposterous.
And if you want more proof, just look at all of the other devices that offer free updates all the time.
Apple's pretty famous for using subscription accounting for the iPhone and Apple TV as a way to bend the rules and offer free software updates after purchase -- basically, instead of putting all the money from the sale on the books at once, the company's accountants spread the revenue out over two years, extending the "transaction" to cover upgrades. That's great for iPhone owners, but it's not so great for Apple or its investors, since the company's stock price doesn't always reflect the true amount of iPhone money coming in -- in fact, Apple earnings reports now include a second, unofficial balance sheet that does away with subscription accounting to show off the real numbers. Yeah, it's confusing, but it might finally be about to change, since the Financial Accounting Standards Board just tentatively approved new rules that could allow Apple to do away with subscription accounting and still deliver free updates. That means Apple's quarterly earnings will now feature much larger official revenue and profit figures -- last quarter's official revenue was $8.34 billion, while the unofficial number was $9.74 billion -- the lawyers and accountants will be happy, and we'll still get free iPhone updates. Good deal all around -- except for iPod touch owners, who will still have to pay $9.95 and not get a camera.
So essentially they now can account for iPhone sales all at once instead of subscription, but can still offer free updates. But doubtful that they will extend such courtesy to Touch owners.
As an accounting student, specializing in the area of compliance with government regulation, I can tell you that they never had ANY justification in the first place. There's no government regulation that would force them to charge for the updates. I've run their argument by a bunch of actual accountants as well, who have all said that it is preposterous.
And if you want more proof, just look at all of the other devices that offer free updates all the time.
This is what I'd been thinking all along, but was waiting for someone who knows accounting / Sarbanes-Oxley compliance better than your average tech blogger to confirm. Publicly traded companies release various things for free all the time...
Apple's pretty famous for using subscription accounting for the iPhone and Apple TV as a way to bend the rules and offer free software updates after purchase -- basically, instead of putting all the money from the sale on the books at once, the company's accountants spread the revenue out over two years, extending the "transaction" to cover upgrades. That's great for iPhone owners, but it's not so great for Apple or its investors, since the company's stock price doesn't always reflect the true amount of iPhone money coming in -- in fact, Apple earnings reports now include a second, unofficial balance sheet that does away with subscription accounting to show off the real numbers. Yeah, it's confusing, but it might finally be about to change, since the Financial Accounting Standards Board just tentatively approved new rules that could allow Apple to do away with subscription accounting and still deliver free updates. That means Apple's quarterly earnings will now feature much larger official revenue and profit figures -- last quarter's official revenue was $8.34 billion, while the unofficial number was $9.74 billion -- the lawyers and accountants will be happy, and we'll still get free iPhone updates. Good deal all around -- except for iPod touch owners, who will still have to pay $9.95 and not get a camera.
So essentially they now can account for iPhone sales all at once instead of subscription, but can still offer free updates. But doubtful that they will extend such courtesy to Touch owners.
As an accounting student, specializing in the area of compliance with government regulation, I can tell you that they never had ANY justification in the first place. There's no government regulation that would force them to charge for the updates. I've run their argument by a bunch of actual accountants as well, who have all said that it is preposterous.
And if you want more proof, just look at all of the other devices that offer free updates all the time.
This is what I'd been thinking all along, but was waiting for someone who knows accounting / Sarbanes-Oxley compliance better than your average tech blogger to confirm. Publicly traded companies release various things for free all the time...
But do they do so under the format of subscription accounting? I think Microsoft accounts for all of its xbox profits all at once, so any changes they make to the system are not bound by this obscure policy.
What I fail to understand is why the iPod Touch had to have its profits recorded under the same format as the iPhone, when (OS aside) they really are two completely different products.
Maybe it's an early flub on Apple's part that they are now trying to rectify.
Though what I would REALLY like is for an Apple's CFO to give the explanation for this in big, silver-dollar sized words so folks like Evander can pick through it and see if it is actually bullshit, or just a mistake that we the end users are unfortunately paying for. Cause either way it's a bad business decision.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Apple's pretty famous for using subscription accounting for the iPhone and Apple TV as a way to bend the rules and offer free software updates after purchase -- basically, instead of putting all the money from the sale on the books at once, the company's accountants spread the revenue out over two years, extending the "transaction" to cover upgrades. That's great for iPhone owners, but it's not so great for Apple or its investors, since the company's stock price doesn't always reflect the true amount of iPhone money coming in -- in fact, Apple earnings reports now include a second, unofficial balance sheet that does away with subscription accounting to show off the real numbers. Yeah, it's confusing, but it might finally be about to change, since the Financial Accounting Standards Board just tentatively approved new rules that could allow Apple to do away with subscription accounting and still deliver free updates. That means Apple's quarterly earnings will now feature much larger official revenue and profit figures -- last quarter's official revenue was $8.34 billion, while the unofficial number was $9.74 billion -- the lawyers and accountants will be happy, and we'll still get free iPhone updates. Good deal all around -- except for iPod touch owners, who will still have to pay $9.95 and not get a camera.
So essentially they now can account for iPhone sales all at once instead of subscription, but can still offer free updates. But doubtful that they will extend such courtesy to Touch owners.
As an accounting student, specializing in the area of compliance with government regulation, I can tell you that they never had ANY justification in the first place. There's no government regulation that would force them to charge for the updates. I've run their argument by a bunch of actual accountants as well, who have all said that it is preposterous.
And if you want more proof, just look at all of the other devices that offer free updates all the time.
This is what I'd been thinking all along, but was waiting for someone who knows accounting / Sarbanes-Oxley compliance better than your average tech blogger to confirm. Publicly traded companies release various things for free all the time...
But do they do so under the format of subscription accounting? I think Microsoft accounts for all of its xbox profits all at once, so any changes they make to the system are not bound by this obscure policy.
What I fail to understand is why the iPod Touch had to have its profits recorded under the same format as the iPhone, when (OS aside) they really are two completely different products.
Maybe it's an early flub on Apple's part that they are now trying to rectify.
Though what I would REALLY like is for an Apple's CFO to give the explanation for this in big, silver-dollar sized words so folks like Evander can pick through it and see if it is actually bullshit, or just a mistake that we the end users are unfortunately paying for. Cause either way it's a bad business decision.
SarBox absolutely doesn't forbid companies from giving away free software updates. Or free products, in general.
There's absolutely no way that SarBox would make them charge. Some marketing douche at Apple just realized that the majority of people are afraid to even TRY to read SarBox, so they could claim that ANYTHING was in there.
Yeah, I knew it was bull when they first mentioned it. Thankfully, I have never paid for the updates. No need, really. I just thought it was humorous that this is essentially destroying what they claimed as the reasoning behind it ("we'd love to give it away for free, but blame the gov't!") but probably not going to change anything either.
Eh, its basic accrual accounting that they can't record all the revenues till they've delivered the goods. In the case of the iPhone, Apple considers the software updates to be a huge part of the phone and hence was delaying the revenue recognition...it was perfectly justified, it's not like they were easing earnings with it...
Eh, its basic accrual accounting that they can't record all the revenues till they've delivered the goods. In the case of the iPhone, Apple considers the software updates to be a huge part of the phone and hence was delaying the revenue recognition...it was perfectly justified, it's not like they were easing earnings with it...
sorry, no.
that MIGHT be their internal accounting system (in which case, I'd argue that they are doing something VERY wrong.) but that is in NO way required by SarBox or any other FASB document. Plenty of other fully compliant companies release free software updates. Nintendo of America, as an example, has actually sent out free HARDWARE updates in the past (in the form of wriststraps and sleeves for the wii remote.)
Saying "they consider the software to be a big part of the product" is absolutely meaningless, in terms of accounting. In fact, if it means anything, it means that Apple is shipping out incomplete products, and mischarging consumers for them. I mean, are we saying that the itouches and software are actually considered raw materials now, which the consumers assemble themselves?
Apple is milking their consumers. That's their right. What's not cool is to lie about it, and claim that SarBox or a FASB made them do it.
Now, if some one can find me the actual line in SarBox, or the specific FASB that requires Apple to charge for software, I will gladly either admit that i was wrong, but you're not going to be able to, because it doesn't exist.
It would in no way be illegal for them to give out software upgrades for free. The only issue then is that iPhone customers paid ahead of time for the upgrades while the touch users did not. The touch users, if they don't pay, are, according to Apple's internal records, getting for free a product that has been sold for profit in another context. Makes sense.
Except that it doesn't. It's all ludicrous because both products have large profit margins, meaning that whether you've prepaid or not, Apple has more than enough money to make things right and still secure a healthy profit without charging anything for the OS upgrade. All they have to do is take a minute and realize that no one would ever know about the pre-pay vs free updates, since these aren't exactly $100 GPS map upgrades with 3rd party licensing fees. Anything Apple makes is produced internally and the development was happening anyway, funded by both iPhone and Touch users.
The only issue then is that iPhone customers paid ahead of time for the upgrades while the touch users did not.
IF this is true, it is true ONLY because Apple decided to charge touch users for upgrades down the road.
Honestly, a picture is starting to develop here. It seems, to me, that what is going on is that Apple would actually prefer to charge EVERYONE for updates, but there is some regulation preventing them from charging iPhone users (likely because their equipment might be obsoleted without an update and not work anymore.)
Does anyone know if it's possible to opt-out of the updates, on the iPhone? If it is, then back to the drawing board, but if not, I think I've figured out what is going on: Apple isn't charging due to regulations; Apple is charging because they are dicks, and regulations are the only thing PREVENTING them from charging iPhone users as well.
You aren't forced to install iPhone updates, but Apple also stops providing old versions with security patches/fixes immediately after the release of the next version. This isn't a huge issue with the iPhone, but as an iPod Touch user this makes me very, very unhappy.
The only explanation to this situation is based on both laziness and greed, which makes it pretty much a sure bet.
Apple wants to keep upgrading the iPhone OS, adding new features, etc, to keep growing the platform. At the same time, they need to patch security flaws and keep out the jailbreakers and unlockers as per their contract with AT&T. So phone users need to always have free access to a secure build of the firmware.
That leaves them with 3 options:
1.) Stop developing the iPhone firmware and stick with one version to securely patch. Updates free for all.
2.) Continue developing the iPhone firmware and keep all old versions secure via free patches. Charge for updates.
3.) Continue developing firmware and keep only latest version secure. Updates free only for phone users, charge iPod touch users.
Option 1 would kill the platform and option 2, while tempting, would possibly cost more than it would bring in. That leaves just option 3, minimal development effort, platform forges onward, contract with ATT is met.
Just watch out for when the contract with AT&T expires and we see option 4 rear its ugly head.
4.) Continue developing firmware and keep only latest version secure. Charge everyone for updates.
Hey, at least we'll finally have unlocked iPhones...
Hmmm, this opens another possibility, that maybe the only reason that iPhone updates are free is because AT&T insisted. Having to pay for updates on your cellphone is the type of thing that might convince some one to switch service providers...
Evander on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
edited September 2009
It probably is AT&T not wanting there to be multiple versions of phone software out there for them to support en masse.
When you look at how Apple views the iPhone OS (a second OS branch running parallel to OSX), you kind of see a pattern emerge.
Apple likes putting a new version of their OS on the shelf every 12-18 months, usually with more refinements than new features, and they like charging for it.
Since the iPod touch is more computer and less phone, they probably do view the release of 2.x or 3.x much as the release of 10.4 or 10.5... and feel justified in putting a price tag on it.
But if what you are sayig is true, Evander, and Apple is lying about SarBox to justify charging for it, isn't that illegal?
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
But if what you are sayig is true, Evander, and Apple is lying about SarBox to justify charging for it, isn't that illegal?
Lying isn't illegal, in and of itself. There are truth in advertising laws, but I imagine that this doesn't quite fall under their jurisdiction.
Also, if you look at the exact quotes from apple, they pull a Glenn Beck and dance around suggesting that SarBox is the reason why they charge, rather than ever really stating it outright.
Is it unethical and incredibly consumer-negative? Sure.
Also, it is tough, in general, to bring anything that isn't especially serious against Apple because they have a lot of money to defend themselves, and they have a lot of popular support to drown you out.
iPhones have been MMS capable since version 3.0 came out... as long as you lived in a country other than the US. It's ATT that has disallowed it up until now. They plan on activating the feature on September 25th.
Posts
None that I know of. Most of the subscription services require "plays for sure" devices, which Apple will absolutely never make work with iPods. Then there's the Zune marketplace, which is some other DRM type that works only with Zune devices.
No I didn't. Learn to read please before making accusations.
The closest thing is Spotify, which is bit like Last.fm. It just had an Ipod/iphone app released.
So essentially they now can account for iPhone sales all at once instead of subscription, but can still offer free updates. But doubtful that they will extend such courtesy to Touch owners.
i don't see why people feel the need for itunes to be where you both find and purchase music when you can find music on the internet, and download it in itunes
It's not a dealbreaker, but it's always nicer when everything's in one place (particularly when there are many different versions of a song).
Well, for one because I can't listen to Pandora while doing other stuff on the iPhone (grr), and constantly using the network on my portable is a bit of a battery drainer.
Living in the city and walking all the damn time, I really do appreciate the concept of being able to trial a damn near infinite amount of music while mobile. That's what makes the Zune Pass so ace.
So ace, in fact, that if MS made a zPhone w/ exchange support and a mac client, I would jump ship in a heartbeat, but since I don't see that happening any time soon... I guess I just want Apple to make a subscription service.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
As an accounting student, specializing in the area of compliance with government regulation, I can tell you that they never had ANY justification in the first place. There's no government regulation that would force them to charge for the updates. I've run their argument by a bunch of actual accountants as well, who have all said that it is preposterous.
And if you want more proof, just look at all of the other devices that offer free updates all the time.
This is what I'd been thinking all along, but was waiting for someone who knows accounting / Sarbanes-Oxley compliance better than your average tech blogger to confirm. Publicly traded companies release various things for free all the time...
PSN:RevDrGalactus/NN:RevDrGalactus/Steam
What I fail to understand is why the iPod Touch had to have its profits recorded under the same format as the iPhone, when (OS aside) they really are two completely different products.
Maybe it's an early flub on Apple's part that they are now trying to rectify.
Though what I would REALLY like is for an Apple's CFO to give the explanation for this in big, silver-dollar sized words so folks like Evander can pick through it and see if it is actually bullshit, or just a mistake that we the end users are unfortunately paying for. Cause either way it's a bad business decision.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
SarBox absolutely doesn't forbid companies from giving away free software updates. Or free products, in general.
There's absolutely no way that SarBox would make them charge. Some marketing douche at Apple just realized that the majority of people are afraid to even TRY to read SarBox, so they could claim that ANYTHING was in there.
sorry, no.
that MIGHT be their internal accounting system (in which case, I'd argue that they are doing something VERY wrong.) but that is in NO way required by SarBox or any other FASB document. Plenty of other fully compliant companies release free software updates. Nintendo of America, as an example, has actually sent out free HARDWARE updates in the past (in the form of wriststraps and sleeves for the wii remote.)
Saying "they consider the software to be a big part of the product" is absolutely meaningless, in terms of accounting. In fact, if it means anything, it means that Apple is shipping out incomplete products, and mischarging consumers for them. I mean, are we saying that the itouches and software are actually considered raw materials now, which the consumers assemble themselves?
Apple is milking their consumers. That's their right. What's not cool is to lie about it, and claim that SarBox or a FASB made them do it.
Now, if some one can find me the actual line in SarBox, or the specific FASB that requires Apple to charge for software, I will gladly either admit that i was wrong, but you're not going to be able to, because it doesn't exist.
Except that it doesn't. It's all ludicrous because both products have large profit margins, meaning that whether you've prepaid or not, Apple has more than enough money to make things right and still secure a healthy profit without charging anything for the OS upgrade. All they have to do is take a minute and realize that no one would ever know about the pre-pay vs free updates, since these aren't exactly $100 GPS map upgrades with 3rd party licensing fees. Anything Apple makes is produced internally and the development was happening anyway, funded by both iPhone and Touch users.
IF this is true, it is true ONLY because Apple decided to charge touch users for upgrades down the road.
Honestly, a picture is starting to develop here. It seems, to me, that what is going on is that Apple would actually prefer to charge EVERYONE for updates, but there is some regulation preventing them from charging iPhone users (likely because their equipment might be obsoleted without an update and not work anymore.)
Does anyone know if it's possible to opt-out of the updates, on the iPhone? If it is, then back to the drawing board, but if not, I think I've figured out what is going on: Apple isn't charging due to regulations; Apple is charging because they are dicks, and regulations are the only thing PREVENTING them from charging iPhone users as well.
Apple wants to keep upgrading the iPhone OS, adding new features, etc, to keep growing the platform. At the same time, they need to patch security flaws and keep out the jailbreakers and unlockers as per their contract with AT&T. So phone users need to always have free access to a secure build of the firmware.
That leaves them with 3 options:
1.) Stop developing the iPhone firmware and stick with one version to securely patch. Updates free for all.
2.) Continue developing the iPhone firmware and keep all old versions secure via free patches. Charge for updates.
3.) Continue developing firmware and keep only latest version secure. Updates free only for phone users, charge iPod touch users.
Option 1 would kill the platform and option 2, while tempting, would possibly cost more than it would bring in. That leaves just option 3, minimal development effort, platform forges onward, contract with ATT is met.
Just watch out for when the contract with AT&T expires and we see option 4 rear its ugly head.
4.) Continue developing firmware and keep only latest version secure. Charge everyone for updates.
Hey, at least we'll finally have unlocked iPhones...
Hmmm, this opens another possibility, that maybe the only reason that iPhone updates are free is because AT&T insisted. Having to pay for updates on your cellphone is the type of thing that might convince some one to switch service providers...
When you look at how Apple views the iPhone OS (a second OS branch running parallel to OSX), you kind of see a pattern emerge.
Apple likes putting a new version of their OS on the shelf every 12-18 months, usually with more refinements than new features, and they like charging for it.
Since the iPod touch is more computer and less phone, they probably do view the release of 2.x or 3.x much as the release of 10.4 or 10.5... and feel justified in putting a price tag on it.
But if what you are sayig is true, Evander, and Apple is lying about SarBox to justify charging for it, isn't that illegal?
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Lying isn't illegal, in and of itself. There are truth in advertising laws, but I imagine that this doesn't quite fall under their jurisdiction.
Also, if you look at the exact quotes from apple, they pull a Glenn Beck and dance around suggesting that SarBox is the reason why they charge, rather than ever really stating it outright.
Is it unethical and incredibly consumer-negative? Sure.
Also, it is tough, in general, to bring anything that isn't especially serious against Apple because they have a lot of money to defend themselves, and they have a lot of popular support to drown you out.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...