[Emo_Nemo]

It's free for iPhone users because they are a subscriber. It's paid for Touch users because they are a purchaser instead. There's legal stuff behind all of this. Because iPhone users are subscribers, they do not have to pay for upgrades (note: not update, an upgrade to 3.0). But because iPod Touch users purchase their device outright, they are required by law to have to pay something for the upgrade. I know it's weird, but it's not the first time Apple has had to do this. They had to do the same thing when they enabled Wireless-N on some of their MacBooks - it was a $2.49 CDN charge. It was another one of those legal situations.

Apple doesn't really care about the money they make from 3.0 software sales, they don't make a huge amount. Well, they could. 40,000,000 iPhone/iPod Touch owners = ~$200,000,000 revenue possibly. Apple has to charge for Touch owners because of legal issues, not just because they could.

And it's $10, that's not breaking the bank. You can wait a year for 4.0 if you want to. I'm not, I already updated my Touch and (gasp!) paid the $10 gladly.

~Bcloutier~

Uhmm how do you just enable Wireless-N? Its a hardware standard not a software one.

Unless they were already capable of doing it in the first place and Apple just restricted them to using b/g but that would be stupid and sort of make me think less of the company for doing that.

[redmonke]

It's free for iPhone users because they are a subscriber. It's paid for Touch users because they are a purchaser instead. There's legal stuff behind all of this. Because iPhone users are subscribers, they do not have to pay for upgrades (note: not update, an upgrade to 3.0). But because iPod Touch users purchase their device outright, they are required by law to have to pay something for the upgrade. I know it's weird, but it's not the first time Apple has had to do this. They had to do the same thing when they enabled Wireless-N on some of their MacBooks - it was a $2.49 CDN charge. It was another one of those legal situations.

Apple doesn't really care about the money they make from 3.0 software sales, they don't make a huge amount. Well, they could. 40,000,000 iPhone/iPod Touch owners = ~$200,000,000 revenue possibly. Apple has to charge for Touch owners because of legal issues, not just because they could.

And it's $10, that's not breaking the bank. You can wait a year for 4.0 if you want to. I'm not, I already updated my Touch and (gasp!) paid the $10 gladly.

~Bcloutier~

Uhmm how do you just enable Wireless-N? Its a hardware standard not a software one.

Unless they were already capable of doing it in the first place and Apple just restricted them to using b/g but that would be stupid and sort of make me think less of the company for doing that.

They already did that with old macbooks and the multitouch that is now only activated with Snow Leopard.

[King Aragorn]

Once again Apple strikes people with unfair-ness..

They use money on making it, so they need to get profit for makng it to recover from development.
Cant you see that?

Thats another reason not to buy: unfair about updates..

[Gillis]

You sound like the "FREEPLAYERS SHOULD GET UPDATES TOO" idiots. They don't have to give you the update. iPhone users have the option of switching phones or service providers, so Apple needs to keep them happy. It's not as if you're going to throw away your iPod and get a Zune because they won't give you an update for free.

[Haleth]

Honestly, $10? What are you complaining about?

It's not like a new iPhone/iPod Touch OS gets released every month.

Yes, it's free for iPhone users. They paid more for their iPhone and part of the money they pay for their billing plan (at least at AT&T) goes to Apple.

So what?

[Arianna]

just because we already have a phone and don't need an iPhone, doesn't mean we aren't entitled to this update for free.

You're not entitled to anything but your life and your citizenship rights. Get that through your head. Apple updates haven't entered any country's Constitution yet, so stop whining.

But because iPod Touch users purchase their device outright, they are required by law to have to pay something for the upgrade. I know it's weird, but it's not the first time Apple has had to do this.

It's not as if they HAVE to make people pay by law, they just CAN set a price on their service. If they had decided to give it out free, they could have done it. If they decided to pay every upgrader 15$, they could have done it.

Once again Apple strikes people with unfair-ness..

How is that unfair?

Nobody of you "WAAAH I HAVE TO PAY FOR AN UPGRADE" people have answered this: "if I have a copy of Windows 3.1 I should be entitled to copies of Windows 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista and 7?"

Besides that, you don't HAVE to upgrade.

I'd like to see you complain to, say, Toyota because they updated the Corolla design AND YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY TO HAVE YOUR CAR UPDATED. Will the Toyota dealer laugh at you? Absolutely. Then why shouldn't we all do that to you that don't want to pay a $10 upgrade to a $280 product?

iPhone users get this for free. Why shouldn't we? Just because they pay for the service?

So, that guy came out of the supermarket with a bag full of groceries, why shouldn't I be entitled to a full bag of groceries? Is he entitled to a bag full of groceries just because he paid for them?

...do you even realise how completely idiotic that sounded? And do you realise that it's the same thing you just said?

[Gillis]

just because we already have a phone and don't need an iPhone, doesn't mean we aren't entitled to this update for free.

You're not entitled to anything but your life and your citizenship rights. Get that through your head. Apple updates haven't entered any country's Constitution yet, so stop whining.

But because iPod Touch users purchase their device outright, they are required by law to have to pay something for the upgrade. I know it's weird, but it's not the first time Apple has had to do this.

It's not as if they HAVE to make people pay by law, they just CAN set a price on their service. If they had decided to give it out free, they could have done it. If they decided to pay every upgrader 15$, they could have done it.

Once again Apple strikes people with unfair-ness..

How is that unfair?

Nobody of you "WAAAH I HAVE TO PAY FOR AN UPGRADE" people have answered this: "if I have a copy of Windows 3.1 I should be entitled to copies of Windows 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista and 7?"

Besides that, you don't HAVE to upgrade.

I'd like to see you complain to, say, Toyota because they updated the Corolla design AND YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY TO HAVE YOUR CAR UPDATED. Will the Toyota dealer laugh at you? Absolutely. Then why shouldn't we all do that to you that don't want to pay a $10 upgrade to a $280 product?

iPhone users get this for free. Why shouldn't we? Just because they pay for the service?

So, that guy came out of the supermarket with a bag full of groceries, why shouldn't I be entitled to a full bag of groceries? Is he entitled to a bag full of groceries just because he paid for them?

...do you even realise how completely idiotic that sounded? And do you realise that it's the same thing you just said?

This reminds me of a story my brother told me when he was a shoe salesman. This lady tried to return a worn pair of shoes because she found out that there was a newer version of the shoe and she demanded that she get that new version for free.

[Caboose]

Charging for an update just isn't on. Updates are generally things that you forgot or didn't have time to put on at launch, and fixes to bugs that you made. You don't get to charge for these, you should be paying them if anything.

So if I have a copy of Windows 3.1 I should be entitled to copies of Windows 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista and 7? Come on.

EDIT: the hell, the cheapest one costs €219 (which is about 280 dollars) and you complain about ten dollars (€7.99 for Europe, by the way)? Only one word can suffice as a reply, and it is "wat".

Windows 3.1 was cool...

Anyway, this is different. It's not a completely new and innovative Operating System, it's the equivalent of a Service Pack, or just a regular update. They are always free by the way.

[Cattius]

I don't mind paying for the update; I agree that iPod Touch owners like me should pay because they don't pay a subscription. It's just finished installing and so far it seems great

[Fencefry]

Charging for an update just isn't on. Updates are generally things that you forgot or didn't have time to put on at launch, and fixes to bugs that you made. You don't get to charge for these, you should be paying them if anything.

So if I have a copy of Windows 3.1 I should be entitled to copies of Windows 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista and 7? Come on.

EDIT: the hell, the cheapest one costs €219 (which is about 280 dollars) and you complain about ten dollars (€7.99 for Europe, by the way)? Only one word can suffice as a reply, and it is "wat".

Windows 3.1 was cool...

Anyway, this is different. It's not a completely new and innovative Operating System, it's the equivalent of a Service Pack, or just a regular update. They are always free by the way.

You mean it's just a service pack like W7 and Snow Leopard are, increasing stability while bringing some new features? Those aren't free

[Caboose]

Those are operating systems. I'm talking about Service Packs, the big updates that Windows release for Operating Systems. Like, XP SP3 was the latest, and Vista just got SP2.

[Fencefry]

Those are operating systems. I'm talking about Service Packs, the big updates that Windows release for Operating Systems. Like, XP SP3 was the latest, and Vista just got SP2.

OS 1, 2, and 3. They are Operating Systems, at least in the eyes of some (Like Apple).

EDIT: YEs I know what a SP is, but I'm saying these are like OSs

This post has been edited by Fencefry: Jun 18 2009, 03:13 PM

[Gillis]

The point remains that they can do whatever the hell they want and you can't do anything about it.

[Definition]

The point remains that they can do whatever the hell they want and you can't do anything about it.

...and that in this case, it's fully justified.

[Dwarrior]

Those are operating systems. I'm talking about Service Packs, the big updates that Windows release for Operating Systems. Like, XP SP3 was the latest, and Vista just got SP2.

This isn't a service pack. The equivalent of a service pack for an ipod or iphone would be 2.2, or 2.2.1. This is iphone OS 3.0. Notice how I bolded the OS part.

[Arianna]

Charging for an update just isn't on. Updates are generally things that you forgot or didn't have time to put on at launch, and fixes to bugs that you made. You don't get to charge for these, you should be paying them if anything.

So if I have a copy of Windows 3.1 I should be entitled to copies of Windows 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista and 7? Come on.

EDIT: the hell, the cheapest one costs €219 (which is about 280 dollars) and you complain about ten dollars (€7.99 for Europe, by the way)? Only one word can suffice as a reply, and it is "wat".

Windows 3.1 was cool...

Anyway, this is different. It's not a completely new and innovative Operating System, it's the equivalent of a Service Pack, or just a regular update. They are always free by the way.

Apple has finally released the O.S. 3 for the iPod Touch

O.S.

Operating System

Get it yet?

Besides, you're trying to tell me that Windows ME was a completely new and innovative Operating System? Come on.

[Caboose]

Well... it was the first Microsoft OS to use the NT kernel. But people who used it for more than a year should get a medal.

Really though, is the UI any different? Is the kernel any different? Just because you call it that doesn't make it that. Imagine i have a peach. This is an apple that tastes like a peach. This is a lie.

[Veni vidi vici]

Okay, my mom finally credited my account with the money she owed me, so I'm downloading it now
Yeah, yeah, but I have nothing better to spend it on. I don't get movies, and I only buy songs on occasions.
Hope it was worth the $9.95
~Vincent

This post has been edited by Veni vidi vici: Jun 19 2009, 01:56 PM

[Desireful]

Okay, my mom finally credited my account with the money she owed me, so I'm downloading it now
Yeah, yeah, but I have nothing better to spend it on. I don't get movies, and I only buy songs on occasions.
Hope it was worth the $9.95
~Vincent

It is. I just finished downloading it to my Dad's iPhone. It's pretty sweet. (loving copy and paste btw)

[Veni vidi vici]

$79 for headphone mic? Complete BS. I'm not paying $79 for "superior performance headphones and mic."
Again, GF Apple... GF...
~Vincent
EDIT: I love Safari not crashing every five seconds

This post has been edited by Veni vidi vici: Jun 19 2009, 02:35 PM