“Apple on Thursday confirmed reports that it plans to charge customers a fee to download software that will enable the 802.11n capability in the Wi-Fi chips found in some MacBook and MacBook Pro systems. But it won’t cost $5, as many reports indicated. It will cost $1.99, and will be available on Apple’s Web site, said Lynn Fox, an Apple spokeswoman,” Tom Krazit reports for CNET News.
“Every Mac with Intel’s Core 2 Duo or Xeon processor has the 802.11n chip, except for the 17-inch iMac with the 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo chip, Apple announced last week at Macworld. Customers who purchase the new $179 Airport Extreme Base Station also unveiled at Macworld will get the software for free,” Krazit reports.
Krazit reports, “‘The nominal distribution fee for the 802.11n software is required in order for Apple to comply with generally accepted accounting principles for revenue recognition, which generally require that we charge for significant feature enhancements, such as 802.11n, when added to previously purchased products,’ Fox said in a statement.”
Full article here.
Related articles:
Apple to impose 802.11n ‘unlocking fee’ on Intel Mac owners – January 16, 2007
Apple’s new AirPort Extreme ‘AirPort Disk’ feature: cheap, simple network storage for home networks – January 15, 2007
Apple’s new AirPort Extreme supports 802.11n, enables wireless streaming of HD media – January 10, 2007
Apple introduces new AirPort Extreme with 802.11n – January 09, 2007
This is actually pretty funny.
Management didn’t seem to pay much attention to Generally Accepted Accounting Standards requiring the expensing of stock options and the importance of grant dates.
OUTRAGEOUS ! ! !
The explanation is pure poppycock. It’s an inexplicable inconvenience to both Apple and its customers. There is no difference between this piece of software and an update to the security aspect of the OS or a minor update to the software itself, as in 10.4.9.
Next, the communications staff wouldn’t know an accounting principle if it hit them in the face.
What’s the real story?
I have a new base station on order and no computers (yet) to move up to n, so I’m going to get the software that I can’t use. does that require an accounting entry to credit me $1.99?
Surely the people who buy n capability in their new computers are going to pay less than the people that already bought one in the full expectation that the software to make use of the computers was already paid for by virtue of their purhase.
Or is it just that Apple is running scared of the latest persecution by the next DA?
Tell me if I’m wrong and tell me why.
Uhh, critic, management was VERY concerned with regard to the stock options which is why Apple announced the backdating had occurred ITSELF. No one ratted them out. Apple discovered the backdating on its own, hired an independent investigating team, and that resulted in the resignation of a board member and an Apple attorney, and the firing of another.
In other words, Apple clearly recognized that something that shouldn’t have happened did happen, and took actions to correct it (recently announcing an $84 million expense to account for the backdating). Sorry to disappoint you, but that behavior is quite different from the actions of other Silicon Valley companies, which went to great lengths to hide their own stock option backdating, and were only found out through SEC investigations.
$2? Nuthin’. I was fearing that Apple was going to charge something substantial like $20-30.
its 2 dollars not 20…
when you bought the machine you thought it was G…
now for 2 bucks you can make in an N..
without even opening it up or taking it anywhere…
u people need to get a life!
Like the Boston Tea Party, I’ll pay $1.99 to unlock N from Apple LONG BEFORE I’ll pay 79, um, “units” to buy anything from Microsoft.
The explanation may sound like poppycock, but that’s the reality. You wan the real story?
The real story is that with the SEC and the U.S. attorney’s office breathing down Apple’s neck as a result of the backdating scandal (Apple’s internal investigation cleared them of wrongdoing, but the SEC hasn’t made a decision yet), Apple is being extra careful to stick to the letter of the law. And sticking to the letter of the law means being anal about things like this.
That is, Apple wants to do everything right now to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in terms of accounting.
If you want a good explanation about the SOX implications, head over to the thread at Macrumors.com
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=271382
BTW, there are better things to complain about than $2 for this one-time upgrade.
And for all the whiners who think this is about principle, I think it clearly would have been better for you if Apple had just shipped straight-up 802.11b/g cards in the Core2 Duo Macs and then charged you $50 or $100 to ship you new 802.11b/g/n cards that you had to physically swap into the machine. Then again, some people never seem to be happy.
This law is outrageous! If prevents Apple from adding ANY new features to their software via the “Software Update” feature. It’s an accounting headache for Apple and bad news for us customers.
I hope someone finds a loophole in this law soon.
Be thankful Apple was forward-thinking to future-proof your computer. How happy would you be if your computer really did have 802.11g in it, and it would cost $99 to upgrade to N?
A security update does not add features. A minor update may enhance functionality, but it probably does not add new features. At least not significant ones.
Apple advertised and sold the relevant Macs as having 802.11g, probably because they were not sure if the final “n” standard would be compatible with the hardware they already sold. Now that Apple has products that the higher speed wireless will work with (the new Airport Basestation and Apple TV), whether it is ultimately “n” compatible or not, they can enable the new feature to work with Apple’s new products without promising it will be compatible with the final “n” standard. That’s why it is included free with the new “n” products; it is equivalent to a “driver” that makes a new peripheral work with an existing product.
I’m not sure when this new law went into effect, but I’m sure Apple is being more careful about accounting. And it probably costs more than $1.99 in credit card fees and administration costs for Apple to implement this feature.
$2 bucks, who cares. I am glad Apple thought ahead and put it in there.
That’s funny.
According to Apple, GAAP requires a $1.99 download fee for a driver tweak.
Yet, OS 10.4.9 will be free.
I hope they don’t apply the GAAP reasoning for future updates beyond the 802.11n driver tweak.
This has to do with the SOX act and ONLY applies to selling a product and later delivering added functionality.
bug fixes and other “software update” stuff do not apply. Those are not “significant” and were know to you when you originally purchased.
This is something that was not part of the purchase and is significant. They cannot account for the price of your macbook pro (or a percentage of it) untill it is fully delivered to you. so they charge a nominal fee to “realize” income on the books for delivered product.
There really are better explainations for this, but this really is at the root of public companies and accounting. And that the products (MBP and the enable software) were delivered in different fiscal quarters.
You will not be getting charged $1.99 for “software update” stuff, those are just fixes for things you already paid for and were delivered.
For some frame of reference: way back in the day we “upgraded” our WANG disk drive from 15 megabytes to 45 megabytes by paying WANG a few thousand dollard to send a guy out for the “upgrade”. Years later a former WANG guy working for himself spilled the beans – he opened the side of the (washing machine sized) drive and flipped one jumper switch on the main board from off to on. Technicians were instructed to open the machine, spread a lot of parts around, take a smoke break, and button it back up after 30 minutes or so. Nothing new under the sun.
MDN word: near, as in $1.99 is near zero in the grand scheme of things
That’ll be the best $2.00 I’ll spend this week, last week the best $2.00 that I spent went for a lemon slurpee.
>Yet, OS 10.4.9 will be free.
I meant the OS 10.4.9 update will be free… or will it?
Steve (near the bottom of the page and again on page 3) has a great explaination for this issue.
http://backstage.ilounge.com/index.php/backstage/comments/9316/
The Other Steve,
That’s not true. Software Update doesn’t add new hardware features. This patch does.
But wait a tic – isn’t Apple supposed to be evil? $1.99? They were supposed to charge $20 so my presuppositions about the company would hold true!!!
The interpretation of this law is complete bull – the capability can only be used with an 802.11n router sold by Apple or someone else. The functionality unless there is functionality provided by the router. THAT is charged for.
In addition, I presume Apple will start selling macBooks with the functionality turned on. Are they going to charge $2 more for the new laptops ? I doubt it.
By the same twisted logic, one could argue that providing an upgrade to iTunes for free and so allowing a user to listen to podcasts on a laptop increased its functionality. Why not charge for that ?
If this truly is the interpretation by Apple’s SOX folks then they’re not interpreting the law correctly.
When you buy the MacOS, you are paying for the ability to use Software Update. When you buy a Mac with an 802.11g card, you are buying…A Mac with an 802.11g card. A firmware update (which is what I assume this is) that makes it 802.11n is quite different. It’s not part of the OS and it was not anything you were expecting to be entitled to when you bought the machine. I don’t necessarily think that’s a great explanation, but it makes sense to me. 802.11n is next-generation technology, and while a few Boot Camp users did realize by looking at Windows XP’s Device Manager that this was a pre-N chipset, Apple never represented it as such and it was quite possible that Apple would find out when N really did come out that their chipset was flawed. In which case, they would not offer this firmware patch.
If this truly is the interpretation by Apple’s SOX folks then they’re not interpreting the law correctly.
Are you an expert or a CPA?
In addition, I presume Apple will start selling macBooks with the functionality turned on. Are they going to charge $2 more for the new laptops ? I doubt it.
The revenue of the MacBooks to e sold in the future has not yet been recorded and recognized in the financial statements. Whatever functionality Apple will deliver in the future product has nothing to do with SOx. Duh!
The interpretation of this law is complete bull – the capability can only be used with an 802.11n router sold by Apple or someone else. The functionality unless there is functionality provided by the router. THAT is charged for.
What is charged for is the functionality of the router. Not the funtionality of the hardware contained in the MacBook. Furthermore, it was advertised as 802.11 b/g capable and charged as such. No draft-n capability is mentioned in the ad/brochures.
this is about accounting practices, not added functionality.
Apple wanted to post the full $2000 of your MBP to its books the day it sold it to you. Not post $1900 (estimating a typical $100 price of a wireless card) on the day you bought it, and then post $100 revenue when they ship you the enabling software.
ESPECIALLY if the postings cross over different fiscal periods.
If they DO post all $2000 then deliver the software in the next quarter. They would be backdateing the revenue of the 802.11n portion.
“Uhh, critic, management was VERY concerned with regard to the stock options which is why Apple announced the backdating had occurred ITSELF. No one ratted them out. Apple discovered the backdating on its own, hired an independent investigating team, and that resulted in the resignation of a board member and an Apple attorney, and the firing of another.
In other words, Apple clearly recognized that something that shouldn’t have happened did happen, and took actions to correct it (recently announcing an $84 million expense to account for the backdating). Sorry to disappoint you, but that behavior is quite different from the actions of other Silicon Valley companies, which went to great lengths to hide their own stock option backdating, and were only found out through SEC investigations.”
Uhh, I am a big Apple supporter (and shareholder), but I really don’t believe that Apple would have come forward with the options issue if the SEC and Federal prosecutors hadn’t become involved with backdating cases.
Also, Apple was the most visible company that was fighting the change in accounting rules three years ago to implement the rule that now forces public companies to expense options when they are granted. Before, they could bury the number in the footnotes to their financial statements. Now, they have to expense it on their income statement.
p.s.
shut up and pay the stupid $2, and enjoy twice the range and twice the speed
Some of you are idiots. They have to comply with this law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act
$2 is pretty nominal. Outstanding return on the investment. And it has the benefit of adding to the hits on Apple’s web site. God, those guys are clever.
Now if they could also charge $2 to enable Front Row on my iBook, and monitor spanning (I use the hack, but it makes me nervous)
You’ll never convince the anonymous experts here that they don’t know SOX in and out. Heck, a keyboard allows anyone who can type to pretend to be anything they want. It’s best to ignore the chest-thumping rabble and go on to the next topic. Let them bray their opinions. It’s obvious that they’re ignorant.
what is unlocking? And why does a person do it?
Alrighty then….
Where can the driver update be downloaded from outside of Apple?
ok, I’ll just wait til I get my new Bastard Station..er, Base Station…
I’ve never seen so many panties get in a bunch over $2.
I don’t understand. So Apple is charging us for hardware functionality that we paid for and THEY hid? We bought the hardware regardless of whether the “n” feature was advertised or not. It’s factored into the production cost. So we’re being forced to pay money for an inherent feature that was crippled? It’s not the amount, it’s the principle…
That’s like buying a Treo 700p from Verizon with all the bells and whistles and then they charge you money so you can actually download files using Bluetooth (which was how the phone was built in the first place before Verizon cripples it).
So you bought a Mac with g wireless capabilities, little did you know it actually has n capabilities…. if you are upset about the 1.99 fee then DON’T BUY IT! you will still have EXACTLY what you paid for at the time of your purchase, a Mac with g capabilities!
get a clue people!
> I don’t understand. So Apple is charging us for hardware functionality that we paid for and THEY hid?
No, you paid for “g” functionality. There was no fully established “n” standard at that time, so Apple could not guarantee their hardware would ultimately work with the future “n” standard. I don’t think the “n” standard has still been finalized, but Apple can guarantee that the hardware will work with the new Apple products (Airport Basestation and Apple TV). Therefore, it is being enabled as new functionality. I don’t know the specifics of this law, but Apple is being reasonable. $1.99 per Mac probably does not even cover the cost of charging for this upgrade. I’m sure Apple would prefer to just release it as a free firmware update.
>I’ve never seen so many panties get in a bunch over $2.
Shut up! My panties are NOT in a bunch. I wear them on my head… thank you.. but that’s besides the point and it’s not yet Friday night.
—
$2 is a lot of money… I’d rather it be in my pocket rather than Apple’s. Shame on me right?
I only paid for “g” when I left two thousand seven hundred ninty-nine dollars ($2799) at the Apple store and walked out with a 17″ MBP Core 2 Duo “g” and not the fabled $2801 “n” version.
Shame on me!
Does charging $2 for the driver update sound ridiciulous to you yet?!
This is a US federal law. Does that mean that Apple won’t need to charge customers living outside of the US ?
Could they include the driver in Leopard, since we’ll be paying $150 or whatever for that? That would make the whole issue sort of moot…
And am I going to have to buy a new Base Station when I get my MacBook Pro later this year? And will the new Base Station work with my 20″ CoreDuo that I bought when the Core 2 Duos were merely a gleam in Steve Jobs’ eye? (about 3 months before they were announced)?
I would fall to the ground and die if Microsoft add such a big feature for only $1.99. In fact, I really don’t think the people that are complaining about the charge actually own Macs…they’re probably more like Microsoft FUD throwers.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they were in fact on the Microsoft payroll.
Toby,
Get a grip! You can’t blame Microsoft for everything wrong in your life my friend. That’s just stupid.
The thread is about Apple “having” to charge $1.99 for “n” over “g”.
So… say a 17″ MBP owner (me) – having paid $2799 – has to pay $2 to get to “n” even though it’s a simple update.
I remember when I update my US Robotics 28k modem to get to 56k… it was a free update.
Hey Wanker.. here is the link AGAIN just for you…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act
…now sit down and SHUT THE FUCK UP!
MDN MW “two”; as in if you had “two” brains you still wouldn’t get it! you tool!
“I remember when I update my US Robotics 28k modem to get to 56k… it was a free update.”
This is true. But there was no Sarbanes-Oxley when you purchased your 28k modem my friend.
Well, if Apple actually is charging solely for the sake of dotting “I”s and crossing “T”s, they won’t aggressively pursue anyone who posts this update elsewhere, right?
…and why not $0.99 and make it available via iTunes as well? A lot of people are already set up to pay Apple small amounts of money through iTunes. Though I guess it’d be an accounting headache in itself…
all bitching.. shutup
NONE of you paid for a wireless n card.
You should THANK apple for letting you have it for a mere $2
If you want support, and if you want to justify the cost of paying techs to write the update PAY IT.. fools.
hey I have an idea, dont pay the 2 dollars and try to code your own update.. see how far you get.
>Chris wrote: But there was no Sarbanes-Oxley when you purchased your 28k modem my friend.
Agreed my friend… sad but true. G’Day to you!
—
>Random Coolzip: they won’t aggressively pursue anyone who posts this update elsewhere, right?
I hope not! For those US citizens who don’t happen to live in the contiguous USA, buying something from Apple is a pain. Can you imagine how frustrating it is being told by a Apple Sales Rep that you’re not a “real” American?
—
>Re: MPC Guy: Hey Wanker… now sit down and SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Nobody likes a potty-mouth. Here are some options, being that you obviously need some guidance:
Option 1: Curse and rant like an adult behaving like a child… as you did in your last post. 🙁
Option 2: Add something useful to the dialogue. Maybe cite what the applicable parts of the SOX act you linked in order to make a reasonble argument.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
—
>tt wrote: NONE of you paid for a wireless n card.
So if I send Apple $1.99 they send me a wireless “n” card to replace the “g” card I paid for as part of the $2,799 MBP price?
Heck! I’ll take 10 of those puppies!
Hmm. To all of you who claim that Apple are correctly interpreting SOX. WHY DID THEY NOT CHARGE FOR Boot Camp ? That software increased the functionality of your Mac by allowing you to run Windows applications. (Leaving aside the (de)merits of Windoze…) Your previously purchased MacBook can now run applications it couldn’t otherwise… The same twisted interpretation of SOX would require them to charge you for it. Oh but wait – we can call it a ‘beta feature’ and not charge. Sigh.
To read the Apple defenders is funny. I love Macs, hell I own 4, including two MacBooks (one Pro and one black). The ability to go 802.11n WAS ALREADY THERE, it just took a firmware upgade to do it. You don’t think that was planned far in advanced? What’s so different from that and software update to “patch” something to do something else? This folks, is hiding behind regulatory BS by bean counters, pure and simple. If it were up to the bean counters, customers would PAY for every software update, every power cord, ever piece of plastic, because it costs Apple some amount of money to manufacture.
I’m not saying they don’t have a right to charge for everything, they do. This after all, is capitalism. But to charge for something that is normally free just to appease the SOX gods is cheesy at best.
“I’m not saying they don’t have a right to charge for everything, they do. This after all, is capitalism. But to charge for something that is normally free just to appease the SOX gods is cheesy at best.”
Pleasing the SOX gods IS what it is about. Unlike any other imagined god that god can cause earthly pain if they feel as if you have violated their rules. SO I would say that making a nominal offering to the SOX gods to keep them at bay is a very good idea.
“To all of you who claim that Apple are correctly interpreting SOX. WHY DID THEY NOT CHARGE FOR Boot Camp ?”
But you knew that you had an intel chip. You knew that Apple said that they would not prevent the computer from being used as a PC. YOU KNEW that the computer (if some smart person would try) could be booted into Windows. You had NO IDEA (because it did not come from APPLE’S corporate mouth) that there was an “N” chip in your computer. You had NO IDEA that the computer had that functionality until “snoopers” (and thank god for snoopers) told us that. Apple THEN went ahead and announced that the computer you purchased had the capability of “doing ‘N'”. The situations are different my friend.
Apple – the first company in the history of computing to charge for its device drivers.
“To all of you who claim that Apple are correctly interpreting SOX. WHY DID THEY NOT CHARGE FOR Boot Camp ?”
Boot Camp is a BETA. It doesn’t need to be accounted for because it’s an unfinished product.
>Daniel wrote: Boot Camp is a BETA. It doesn’t need to be accounted for because it’s an unfinished product.
Hmmm… Source? Link?
Beta software does have quite a bit of costing to be done. The costs don’t hit the books only when the software makes it to the street for sale. They’re applied as they’re incurred (wages, R&D, legal, etc).
To the new-found SOX experts, why doesn’t Apple charge for Boot Camp?
Come on up to the great white north where we wear sox – but its still a choice. Save the$1.99. Get your prescriptions filled at the same time. The trip will pay for itself. Of course on your return you may be asked at the border if you’ve upgraded your mac to “N” while you’ve been out of the country. I’ve been told from a very reliable source that compliance with SOX is now the number 1 priority for Homeland Security. Good thing too!
The $1.99 isn’t the point, it’s the dubious explanation offered by the Apple flack. It just doesn’t hold water, either on the grounds of SOX or on accounting principles. That’s why I said the explanation was poppycock in the first place. To-day we have independent confirmation that no accounting principle requires this charge. See:
http://www.247wallst.com/2007/01/steve_jobs_is_r.html
Maybe the real story will emerge in time as to what the reason for the charge is. Perhaps the idea is to set a precedent, in case one is needed.
Meanwhile, my rectangular Airport with n capability is on order and my mid range MacBook with n capability is on its way. So I am escaping the $1.99. Smart, eh?
> CuriousGeorgeCA wrote: Maybe the real story will emerge in time as to what the reason for the charge is. Perhaps the idea is to set a precedent, in case one is needed.
Good insight!
Do you think this rumor could have anything to do with it?
“RUMOR: Apple to charge $29 for final Boot Camp release”
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/12384/
I commented that Apple charging for Boot Camp may seem predatory because there was a third-party movement to allow Windows-booting on a Mac. Since Apple released Boot Camp and didn’t charge for it, they essentially killed third-party development.
Kill the competition by not charging for a product, and when the competition is dead, institute a charge. Defending that in court isn’t easy.