MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

This accounting problem is odd. Isn't the expectation of every computer owner that there will be software enhancements that can take more advantage of relatively new hardware?

Hmmmm, if I read that right, Apple will defer some of the income from AppleTV and iPhone for a period of time.

That means that while they will be sucessful right away, they will also get credit for the success (money wise) again and again over the next two years. Smart move, me thinks.

en

@Chris
Not really. I think that the trend has been that you get what you bought on purchase date, and anything that comes after that you have to pay for. This has been true with Apple, Microsoft, etc. The exception has been that if you bought a new machine and the new OS came out within 90 days then you usually got the new version for free. I think it's nice that Apple has decided to update our machines as new features come out. Let's hope that begins a new trend.

That's "interesting". Amortizing revenue over two years? If they've already started that, then they have hidden revenue they have yet to report! While the AppleTV is a low-profit item compared to Macs, reporting revenue for hundreds of thousands of them over the next seven quarters will camouflage their position - show it as weaker - while it grows stronger.

OTOH: this says quite clearly that neither product is actually ready for Prime Time. They may be ready for the market they face, but they need more time to ramp up for the market coming soon.

DLMeyer - the Voice of G.L.Horton's Stage Page Pod-Cast

How does this jibe with the charge for 802.11n SW being charged for on certain Macs with n capable cards?

Hmmm. Follow up thought.

If Apple is announcing that it will update FOR FREE, this equipment, it means that if you were thinking of buying one and wanted to hold off for a better version 2 or 3 (Microsoft thinking :-( ) then you can now buy this right off the bat and know that you will have upgrades for free over and over again, No buying last years technology.

Neat idea. Savvy business move.

Not true - because theu have agreed to list sales and shipments for both iPhone and AppleTV. Just makes sense to smooth out profits especially as they are getting recurring subscription revenue.

show me the "money"

agree - alsop means apple can freely talk about upcoming AppleTV software updates (even if vaporware) and not worry about consumers holding off.

Free is good, but I don't have a TV. If Apple will buy me a Panasonic TH-42PHD8UK, I'll be glad to purchase Apple TV and associated software. Since I doubt that will happen, I'm thrilled for the rest of you.

OS X bitch!

in my opinion apple needs to make a macbook with de design of marc newson and jonathan ive,that will put apple even better in my opinion.

Jimbo has it right ... mostly. You buy a Mac and you expect a limited number of free OS updates and patches to be free. Then you get to pay. You buy a PC and you can expect little to be free after that. Two years is about the longest you get free updates from Apple. But, here's the kicker:"Apple will continually develop new software features". Not mere "updates", features!

Remember the accounting problems when Apple wanted to upgrade the iMacs with the new Airport-Extreme standard and they weren't allowed to do it for free, so they had to charge some bucks?

Same reasoning seems to apply here: a massive enhancement of the gadget's functionality through software update isn't "allowed" by accounting standards unless you choose a somewhat strange method reported now.

What an original TIVO/cell phone industry idea.....

Just my $0.02

"G. L. Horton" said "OS X bitch!".

Part of one reader's continuing complaints about my use of a link in my .sig - and another reason we need log-ins and editing abilities here. BTW: your silliness drew a couple dozen new listeners to our pod-cast ... thank you.

MW=FULL - as in "you are full of ...

One side effect of this form of accounting is that customers can get free software upgrades for the iPhone and Apple TV without violating the evil Sarbanes Oxley law.

Apple TV is in dire need of a software update... i.e. music video playlists without stop, etc. Good news, but they better make the update free---apple tv is just a mac computer and they don't charge for the mac software updates.

DL... don't feed the troll bro.

LinuxGuy,

The Oxley-Sarbanes law is not "evil".

It was the major reform law passed after the Enron, Worldcom, and Tyco scandals (you do remember these, don't you?).

The law is not perfect, and it has driven up costs for public companies.

But it has put corporate executives on notice that if they behave like crooks, loot their companies, or defraud their shareholders, that their actions will come to light, and they will be held accountable.

So no, the law isn't "evil". That's plainly ridiculous, whatever your disagreements with it may be.

Apple TV will be getting updates as iTunes receives them:

1. HD movie content
2. "Netflix-like" movie rental service
3. The biggest feature - iTunes rental or purchase ability directly in the living-room with Apple TV. This makes Apple TV more than just a one-way iPod like device. One can purchase or rent movies with Apple TV, and if purchasing the movies, Apple TV dumps them back to the Mac/PC iTunes Movie Library. A huge barrier in Apple TV acceptance. No need to involve the computer to get new video content, but just do that from the living-room. Nice.

Software upgrades, paid or not, are the usual expectation. What's different here is the unspoken "You won't be able to load them yourself anymore, we'll take care of it for you." "Oh, and you won't have the option to skip an upgrade." (maybe if it's free, they won't question our having complete control of a device they paid for)

What was the intro. to "The Outer Limits"?

MDN word "born" - like, were you born yesterday?

?,
Don't see the problem with it. There is a difference between free software upgrades and unlocking a hidden feature in a device that you technically didn't pay for because you didn't know it was there.

I don't know why this guy thinks its so surprising that Apple would update the iPhone and AppleTV for free. This is exactly what Apple did with the iPod. When I bought my 1st Gen iPod all it would do was play music. Then through free updates it added contacts, calendar, audiobooks, etc...

The same scenario will play out for both the iPhone and AppleTV. This is the norm. Obviously this guy doesn't know Apple very well, and it shows. How embarrassing for him.

Lack of competition sux...to wit: Leopard delayed?

Reality Check:

Sarbanes-Oxley wasn't in effect when you bought your 1st generation iPod. That's how Apple was able to add those features without levying a similar charge to the 802.11n cards.

DLMeyer:
"Part of one reader's continuing complaints about my use of a link in my .sig - and another reason we need log-ins and editing abilities here. BTW: your silliness drew a couple dozen new listeners to our pod-cast ... thank you."

People *complaining* about the link in your sig are FAR far FAR more irritating than the link itself is. It's not like it's a pop up ad, it's a LINK.

If people don't want to click on a link, they don't have to.

If everyone who posts on here had a page they wanted to plug I would not have a problem with it. Just make sure the comment you post is worth reading. By the way this excludes people complaining about links in sigs, cos those comments are NOT worth reading.

Minoveur
"But it has put corporate executives on notice that if they behave like crooks, loot their companies, or defraud their shareholders, that their actions will come to light, and they will be held accountable.

So no, the law isn't "evil". That's plainly ridiculous, whatever your disagreements with it may be."

Evil may have been a hyperbole in this case, but I think the point still stands. If the law *while intending to do good* did far more harm than good because it was ill concieved or poorly written, then that would constitude a type of evil: the evil of the "do gooder".

If your intentions of doing good are more important to you than the results of your efforts, then yes I do believe that is evil.

While I won't claim to have enough knowledge about this specific particular law it might not be that bad, but if it is, then I think evil is an appropriate term. It would be evil in the sense of doing harm while in the guise of "fixing" a problem.

While it's true those scandals did occur it's not clear to me that there needed to be a government fix for them. People are sometimes crooks, and there were already laws in place to prevent that from happening but people break laws. Just because some powerful and rich people broke laws does NOT mean there need to be new laws written.

Interesting move...

As people have pointed out, free feature upgrades are not really new for Apple. What's new is the accounting method of spreading out revenue reporting in order to account for these freebies.

If you think about it, this is sort of the opposite of the "mark to market" accounting that Enron was using -- they were reporting revenue NOW against future earnings. This method goes to the other extreme and defers actual earnings obtained NOW for later reporting.

"maybe if it's free, they won't question our having complete control of a device they paid for"

Oh, I must have missed when someone held a gun to your head and forced you to hook your Apple TV to the internet, and forced you to download every update to iTunes as well.

"This accounting problem is odd. Isn't the expectation of every computer owner that there will be software enhancements that can take more advantage of relatively new hardware?"

Updates do not offer new features, only fixes (except in the case of things like iTunes or QuickTime , which are free to begin with). Upgrades are not free because they do offer new features.

"How does this jibe with the charge for 802.11n SW being charged for on certain Macs with n capable cards?"

The firmware upgrade to enable this feature is the perfect example. Apple had to charge a trivial amount for the update, otherwise they would have to go back and recalculate profits on all the sales for the computers with the 802.11n compatible cards. And the reason that the machines shipped with that feature disabled is that the 802.11n standard had not been agreed upon, and Apple did not know for sure that the cards would comply until then.