Apple's Imposed 802.11n Enabler Patch

[pyrates]

To all the people saying that they shouldn't have to pay for something they already bought (but hasn't been activated yet), well, obviously you are right.

 

That's right. If the hardware can do it, I expect to be able to fully use that hardware either the moment I purchase it or sometime down the road for the amount of time that the company says they will have to support it.

 

I can't understand why anyone would defend a corporation's efforts to suck money out of consumer's pockets. That is what lawyers are for.

 

They're called fan boys. Which fan is short for fanatic with some of them. Don't mind them.

 

Then again, I guess people who own a new mac should be glad that they'll even get 802.11n. Apple could have told ya'll to just shove off. Apple probably figures that most people will feel privileged to get 802.11n, probably figure that most people will consider it a bonus and not care about $5 more. Probably, they are right. If I bought a brand new mac I'd pay another $5 to make it work.

 

Now the price is set at $1.99. But yes that is what I think Apple is going for here. Plus they didn't have a 802.11n wireless access point out when they released the computers that had these cards in them. So the only reason to charge now for it is because this is all marketing. Congratulations for falling for it. Other companies wouldn't charge you for a newer driver when the product is still supported by them. And these products are 6 months old only.

 

but I don't really care...thanks to tubgirl. I love Os X and I would definitely pay for it, but I wouldn't buy another mac. but I then again I don't really care about Apple, and was never really interested in a mac (until Intel Macs).

 

I hope you don't mean tubgirl.com. Don't go there btw lol.

 

SO, I don't think my opinion should be worth as much as someone who is actually going to have to decide whether to fork out more $, or go to the bay.

 

Well everyone is entitled to their opinion, even the fan boys.

 

But here is where it gets interesting. The consortium WWiSE says that its member companies, which include broadcom who makes the cards that go into the intel mac's that this enabler patch will work with, their developers who make the drivers, do NOT have to pay royalties for using the patents associated with 802.11n. So there goes the licensing theory that some fan boys are trying to explain it with.

 

Now this could be clearly then Apple asking broadcom to just have drivers for the 802.11g and 802.11b capabilities in that draft n card and to not bother for the moment with 802.11n, which they probably saved a bit of cash doing. Which means that for Apple to then get 802.11n, they'd need to pay broadcom to add in the 802.11n features. So then from this we can gather that Apple is trying to recuperate what they had to pay broadcom by charging $1.99 per download of it.

 

But with you getting the enabler for free if you buy the airport extreme, this means that Marketing is trying to say that if you don't buy the airport extreme and use a competitors 802.11n wifi router competing product, Apple still gets to take a little bit of money from you, effectively punishing you for buying the competitors product. I believe in that case then this would be an antitrust issue because of the tying together of 2 products to try to circumvent the competition.

 

Which theory works for the rest of you?

 

And if this all comes out as being just a rumour, what does that say for the people who were defending Apple saying it was fine if they did do this?

 

How did I start talking about this? I came here looking for "chain0 boot error" help...

 

I believe that chain0 looks for a partition whose type was set to ID=AF. Don't ask me how to set that though, just something I came across

 

I believe that what we need is for the open source community to develop their own driver for the 802.11n card that Apple uses so that you have a choice of paying for one driver or getting another one for free. Nothing illegal about it. I wonder then what Apple would do.

Edited January 22, 2007 by pyrates

[pyrates]

According to the Wall Street Journal, it is also completely bogus that some accounting rule is forcing Apple to charge $1.99 for this. Here's the link to the story. Unfortunately it's a paid subscription, but you get the idea. Gizmodo summarizes it nicely.

[macgirl]

I insist, Class Action Lawsuit

[A Nonny Moose]

Is all this worth it over $2.00?

[pyrates]

Is all this worth it over $2.00?

 

Of course. Next Apple would charge you $2 for a brighter screen on your ipod. When they knowingly could just release it for free. Why are you making an excuse for Apple to do this when no other company is doing this? And do remember that you aren't charged for this if you buy the airport extreme. ONLY if you decide to save some money and go with a competitor's 802.11n wifi access point. Explain why you think Apple is allowed to do this? I want to hear your reason. It's only $2 is not a good reason. It's you bending over and telling Steve Jobs to say it's ok if you do this.

 

How about this? If this had come out from broadcom directly instead where broadcom was getting the $2 per download instead, would you still accept the $2 firmware or would you demand it to be free? I await your answer.

 

This shouldn't even be tolerated, and it wouldn't be if someone else OTHER then apple was doing it. But because it's apple, you just take it like the sheep you are. Ignorance is bliss it seems.

 

On second though, Moose, can you give me 2 dollars? Come on...pleeeeeeeeeeeeease. It's ONLY $2. You said so yourself. It's not a big deal right?

Edited January 26, 2007 by pyrates

[A Nonny Moose]

If it's something that's only $2 or something nominal like that, I wouldn't complain. If they were to offer it for $10 or more, then I'd be complaining.

 

I guess I'm just not as bitchy as everyone else seems to be on here.

[A Nonny Moose]

Mods, forgive me for being an ass here, but the {censored} in this topic is getting ridiculous.

 

Of course. Next Apple would charge you $2 for a brighter screen on your ipod. When they knowingly could just release it for free. Why are you making an excuse for Apple to do this when no other company is doing this? And do remember that you aren't charged for this if you buy the airport extreme. ONLY if you decide to save some money and go with a competitor's 802.11n wifi access point. Explain why you think Apple is allowed to do this? I want to hear your reason. It's only $2 is not a good reason. It's you bending over and telling Steve Jobs to say it's ok if you do this.

 

Companies are allowed to do whatever the {censored} they want to do. It's a free market as in idea, not free as in beer. Now I'm sorry that you aren't willing to spend two goddamn dollars to get something, but that's your right. You don't HAVE to get everything that is offered to you. You don't HAVE to get iLife, iWork, or any of the other stuff that Apple or any other vendor offers to you.

 

If someone would come out with something to make the iPod brighter and it cost $2, the first thing I would seriously think about is whether or not I absolutely need this product. Do I really need a brighter iPod screen? Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally? Right now, I can honestly say no. It's about taking things into the context of things I need vs things that would be really nice.

 

How about this? If this had come out from broadcom directly instead where broadcom was getting the $2 per download instead, would you still accept the $2 firmware or would you demand it to be free? I await your answer.

Personally, I wouldn't give a flying {censored} who it came from. If it enabled something that I absolutely needed, then I would pay the low $2 price tag to get it. Again, needs vs wants.

 

This shouldn't even be tolerated, and it wouldn't be if someone else OTHER then apple was doing it. But because it's apple, you just take it like the sheep you are. Ignorance is bliss it seems.

 

Are you through being an idiot yet? Again, if you don't like it, you can create an enabler patch yourself and market it for free and be in direct competition with Apple, but I guess bitching about something is more important than creating a free solution to your problem.

 

On second though, Moose, can you give me 2 dollars? Come on...pleeeeeeeeeeeeease. It's ONLY $2. You said so yourself. It's not a big deal right?

 

Guess you're not done....

[pyrates]

Guess you're not done either. Now here is where things get sticky. This enabler patch is FREE if you buy the airport extreme. But it isn't if you decide to go with a competitors 802.11n wifi access point product. That is the tying together of 2 products which antitrust issues then come up. You've also seen that Apple's initial reason for doing this is BS too. So do you appreciate being nickel and dimed like Apple is doing right now?

 

You didn't even answer my question about giving me the $2. I accept paypal of course. It helps being bias for one thing when you can ignore the facts that show you're wrong. And that is exactly what you are doing here. You didn't even respond to any of my arguments other then saying that it's your decision to pay for it.

 

But show that I'm wrong about something, and I won't be so bad about it. I'll accept it and apologize for my mistake. Will you?

[jgrimes80]

Why is this thread still going? the patch has already been released free of charge???

 

Check your updates people

Edited January 27, 2007 by jgrimes80

[pyrates]

Why is this thread still going? the patch has already been released free of charge???

 

Check your updates people

 

Well in that case, I apologize. Guess they got so much heat over this, they had to make it free Here's the link.

[A Nonny Moose]

Guess you're not done either. Now here is where things get sticky. This enabler patch is FREE if you buy the airport extreme. But it isn't if you decide to go with a competitors 802.11n wifi access point product. That is the tying together of 2 products which antitrust issues then come up. You've also seen that Apple's initial reason for doing this is BS too. So do you appreciate being nickel and dimed like Apple is doing right now?

 

God you're such a moron. Apple has nowhere near monopoly power over a market. This has been discussed on here way too many times to even dignify it with another discussion.

 

You didn't even answer my question about giving me the $2. I accept paypal of course. It helps being bias for one thing when you can ignore the facts that show you're wrong. And that is exactly what you are doing here. You didn't even respond to any of my arguments other then saying that it's your decision to pay for it.

Well, it was your decision ultimately. Nobody was forcing you to pay for the upgrade. Nobody held a gun to your head and said "Get this upgrade or you and your family will die."

 

And no I won't give you any money because you're asking it to be an {censored}, not out of genuine need. I made a decision based on the facts of the time, which is something all consumers make on everything they buy.

 

But show that I'm wrong about something, and I won't be so bad about it. I'll accept it and apologize for my mistake. Will you?

 

I think you're trying to speak for 100% of the masses when it is clear the mass of people are a bunch of INDIVIDUAL people with INDIVIDUAL ideas. When you're done trying to be the pope, let me know.

[pyrates]

God you're such a moron. Apple has nowhere near monopoly power over a market. This has been discussed on here way too many times to even dignify it with another discussion.

 

Apple is the only maker of mac's. You can't go out to another computer maker and buy a mac. Got to be from Apple. And different stores doesn't count. Hence the monopoly. Just like Microsoft is a monopoly. So is Apple.

 

Well, it was your decision ultimately. Nobody was forcing you to pay for the upgrade. Nobody held a gun to your head and said "Get this upgrade or you and your family will die."

 

Well now that the upgrade is free, are you gonna {censored} still? Companies aren't completely free to do whatever they want. They have laws that they need to follow. And this was something that they were NOT allowed to do. And I guarantee you if they had gone through with it, lawsuits would be started.

 

And no I won't give you any money because you're asking it to be an {censored}, not out of genuine need. I made a decision based on the facts of the time, which is something all consumers make on everything they buy.

I think you're trying to speak for 100% of the masses when it is clear the mass of people are a bunch of INDIVIDUAL people with INDIVIDUAL ideas. When you're done trying to be the pope, let me know.

 

How is nickel and diming your own customers a genuine need? It isn't. Then again my only reason for asking was that you said it was only $2. So why not ask for another $2? Seems pretty simple to me. Damn you're such a fan boy.

[A Nonny Moose]

Apple is the only maker of mac's. You can't go out to another computer maker and buy a mac. Got to be from Apple. And different stores doesn't count. Hence the monopoly. Just like Microsoft is a monopoly. So is Apple.

 

No, it isn't. 5% of the total computer market isn't a monopoly. Having choices with other computer makers isn't a monopoly. Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.

 

Well now that the upgrade is free, are you gonna {censored} still? Companies aren't completely free to do whatever they want. They have laws that they need to follow. And this was something that they were NOT allowed to do. And I guarantee you if they had gone through with it, lawsuits would be started.

Again, a company is free to do whatever the hell they want, so long as they don't violate any laws. And it isn't like Apple gave you the tools to create your own 802.11n patch for free with XCode. I mean, the great Hackintosh community should have been able to develop this for free instead of bitching about it. Jeeze, the great Hackintosh community, breaker of all of Apple's security attempts to keep the software closed, can't come up with a patch? I really don't think so. But then again, it's much more productive to {censored} than to come up with a real solution (irony).

 

How is nickel and diming your own customers a genuine need? It isn't. Then again my only reason for asking was that you said it was only $2. So why not ask for another $2? Seems pretty simple to me. Damn you're such a fan boy.

 

Again, companies are free to do whatever the hell they want based on a free market, so long as they don't violate any of the laws of said market. If a lawsuit were to come out of that, the plaintiffs would have to prove that charging $2.00 for an enabler patch somehow violated the law. So unless you're going to show me the law that states that a company cannot charge $2.00 for an enabler patch, then this conversation is over.

[bluedragon1971]

I don't mind paying the $4.99 they are asking, hell I paid $1500 for my MacBook. But I don't like the feeling of being held hostage for something I paid for fair and square.

 

That's just it, you didn't pay for 802.11n, you paid for 802.11b/g, and you got it. If you want n, you have to pay for the firmware upgrade.

[Baliw]

That's just it, you didn't pay for 802.11n, you paid for 802.11b/g, and you got it. If you want n, you have to pay for the firmware upgrade.

 

Wait let me get it straight i bought a hardware with 802.11 b/g enabled and n capable (but disabled) , right? Therefore i bought a hardware with b/g/n capability. What the heck am i missing here?

[pyrates]

That's just it, you didn't pay for 802.11n, you paid for 802.11b/g, and you got it. If you want n, you have to pay for the firmware upgrade.

 

Yes but what was also given as an option is that you can get it for free if you get the airport extreme, but if you go with a competitor's product you have to pay for the firmware. That is the illegal tying of 2 separate products. Which in this case it really isn't firmware at all. It is a damn driver, still don't understand? If you installed windows xp on that mac, you could download the driver that enables 802.11n to work on that nic for free. This is no firmware change and you have no basis for your argument except that "it's apple". A company does not get better when it's own customers constantly need to defend its actions. It makes it worse, and that's what you're causing here.

 

And earlier about it actually being free, I was informed that I was wrong about that. Apple is still charging for it. That update wasn't the enabler patch I linked to.

 

And I guess now that the accounting rule has been ruled out as the reason for charging for this, you needed to find another reason to say it is ok for Apple to do this. Congrats. So then what you're trying to say is that it's ok for companies in general to nickel and dime their customers.

[pyrates]

Oh I'm gonna love tearing through your arguements

 

No, it isn't. 5% of the total computer market isn't a monopoly. Having choices with other computer makers isn't a monopoly. Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.

 

Name me another company that you can buy a computer that runs mac os x on? I'm waiting on your answer.

 

Again, a company is free to do whatever the hell they want, so long as they don't violate any laws. And it isn't like Apple gave you the tools to create your own 802.11n patch for free with XCode. I mean, the great Hackintosh community should have been able to develop this for free instead of bitching about it. Jeeze, the great Hackintosh community, breaker of all of Apple's security attempts to keep the software closed, can't come up with a patch? I really don't think so. But then again, it's much more productive to {censored} than to come up with a real solution (irony).

 

I'm all for the great hackintosh community to come out with a free alternative to the enabler patch. But it will be the consumer who will see Apple as the only company to get this from. It is the consumers who won't know better other then that they should get it from apple. Sure more advanced computer users will distribute the patch, but the consumer who doesn't know any better, that is the people apple is targeting, and they know it.

 

Again, companies are free to do whatever the hell they want based on a free market, so long as they don't violate any of the laws of said market. If a lawsuit were to come out of that, the plaintiffs would have to prove that charging $2.00 for an enabler patch somehow violated the law. So unless you're going to show me the law that states that a company cannot charge $2.00 for an enabler patch, then this conversation is over.

 

Well you wanted me to show you, here it is.

 

1. There must be two separate products or services.

 

We have that here. The 802.11n enable patch and the airport extreme.

 

2. There must be a sale or an agreement to sell one product (or service) on the condition that the buyer purchase another product or service (or the buyer agrees not to purchase the product or service from another supplier).

 

In this sense, it is backwards. Apple is charging the customer money to download the 802.11n driver, stop calling it firmware cause we all know it isn't, if the customer decides to not purchase the airport extreme. And they decide to go with another 802.11n wifi access point that is cheaper then what Apple is charging. But the driver is included for free if the customer decides to purchase the airport extreme, which is more expensive then the competitors products.

 

3. The seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product.

 

And they are doing this by letting the driver be free only if you buy the airport extreme, but not free if you go with a competing product equivalent to the airport extreme.

 

4. The tying arrangement must affect a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce.

 

And if 1 million mac users buy this, that is $2 million dollars in Apple's pockets.

 

Enjoy I had fun doing this.

[jgrimes80]

Yes but what was also given as an option is that you can get it for free if you get the airport extreme, but if you go with a competitor's product you have to pay for the firmware. That is the illegal tying of 2 separate products. Which in this case it really isn't firmware at all. It is a damn driver, still don't understand? If you installed windows xp on that mac, you could download the driver that enables 802.11n to work on that nic for free. This is no firmware change and you have no basis for your argument except that "it's apple". A company does not get better when it's own customers constantly need to defend its actions. It makes it worse, and that's what you're causing here.

 

And earlier about it actually being free, I was informed that I was wrong about that. Apple is still charging for it. That update wasn't the enabler patch I linked to.

 

And I guess now that the accounting rule has been ruled out as the reason for charging for this, you needed to find another reason to say it is ok for Apple to do this. Congrats. So then what you're trying to say is that it's ok for companies in general to nickel and dime their customers.

 

Absolutely... Companies are in the business of making money. if you don't like it, don't buy it. If you think something should be done, complaining on the internet doesn't really do anything. Like my elders always told me; Stand up or Shut up...

 

-jgrimes80

 

PS: My sincerest apology on jumping the gun... I was misinformed

[pyrates]

Absolutely... Companies are in the business of making money. if you don't like it, don't buy it. If you think something should be done, complaining on the internet doesn't really do anything. Like my elders always told me; Stand up or Shut up...

 

-jgrimes80

 

PS: My sincerest apology on jumping the gun... I was misinformed

 

I'll remember this now. Thanks for confirming my thoughts.

[jgrimes80]

In regards to Apple holding a monopoly...

 

This is a joke:

 

Windows runs on all hardware, not for legal reasons, but in the interest of making money through licensing. Apple chooses to develop it's own OS to run on it's own hardware. (Hence the word, proprietary)

 

3-4% market share... not a monopoly

no anti-competiton tactics... not a monopoly

Even iTunes + iPod isn't a monopoly <- both the iTunes and iPod licensing agreement explicitly state their limitations.

[pyrates]

In regards to Apple holding a monopoly...

 

This is a joke:

 

Windows runs on all hardware, not for legal reasons, but in the interest of making money through licensing. Apple chooses to develop it's own OS to run on it's own hardware. (Hence the word, proprietary)

 

3-4% market share... not a monopoly

no anti-competiton tactics... not a monopoly

Even iTunes + iPod isn't a monopoly <- both the iTunes and iPod licensing agreement explicitly state their limitations.

 

People can have a small market share and still be considered a monopoly.

 

See my previous examples of anticompetitive practices in another post. And it started with itunes and ipod actually. Second and last one, not really. Read here of what happened in Norway. Times are a changing. And just because they state their limitations doesn't make it any less right. Just read this

article on why it is in Apple's best interests to maintain their DRM lock on the itunes stores.

 

Can you explain to me a legal way of watching movies and tv shows from the itunes music store on a portable video device besides the ipod video?

[bluedragon1971]

Wait let me get it straight i bought a hardware with 802.11 b/g enabled and n capable (but disabled) , right? Therefore i bought a hardware with b/g/n capability. What the heck am i missing here?

 

The hardware was never advertised as having n capability, that is what you are missing. As far as Apple is concerned (and any lawyer will tell you this too), you only bought and paid for what was advertised. Please show me where Apple ever told you that you were buying a piece of hardware that was capable of 802.11n.

[A Nonny Moose]

Name me another company that you can buy a computer that runs mac os x on? I'm waiting on your answer.

 

OS X is an operating system, of which there are choices. Apple is a hardware vendor of which there are choices. Again, there is no way to absolutely prove monopoly power based on the fact that we have choices in terms of what OS we can use and what box we can buy.

 

I'm all for the great hackintosh community to come out with a free alternative to the enabler patch. But it will be the consumer who will see Apple as the only company to get this from. It is the consumers who won't know better other then that they should get it from apple. Sure more advanced computer users will distribute the patch, but the consumer who doesn't know any better, that is the people apple is targeting, and they know it.

So you're saying the average computer user won't find out about it? That might have been true about a decade ago, but I tend to doubt your hypothesis. I mean, they get email and can do a Google search, I bet an average idiot can find something for free.

 

Well you wanted me to show you, here it is.

 

1. There must be two separate products or services.

 

We have that here. The 802.11n enable patch and the airport extreme.

 

So you can say the same thing about QuickTime Pro and the QuickTime MP2 player component. Want to wage a lawsuit on that also?

 

2. There must be a sale or an agreement to sell one product (or service) on the condition that the buyer purchase another product or service (or the buyer agrees not to purchase the product or service from another supplier).

 

In this sense, it is backwards. Apple is charging the customer money to download the 802.11n driver, stop calling it firmware cause we all know it isn't, if the customer decides to not purchase the airport extreme. And they decide to go with another 802.11n wifi access point that is cheaper then what Apple is charging. But the driver is included for free if the customer decides to purchase the airport extreme, which is more expensive then the competitors products.

 

But the other component isn't absolutely needed for the functionality to be there, which Apple can clearly demonstrate. You can use wireless without 802.11n. Again, it's the QuickTime argument; 802.11n is a nice to have, but it isn't absolutely necessary for the piece of equipment to work.

 

3. The seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product.

 

And they are doing this by letting the driver be free only if you buy the airport extreme, but not free if you go with a competing product equivalent to the airport extreme.

 

But Apple isn't restraining free competition because someone can develop their own free "n-enabler" using XCode.

 

4. The tying arrangement must affect a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce.

 

And if 1 million mac users buy this, that is $2 million dollars in Apple's pockets.

 

Enjoy I had fun doing this.

 

That part is true, but that is based on an assumption and not actual figure. Hope you had fun reading the rebuttal.

[A Nonny Moose]

The hardware was never advertised as having n capability, that is what you are missing. As far as Apple is concerned (and any lawyer will tell you this too), you only bought and paid for what was advertised. Please show me where Apple ever told you that you were buying a piece of hardware that was capable of 802.11n.

 

Don't tell him he was practicing law without a license either (unless he has a law license we don't know about)

[jgrimes80]

People can have a small market share and still be considered a monopoly.

 

See my previous examples of anticompetitive practices in another post. And it started with itunes and ipod actually. Second and last one, not really. Read here of what happened in Norway. Times are a changing. And just because they state their limitations doesn't make it any less right. Just read this

article on why it is in Apple's best interests to maintain their DRM lock on the itunes stores.

 

Can you explain to me a legal way of watching movies and tv shows from the itunes music store on a portable video device besides the ipod video?

 

First off, there is a difference between right and legal. If people read the licensing agreement, there would be no problem. It's not my problem, and it's not Apple's. If you think for one second Apple legal hasn't covered it's ass to protect over $11 billion in liquidable assets, please think again.

 

Secondly, Of course a DRM is in Apple's interests... why would anyone think otherwise? Heck, it's in the music label's interest as well.

 

Thirdly, you going to have to provide me with an example of a monopoly while garnering a minimal market share.

 

Last but not least, an mp4 compatible player? I don't know as this shouldn't be a question if one read the license which the purchaser AGREED to...