Apple's Imposed 802.11n Enabler Patch

Why should i pay apple just to enable the hardware i already paid for ?

is this one of steve's "One more thing...."?

"Because of the Act, the company believes that if it sells a product, then later adds a feature to that product, it can be held liable for improper accounting if it recognizes revenue from the product at the time of sale, given that it hasn’t finished delivering the product at that point.”

Well, so they will impose a fee for BootCamp too?, since originally Intel Macs didn't supossed to run Windows/other OS.

I say Class Action Lawsuit

Well, so they will impose a fee for BootCamp too?, since originally Intel Macs didn't supossed to run Windows/other OS.

I think the difference is in that 802.11.n was a hardware feature, that was actually there, but it wasn't advertised or enabled, whether Boot camp and other software improvements weren't on the product when it shipped at all. I still think this is silly, and if they needed to charge they could have charged .99 and make it a download.

Anyways, this will be on demonoid and such, seconds after it's out, so don't worry.

I don't And $4.99 is not a big deal, but that law is

Probably a case of hardware being there but the full-functionality firmware was not, hence the hardware/firmware system was not complete in a strict accounting sense. As for the charge, anything less than $5 would probably have cost them more to process than they actually received.

I am surprised it is only $4.99, Apple wants you to pay $29.99 for QuickTime Pro (which enables full screen mode): http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebO...rnMore=D3380Z/A

Metrogirl made a good point to why they probably didn't make it any cheaper.

I would say $5 is a fine price, but at the same time, I don't have Core 2 Duo

So if you DONT buy their 802.11n wireless access point, you gotta pay $5 to them to enable the 802.11n on your mac? But if you buy their 802.11n wireless access point, you get the updated driver free? This here is horse ****. Except for Apple here, no other company would get away with this. I'm waiting for the legion of fan boys coming up here to explain this to us? If you had to pay no matter what, it might be more explainable, but the fact that you gotta pay because you didn't choose their higher priced 802.11n wireless access point is total BS. I call it extortion and hope a class action lawsuit comes their way.

If you think it's because of this law that says they can't make it free, remember when Apple introduced the 640x480 videos on iTunes when all its users were downloading 320x240 versions of videos on iTunes? And that the new ipod video was able to now play 640x480, and then they said with a free firmware upgrade, the current ipod video could play the 640x480 videos too instead of just 320x240?

Well shouldn't have that fallen under this law too? Guess not since Apple made it free. Their is no absolute reason for this other then Apple being greedy.

And if you think you'll just get it online for free elsewhere, Apple isn't targeting you with this. They are targeting the novice computer users who don't know better. This is why IMO it is unfair and an extortion that Apple is telling its users.

Tell me I'm wrong if you like, but I'd like to hear your reasoning why Apple is allowed to get away with this.

people bitching about $5......boohooo, cry me a river

people bitching about $5......boohooo, cry me a river

Lol, so true. Its only $5, get a life, most of you wont even buy it, you'll just get it off the bay.

Eh, $5 here, $10 there; I mean, who gives a shiit what it all adds up to right? Oo

And of course it makes sense that I pay extra to use something I already own! oO

Ok if you haven't figgured this out, I am surprised.....

There is a HUGE battle now over how people are going to get content to you... In addition Apple has gone through great lengths to get apple and more importantly Itunes into your home whether through a MAC, PC, Ipod, and now Apple TV and Iphone or what ever it is going to be called. Because of this huge PUSH for content on demand, and the "market" is going to be huge, companies like apple need to attract investors to build all of this new infrastructure, let alone finance all of the shinanagins. Subsequently, investors LOVE it when companies like Apple can institute nickel and dime tactics on a product and watch all the retards pay for it. I myself don't care about draft N because it is just that a DRAFT and not a standard. However, it does look like Apple has chosen draft N as its "standard"...don't know how smart that will be.

Get used to these types of tactics on all future products, wether apple or other companies. If you want to read about an interesting story about the birth of mass media, as I view the next venture of content on demand wars simular to the orginal mass media wars, Check out the patent dispute between Nicola Tesla and Marconi on the radio. Look who the investors were, and look at how the patent went back and forth. Now look at Steve jobs and his, I will say desperate attitude on the introduction of his Iphone. Remember whom Jobs talked to first on the Voice Mail, Al Gore, Mr ex-clinton, huge global trade global gov guy, a guy who would love all of us to buy our own tracking devices. In addition, on the key note speach, the first 2 things that Jobs shows off on the Google Map was the Washington Monument, sorry guys HUGE obelisk, and the Eiffel Tower, another HUGE obelisk, and to solidify the message the Roman Collieseam, the center of roman pacification of the masses. BTW, obelisks are signs of Power and Domination, and date back to the Egyptians, atleast that is what the docent said on my trip to Bath.

Interesting points, ChuckD, but you let yourself drift off topic - a lot of your post would be better in the views & opinions section. Let's keep threads focussed, thanks.

people bitching about $5......boohooo, cry me a river

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.

Just my rant

I am not going to be an Apple fanboy, but lets think about this reasonably. Some paid for the hardware, ok that is fine. Now, we need to pay for the ability to use it. Now lets think of this in legal terms/financial terms. The Xbox could play dvds, but you have to add extra hardware/pay for it. Why? The license to play DVD's wasn't included in the Xbox's price. SO, about $10 of the remote was for the license. Now with Apple, you have the hardware but not software, which you never were paying for; you paid for the wireless connectivity up to G standards. So, to enable this added feature, you pay $5. I can see both sides, but if there is fee that must be paid, then ok but it kind of like splitting hairs. Windows can't play dvds out of the box (at least up XP, Vista RTM I don't know). Why? You didn't pay for the codec. So this patch is like a codec? Maybe but even the dvd example is splitting hairs to. Like I said, I can see both sides, but in the legal world you paid for hardware and the software, which it seems must be paid for, didn't come with your mac and isn't on the restore dvd's thus a fee. *shrugs* The world is about money. I don't see griping to much here since Apple is going forward with wireless technology ahead of others but I think the legal {censored} in all businesses gets a little much from time to time.

I just think the whole thing is kind of silly.

And no, I won't be going to the trouble of entering my credit card info or mailing a check with my checking account number boldly written on the front for a measly $5.

I DO expect to be getting this functionality anyways..... get my drift?

Currently, all of Apple’s Core 2 Duo products (except 17-inch 1.83GHz iMac and Mac-Mini)

its a Mac Mini not mac-mini

and i dont have n or core 2 duo so i can use it if i had wireless n or not

News.com says it will be a 1.99$ download.

its a Mac Mini not mac-mini

 

and i dont have n or core 2 duo so i can use it if i had wireless n or not

hahaha not according to your username.

its a Mac Mini not mac-mini

lol nope, you're wrong too. It's a 'Mac mini'. Check Apple's site or the packaging. My guess is that it's a small 'm' to show that it's really small/mini, hence they went with a miniscule!

This is good news, although isnt the n standard still in draft stages?

yea it isnt expected until '08 for the final specs to come out. but i believe there will a firmware upgrade that will allow the draft n cards to work with final N routers and vice-versa, but that is a whole different thread there.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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.