Apple's Imposed 802.11n Enabler Patch

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...

I just had to include this little bit, but that must mean that the company can add anything to the EULA, and have the user have to agree to it to use the product. That is never true. The EULA is not the end all be all. How'd you feel if Apple added a term that said you couldn't criticize it's products if you used any of them. That means people wouldn't put out bad reviews of it. And according to you, it would be ok because it was in the EULA.

Well, instead of resorting to shout downs and name calling, why not try and at least discuss the topic at hand?

Well, instead of resorting to shout downs and name calling, why not try and at least discuss the topic at hand?

Exactly Nonny, If I read all this right, Apple is imposing the fee because of the GAAP law about the advertised features. If I am correct, Apple did not advertise the MacBooks and iMacs as n capable when they were released. In fact, the way we found out was when people took them apart and saw the additional hardware required to supprt 802.11n.

AppleInsider link

Specifically :AirPort and Bluetooth changes

Located just above the hard drive is a newly designed Apple AirPort Extreme wireless card, which utilizes a color-coded three-wire antenna solution. True to rumors, the card identifies itself as an Atheros AR5008 with an 802.11n chip-set supporting the draft 802.11n wireless protocol.

The MacBook Pro's Bluetooth implementation continues to be handled by a separate component card, which in the new systems has been relocated from the bottom case near the hard drive to a position underneath the top case.

Regardless of the law, Apple is still charging the fee, even though it is reduced. I personally don't feel its right that they are, but it won't matter for awhile til networks get 802.11n anyway, which wont be for several months or even into next year.

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.

I'm no lawyer but this is a case of Misrepresentation. They lied to us and you condoned this? And you want me to pay them for lying?

well you can call it lying but is it really? they didnt tell us users what it could exactly do so is it lying? it doesnt say i can run linux on it so are they lying. for apple to post every thing the computer can do is impossible and its not their fault they are doing this. there is a law that says they couldnt and what else can they do?

ok so did the new aiport update make it 802.11n capable or not. some people here have said so and im not sure if it is true. do we still have to pay the 2 dollars or w/e to get the 802.11n capability?

well you can call it lying but is it really? they didnt tell us users what it could exactly do so is it lying? it doesnt say i can run linux on it so are they lying. for apple to post every thing the computer can do is impossible and its not their fault they are doing this. there is a law that says they couldnt and what else can they do?

ok so did the new aiport update make it 802.11n capable or not. some people here have said so and im not sure if it is true. do we still have to pay the 2 dollars or w/e to get the 802.11n capability?

They did not tell us about it intentionaly for the purpose charging you later. And what do you call that ?

they did not know they were gonna charge us later. its not like they have this conspiracy set up so that they will get us over and over again with small fees. they HAVE to charge us becuase of the law that says "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.” that is why they are charging for it!

they did not know they were gonna charge us later. its not like they have this conspiracy set up so that they will get us over and over again with small fees. they HAVE to charge us becuase of the law that says "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.” that is why they are charging for it!

Oh they're not charging all their customers who want 802.11n for this. Just the ones that decide to go with a competitive 802.11n wifi access point, thats all. And the accounting thing is all a lie, just read here. Here's a quote:

"GAAP doesn't require you to charge squat," says Lynn Turner, former chief accountant of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

We seem to be going back and forth on this. But all I know is that something like this, if it were any company BUT apple, you all would rioting about it. But I love a good debate, I just know I'm winning when the arguementer(s) go in circles with their reasons for their opinion.

And of course they knew they were gonna charge us later. This came out just when they were releasing their 802.11n wireless access point. Seems pretty coincidental to me.

I'm about to post that article too but you beat me to it

Oh they're not charging all their customers who want 802.11n for this. Just the ones that decide to go with a competitive 802.11n wifi access point, thats all. And the accounting thing is all a lie, just read here. Here's a quote:

 

"GAAP doesn't require you to charge squat," says Lynn Turner, former chief accountant of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

We seem to be going back and forth on this. But all I know is that something like this, if it were any company BUT apple, you all would rioting about it. But I love a good debate, I just know I'm winning when the arguementer(s) go in circles with their reasons for their opinion.

 

And of course they knew they were gonna charge us later. This came out just when they were releasing their 802.11n wireless access point. Seems pretty coincidental to me.

When are you going to learn that Apple Inc. or ANY other company can charge whatever it wants for whatever products it chooses to charge for. I don't care if the want to charge $1000 for the upgrade/update - THEY CAN! There's a difference between the "right" thing to do, and the way things will be done... If you don't like it, there's nothing stopping you (or any other complainer) from capitalizing on it or boycotting...

If people don't want to pay a lousy $2 for n-compatiblity, they can go the alternative route. Buy a third-party antenna for what? $100? ... If you want another example similar to this:

In recent years, cars have been equiped with electronic "monitoring" system to decrease emmissions waste and increase fuel efficiency. I'm sure you've heard of chip modules/chip programmers that can be purchased to increase the total output (HP) of your car. I've got a Chevy S10 rated at 190HP. Say, it increases the performance of my truck by 10 HP. Based on your logic, I shouldn't have to pay for it because I initially bought the all the hardware capable of delievering 200HP. All that was needed was some software adjustment. This is ludacris because I didn't know it could put out 200HP to begin with... I paid for 190.

BTW, I resent your implications that our opposing arguments aren't valid especially considering yours has been accompanied with name calling.

EDIT: riddled with mistakes

Oh they're not charging all their customers who want 802.11n for this. Just the ones that decide to go with a competitive 802.11n wifi access point, thats all. And the accounting thing is all a lie, just read here. Here's a quote:

 

"GAAP doesn't require you to charge squat," says Lynn Turner, former chief accountant of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

We seem to be going back and forth on this. But all I know is that something like this, if it were any company BUT apple, you all would rioting about it. But I love a good debate, I just know I'm winning when the arguementer(s) go in circles with their reasons for their opinion.

 

And of course they knew they were gonna charge us later. This came out just when they were releasing their 802.11n wireless access point. Seems pretty coincidental to me.

they don't charge the people who buy their wireless routers because they can slip the cost of the upgrade into the whole price of the router. at least that is what i think

Wow, I never knew that calling someone a fan boy was name calling. Tell that to the user who was calling me an idiot because he couldn't rebuff my statements. But you're right. Calling some people fan boys is name calling and I apologize for that.

Now back to the topic at hand. Companies cannot do whatever they want. They can't break laws. EULA's are not the end all be all. They are not allowed to tie products together.

I've shown that this is not a licensing issue, this is a violation of antitrust laws, this is not an accounting thing, this is not something that Apple accidentally did. That this is nickel and diming the customer. They already paid $1500 to $2000 for the computer. Now apple is seeing if they can get a little more out of ya.

And the moment a company is nickel and diming their customers, that is not the way to do business. And I would be outraged if Microsoft pulled something like this. Why aren't the rest of you?

And the claim about Apple including the cost of the $1.99 into the airport extreme, will it come with a license that says how many mac's you can use it on? Lets say 5. That means if you have only one mac at home that you can use it on, you've paid for 4 extra licenses that you never needed. And that according to that accounting law you will have to pay $1.99 per mac that you put this on in order to comply. That would be the only way to comply. But I'm waiting to see what Apple will do. Do they really want this image of nickel and diming their own customers?

yea where the nickel and diming doesnt bother me here but it is getting me mad that they are now going to charge tiger users to use bootcamp but will be included in leo. thats $30 not just $1.99

....

Now back to the topic at hand. Companies cannot do whatever they want. They can't break laws. EULA's are not the end all be all. They are not allowed to tie products together.

 

I've shown that this is not a licensing issue, this is a violation of antitrust laws, this is not an accounting thing, this is not something that Apple accidentally did. That this is nickel and diming the customer. They already paid $1500 to $2000 for the computer. Now apple is seeing if they can get a little more out of ya.

...

Yes, EULA aren't always the end of the line. For example, most courts will not enforce the prohibiting of using licensed "education" software in a commercial environment. But in this case, Apple EULA (specifically iTunes) discloses simple limitations which would be rather difficult to stomp on...

When referring to anti-trust laws, are you referring specifically to the Airport Extreme "package?" Because in my eyes, this is the only product it CAN be tied to... Again, anti-trust laws are very difficult to press. In this case, I believe Apple does have it's rear covered. e.g : paying for the driver to use draft-n and buying the Airport Extreme and "drivers" for both XP/OSX which are required to use the hardware. These kinds of claims where companies "tie" products together are extremely difficult due to the fact SOOOO many products complement each and require each other's presence to function.

It would be like me getting sued for providing technical support for my only my products, and requiring a service contract to recieve such service. To recieve technical advice/service from me, you have to buy a product.

or (a better example)

Things that come with warranties, and not wanting to pay for the warranty... two products tied together...

I'm truly not arguing in regards to the poor business ethics embedded in this "situation" ... but as a business owner, I understand them. Right and Legal are two completely different things.

PS: I appreciate your acknowledgment...

this is kinda cool talking about all this stuff becuase in my AP US History we just finished the Gilded age where th first antitrust laws began because of people like Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, and JP Morgan.

Now back to the topic at hand. Companies cannot do whatever they want. They can't break laws. EULA's are not the end all be all. They are not allowed to tie products together.

 

I've shown that this is not a licensing issue, this is a violation of antitrust laws, this is not an accounting thing, this is not something that Apple accidentally did. That this is nickel and diming the customer. They already paid $1500 to $2000 for the computer. Now apple is seeing if they can get a little more out of ya.

You're still going to stick to this, even after you got completely blasted out of the water?

You're still going to stick to this, even after you got completely blasted out of the water?

Telling someone that its a lie without backing a reason for it is not being blasted out of the water. In fact, this post at digg summarizes it up pretty nicely:

Along with today's iPod Shuffle line additions, Apple has released the promised 802.11n Enabler for compatible Macs. The software is available via a software download from the Apple Store for $1.99 unless you buy the Airport Extreme base station which includes the software at no additional cost.

That is where this is completely wrong and hence monopolistic. If you don't buy the airport extreme and go with a competitors product, you're then being forced by Apple to pay them the money for it if you want 802.11n still. Show me a competitors 802.11n wifi access point that includes this patch. And the example of warranties, that doesn't fit here. You don't have to use the airport extreme with the 802.11n wifi cards in the mac's that have them. You can use a competitors, but Apple then says you now have to pay for that newer driver. No one sees whats wrong with that?

And directly from the store:

Important note: The Enabler is included free with the new AirPort Extreme Base Station with 802.11n. If you purchase a new AirPort Extreme Base Station, you do not need to purchase the Enabler separately.

But according to you Companies are allowed to do whatever it is the hell they want to do. So why is it ok for a company to nickel and dime its customers? Another famous comment on that story that is on digg:

Unlock HARDWARE. The PHYSICAL hardware that you already PAID FOR.

And directly from macrumous.com:

The reaction from the Mac community appears to be mixed since the formal announcement from Apple. While many were happy to see the final price drop more than half from its previously rumored $4.99 pricetag, many others were frustrated at having to pay anything for hardware capability already in their systems.

Finally this isn't about licensing since all the product makers of 802.11n cards and access points have a patent agreement where there is no cost to licensees. Got anything else to say? Or are you going to keep spinning the same answers?