"Moron?" Oh, the humanity! I hope the mods protect me from such harmful insults! Last layer of defense when you know you are wrong...name calling.

"Software companies were called upon"....um, I really think youdon't understand how software get's made and marketed. There are lot of "SOX" related software software/solutions out there, bu again, WDS was not made to adddress that. Integratiing it with Active DIrectory != SOX driven.

Maybe I should pick another obvious "free" software upgrade, and you can try to spin that. Or will it all be SOX related, no matter what?

I'm not sure why you said "you said so yourself" (referring to this being SOX related). I never did, and that is a lie. You like to lie, as you are patholgoically incapabale of separating your incorrect interpretations from reality.

Amy Winehouse callled...she wants her crack pipe back.

Hmmm...this just looks like permission setting to me. It's not SOX related.

Sorry, but you keep providing "evidence" that have nothing to do with your assertion.

All that says is: "if you are going to have search, you must control what can be searched." It does NOT say: "you must have search."

Your statement was that SOX requires search. Not that "SOX required microsoft to take its search tool and add policies to it."

For a "designer/developer", you have a very provincial view on this. This all comes down to an inferioroty complex because you were a Mac user in a world of PCs. (How sad is that...)

It's not "magic"; it's the perception that the search tool could crawl and get access to information that person should not have, and the sharing of that index (and data).

The real issue is unsecured data and lax controls. No technology addresses this - it's a process and policy issue (which tech can be used to enforce.)Which is exactly why the software companies were called upon! JEEZ... you moron.

But again, to stay on topic, this has nothing to do with SOX and the release of WDS.

It does, you just said so yourself.

[INDENT]"One difference, said Friedland, are group policies that can be set by the IT manager to govern the types of searches allowed by the information workers. For example, the IT manager might designate that intranet searches or SharePoint searches are permissible, but not searches of individuals Outlook inboxes."[/INDENT]

Look cmaier... I mean mikec... err however you want me to address you. Heather says this is what it does so why can't you believe me when [SIZE="3">I[/SIZE] say that is what it does as well.

Seldom? I thought we were all kum-bay-yah after the battery discussion I don't recall any major disagreements sicne then.

As for your post, it is spot on.

Archie,

For a "designer/developer", you have a very provincial view on this. This all comes down to an inferioroty complex because you were a Mac user in a world of PCs. (How sad is that...)

It's not "magic"; it's the perception that the search tool could crawl and get access to information that person should not have, and the sharing of that index (and data).

The real issue is unsecured data and lax controls. No technology addresses this - it's a process and policy issue (which tech can be used to enforce.)

But again, to stay on topic, this has nothing to do with SOX and the release of WDS.

crazy was wrong too, but that's okay. those articles are poorly written.

You can spin any way you want...it was obvious what you said. And now you try to change it...and guess what, you are still wrong.

You said "Anyway, YES, it was Sarbanes-Oxley that forced Microsoft to release Desktop Search" in post 102. This is 100% false.

It was wrong when you said it the first time, the second time, and every subsequent time. Repeating it will not make it true.

IT shops has to put controls in place based on the business requirements and regulations. Indexing, logic, and presenatation ("Search") are functions. It has nothing to do with the release of WDS, which was Archie's assertion.

And as to your argument, the key issue for IT was NOT addition of WDS, but prevention of other (unsecure) search tools.

And I say "magic" because it is far easier to prevent access at the file/record level than it is to rely on each tool (e.g.: search, word processor, etc.) to provide its own access protocol.

I seldom agree with Mikec, but this time for sure he's right.

It's interesting that you use the word "magic" to describe the very thing I said that M$ did in fact do for the IT departments.
[SIZE="3">Why do you think this is not real?[/SIZE] You are apparently in IT yourself so I find this absolutely astounding. I mean, jeez... it is mentioned in every article so why can you not accept this small fact that Microsoft did indeed design their search tool so that IT can determine which users can search and access specific information. And yes, secure information IS sitting around in shared drives in the first place.

It seems to me that you are recognizing the fact that I am a Designer and Developer but you are failing to grasp that those of us in this field are required to take on the responsibility of IT departments. It started in the 90s when we typically worked in our little bubble of Macs amongst a sea of Windows machines (IT didn't want anything to do with us because we used Macs). Although the environment has changed greatly it seems that it is still our responsibility to integrate. Though now, in some companies it is us who has to do the integration for the others (Windows users). How's that for irony. Plus, I also have to do the ActionScripting and Javascripting and logic for the projects that I work on. So I would not discount this "designer" so quickly.

Ah, thanks for sticking up for me there crazycray but I never said the law specifically stated that Microsoft must issue free software." What I did say is as quoted below:

Because Microsoft already had this omnipresent placement on office PCs, the IT departments had no choice but to turn to M$ to provide them a solution for what was required of the company to adhere to the new Sarbanes-Oxley act. But in a sense it could be viewed in such a manner that they were speaking specifically of Microsoft to provide the solution.

By creating a new search tool, it only increases the likelihood of someone doing so. It says the opposite of what archie suggests, unless you buy into this strained logic:

1) prior to WDS, IT departments let people install any software they wanted (or at least any desktop search tool they wanted) -AND- 2) prior to WDS, people installed alternative search tools, and these search tools were somehow able to access the information that needs to be kept under control -AND- 3) after WDS, IT departments suddenly stopped letting these people run their other search tools -OR- people interested in accessing info without permission suddenly forgot how -AND- 4) WDS provides magic functionality that permits searching of everything except this secret information -AND- 5) this functionality is easier to achieve than simply hiding/password-protecting/access-controlling the secret information at the OS level -AND- 6) the secure information is sitting around in shared drives in the first place

But this doesn't mean the law specifically says that Microsoft must issue free software as archie says.

How are you done, when you didn't even start?

None of these support your claim:

wiki : The issue is control over data that should not be seen (by person or machine) Strike 1!

ebusinessforum: controls over data access (see wiki) Strike 2!

eweek: No mention of SOX or Sarbanes. (If this is to show the competition with Google, that was never disputed) Strike 3!

You're out.

Hey, at least you were right about the corporate iPhone plans last week, so it's not all turd stew.

This is sounding suspicously like a true statement...hence it has no place in archizarro.

NONE of these agree with what you said. They say that you can't allow people to have access to "sensitive" information (that is, non-public information that would allow them to trade securities at an advantage over the public).

If anything, they say that allowing search could VIOLATE SOX, because it can lead to unauthorized people obtaining secret (non-public) information. In fact, one of the articles explicitly points out that the SOX issue is not that you must provide search, but that you must prevent UNAUTHORIZED search.

You see no reason to elaborate, because you have been shown to be wrong. It's not harrassment, it's responding with fact to your absurd statements. Anyone who has read the thread can see it. Glad to see admitting defeat in spirit if not in actual words.

Your explanation of Remote Disc as "startup and Netboot" did not adequately describe why it's special. It's the wireless part (which I had to mention).

WPA-PSK is not a susbstantial capability? I think there is an entire security industry that would disagree on that one. Sorry, but you can't just explain it away. It goes core to your original assertions.

WDS 3.x is the main one most people have seen/used, not 2.6. But again, they point is that SOX had nothing to do with it! If you truly used it, you would not have made the erroneous post in the first place.

Googling something, not referencing wikipedia, does not make something fact.

Again, the claim that SOX rulings somehow drove MS to release WDS functionality (indexing and presentation) is just an archizarro fantasy.

It was the first example that disproves your "no one adds function for free due to SOX" drivel because it was so glaringly obvious.

You really can't just admit you are mistaken about this whole thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_search read 4th paragraph down

http://www.ebusinessforum.com/index.asp?layout=richstory&docid=7963&categoryid=&channelid=&search=dangers read 4th paragraph up

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search/Microsoft-Offers-BusinessClass-Desktop-Search/

I'm done.

Dude -

SOX does NOT require "indexing" of data. It requires management to report on controls on processes and data which are used for FINANCIAL reporting. The fact that some IT departments used this as an opportunity to get their budgets inflated notwithstanding, it certainly does not require indexing things (beyond the implication that data that is relied on in generating financial reports should be reliable and the methods used to insure its reliability need to be reported).

[LIST]I see no reason to elaborate any further on Sarbanes-Oxley. You asked me to elaborate the first time and I obliged - answering with more than enough detail. You asking a second time is just harassment. I do not appreciate your casual discounting of my comments as if I have no idea what I am talking about. It is apparent to me that it is you who have misspoken and are simply trying to redirect this at me.[/LIST]

[LIST]You also asked me to explain Remote Disc a second time (again disregarding my previous statements): I specifically addressed you in post #81 by saying "Remote Disc also allows you to use these remote discs as Start-up drives and NetBoot."[/LIST]

[LIST]Your other hardware upgrade that you found from NetGear, WPA-PSK, is merely an added security feature. This is not a substantial added capability.[/LIST]

[LIST]In regards to your question: [INDENT]"What version are you talking about when you say "first" The product has been through a few incarnations and fundamental changes that make it completely different products."[/INDENT] My response is that I was talking about the "first" version. You are apparently talking about version 3.01. And the point is not moot since you brought it up and want to continue arguing it.[/LIST]

[LIST]I do use Microsoft Desktop Search on a daily basis about every 3 or 4 months for 3 weeks straight - when contracting onsite for a medical company.[/LIST]

[LIST]To cmair who says SOX requires no such thing, I ask that you do a search yourself since you... and mikec, will not be believing me. All you have to do is type "Sarbanes-Oxley" and "IT" into a Google field and you will see.[/LIST]

[LIST]And I didn't say SOX requires "'controlling' employees" (try reading it again). I said they need to have control of data. The data needs to be indexed as required by Sarbanes-Oxley. [/LIST]

So, I'll say it again - THIS IS WHY MICROSOFT HAD TO RELEASE MICROSOFT DESKTOP SEARCH. They were "required" to provide the tools to give this access.

I still think it's ironic (and hilarious) that this is the first example that mikec thought that he found to disprove my statements about Sarbanes-Oxley itself.

I've seen WDS using at all types of companies...basically it comes down to policy.

Your comment on SOX is abolutely correct. However, in "archizarro" world (archie+bizarro), SOX forces companies to do many things, including mandating the color, smell and taste of products. I hear in that world, SOX is also repsonsible for birth defects, body odor, and Britney Spears' meltdown.

Hey, at least one thing good has come of this thread...the invention of the word archizarro. (oh wait, I didn't invent it, I was forced by SOX to do it! Drat!)

SOX requires no such thing. Furthermore, having worked at large public companies subject to SOX, I've never seen one that actually permitted their employees to use WDS (or google desktop search, for that matter).

SOX requires that those signing financial statements be liable for thair accuracy, among other things. As part of this, they are liable for the processes which generate this information. This has led to a change in IT processes, for sure. However, there's nothing in SOX about "controlling" employees searching.

Oh, that little thing about having to compete with Google. How could we forget that. Maybe that was the only reason (actually, not maybe - it is!)

WTF? Why the SOX obsession? I know you don't get it. It's not about IT, it's aboout the public corporation having controls.

"IT needed to have a standard method of controlling employees searching and downloading so this indexing came about". This statement is so whacked, I'm pretty sure you have become unhinged. It not only is false, but it defies logic. Wow, wow, wow.

Seeing you have never used WDS, as evidenced by your lack of understanding, I would say you have not idea if it is the worst. (It is actually quite good).

"Anyway, YES, it was Sarbanes-Oxley that forced Microsoft to release Desktop Search." Thanks for repeating it. At least you are consistent on this one issue. I could say more, but the wrongness of your words speak for themself.

Thanks for telling everyone what they already knew - a MS/Google competition. Wow, geez, we had no idea....

You KNOW a lot fo things, but you end up being shown to be wrong, again, and again and again and again.

What version are you talking about when you say "first" The product has been through a few incarnations and fundamental changes that make it completely different products.

But the point is moot. It's not what WDS was, it is about what WDS is NOW. You can download it for XP. If it a new, free, and provides a significantly different feature.

You can try to obfuscate, but there's stil egg on your face and everybody sees it.

The context was that you were arguing that Apple is a software company. Therefore, the intepretation is quite accurate. Again, not sure why you have a problem with the moniker. Apple is doing very well, regardless of category.

I can only read what you write. If you want to write more clearly, please feel free to do so.

In the meantime, please elaborate on how the gov't, through SOX, forced MS to create and release WDS.

Oh, and just in case you need another example of a company adding a feature and not charging for it:

http://kbserver.netgear.com/release_notes/d102798.asp

Looks like WPA-PSK was added....hmmm...don't seem to see a charge for it. You better call the SEC!

Why is it so had for you to see that it's all about the chance to make $$$ and do some internal accounting acrobatics? Give Apple corporate finance for being creative, as opposed to saying they are forced to to go by the gov't.

You see, Sarbanes-Oxley and other related acts were what forced IT in US companies to have control over sensitive information. IT needed to have a standard method of controlling employees searching and downloading so this indexing came about. Apple and Google were first. Microsoft was about last I suppose and had the worst implementation. No surprise here.

Anyway, YES, it was Sarbanes-Oxley that forced Microsoft to release Desktop Search.

And now everybody here knows how it started - this Microsoft/Google rivalry.

Have you every used Desktop Search? Bogus? Hardly. I think you need to look at: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/desktopsearch/choose/windowsdesktopsearch.mspx

It does emails, contacts, etc....all the things you say it doesn't. You don't even know what you are talking about, yet you spout out untrue statements with such authority.I KNOW the first version did not because there was this big upset about how it faired with Google's - at the very least people were all up in arms and complaining about their mail accounts that were through Hotmail and such services. It lacked major functionality compared to others at that time.

You have misunderstood the context. I thought putting the word software in quotes would communicate what I meant to you but I obviously misjudged your level of comprehension. I said there were only board members from "software" companies as opposed to "hardware" companies. I didn't say they were ALL from software companies.

Wake-on-lan only works with wired Ethernet cards (specialized products and esoteric hacks notwithstanding); it will (generally) not work with wi-fi for a variety of tech reasons. Network booting is similar, although not the same. As you mention, this is very common in Unix and Ethernet (wired) invironments.

The difference is that Apple has made something where, if you install software on both the host and the MBA, you can do this "wirelessly" from the MBA. It's still not wake-on-lan, unless they have a hook into the suspend mode and keep the wi-fi card active (which they may have done; haven't seen enough details on the spec. Details are sketchy, but I am sure they will follow once it's out there more.

No, you did not misread it - the gov't, via SOX made MS create and release WDS, according to Archie.

No, you did not. If you can't or don't want to, just say so.

That's okay, I will do it for you:

http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?story=20080118143319155

So basically Apple has made software (installed in both locations), and code extension to support this.

Good for them.

So it's not Wake-On-LAN, but just redirected boot (albeit wirelessly, which may be useful; I think sharing the optical drive is the main use).

I guess we should clarify netboot, wake-on-lan, and all that fun stuff so it's clear.

So SOX is the reason MS released Desktop Search? I guess you aren't just on crack, but meth and special-k too. Again, SOX has nothing to do with it.

Have you every used Desktop Search? Bogus? Hardly. I think you need to look at: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/desktopsearch/choose/windowsdesktopsearch.mspx

It does emails, contacts, etc....all the things you say it doesn't. You don't even know what you are talking about, yet you spout out untrue statements with such authority.

As for Apple being a hardware company, it's you who are offended, not I. I just observe a fact. Apple makes most of it's money from hardware. Sure, they make software to support their hardware (and no one elses). They broker content, which is like a media company. They get a cut of telco revenues. But at the end of the day the vast majority of

As for Pandora, who cares if it's separate company or if it costs " />$$ come from one place - gadgets in peoples hands. So it's a hardware company.</p> <p>As for the Board of Directors, again, you open your mouth without looking at facts:</p> <p>Bill Campbell - Intuit Corp. - Software Millard Drexler - J. Crew - Retail Albert Gore Jr. - Govt Steve Jobs Andrea Jung - Avon Products - Fashion Retail Arthur D. Levinson, Ph. D. -Genentech - Biotech Dr. Eric Schmidt - Google - Software (but really Media/Advertising); Google sells very little software and hardware relative to their Ad stuff. Jerry York - Financial Services/Capital Markets</p> <p>Actually, this is a pretty good board; good representative good, except for Schmidt, who really is the example of "better to be lucky than good". But again, these are not all "software" folks.</p> <p>As for Pandora, who cares if it's separate company or if it costs$...the fact is a product feature was added at no cost.

Had enough yet?

My bad...RDF...Reality Distortion Field.

I don't know whether or not they still let their laptops do it. The model is an R3000, which I got about 3 years back. I imagine that other models had that function, too; this is consumer laptop, not a commercial one. I'm guessing that most of their consumer laptops had that function (and might still have it).

Like I said, I've never used it (I just see that every time I boot I get the message on the screen that tells me to hold a key to boot off the network).

Since it has built-in 802.11g wireless, I assume it can use it, but I won't swear to it.

Of course, every unix machine i've ever owned has booted off the network (not wirelessly, though).

By the way, did you just say that SOX made microsoft add desktop search? Did I misread that?

So it can do this wirelessly huh?

Take the lips off the crack pipe...you obviously have not done even one bit of real research.

There are thousands of glaring examples - for instance Microsoft Desktop Search...a completely new function, free. Ok, you can eat that crow pie now.[SIZE="4">BWAH, HA, Ha, Ha, ha, ha![/SIZE]

This is too good!

Sarbanes-Oxley actually started mandating that this sort of functionality be available to consumers. Microsoft had to release Microsoft Desktop Search... and we all know the release was bogus in that it only found the same limited results (no e-mail or contact database searching, extremely slow... etc.) as what was already there from the built in search.

Nice try, but I said if you want to take a software perspective. I remember your argument, and you were wrong then, and are wrong now. Apple is a hardware company- that is where the majority of revenue comes from. They are just a cool, consumer version of Sun.

Whatever. Look, the evidence is there. And additional information continues to pile up to support this fact - like this subscription accounting so that they can continue offering the software, Apple's self proclamation of being a "software" company, board members only being from "software" companies, plus all the reasons from before.

Not even sure why you would care one way or the other. Why does this fact offend you so much?

As for examples, there are thousands...I already gave you a MS one; how about the Squeezebox adding Pandora? Opps...yea, you missed that too.

Pandora is a completely separate company... and it's a completely separate service. On top of that, you have to pay for it!

Shhhhhh! No facts! Disruption of the RFD is not allowed!

If I am so wrong, please explain in detail what Remote Disc does that is so amazing and different.

As long as you want to come to class, I will continue to school you accordingly.

Archie,

Take the lips off the crack pipe...you obviously have not done even one bit of real research.

There are thousands of glaring examples - for instance Microsoft Desktop Search...a completely new function, free. Ok, you can eat that crow pie now.

(I could go on about Netgear as well, but why don't you just spend some time on those release notes and see for yourself.)

Nice try, but I said if you want to take a software perspective. I remember your argument, and you were wrong then, and are wrong now. Apple is a hardware company- that is where the majority of revenue comes from. They are just a cool, consumer version of Sun.

As for examples, there are thousands...I already gave you a MS one; how about the Squeezebox adding Pandora? Opps...yea, you missed that too.

You really, really should lay off the Kool Aid.

My ancient compaq laptop has a netboot option. Press a key (F12?) on startup, and it boots off the network. Never used it, though. I imagine the mac version is much prettier.

I can see why you use a mad emoticon...I'd be mad too if I had such a limited view of technoloy.

Apple invented everything - except the Internet, which was, of course, Al Gore.

You sure you want to keep putting your foot in your mouth?Well, I hope YOU keep it up because I am getting a good laugh out of your struggling. The only thing I am getting tired of is looking through Dell and Microsoft's web site.

Let's see...who does updates in the consumer space and does not charge...

Microsoft, Dell, Lenovo, HP, Netgear, Linksys (Cisco), D-Link, Sprint, Verizon, Palm, Archos, Creative, NVidia, ATI, Intel, AMD...I'm sure we could go on all day. Mike I just went back a couple of years on sites like http://www.microsoft.com/Downloads/Search.aspx?displaylang=en for Microsoft and then also Dell, Linksys, D-Link and Netgear.

NOT one of the 5 companies that I checked had any software upgrades that brought new features. And I couldn't find one instance of a wireless router company upgrading firmware to provide faster connections or adding substantial new features to their gear like Apple has done.

Every time a company - companies that I do business with - updates their applications with substantial new features, I have to pay for it. Happens with Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe/Macromedia Contribute, Adobe/Macromedia Flash, Adobe/Macromedia, Adobe ImageReady, Adobe/Macromedia Fireworks, Adobe/Macromedia Dreamweaver, Adobe InDesign, Adobe GoLive, Final Cut Studio, Strata Studio Pro, Adobe After Effects, Roxio Toast, CSSEdit, FileMaker Pro, iWork (only purchased once but still holds), iLife, Little Snitch, Poser, LightWave 3D, Strata 3D CX, RapidWeaver, Transmit, TextMate, SubEthaEdit, TextSoap, SOHO Notes, Data Rescue, DiskWarrior, and no less than 20 other plug-ins for apps ranging from Photoshop to Mail - I have had to pay every single time they release new features. What makes the companies that I buy from different than the companies you buy from?

If you truly want to treat this as software, most vendors give you free updates for a year.

I think THIS is what is really eating you. You are coming to realize that Apple really is a software company at heart. Just as I had said many years back. Remember that arguement from years back mikec? Yeh! Is this what brought about your extreme dislike for anything posted under the name of "archie".

Anyway, I ask you to post an example of a vendor that gives you free updates for a year (NOT A VALUE ADDED VENDOR WHICH IS THE SAME THING AS WHAT APPLE IS DOING WITH THE IPHONE AND APPLE TV).

Only Mac can boot from the network? Wow I guess that "wake-on-lan" stuff that has been in PC BIOS for years never really existed.

I can see why you use a mad emoticon...I'd be mad too if I had such a limited view of technoloy.

Apple invented everything - except the Internet, which was, of course, Al Gore.

You sure you want to keep putting your foot in your mouth?

Even some open source companies charge for updates.

Let's see...who does updates in the consumer space and does not charge...

Microsoft, Dell, Lenovo, HP, Netgear, Linksys (Cisco), D-Link, Sprint, Verizon, Palm, Archos, Creative, NVidia, ATI, Intel, AMD...I'm sure we could go on all day.

If you truly want to treat this as software, most vendors give you free updates for a year.

So the expectation is not unfounded. It's just odd when a company that is supposedly "customer focused" goes against the grain. People notice it. They think, "you just got my $300, 400, 500 bucks, and not you want to ding me again?"

Again, as I said, early adopter get no love from Apple.

Macbook Pro and MBA are two different beasts.mike, why don't you go back and read the original post. I am not sure what else to say.

"Remote disc" is soooooo amazing (not) Only the Apple RFD could make network file transfer and drive sharing seem new and exciting. This has been done for a long long time.

Remote Disc also allows you to use these remote discs as Start-up drives and NetBoot. This is something only Macs can do. You of course conveniently fail to mention this.

Nothing you state is "plain and simple".

GAAP is not enforced by the government, because they are not gov't rules - it is the guide for reporting. The SEC enforces the gov't rules; GAAP is seen as one of the authoritative source in these matters. But I digresss - it still has ZERO to do with squeezing an extra $20 out of people.

"Other companies don't add features to the extent Apple does"....uh, sure.

Every software company in the world (except for open source stuff of course) charges their customers for software upgrades. Why do you expect Apple to not do so?

I want a serious answer because I think you have unfounded expectations.

Rener,

Anytime you have a charge, you can get very creative on what expenses go against it. I highly doubt the licensing for any feature is driving the charge. The revenue for an iPhone and Touch (hardware) are realized when the device is sold. The revenue from the carrier fees is realized in each additional month, separate from the hardware.

The reason for charging the $20 is simple: - They can do it, and fanboys will gladly pay the $20 - The get extra cash they can use for other things - The can write off additional expense (internal accounting trick/benefit)

The bottom line is that Apple loves sticking it to earlier adopters. They've been doing this since the original Mac days. It's one thing they are very consistent about.

Try again.

The whole issue is Apple charging its customers for a software update. GAAP doesn't force them to do so. How they record or recognize revenue or expenses is irrelevant to me.The whole issue is that it is NOT JUST a software update. You are changing the product, making it do something substantially different as advertised. There are not "all these other companies" doing this because they do not add features to the extent that Apple does.

And GAAP... it may not be law but it is a rule and this rule is enforced by the government. Plain and simple.

Bingo.

I thought you liked being referred to in the thrid person....

Macbook Pro and MBA are two different beasts.

"Remote disc" is soooooo amazing (not) Only the Apple RFD could make network file transfer and drive sharing seem new and exciting. This has been done for a long long time.

The only thing I "get" is that you have no fargin idea what you are talking about.

"Not finished at the time of introduction" - GMAFB. We're talking about a phone/PMP here, not jet airplane. An item is sold. Revenue realized. End of story.

Again, SOX has nothing to do with it. GAAP has nothing to do with it. This is just Apple seeing a chance to make more money! Plain and simple! Saying Apple MUST charge for the "update" is laughable.

The Touch having a different SKU means nothing - SKUs change all the time for the "same" products; obviously, you know just about as much about retail as you do about regulatory rules and accounting practices - NOTHING.

Keep swinging and talking with confidence. Pretty soon we'll get to the point where it's Bush's fault that Apple has to charge $20 and HD streaming isn't ready....

Could there be some sort of usage or license fee paid to Skyhook per unit for the Wi-Fi Google Maps location service? If so, could the subscription accounting model for iPhone allow this to be expensed against the future recognition for iPhone, and against the immediately recognized revenue of iPod Touches sold from this point on, but for previously (already) recognized iPod Touches, be passed on to the consumer so Apple can expense against the upgrade charge?

Again, pure speculation, and even if there is anything to it, no doubt the debate will rage over whether or not Apple could/should eat it as a gift to early adapters, or how (much) they chose to charge either way...

Try again.

The whole issue is Apple charging its customers for a software update. GAAP doesn't force them to do so. How they record or recognize revenue or expenses is irrelevant to me.

Maybe it's just as simple as costs and the market penetration of Blu-Ray (or HD DVD for that matter.)

Or... maybe it's that the whole advantage and reasoning of the MacBook Air relies on the stability of the "Remote Disc" feature. Who would pay that much for a feature - the main feature - that didn't work correctly, am I right?

If Apple Inc. (or any other company for that matter) sells a product, and if it then adds a feature to the product, Apple can be held liable for improper accounting if it accepts revenue from the product at the time of sale given that it hasn’t finished delivering the product at that point.

Get it? It becomes implicit that the product was not finished at the time of introduction.

I'll try explaining it differently. You are paying $20 for a certain added value, namely the ability to write notes, quickly check the weather, quickly track stocks, check your location, get driving directions, check traffic and send and receive email. Now, you have to admit that any sane person looking at this can perceive the value and be able to say, "yeh, all those features are worth $20".

The GAAP says Apple MUST account for separate (added) values that software brings to products previously sold. Those things I listed above weren't just a software upgrade, they were substantial added values that were not promised in any way shape or form in the original product. It is in essence a whole new product now.

And HEY, what do you know - the iPod Touch now has a different SKU #.

I think he was taking about the Pro Macbooks, not the Macbook Air.

Maybe it's just as simple as costs and the market penetration of Blu-Ray (or HD DVD for that matter.)

Thick headed?

Again, SOX has ZERO to do with the reason people are being asked to pay. I'm afraid you do not understand SOX, and no sane person on the planet would agree with that viewpoint. That is like saying the reason there are ratings on video games is due to the Patriot Act.

SOX has everything to do accounting/financials/controls/accountability, and nothing to do with marketing or product feature sets.

Now know what the ordeal was behind the lack of Blu-Ray drives in the Pro machines.

Apple's new "Remote Disc" feature included with MacBook Air doesn't support streaming of high-bandwidth media yet. Just learned of this Friday.

One can assume that it will eventually; at which point we will see Blu-Ray drives as a Build-To-Order option along with an Apple TV update to utilize external BluRay drives to pull in streaming movies (we can hope anyway) just as the MacBook Air pulls in content from remote discs.

Thick headed!

I bring up SOX because it is intertwined. Just because you separate these two issues for us to read does not mean that is the way it must be. The reason people are being asked to pay is because of SOX.

I'll say it again. The iPod Touch is not under subscription accounting. The iPhone and Apple TV are.

There is precedence for this action - at least 5 years worth: 1998 - 2003, probably goes back further. Companies were recognizing revenue from products and services at the time of sale without it being finished or delivered, resulting in hairy accounting practices.

I think its funny that Apple has been doing this with explanation for years but people cannot remember why. Remember that whole ordeal with them enabling 802.11n on Macbooks that were not advertised as having 802.11n?

It is you that continues with a revisionist perspective dear one.

You said, "2 for 12 (including the known movie rental stuff)". That's it. I assumed you were giving me iTunes update and Movie rental service, not the laptop.

Besides you missed the others.

[LIST] [*]new firmware/software upgrade for the iPhone just as I said

[*]additional iPhone update features in Mail application just as I said

[*]new backup device coming to go with Time Machine just as I said

[*]Movie rental service just as I said

[*]Apple TV to be updated just as I said

[*]Brief mention of a small .Mac feature just as I said

[*]new small portable just as I said

[*]and basically called the Mac Pro AND new Xserves as well [/LIST] That's 8 things... not 2.

When directly attached (usb) yes.

It would probably work with its new network add-on as well, but that requires the same hack.

I don't quite see where the drobo love comes from (other than the cool look of the box); it seems priced about the same as the infrant, and a lot less functional.

1. And a USB drive can run at 7200 as well. The interface may be a little slower, but with some USB enclosures you can get RAID (adding speed, reliability, or both). Speed is probably not such a big deal since you are network-bound, anyway (and this is for backups, so reliability is key).

The best solution is a RAID NAS running on the network, but leopard doesn't allow it (without a hack. I use the hack with an Infrant box with four "server class" 750GB drives in it running a RAID configuration as my time machine target. Works fine so far.)

Some have said, with the SDK on the horizon, that Apple is testing the waters on iTunes App sales?

Personally, I have one friend who bought the update no question immediately, and another who loves the apps but is offended at the idea of paying for them.

On the flip side, TUAW is reporting that 1.1.3 unbricks past-bricked iPhones?

My dell laptop gets new software updates every few months. Sometimes they even add new "features". I dont need to pay for any of these.

It makes no sense for Apple to charge early adopters for a firmware upgrade. It only creates ill-will for a measly $20. I think the is the first negative thing apple has done in over a year.

I think you forgot what updates are. New functionality is part of it. I thought that was part of the Apple experience. Apparently not..unless you pay more.

These are not updates. You are receiving completely new applications that give you 5 completely new pieces of functionality that was not promised with the initial product release.

Customers don't like getting nickeled and dimed.

Not sure why you bring up SOX, as it has nothing to do with the conversation.

As for your logic on why Touch people pay and IPhones people do not, I guess that's one perspective, but I think most would disagree.

Archie,

Thanks for the revisionist history post, and the insult to "stick it". I took your advice, and stuck it in a certain person's maternal representation. (Mods, feel free to delete this post, but quite frankly am sick of Archie's insulting comments. One good policy violation begets another.)

I was going to respond point by point, but it doens't matter. You just make up the fact to suit yourself (and if you even read, I gave you laptop prediction regardless of size.)

I'm not paying for windows updates, palm updates, or any of number of software updates i get..why is this one ok to pay for? (not that i am..i don't own one but do own the iphone).

LOL! That's what I was saying. (Though you were a bit of a tease about it...)Ah, that's cool. Sorry.

The $20 for Touch update makes no sense to me given the iPhone and Apple TV updates are gratis. However, it's been pointed out that both those updates make Apple money via rentable movies, where the 5 apps for Touch don't. Don't understand still.

I like Time Capsule, but it will be interesting to see if you can use it for more than just Time Machine. And will iDrobo be next?Yup, Mac or PC can write to it as a drive other than a Time Capsule connected to Time Machine.

I like the fact that you are not bottle-necked with a USB connection. The Time Capsule has a fast server-class SATA drive spinning at 72,000.

Mike, I don't know why you paint this as a bad thing that Apple is doing? I'm SURE you know of Sarbanes-Oxley and I am sure you know that only AppleTV and the iPhone fall under this so why continue to make this an issue.

iPhone users pay a monthly fee that gets them sftware updates, iPod touch users do not. This is why they are required to pay a mere $20 for 5 applications. THIS is a bargain in my mind.

I like how Apple is charging existing Touch customers $20 for the same apps as the iPhone...or that come with the "new" Touch. (Ug).Mike you can't count.

Let's see...

I knew that there was a new backup device coming to go with Time Machine - you heard this from me exclusively.

I knew that Apple TV was going to be updated.

I knew (like everyone else, as you said) that movie rentals were coming to the iTunes Store.

I knew that iTunes would of course get updated to support this.

I knew that the iPhone update 1.1.3 was arriving on this day.

I also knew that this iPhone 1.1.3 update included Mail app changes to give gMail accounts more features and IMAP functionality - you heard this from me exclusively.

I knew that Apple was introducing a new portable at 13" X 8" or 8" X 5".

As we now know, it was the larger size... OK I missed it by an inch. Sorry. Actual size is 13 X 9. I thought I came pretty close though so you can stick it mikec.

We will soon see another device at the 8" X 5" size that I called out (Again, you heard it here first).

Nobody else was predicting Pro level hardware to arrive at this consumer level show - except for me. I said that they were going to be releasing new Mac Pro AND new Xserves. I said the Mac Pro would be released the first day and the Xserve would be released the day after. As we now know, I was only 5 and 6 days off. Not bad considering nobody (the press and anyone else with an outlet on the net) thought they would consider releasing at this time.

In regards to the iLife app updates only 2 were updated and then of course you have 2 others that were tied in - Front Row and QuickTime. I was wrong when it came to the 2 that I thought would get new functionality.

And I was also wrong when it came to the release of the 16GB iPhone. I was 99.9% sure this would come to fruition. There were probably some political reasons or a time factor in the keynote that stopped this from happening to be a focus. I am quite certain we will see this in about 4 weeks though.

Oh, I did also miss the iPod Hi-Fi II.

But beyond that I did pretty well. Not as good as last year though. Last year I even predicted the upsetting news that iLife '08 would not arrive until much later. Nobody thought that one was possible.

Rener, thanks for the link. I was referring to iTunes, not Netflix, but the Netflix stuff is good too.

Now if I could just get their player to work! (argh - audio, no video).

http://lifehacker.com/345566/download-netflix-watch-now-movies-easy+like-with-netflix-download-links

It removes the need for a computer running iTunes in order to download and watch video podcasts, including HD video podcats, for free.

It's not a question of demand or entitlement (and I don't even own a Touch). It's a question, for Apple, of PR. Including the new apps for free on new Touches makes (legitimately or not), early purchasers once again (rightly or wrongly) feel slighted by Apple (after the reaction to the iPhone price drop, it has become a melodrama of sorts).

Likewise, allowing wireless backups to Time Capsule but disabling them in the release version of Leopard (while they were enabled in the beta), absent a clear statement of whether or not its forthcoming and if not, why not, creates a PR problem (similar perhaps to the iPhone SDK where Jobs finally had to "just say it")

It's strange how Apple missteps these little perception problems as they grow... (which should be handled with better planning/pr from inception).

My question is will the 30+24 model work (30 days to view, 24 hours to complete after starting).

Sure, this appeals to the person who can sit and watch a movie; but what about those who watch things in chunks? Maybe it's small audience.

I do like the Netflix "free" streaming, although obviously it's computer oriented, not TV.

The real question is this - when will the hack be in place to download and playback as often as you want?

Then I demand all itunes songs for free, because I like free stuff.

The apple TV update doesn't add new functionality (afaik) other than allowing you to spend money to rent movies. It doesn't provide anything free (other than a change in UI).

The touch update adds lots of new functionality that is free to use once installed, enabling the device to do things it was never advertised as being able to do.

I don't see any relationship between these updates. Demanding a free update is sort of like demanding Microsoft throw in Office because you already paid for Windows Basic (i.e.: Touch) and because people who buy Windows Super Deluxe (ie: iphone) already get Office.

LOL! That's what I was saying. (Though you were a bit of a tease about it...)

The $20 for Touch update makes no sense to me given the iPhone and Apple TV updates are gratis. However, it's been pointed out that both those updates make Apple money via rentable movies, where the 5 apps for Touch don't. Don't understand still.

I like Time Capsule, but it will be interesting to see if you can use it for more than just Time Machine. And will iDrobo be next?

Apple TV 2 has me interested. I have a ton of DVDs I'd rather rip and make available via iTunes, but with a MPB I don't have the local storage to merely sync. If I could make a secondary library and synch that, it would be perfect,

Sad there was no "One more thing..." (even Safari Windows was one more thing...)

Well, I still go buy the stores every so often, and again, not much frenzy for iPhones (although lots of people buy Macs and Touches over the holidays it seemed.)

I do see a lot more in the wild, for sure.

I'm sure most of these sales are online, and the European numbers are in there as well. Still, I'm impressed they have sold that many - never underestimate the number of people willing to part with cash.

Here were the estimates back in the day:

Fiscal year ending Sept 2007, and Sept 2008.

• American Technology Research: 250,000, N/A • Bear Stearns & Co: 650,000, N/A • Credit Suisse: 1.7 million, 12.3 million • Pacific Crest Securities: 800,000, 4.8 million • Piper Jaffray & Co: 1.2 million, 8 million • UBS AG: 950,000, 8.1 million • Goldman Sachs: 5.25M, 12 million • JP Morgan: N/A, 9.85 million

A lot of variability there...Looks like Piper was the closest thus far.

It will be very interesting what the 2008 number are. I expect another iPhone release of some sort to push toward those numbers. Still, that is a lot of phones...it will be interesting to see if the meteoric rise continues. For a phone limited to certain carriers, these are sweet numbers.

So who's getting a Macbook Air? Isn't this what the Palm Foleo should have been?

I subscribe to caveat emptor as much as the next guy. I just think it creates ill will where none is needed.

The Touch is a slick device, and to me, one of the jewels they should be pushing. (not everyone can switch carriers and phone, but everyone can switch PMPs)

Hey MikeC, its been a long time. So, 4 million iPhones sold. How do those numbers match up with your in store sales predictions?

I don't have a lot of sympathy for those customers - they bought something marketed as a fancy ipod, knowing what software it came with. (Pretty much all the software, other than the web browser, was equivalent to stuff on an ipod, and the web browser was there primarily to allow wifi itunes purchases). Adding those other apps moves it away from an ipod and more toward a mini-communicator. And if people don't want to pay, they can just jailbreak and get some equivalent apps, or wait a month or so and start downloading very cheap or free apps off of itunes.

Up until now there was no officially supported solution for putting the backup target drive on the network (though there was an easy hack - I've been backing up to my infrant NAS for many weeks now). This is the first official solution. However, Apple has already officially said that it's a bug, and so there should be a fix to allow this with "any old" drive on the network before too long.

I can see where people who were considering a new router/access point would consider the time capsule, though I think people would be better off with an airport and plugging a usb drive into it.

2 for 12 (including the known movie rental stuff). Karnak would be impressed. (The sad thing is that several of your guesses are things Apple should be doing).

I like how Apple is charging existing Touch customers $20 for the same apps as the iPhone...or that come with the "new" Touch. (Ug).

Ummm... No offense rener but I am sure you are mistaken. It was me that came across the wireless backup solution to be announced at the keynote.

But i liked the other new things. Although I wouldn't purchase that thin laptop as it seems more of a fashion statement than any bang for the buck. I did hear it was instant on. But its too costly.

All in all, it was pretty lame from the iphone point of view.

Likewise, Mac Book Air, 1.1.3 iPhone, and movie rentals.

Check, check, check, and check.

One More Thing, however, was MIA?

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/01/12/something-in-the-air-anticipating-macworld-2008/