Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

Apple To Charge for Some iApps 557

Posted by pudge from the rumor-is-as-rumor-does dept.
randomErr writes "News.com has this story that according to sources familiar with the plans, Apple is expected to announce at the Macworld Expo in San Francisco Tuesday that consumers will have to pay for new versions of iDVD, iPhoto and iMovie. Previously, Apple had offered upgrades to its digital media, or 'i' applications, for free."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple To Charge for Some iApps More

Apple To Charge for Some iApps

Comments Filter:

  • In other news (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Choco-man ( 256940 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @05:51PM (#5009664)
    apple plans to make money. Of course they'll charge for apps at some point. You buy their hardware, it'll come installed on the equipment and you won't have to buy it (or the costs of them are buried in the total cost of the product, much as they are now). However, if you want to keep current with additional features, you should pay for it, just as you do with every other piece of software written by companies who are interested in making a profit. why wouldn't they? and why is the rumor news here? ;-)

    • Rip-off (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Knacklappen ( 526643 )
      No man, I can't agree. Several of my friends bought Macs/iMacs because they are easy to use, no driver mess but ALSO because with the iMacs you get "everything" you need right from the start. Calculating this into the somewhat stiff original price, they decided to go for Apple. Now this company is doing an "180 degree" (as they already did with .Mac last year). Stupid, IMHO...

      • Re:Rip-off (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Alyeska ( 611286 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @06:05PM (#5009814) Homepage
        Why is it a ripoff? There's nothing misleading here. They bought their Macs (as I did) with the promised software on board. Later, Apple upgrades the software and charges for the upgrade. They (as I) can accept that or decline and continue to use our current version if we're satisfied with the features.

        I don't remember anything in my purchase that said upgrades to all software would be free forever....

    • History of the iApps (Score:5, Informative)

      by thefinite ( 563510 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @08:23PM (#5011033)
      It is great to see people reacting reasonably to this.

      The charging for iApps is not a new thing:
      iMovie 2 cost $30.
      iDVD 2 was $20 (s&h)

      When OS X came out, you got iMovie 2 free with it as a reason to upgrade. iPhoto, when it came out, was also free, IF you had OS X. Then, somehow, it entered the general Mac consciousness that the iApps were always meant to be free. The truth was, they cost you whatever you paid to run OS X.

      iTunes, iSync, & iCal will probably always be free. The others offer a lot more value. Now that so many people have upgraded to OS X, there is no reason for Apple to give it to them free again. I don't mind paying if that means quality upgrades. However, the whole point is that the iApps were always meant to make money, just in different ways. They will continue to serve that pupose and in different ways as time goes on.

  • Homer? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jonny Ringo ( 444580 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @05:53PM (#5009674)
    "Oh I see your gimick, the first ones are free than you jack up the price! ....Ok you win"

    At the mall eating cookie samples.

  • Pft, charging for software. As if that'll work. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Skyshadow ( 508 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @05:53PM (#5009676) Homepage
    "Who ever made money charging for something that can be copied for free? Geez, I'm glad I'm not stupid enough to invest in a company that'd do that."*

    *Paraphrase of the comments my Dad's brother made to him, about Microsoft, in 1985.

    • Re:Pft, charging for software. As if that'll work. (Score:5, Funny)

      by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @06:03PM (#5009785) Homepage
      Selling anything copyable is just like throwing shit at a wall ... make sure you have enough shit, and at least _some_ of it will stick.

      Fortunately for software vendors, people will actually duplicate and throw your shit for you, saving you from having to bear the total cost of discovering what shit will stick to what wall .. its kind of like repaying said shit-producing company for not installing a piracy-detection-chip directly in your forehead.

      To me, that will always be the glorious and perfect balance between charging for something that can be copied and not living in a Big Brothered police state where even your calculator has DRM.

      So to Apple, I say, hats off and good luck with your shit!

  • 'tis true.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alcimedes ( 398213 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @05:53PM (#5009677)
    i've been talking with someone who's had inside inf before, including the LCD iMac info, and the god awful flower power macs.

    this looks like it's true. as long as it's only upgrades you pay for, i don't see that it's that big of a deal. get a new machine and you get the new software for free anyway, that's pretty much how it is now.

    maybe if they can make money off it they'll update iMovie and iPhoto, both need it badly.

  • So, I have been misled! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Wonderkid ( 541329 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @05:53PM (#5009680) Homepage
    Until we hear it from the core of the Apple himself, this may be rumor, but if it isn't, I find it ethically dubious to not make this clear during the installation of the application. However, I admit, I have never read the license agreement / terms and conditions which may well state the Apple may impose a charge in the future. And I doubt many others have read the small print either.

    iPhoto recently lost all 501 of my photos, and Apple (UK) wanted me to pay £35 to ask one question about how to get them back as my hardware (500Mhz G4 Tibook). I refused because I had no guarantee they could help me. I hope that with the paid version, support comes included.

    • iPhoto recently lost all 501 of my photos

      Lost them? Dude, iPhoto doesn't hide your photos someplace sneaky. They're right there in your Pictures folder. They're organized a little funny, but they're in there.
    • "I admit, I have never read the license agreement / terms and conditions which may well state the Apple may impose a charge in the future"

      I represent the ForeverWear Siding company. May I have a moment of your time? I promise, it won't hurt a bit.

      KFG

  • iAMSHOCKED (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cioxx ( 456323 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @05:53PM (#5009684) Homepage
    Seriously though. Apple is a corporation. Besides the "community/family" factor, they need to boost the stock prices.

    I'm not an avid Mac user, but I would rather pay for few small upgrades from Apple which would amount to $30 bucks, than to switch Office suite versions twice a year.

    • Re:iAMSHOCKED (Score:2, Insightful)

      by stratjakt ( 596332 )
      If they were charging for the next version of the software, I'd agree. No bait and switch if iDVD 2.0 is free, and 3.0 with extra iFeatures isn't. (I have no idea what version what is, for all those to nitpick).

      I assumed the price of the iApps was part of the cost of the machine itself and not free at all.

      If they're charging for upgrades (read: bugfixes), then I'd call shenanigans on them.

      It reminds me of the old joke about the bartender serving free beer. A patron, elated at the deal, sat drinking for a couple of hours, and eventually had to urinate badly. He finds the bathroom door locked, and the bartender tells him "the key'll cost ya 100 bucks"
      • It reminds me of the old joke about the bartender serving free beer. A patron, elated at the deal, sat drinking for a couple of hours, and eventually had to urinate badly. He finds the bathroom door locked, and the bartender tells him "the key'll cost ya 100 bucks"
        I'd go piss outside.
    • Why would you need to switch Office suite versions twice a year? I'm still running Office 97. I upgraded from Office 95 only so I could export to HTML -- at home and at work. Given that I can export to RTF, PDF, etc. there's no legacy issues (yet) with file sharing. People in my office use Word Perfect 10, people outside use Office 2002; and yet I continue to exist.

      I'll never support annual upgrades because it establishes the precedent that upgrades will be issued regardless of necessity. e.g., need is washed away in favor of a guaranteed revenue stream.

    • Re:iAMSHOCKED (Score:4, Insightful)

      by IamTheRealMike ( 537420 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @06:28PM (#5010063)
      I think what people are pissed off about here is that it's yet another case of bait and switch, they give something away for "free" bundled with the Mac, people look at it as an advantage of the Mac platform, and effectively buy into it. Then the upgrades suddenly cost a lot more than they were expecting, so they feel cheated.

      Now of course, it's entirely Apples perogative to start charging for their stuff. Nonetheless, if it's true considering that this is the second time now (third if you count 10.2) that they have suddenly introduced charges for stuff that people assumed would be free (.Mac anybody?), Jobs had better watch out - he'll get a reputation as somebody who pisses all over loyal customers time and time again.

      Oh, and I'm sure there'll be a lot of posts saying "It's only X dollars, for what you get that's a bargain". They said that with 10.2, with .Mac and so on. Of course, value is in the eye of the beholder, but it seems to me at least that people are paying more and more for the Apple brand. The iApps are nice, but not that nice.

  • $50 for all three (Score:5, Informative)

    by Twirlip of the Mists ( 615030 ) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com> on Friday January 03, 2003 @05:54PM (#5009690)
    The prevailing rumor is that the asking price will be around $50 for iDVD, iMovie, and iPhoto together.

    In other news, Apple is rumored to make an announcement about 802.11g.

    • Re:$50 for all three (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sg3000 ( 87992 ) <<sg_public> <at> <mac.com>> on Friday January 03, 2003 @07:25PM (#5010538)
      > $50 for iDVD, iMovie, and iPhoto together

      I don't mind Apple charging for software that is worth it ; iTunes and iPhoto (maybe) are worth the money.

      However, Apple has two problems:

      1. Software for money is held to a higher standard than free software. iTunes is incredible: it's fast, has plenty of features, and works great. iPhoto on the other hand is slow, very slow, and extremely slow. Plus you can't combine photo albums, and it doesn't perform well when you have thousands of pictures. So if Apple is going to start charging for software it should perform to a higher standard. Unfortunately, when Apple dumped the for-free iTools for the $99/year .Mac, the service didn't get any better; I still have problems getting my email. In short, they'd better make iPhoto a helluva lot better if they want my money.

      2. Bundling! It will be really annoying if Apple makes you buy iDVD, iMovie, and iPhoto together. Like .Mac, Apple built their value proposition on a number of factors, like someone buying a virus checker every year (without upgrading), buying web space, buying email, etc. The problem is if you only want one or two of these items, their value proposition falls apart. For example, there aren't any Mac OS X viruses, so what's the point of Virux? I see the same problem with the proposed 3 app bundle. I am only interested in iPhoto (and see #1 for limitations on that), but I have no need for iMovie (I have no DV camera) or iDVD (I don't have a DVD burner in my PowerBook). If they bundle the three together, it may help their, "but you get 3 applications for only $79 (or whatever)", but the point is the other two are basically shovelware if you don't have the entry hardware.

      Somebody at Apple is playing a dangerous game where they believe that Apple purchasers have an inflexible view towards price. That is, Apple purchasers will pay anywhere from $0 to a premium price because it's from Apple. While it's true that Apple users will pay more for Apple products because they're generally of higher quality, Apple users aren't stupid when it comes to value propositions. Exhibit A is .Mac. Apparently fewer than 200,000 people signed up for the service, which is likely a 5-10% take rate. That take rate doesn't bode well for Apple's model to make .Mac a heavy source of revenue.

      What Apple needs to do is figure out what their goals are: is it to gain more short term revenue (charge for .Mac, charge for iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, and who knows what else?) and a recuring revenue stream? Or is it to grow adoption of Mac OS X and gain overall market share? I'm not sure they can do both at the same time since the former means milking their installed base, while the latter means actually growing their business.

  • Shareware model? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @05:56PM (#5009709) Homepage Journal
    Gee, is anyone really surprised Apple is starting to use the shareware model? These iApps require significant investments of time and money and they have to recoup their investment somehow. Apple is a publically traded company you know...

    Besides the consumer application of many of these iApps, I also know lots of folks (including myself) that are using them for scientific and business purposes and then upgrading to the more expensive Pro apps when needs outstrip the consumer products. So, by getting these application "free" when you purchase a new computer and then paying to get the latest versions combined with using them as a portal to the Pro stuff, it seems to be a pretty good business model. If the iApps don't cost too much, are helping me to be more productive and are well written, more power to them.

    • Gee, is anyone really surprised Apple is starting to use the shareware model?
      Uhh, shareware? If you don't upgrade from iDVD 2.0 to 3.0 you won't lose the functionality of 2.0 after 30 days.

      Note: I have no idea what version iDVD is at.

  • Licencing fees (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dhovis ( 303725 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @05:57PM (#5009711)
    In the case of iDVD, I know Apple is in something of a bind. They have to pay a licencing fee for every copy. That is why you can only get it preinstallled on Macs with the internal DVD-R drive, and full downloads are not available.

    As far as iDVD goes, I could see them charging for upgrades, or if you want to use it with a non-OEM/External DVD-R drive. That would actually be an improvement over the current situation.

    • It comes preinstalled on Macs that *do not* have the internal DVD-ROM as well; it was on my new dual-867 G4 purchased on Christmas Eve.

      Wont work unless you have an internal (connected to the IDE bus) DVD-ROM drive, though.

  • Hardly surprising, but may backfire (Score:5, Interesting)

    by reimero ( 194707 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @05:57PM (#5009720)
    Given the economic climate, I'm hardly surprised. Companies need to turn a profit. I just wonder if this won't backfire: companies are losing money, but consumers don't have the extra money to spend. It's not like the iApps are must-have upgrades.
    The only way I can see this working out is if Apple stops including the iApps on all their Macs or ships lesser-powered versions (like they do with Quicktime).
  • OK, I've been a mac user forever, since my Mac SE. I've never minded the extra price for a better (IMHO) machine and OS. Yeah, I thought it was lame when they yanked iTools and started charging for it, but hey, I like their stuff so I supported them and signed up. But this is just getting old. Next, they'll start charging a subscription for routine OS / security update service through SoftwareUpdate, huh? Charging like this is only going to create an open market for pirated software - especially since they don't have any type of copy protection scheme on any of their software.
  • It seems to me that this would be a poor decision on Apple's part. They've done a very good job of getting the attention of casual users who just want to do cool stuff easily (which is the point of the iApps, really) and also of power users who want a more polished system than Linux/*BSD can offer. However, this move seems like it would undermine both these groups: the casual user can't do the stuff they want to do with the latest version of the software without getting an upgrade and the power users will likely be angered by what really appears to be another attempt by a company to squeeze more money out of its customers. It seems that if Apple does this, it would cause more harm than the kind of money they'd get from iApp upgrades.
  • iApps are one of the main reasons I started using a Mac. I will be eating supper tonight with a certain friend of mine that will be attending MWSF next weekk. I can't wait to see what he has to say about it. He's been using a Mac from the beginning, as in becoming more and more disgruntled. It's so unfair that a company that prides itself in being different is only becoming different from what they used to be.

    It's fair, yes, give new iApps for people who buy new PCs, make everyone else pay. But I hate fair, I like pleasant surprise. But, I'll probably just fall in love with Apple again after my anger wears off. Oh well, I'll still have my desktop PC when I decide to throw away this laptop.

  • Let me sum this up... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Shamashmuddamiq ( 588220 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @06:03PM (#5009797)
    Apple/Mac fans: ``It's their product, and was developed with their money, so they have the right to charge for it.''

    Apple/Mac haters: ``See? I told you Apple sucks.''

    Does that about cover it? On to the next "story."

  • Good news for non-Mac-head like me. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jordanda ( 160179 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @06:05PM (#5009808) Homepage
    I don't use any Apple software but I love my iPod. It is simply one of the best pieces of hardware I've ever come in contact with. I worked in academic Human Interface research for a few years and if I were to teach a course I would dedicate a week to the perfection that is the iPod. I'm excited to see more products like it.

  • about time! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jafac ( 1449 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @06:05PM (#5009809) Homepage
    I'd gladly pay for iDVD if it supported my external fw burner (and as long as the price were reasonable, considering it's not on feature parity with the $999 DVDSP.)

    I wouldn't cry if I had to pay, say $15 for the next iTunes update either.
  • i* will still come free with your mac. The latest version of i* may cost if you already own a mac. I'm sure that iTunes, iCal, and iSync will still be free though.

  • This is the second incorrect Apple story to be posted on Slashdot in just a couple of days ago. First it was the dead iMacs, which are just being moved to a different production plant, and now there's the line that iApps used to be free.

    Except no, they weren't. iMovie 2.0 was $49 and the upgrade to iDVD was $20. Like they plan on doing now, they were only free with a new machine.

    So giving you those two along with iPhoto isn't a bad deal at all.

    The REALLY sensible option though would be to include them in a price of a .Mac subscription.
  • Apple has charged for iMovie and iDVD upgrades in the past. This is only a more formal and structured policy. And $50? That's nothing for an upgrade for a free bundle of media apps. BTW: they are still free when you buy a new machine. Not really different than before at all.

  • Apple Bashing (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Dr. Cfire ( 571214 )
    I am really staring to get annoyed with all the apple bashing going on here. Apple is charging for a product that they produce. So what, apple is a company out to make money which is hard to do with free products.

    So they are taking 3 programs that people use bundling them together and charging at most $50 for them. Last I checked microsoft charges over $500 for office. A program group that has not seen any real improvement since 1995.

    Yes free stuff is cool but if you want to get a improvement from the last edition they company has to make some money out of the deal. No one complains that red hat charges for the better versions of their system.

    If you want a better version of the "i" apps then you are going to have to help apple produce better editions. Fifty dollars is not too much to be asking for a easy to use powerful app.

    • So they are taking 3 programs that people use bundling them together and charging at most $50 for them. Last I checked microsoft charges over $500 for office. A program group that has not seen any real improvement since 1995.

      If you think the iApps in any way, shape or form compare to Office XP then it's easy to tell you've never actually used Office to any great extent. Office is an insanely powerful (sometimes too powerful) set of 5 or 6 apps that covers the whole spectrum of productivity.

      In contrast, a lot of the iApps could easily be confused for something that was found on SourceForge if it wasn't for the distinctive Apple style UI and operating system integration. iTunes is a good media player - but at the end of the day, it organises and plays music. Oh yeah, CD burning too. Brilliant. I'll be fascinated to see how RhythmBox progresses, it's based on similar ideas (quicktime -> gstreamer). iPhoto is neat, but in no way could it be described as "powerful", it lacks features that are present in even the most basic photo manipulation/thumbnailing apps on Windows for instance. iChat has its ass humbly kicked by RhymBox (what is it with *box?), the work of one guy over a period of about 2 years. If you're in Windows sometime and want to play with a fantastic chat client, get it. The UI is beautiful. [rhymbox.com]

      If you want a better version of the "i" apps then you are going to have to help apple produce better editions. Fifty dollars is not too much to be asking for a easy to use powerful app.

      That sounds too much like the sort of rhetoric Mandrake and its users have been coming out with lately for comfort. Companies shouldn't need their customers to feel charitable towards them - if Apple wanted to make money directly from the iApps then it should have charged from the get go.

  • Perhaps now Apple will yank IPhoto from the default install of OS X, and save me some disk space!
  • When Apple turned off the free .Mac services, they made the statement that additional products and services would continue to be bundled into the package to sweeten the deal for subscribers. Shouldn't these iApps fall into that category? Shouldn't they consider making the iApps freebies for people who already shelled out $100 a year for .Mac?

    Beyond that, I think this is Apple shooting themselves in the foot again. If you take way iDVD, iPhoto, and iMovie, you're just reducing the value proposition to choose Apple over a PC. And that equation is already stacked against Apple as it is.

    • I think it would be wise for Apple to offer freeware iApps bundled with the OS and then bundle more advanced iApps as part of .Mac. If you pay for .mac you get iMovie with support for blue screens and more cool titles, you get iPhoto with better photo editing, etc, etc...

      It would be even better if the free iApps were bundled as part of Cocoa so that other Mac developers could use their objects. It would be neat if other Cocoa programs could use iPhoto's cool photo viewing widget. Or if other programs could use some of iMovie's functionality. If the apps are free, Apple might as well use them as a catalyst to help developers develop some more killer apps. And if developers use all of the iApp classes then they'll be tied to the Mac platform lest they have to reinvent the wheel if they went to Windows.
  • I'm not an apple user but I would be...If I could afford one. I can't justify shelling out $1600 for a new computer. Apple is charging for these upgrades to increase revenue. But why don't they, or can they, lower the price of their systems where more people could afford them? I believe Apple has a better product than MS and I wouldn't mind using OS X on a regular basis. But I need to be able to afford it. They also increase user base by making them available to more people. Then more people would buy their systems and they could continue to offer these upgrades for free which would be another boon to people wanting a Mac to begin with.

    J
  • This software is "free as in drugs."

    They used the free iApps to get people to convert over to the Mac platform, becoming dependant on the tool and the platform, then not being able to switch back when the price goes up.

    iTools went from free to $100/year... nice jump there.
  • Apple already charges for these applications (iMovie [apple.com] - $49.00). Although theses applications are still bundled if you have bought a new Macintosh, or bought Mac OS X.

    I don't see this as an issue at all. There will not be an uproar since Apple is already doing this today.
  • If they want to make any money whatsoever, they'll port all the iApps to PC (and possibly charge more). Since the PC market is at least 20x bigger than the Mac market, if they (say) sell iApps to 5% of the PC market, they'll double their installed user base! That will be a shitload of money, and it will be doubly stupid if they don't do it.
    • no, because they'd make more money selling iMacs to those 5A% of the PC market. I'll say it again, Apple is a hardware company. the software only exists to fuel the hardware sales. This is why none of the OS X only apps will ever be ported.
  • Wasn't there an article awhile back about not being able to use Apple DVD software without buying their DVD-ROM, or something similar? Now, what happens when I have to buy their software, which came with the DVD-ROM, to allow me to actually use their product.

    So, can't crack the player to use on other hardware. Can't get the player unless you buy the player. Can't get a better player unless you pay for upgrade?

    Perhaps this doesn't apply, the whole hardware-based burning software thing was a bit confusing anyhow.
    • iDVD will come preinstalled. you just have to pay for an upgrade. And iDVD only works on machines with factory-installed DVD burners

    • Re:DVD drives and software? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Theaetetus ( 590071 ) <theaetetus@slashdot.gmail@com> on Friday January 03, 2003 @06:39PM (#5010154) Homepage Journal
      Wasn't there an article awhile back about not being able to use Apple DVD software without buying their DVD-ROM, or something similar? Now, what happens when I have to buy their software, which came with the DVD-ROM, to allow me to actually use their product.

      No, if you bought the computer with the DVD-ROM, then it comes with iDVD for free.

      The reason you can't crack the player to run on other hardware is that Apple wasn't concerned about protecting their player - rather they didn't want to have to deal with thousands of different models of DVD-ROMs requiring thousands of different drivers. With an Apple DVD-ROM, you know that it will work perfectly, no need for drivers or any sort of configuration.

      -T

  • ... but they've already tried squeezing their loyal customers enough with .mac. What they should do is port these apps over to Windows and charge people $29.95 or so for each of them. I'd pay that for iTunes 3 in a heartbeat, and there's certainly nothing that comes close to iPhoto on Windows.

    They might as well try and make back the money they spend developing or acquiring all of this technology, and they can still keep the choice fruit like Final Cut Pro and iDVD mac-only to attract hardware buyers.

  • the issue at stake (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ironfroggy ( 262096 )
    The issue at stake here is not about Apple, "iApps", mac users, or OS X. The issue at stake is the assumptions made by users and the corporations following those assumptions or trampling those in the mud.

    I know a lot of you get pissed when people claim, in this example, that Apple should not charge for this software. It is a perfectly valid argument to claim that Apple has every right to do this, it is their software.

    The phone company has every right to charge you ten cents a minute for even local calls. How many of your are on dial-up to a local provider? Sure, they have the right to do that, but the customer expects a certain ammount of respect from the companies we support.

    A level of trust is missing in the customer-company relationship that needs to be found again, or perhaps for the first time in many situations, companies, and peoples.
  • And as always foxtot has a suiting strip about it

    http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ft/2003/ft030103. gif
  • Obviously, since those apps are mac-only apps, Apple can afford to give them away for free as an incentive for people to buy macs. But, apparently, that wasn't working, so they decided to just milk their current userbase for all they're worth in the vain hope of making enough money to do some serious R&D to catch up with PCs, hardware-wise.
  • After this, they will hire an ape-like president with sweaty armpits and a face like Fester Addams who will try to boost sales by shouting "Yeeeeeeeaaaaah!", "I love this company!", "Come on!" and "Developers! Developers! Developers!".

    RMN
    ~~~
  • So far this is not information that has been confirmed to be true.

    Let's just wait until after the keynote on Tuesday, shall we?

  • I have been using OSX since the public bata, and have been impressed with the system as a whole. But the only justification to paying for the hardware (which is the real reason I use Macintosh) was that some of the OS X apps came free. Of late I have been dual booting between OS X and Debian. But if apple is going to start charging for some of thse iApps, it might be time to make the full switch to Debian. I think if apple is not careful they will see a whole new breed of 'switcher'.

  • Everyone else seems to agree with cnet (Score:3, Informative)

    by jefdiesel ( 633290 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @06:49PM (#5010242)
    http://macrumors.com
    http://macnn.com
    http://macminute.com
    http://thinksecret.com
    even google news has it top of their tech page
    http://news.google.com/news/gntechnologyleftnav.ht ml Seems to me from MacWorld's of the past, once cnet tells the story, everyone else agrees.

  • I'm reading all the whining from people saying they're gonna jump ship if this happens... bait and switch mumbo jumbo. Get over it. And first, get over yourselves.

    These apps are higher quality than any shareware app you'll ever find that will try to accomplish the same task. These apps come with the purchase of any new Mac. If you don't use them, you're not forced to upgrade them like others would have you do. If you do use them, then you should appreciate what you have and shouldn't mind shelling out a few bucks to support the development of these apps. What??? How dare Apple be compensated for making their software better! It's not like the apps are going to mysteriously stop working once a newer version is available. Sheesh!

  • stuff like this scares me. Last year was the first time I ever considered buying mac (I did a 'top' command at a command prompt and was sold on the concept).

    However, the path for macs increasingly seems to be paved with nickles and dimes. Add that to the existing price difference for an i386, and i'm slowly easing my wallet back into my pocket.

    It's just becoming apparent that wintel for all its faults is much more economical and versatile (in a free way). And Linux as a desktop is getting closer and closer....

    Sure, it may "just work". But so does a $35k BMW. I could probably afford a BMW but that's not what I'm driving. Apple has a great product, but this is an extremely poor economic time to be making ankle-biter fees and charges part of the deal.

  • Not a NEW policy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by buckhead_buddy ( 186384 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @07:00PM (#5010326)
    When iMovie 2 was released, the upgrade was not free for those who had the original iMovie (around $30 I think).

    iMovie 2 came with new hardware, was easily pirated, and was later released as part of the major ($99) OS upgrades so most likely many people probably never heard of this policy.

    I got iMovie 2 when I bought my TiBook and it. It's an easy to use linear editing system. If I wanted better titling, snazzy effects, or non-linear abilities I'd be looking at something in the $1K range. This works fine for me and I haven't really had any desire for more features for my home videos.

    If Apple comes out with a new version, my current version doesn't stop working. It very well may have difficulties if I were to buy a new Mac, but then I'd be given the new iMovie 3.0 with that purchase. So there isn't a strong pressure to pay for an upgrade based on stability and compatability problems. This is the most refreshing thing. If I find that the features Apple offers in the iMovie 3.0 version compelling then I may choose to buy an upgrade, but that's based on what I find important features.

    My cell phone, PDA, and MP3 player meet my current needs, but they aren't compelling. However, if a Sprint compatible version of the Kyocera 7135 SmartPhone is released in the US, I'd jump on the chance to upgrade for the features that it offers. Similarly iCal, iSync, iTunes, and the AddressBook aren't compelling apps but if they offered integration with a Kyocera 7135 feature set I'd easily pay a good chunk of change for the upgrades needed (they may work now, I have to get my 7135 to find out though).
    As another example, I won't use iPhoto at all. I find its abilities aren't what I'm looking for in a digitial photo album. Even though it's free, I prefer my own system of folders in the file system. If Apple adds enough features to iPhoto that I changed my mind about using it, I think I'd also be okay with tossing in some bucks for the upgrade.

  • I dont trust News.com (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HongPong ( 226840 ) <hongpong&hongpong,com> on Friday January 03, 2003 @07:05PM (#5010367) Homepage
    CNet has always seemed to hate Apple... the way this article is spun confirms it, I say... As for charging for iApps, I'm sure they won't have serial numbers or anything... it's just another DMG to snag from Carracho... no serious hassle but it sucks.

    I've heard they were putting a lot of work into properly Cocoaizing iPhoto for the next release, a serious upgrade. You can tell with the 10.2.3 update that it, along with iTunes, aren't really properly Cocoaized because the stoplight buttons don't look right anymore.

  • All-righty then... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Salubri ( 618957 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @07:36PM (#5010623) Journal
    Lets sit back and ONCE AGAIN remind everyone that rumors are, at best, rumors. Now that we've done this, let's just look at the prices involved...

    If the rumors are true, Apple wants to charge users $50.00 to update three pieces of software: iPhoto, iDVD, and iMovie. The rumor article even doesn't coroborate if Apple is even considering of doing something similar with it's other applications, just speculating that if the rumor is true it might be the first move toward that.

    Now, let's assume the first rumor is true. That the three apps named - iPhoto, iMovie, and iDVD - are going to charge for updates. It goes on to state that iPhoto manages your digital photos, where iMovie and iDVD allow you to edit digital videos and burn them to DVD. Now, having worked the retail sector before, this seems like a very good price for this. However, just to be certain, lets look at the prices of a few competitors...

    After searching around on CompUSA's website, this is what I found. First, Pinnacle Studio version 8. After checking what software I could find that would actually burn MOVIES onto DVD, I ran across this particular title. This does the job (I'm speculating here, give or take a few features) of iMovie and iDVD. As for Photos, lets just go with Ulead PhotoExplorer Pro 7.0, again with the same disclaimer: based on speculation from knowing the basics of what the applications do, give or take some features.

    Now let's compare the prices.

    the Mac iBundle
    iMovie, iPhoto, iDVD: $50.00
    TOTAL: $50.00 + applicable tax

    Ulead + Pinnacle Studio
    Pinnacle: $99.99
    Ulead: $24.99
    TOTAL: $124.98 + applicable tax

    All in all paying $50.00 for all three apps would not be a horrible fate by any means. Slightly annoying in that it used to be free, but not ripping anyone off either.

  • Just a few thoughts on shareware (a little OT) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nogami_Saeko ( 466595 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @07:38PM (#5010655)
    A lot of shareware authors, particularly those with programs that are fairly popular have been switching to a new registration scheme that this Apple upgrade policy reminds me of.

    Shareware authors tend to call it something like "upgrade protection". Basically when you register the software, you get any updates for some period of time (usually a year) afterwards. If you want to upgrade again after that, you must purchase the upgrade protection fee.

    I know all the arguments why they do it, how they need the money, etc.

    But it makes me mad, and I refuse to play that game.

    I registered a certain shareware internet application a couple years ago that had always been "free upgrades" ever since version 1.0 (it was version 3.x when I purchased it). The version AFTER I got mine, the author decided to start this upgrade protection nonsense. No continuing free versions for previous customers, we all get to play the protection racket game.

    Needless to say, I immediately went looking for a keygen and made myself a valid key for the new versions.

    I know everyone on their moral highground will defend the author and probably give me a hard time. So be it, I can accept that.

    Had I known about this policy before making my purchase, I would've chosen another product to spend my money on. My _trust_ was violated, regardless of the legality of his actions.

    In the marketing world, perception is everything - Apple's decision may make sense on budgetary, ethical, and legal footings, but if it annoys people as much as this shareware author's new policy annoyed me, Apple will get some negative PR.

    Not strong, not particularly mean and nasty PR, but a lot of "Apple just isn't quite as good a company as I thought it was". And that cooling of the warm and fuzzy feelings on which Apple so bases their marketing and promotional campaigns, could be very dangerous indeed.

    N.

  • This is why I use more and more free software (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Synn ( 6288 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @08:40PM (#5011157)
    Commercial software is pretty much a trap. You buy software and you have to use it on their terms, not yours, and you have no guarantees it'll be there tomorrow.

    I bought Zend Studio for a few hundred bucks, it was a good deal, really nice software. Only it doesn't work for me now, it won't run under a glibc2.3 system. Most likely I'll have to buy an upgrade(the new 2.6 version they're pushing) to see it work under my new system.

    Cold Fusion 5.0 at work has DB driver problems. Their solution for a fix? Upgrade to MX(which has its own problems under Linux).

    So it's back xemacs for an IDE for me and at work it's PHP in our future. No forced upgrades. 5 years from now emacs will still be there for me, most likely PHP will be as well.

    You can't say the same thing for any software you buy from a company. 8 years back I bought Symantec's Cafe for Java and used emacs on the side. Cafe is dead, even Visual Cafe is pretty much dead, but emacs lives on.

    I used to buy a lot of software. But the more I buy the more I find out that in the long term, it just isn't worth it.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close