a petition to get those 5 apps as a free update which I agree with, but what about Apple's position?
Lisa Hoover, a writer at
Tuaw.com brings up a valid point that I think people are overlooking.
"
It's worth noting that Michael Rose and John Gruber pondered the possibility of iPod touch updates and user costs back in October 2007, as Apple's quarterly earnings report indicated that the iPhone's subscription accounting model was not being used for the touch. At the time it wasn't clear what would happen when functional updates to the iPod touch were released; now we know that they come with a price tag."
Think about it. Remember the Wireless-N update that was a couple dollars? The law got in the way and said that since it was not technically part of the product when released, Apple could not release a free update to get that functionality. They got around this problem by selling it for a couple dollars which Apple did not want to do at all, but had to anyways.
This situation is very similar. Because iPhones are on a subscription accounting model, they can legally release a free update. Because the iPod Touch is sold on a different model where there is one payment between the end-user and Apple with no further contact, besides minor security updates, a significant update such as this cannot be a free update. Security updates are small changes to the firmware, but this update is significant enough that it has to be a paid for update.
As for why Apple put the cost at $20, I don't know. It may be that they are again under pressure from the law; because they had skirted it once with a couple dollar update, now they are being forced to make it a more significant amount.
We can only speculate because I doubt Apple will release why they are doing this anytime soon. As for now, sign the petition.
]]>