Tuesday, January 16, 2007



Read a couple of pests regarding this issue of Apple being forced to charge for a software (http://tinyurl.com/ya8pua) patch that enables 802.11n wifi on Macs (http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/1/15/6637) that offer this as an unadvertised feature. (http://tinyurl.com/ya5d2l) Apparently they must charge a fee or offer the patch with an enabling product, like their new Airport Extreme, to avoid conflict with a law that prohibits the recording of profit from the sale of unfinished products. I know of similar laws, so this sounds reasonable enough.

However, as usual, the crowd is getting so worked up about the surface issue (in part because Apple stirs up emotion), the real issue is being overlooked: why didn't Apple advertise this feature? At first glance, one would assume they'd want to advertise a more advanced feature because it would help sales. Probably true, but wouldn't this also boost sales of 802.11n routers? Sure would. Only problem is Apple didn't have one on the shelves yet. But now they do and now the previously unadvertised feature is being advertised. Sneaky way to keep you new Macbook owners from buying someone else's "n" router. Just as sneaky as creating a cover controversy to distract from it.



CateGoogles: general_tech
Mood = unimpressed

Labels:

The truth behind the Mac 802.11n fee


2 Comments:

  1. But my question is still -- why don't they just pay it for their customers? Call it an instant rebate? Your assumption that they waited until they had a router product on the market is probably right. It's all about money in the end -- you can't fault them for that (that's what corps do) -- but charging their customers, even such an insignificant amount such as this, just seems wrong.

    By Blogger Clifford, at 1/19/2007 12:52:00 AM
     

  2. Can't pay a fee for your customer if it's to avoid conflict for recording *profit*. That's the key term. A rebate wouldn't undo the profit they recorded from the sale of unfinished tech. Doesn't mean it's right or even necessary, but the cover story is plausible.

    Again though, it's just a cover, something to distract from their deception to keep customers from switching to someone else's router and to secure instant demand for their new router. They needed to make a splash. Can't do that without firing up some bad emotions. Very easy for them to go back and reduce the fee (and outrage) as they've recently done. Simple but effective ploy.

    By Blogger Sumocat, at 1/19/2007 06:55:00 AM
     

Post a Comment

<< Home




Archive

  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • October 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • April 2013
  • January 2013
  • August 2012
  • June 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • December 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005