Megatsk @ apple

Sput · Thu 24 Jan, 2008 19.22

So I decided to take the plunge on ebay and get an iPod touch, complete with the new applications. Bargain! I thought.

Wrong.

Naturally, it was second hand so I performed a restore and *poof*, all the new applications were removed, and I'm required to spend £12.99 if I ever want to see them again. It turns out that the file that unlocks the applications is locked to an ITUNES ACCOUNT instead of an iPod, which makes absolutely NO sense when you consider it's far better business to make an account holder pay twice if they have two Touches.

What makes it even more ludicrous is that all new Touches come with the applications enabled no matter how many accounts you use them with, so basically we've got sincere, nonsensical greed by Steve.

This could be a turning point for my year-old love affair with apple. I'm glad I didn't exactly "pay" full price for Leopard now...

Nini · Fri 25 Jan, 2008 00.42

Another casualty of the iPod touch update chargearoo. As the updates are iTS linked (which actually is the stupidest way of doing it if you're going to charge at all for iPhone functionality like you said) you're fucked and have to pay the £13 or instead just wait and see if the update becomes free as there is pressure on Apple to do that.

Think of it this way, if this is the worst that Apple can throw at you in one year, it's probably going to be the only thing for a good long while that'll disillusion you.

James Hatts · Fri 25 Jan, 2008 00.55

The reason for the £12.99 charge is supposedly this.

Sput · Fri 25 Jan, 2008 00.59

Oh I'm alright with the concept of paying and getting more and the quirks of Apple accountants, I just think it should be linked to an iPod serial since that's where the software is altered!

Nini · Fri 25 Jan, 2008 03.27

Forgot about the Sarbox act. Same with the AEBS N enabler earlier back, just a quid or two sure but...

Sput wrote:I just think it should be linked to an iPod serial since that's where the software is altered!

How do they charge a iPod for an update they need to charge for because of an accounting law? Mightn't seem logical to charge your account at iTS but they have to and that does mean linking by that account and not by iPod serials.

Google linky

I'd be buggered if they would have charged without Sarbox. I mean, it's not Microsoft or Adobe we're talking about, is it? It's His Steveness and the RDF at work.

Sput · Fri 25 Jan, 2008 08.03

they only need an itunes account to charge money. Beyond that they can easily just record the serial of the iPod on the server when the apps are first installed so any time a restore is perunit is authorised to unlock them every time

rts · Fri 25 Jan, 2008 09.05

Not about the iPod, but I really resent how the iPhone is locked to one network. As you said Sput, it's simply sheer greed by Steve. It completely against Apple's grain of liberal simplicity, a value I assumed was integral to them.

Alexia · Fri 25 Jan, 2008 12.11

rts wrote:Not about the iPod, but I really resent how the iPhone is locked to one network. As you said Sput, it's simply sheer greed by Steve. It completely against Apple's grain of liberal simplicity, a value I assumed was integral to them.

Apple used to be the alternative to the norm... they are now the norm to be avoided. I have never owned an Apple product, nor will I ever.

I do however use iTunes to listen to internet radio, while using RealPlayer for my on-disc music.

Sput · Fri 25 Jan, 2008 12.38

You're using realplayer voluntarily?

cdd · Fri 25 Jan, 2008 13.27

We really do have an awful lot of consumer choice when it comes to media players... WMP, Winamp, iTunes, Quicktime, Realplayer, and about a zillion more... how much consumer choice does one need?

Gavin Scott · Fri 25 Jan, 2008 13.31

I use RealAlternative for Real Media. Its bloat free, and runs niftily in a Media Player 6 player.

Not that anyone asked.