Apple to charge for future iPad OS updates

Gee, TUAW offers its new iPad-free feed at http://www.tuaw.com/not/ipad. What's (currently) the third item in the feed? "Apple to charge for future iPad OS updates"

O.o

Even though it's "Filed under: iPad" I guess it's not working because they forgot to *tag* the post with "iPad." *sigh*

Explanation copied from elsewhere and edited to fit here:

This has something to do with GAAP, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. According to GAAP Apple, or any other hardware company, would have to defer booking revenue on products with unimplemented features if those features are implemented via software after release.

To do otherwise would put them in violation of SOX. Since Apple, rightly, wants to book revenue at time of sale AND not have its executives go to jail, it stipulates in the EULA that only some software updates are free

 (I think what this means is that it is now individuals within the company and not the company itself which can be prosecuted).

Apple caught a lot of flack for not making this disclosure clear previously. Now they're simply putting it in the EULA.

The defining factor for the Touch / iPhone is the phone part, right? So it seems they should offer them for free for the cellular data enabled versions and charge for the wifi only versions. I think it should all be free!

I had automatically assumed that the upgrades would be treated in the same way as the iPod Touch, i.e. there would be a nominal charge for .0 updates.

I don't know about US accounting practices, but read a good explanation as to why Apple has to charge for the iPod Touch updates and not the iPhone one.

I think that this article should have had a brief statement in bold explaining this otherwise people just make themselves look stupid by making comments like "another reason not to buy the iPad" or "Apple sucks".

I remember having to pay for the update to the WiFi card (from "g" to "n") for my Macbook, and again the explanation was that Apple was obliged to charge for this because of accounting laws.

We all know that the law is an ass -- sometimes it forces you to do something you don't want to do -- you just have to live with it. Spending $/£9.99 on a major software update every year is no big deal -- just walk around your house and you'll see stuff you bought (on impulse) for loads more which only ever got used once or twice and then either ignored it or put it in the attic so it doesn't remind you of your own lust and stupidity. Why is eBay so successful? It caters for all those original stupid purchases we made!!

I intend to buy the 64GB 3G+WiFi iPad, but when I wake up every morning, there's this little voice in my head which tells me that for the price of this gadget, I could feed two starving orphans for a whole year (I'm trying to ignore that voice by telling myself that I really really NEED the iPad).

Just get over it, get on with life and be grateful for what you have and can acquire instead of whinging about a fistful of coins.

Not to quibble Steve, but it's "capice?" not "capiche?"

But you rock anyway :)

The title is misleading.

Fail TUAW is fail.

Really it's not any different than the iTouch, which requires you to pay for major OS updates.

The only thing that sucks is that they won't include security updates in older versions of the OS.

This is just a flame article. The wording used by Apple is some features might not be available on future ipads. Same as what they have done on different versions of the iphone. Apple has stated they only charged for touch updates for accounting and have stopped since they have changed the way they do revenue sharing.

Shouldn't the article be titled "Apple [*MAY*] charge for future iPad OS updates?" I mean come on, its not like this practice is new - iPod Touch users have had to deal with paid updates every year since it came out.

True, I'm not sure I buy Apple's "accounting" reason for charging updates, but its unlikely that Apple will charge for a 4.0 update just a few months after the iPad is released. From what I understand, it's an annual accounting problem, so you're good for at least a year.

Not that big of a deal. I promise that most iPad users will spend more than the $10 Apple would be likely to charge on 3rd party apps... kinda have to to make the iPad useful. /zing =)

What do we have here:
http://www.felixbruns.de/iPod/firmware/

Wow, sticking it to the iPad users the same way as with iPod Touch buyers? I imagine the consumer upset will be enough to make them reconsider the whole practice.