Text 15473, 87 rader
Skriven 2007-01-19 20:21:00 av mike (1:379/45)
  Kommentar till text 15472 av Rich Gauszka (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Apple slimy 801.11n upgrade
=======================================
From: mike <mike@barkto.com>


According to one site, an Apple spokesperson confirmed that it was Sarb-Ox.

I am not an accountant, so I cannot comment.   I would suspect, however,
that Apple may be extra diligent regarding financial matters of late.

 /m

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:12:21 -0500, "Rich Gauszka"
<gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com> wrote:

>I don't understand that explanation -  Has Microsoft been in violation of
>Sarbanes-Oxley Act when they've added free features  ( Windows Defender ) to
>XP?
>
>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/ssg/index.php/2007/01/17/is-apple-using-sa
rbox-as-a-scapegoat/
>
>The company is blaming Sarbanes-Oxley for the decision to charge for the
>enablers, and at least iLounge's Jeremy Horwitz is wondering how legitimate
>the excuse is. We're betting he's not alone. Here at IT Business Edge, of
>course, we have documented the tendency of public companies to immediately
>blame Sarbox for their problems.
>
>The clearest explanation we've seen so far appears in Reg Hardware, where
>Tony Smith puts it this way:
>
>    If Apple begins selling a product at the start of, say, Q1 and then adds
>a previously unadvertised feature to it at the beginning of Q2, under
>Sarbanes-Oxley, it has to recognise revenues from the product from Q2
>onwards. Revenues recognised in Q1 run contrary to the rules enshrined in
>the Act. Unless, of course, the extra feature is a 'new' product, attracting
>its own revenue stream.
>
>If allowing users to add unadvertised functionality at no cost does violate
>Sarbox, how many other software companies are guilty of the same thing?
>
>Comment by Milo Panni
>
>I've been working with Sarbanes Oxley since it was first enacted and have
>seen its impact at a number of different companies and industries.I think
>apple's explaination is baloney.  SOX requires companies to have sufficient
>and effective means to prevent errors in their financial statements.In this
>case they sell computers and recognize full revenue when they ship a
>computer to a customer or retailer. There are alot of things those computers
>can do that is unadvertized but that has no bearing on revenue after its
>shipped. If this were truely driven by SOX or by generally accepted
>accounting principles Apple would be able to explain it rather than just
>saying SOX made us do it.
>
>
>"mike" <mike@barkto.com> wrote in message
>news:abi2r25p0tcnvapltkk0eum9tjcttfacp1@4ax.com...
>>
>> Some reports attribute it to Sarb-Ox compliance.
>>
>> /m
>>
>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:11:03 -0500, "Rich Gauszka"
>> <gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>While $1.99 isn't much for the upgrade I still would describe it as slimy.
>>>What's next security updates for $1.99?
>>>
>>>
>>>http://news.com.com/Apple+wants+two+bucks+for+faster+Wi-Fi/2100-1044_3-61512
81.html
>>>Some MacBook Pro and MacBook customers have the faster 802.11n Wi-Fi chip
>>>already sitting in their systems, but it will cost $2 to light it up.
>>>
>>>Apple on Thursday confirmed reports that it plans to charge customers a
>>>fee
>>>to download software that will enable the 802.11n capability in the Wi-Fi
>>>chips found in some MacBook and MacBook Pro systems. But it won't cost $5,
>>>as many reports indicated. It will cost $1.99, and will be available on
>>>Apple's Web site, said Lynn Fox, an Apple spokeswoman.
>>>
>>>Every Mac with Intel's Core 2 Duo or Xeon processor has the 802.11n chip,
>>>except for the 17-inch iMac with the 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo chip, Apple
>>>announced last week at Macworld.
>>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)