of kids want an iPad
The Nielsen Company presented a cadre of individuals with a list of nice, shiny gadgets and let them cross off anything and everything they'd like to buy in the next six months, and 31 percent of kids 6-12 picked the iPad as one of them.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
This has nothing to do w/ Sarbanes Oxley. This is a SAB 104 (Revenue Recognition) and EITF 00-21 (multiple deliverables) issue. You cannot recognize revenue until delivery of the service/goods. They have already recognized the revenue from these ipod sales. If they were to give this update out for free, this would imply that they had not finished delivery and could not have recognized the revenue in previous period. This would require a restatement of prior periods' financial statements... which all of you apple stockholders would not be too happy about.
Maybe you should have a CPA write articles, too. Lawyers don't know everything.
This really has nothing to do with Sarbanes-Oxley Act. It has to due with people are willing to pay the $15 becasue they have no other choice. Apple is good at one thing, and that is making money. Why do you think they sell their mp3 players for 2x the price of any other company?
Heh, trust me, as a copyright attorney I deal with SOX once in a blue moon -- I'm more than willing to defer to someone more knowledgeable about it. However, Apple has stated numerous times that it defers revenue in this way specifically because of SOX, so I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt until they say something otherwise.
Oh, I hope you know I didn't mean any offense. There's just a tendency to "overblame" SOX for things that are just standard accounting issues. The way SOX would enter into this is that a company could be foudn to have ineffective controls if they have a large restatement. The core of the issue is the basic accounting, though, I'd say.
I'm a fan of your writeups.
But how does that explain how numerous other electronic devices get software/firmware upgrades that add new features without a charge to customers?
I am neither an attorney nor an accountant.
That said, I am confused as to how any law, SOX, SAB, EITF, or otherwise would affect the iPod Touch. How come Microsoft isn't charging for Zune or Xbox 360 updates? How come Sony isn't charging for PSP or PS3 updates? How come Apple doesn't charge for OS X updates in between major releases? [i.e., 10.4.11 or 10.5.1 for example]