Mac OS X Family Pack... Now Available

[arn]

Rupert emailed and let us know that the Mac OS X 10.2 Family Pack is now available (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/243/wo/LVtar0krYT65XiwGcT/2.3.0.3.34.8.3.1.13.0) from the US Apple Store for $199:

Family Pack Software License Agreement allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on up to a maximum of five (5) Apple-labeled computers at a time as long as those computers are located in the same household and used by persons who occupy that same household. By "household" we mean a person or persons sharing the same housing unit such as a home, apartment, mobile home or condominium. This license does not extend to students who reside at a separate on-campus location or to business or commercial users.


The Family Pack pricing was first revealed in this Wall Street Journal article (http://ptech.wsj.com/ptech.html) by Walter Mossberg.

[skunk]

Not easy to find: click on Apple Software on the main page, not on the OS X icons. The main OS X pages don't show the option.

[awrc]

Government rate is $99.50, for those who qualify. So we paid an extra $30 for two copies. Won't kill me.

[cgmpowers]

I ordered two copies of the OS 10.2 single licenses and one has already 'shipped'. After spending what was well over an hour on the phone with Apple (and in 3 different departments)..the first copy cannot be canceled (as their computer says it's shipped).

I did cancel my second copy and order the family license of OS 10.2.. But when I get the single license..I'll have to call Apple BACK and get an RMA number to return it.

So in closing...it would have been nice if I had the option to cancel the single license earlier (before it shipped)...and if they had talked about this family license earlier then it would have helped me from all this frustration.

I'm not sure when I'll get the family license...prob now it'll be a week later than the single license that's being returned..

Christopher

p.s. My 1st copy says SHIPPED, cannot be canceled and does NOT have a UPS/FedEx tracking number..

[Gus]

That's been my big complaint since this story broke. I'm pissed that Apple waited until thousands of us ordered to talk about this Family thing. Maybe Walt Mossberg just let the cat out of the bag early, or maybe Apple wanted to boost their order numbers. Who knows, just bad form on Apple's fault with the timing I think.

My 2¢

Gus

[MidnightRambler]

You know, I really dislike liberals.

Now, I'm not one of those Gary Baur, Religious Right types, ..but I grew up thinking a family consituted a mother, father and a couple of kids.

In recent years the liberal fringe has encroached on our collective reality and extended the concept of 'family' to include whatever individuals one feels warm and fuzzy towards. There need not be a blood relation or geographical proximity within the new 'family' paradigm. I've always been opposed to such a broad view of family, but I'm begining to see its advantages.

What do you say, bros? Do four of you feel like kicking in $39.80 a piece towards this upgrade? ;)


Gesturing in the general direction of Cupertino,
the MidnightRambler


(and don't be thinking I feel too warm and fuzzy toward any of yous)

[elgruga]

Looks as if Jaguar aint selling all that well.....now this strange offer of a 'family pack'.

Sounds like the grocery store.

Oh well, its a good deal. How many will get 4 friends together and do this?

"My buddies came over for a few beers and crashed in the basement, so we figure its OK to order the 5-pack"

Its $60 CAD each copy - thats a discount of $163 CAD on buying a single. (yes, its $223 inc. tax up here in Canada)

Whats the betting some people will buy them and then sell the individual packs for $100 CAD apiece?

Are Apple going to check that we are all living in the same house?

As i said, a kind of weird offer, but good, very good.

[elgruga]

Oh, these are OS X licenses for 5.

One copy, OK to put it on 5 boxes - does that mean its ok to copy it on to 5 discs legally?

I guess it does......

[onemoof]

It clearly states in the license that this is NOT a 5 user license. This IS a site license for homes up to 5 computers. You can only let your friends use your license if their legal residence is the same as yours.

[mac15]

why couldn't you just install OSX 5 times with one licence, why pay when you don't have to this is silly

[arn]

Originally posted by mac15
why couldn't you just install OSX 5 times with one licence, why pay when you don't have to this is silly

While you can, it's technically not legal. For that matter, why pay for it all all, when you can get a copy from a friend?

Obviously, it has to do with where you draw your "line"... but let's not drag this into a pro/anti piracy thread. If you want to add your own personal views of it, read this piracy thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=8394) first...

no need to repeat/reignite that arguement...

arn

[daveg5]

I have 3 macs already. are you telling me it is illegal to install OSX 10.2 on the 3 of them? Am I to buy this family pak or goto jail.
Is this more price gouging?

[onemoof]

The Apple Store still isn't selling any multiple license versions of OSX besides the family pack. There is no 10 user license for example. I guess users in the corporate environment have to pay the full price per computer

[oldMac]

It's good of Apple to recognize that families often have more than one machine these days and that "upgrading" to the latest and greatest can get pretty expensive.

Though most households will probably continue buying a single copy and "sharing" it among the various machines, it's good that Apple is giving folks a more economical option.

Does Apple currently offer these types of discounts to business?

[daveg5]

I bought a dvd to watch on one of my 5 dvd players.
I rented a video to watch on one of my 4 vhs players.
I bought a cd for the car the cd walkman the dvd player and the 100 disk changer.


OOPS i'm a crook, my piracy is causing these industries billions in lost sales (to who? to me and my family of course) as I dont own any of these things while in my pocession. I just pay a price to "use" them as "specified by the seller" on one device.

I better call best buy and order 4 more dvds,
and blockbusters and order 3 more videos,
and circuit city for a 102 more cds since the 100disk cd changer, cd walkman, and dvd player dont have "permission" to be used by one purchased cd.

The next time I bring fries home from Mcdonalds, I'm not sharing unless each of my family members buys "permission" ala a license to eat them up.
This is utterly ridiculous.

If I buy a operating system it is mine to use as I see fit and I will load it on my Powermac and my powerbook and my unsupported machine,
So there.

[oldMac]

Dave,

This is nothing new.

If you read the license agreements (you know, that thing you agreed to when you started using your software) for your software, you'll find that nearly ALL software is licensed for use on one machine.

Pretty much all software companies legally require that you purchase a separate copy of software for each machine that you install on.

Additional Note:

Many license agreements also state that it's okay to install the software on multiple machines so long as only one copy is being used at any one time.

I would tend to agree with you that, from a historical standpoint, it would make sense that you should have permission to install the software on any number of your personal machines, but it doesn't hold that you would be able to make copies of it to give to others (including family).

btw... you've got a much better argument regarding music or movies. There is no intrinsic value in having multiple copies of a CD for personal use other than convenience. It *is* possible to increase the value of an OS by running multiple copies of an operating system on different machines simultaneously. If you don't believe that, ask Pixar why they have a render farm.

[cgmpowers]

Many of the Microsoft licenses (like Word and Office) had allowed you (in the past, not sure if anymore) allowed you to install one desktop copy and one copy on a laptop.

I know this personally from MS themselves. I had problems with FrontPage 2000 and Outlook 2000 and they said it was perfectly fine for me to install it on both my home machine and my mobile laptop...WITH the exception of not having both running at the same time.

I have noticed, for example, that if I have MS's Entourage installed on my iBook and running---I cannot physically get into it on my iMac... But wasn't against the lisences to install it on both machines as longas I own both machines.

I do not, to my knowledge, know if this is true for Apple. I do not think I can legally have Final Cut Pro installed on my iBook and my iMac...

Chrisopher

[sith33]

Just to throw in a reminder of what "them other folks deal with" ... if you try to install your copy of Windows XP on more than one machine, it will literally stop you from doing so. The OS phones home to microsoft to ask permission to run, and if they see you've already got it installed on another machine ... no permission. Try running two copies of Office V.X with the same serial number on machines that are networked together...

I'm surprised this is the first time this has come up. I don't think i've ever seen "big-name" commercial software that lets you install on more than one machine, and use both at the same time.. (legally).

I don't see it as gouging. To use the DVD example... you're well within your right to install the OS, use it, uninstall it and install it somewhere else. Thats what you're really doing when you watch a DVD, since the actual content of the DVD doesn't remain with the player. Now, if you want to watch the DVD on two players at the same time, you're legally (well, and physically) prevented from doing so...

[nuckinfutz]

Sheesh man where did you get that warped logic from?

DVDS are media not applications.

Don't you feel kinda odd that no one else here agrees with your point of view?

This is a good idea from Apple for those that have a high ethical standards. I just wish I had 5 OSX capable Macs at home.

[ryskt]

Not that I'm necessarily on the side of all of the restrictions and problems with items such as software, music and movies.... but...

Each of these items takes time and effort and money to develop. While the RIAA is a bit ridiculous in their tactics, their argument is valid... Mp3's, software piracy and services like Napster and Gnutella cause them to lose money. They promote illegal copying and duplication of copyrighted works and products. I can personally say that since I started downloading mp3s from the internet and burning them to CD, my CD buying volume dropped drastically. The music on CD's and ultimately in Mp3's was written, produced and performed by people at great cost to the studio and occasionally the artist themselves. The software on the OS X 10.2 install CDs was written, produced and distrubuted at great cost to Apple.

I know first hand how time and cost intensive developing software is. If one of the products I produced was freely distributed to anyone who didn't feel like paying for it, my paycheck would eventually disappear and I wouldn't be able to put food on my table. While this seems obvious at a micro level to a single developer developing a single product, it has the same ultimate effect on larger companies like Apple. If they were to allow anyone who wants it to freely copy and distribute their operating system, they would not be earning the revenue that ultimately could mean the difference between continued operations or bankruptcy.

In an economy such as this, I think it's understandable that Apple is charging people for web-content hosting and email hosting with the .mac platform. They have to buy the bandwidth and hardware used for such services. I also think it's understandable for them to charge for their operating system and other software. They have to keep their heads above water or the business itself would be in danger.

I think the family licensing package is a good step for Apple. While it could have been announced at the beginning of pricing announcements for Jaguar, it's still a good deal for those out there that can't afford to pay $129 per copy for each macintosh they might own but don't want to violate copyright laws and still want to support further Apple development. Perhaps the reason it was announced later, after some people had already ordered more than one copy, is because they simply didn't think of it until now. When they realized that Jaguar wasn't selling at the rates they hoped, they may have come up with this deal to boost sales, or they may have realized that some people simply can't afford it any other way.

The CD and DVD argument posted earlier has very little relevance on this issue. You don't play your DVD in all 5 of your DVD players at once, it's not possible. You do, however, copy the operating system to each computer and use it simultaneously on each one. If DVD players required you to copy the contents of the DVD to the player before playing the movie, then it would be relevant. You can, at any time, wipe the operating system off of any computer and install it to another one.

I guess my point is that everyone should pick their battles. The family licensing deal was probably created to help users afford the cost of upgrading multiple computers they own. Kudos to Apple for the forsight to at least announce it before the boxes got to the shelves.

[daveg5]

Dvds are both media and applications, at least microsoft thinks my Xbox games are.
And I did not agree to anything when I installed my OS.
Something just fell on the mouse uh "accidentally" and I just continued the process.
Apple agreed to take my money
I agreed to take their software and use it as I see fit on all the devices that I own in my house and car
If I want to put OS9 in the cd changer so be it .
If I want to flush it down the toilet as I have from time to time so be it.
As long as I dont give it away for free or profit its my business
If Apple disagrees than they can give me a refund for my 2 copies of 9
and one copy of OS8.1(cash only)
Now I would never use an illegal copy of Jagwire (maybe just to see if its worth it} but thats it and I dont encourage it.
And strictly speaking I maybe wrong and a little comical
But surely someone who owns more then one apple Computer in his home
is out there and agrees with me that as far as I am concerned once I buy.
I will use on all my machines in my house
And if that is illegal then I will continue to violate a stupid and unfair law
with out any care
Mcdonalds fries would taste good right now even to a vegatarian.
Darn it I didnt' buy my license

[daveg5]

To the best of my knowledge must people use one computer at a time
they may play unreal on one
and then later on another one
you can erase unreal of your harddrive at anytime
and load it on another one
So should everyone go out and buy 2 unreals
where the logic to that?
So the dvd and cd argument is as valid as ever
However the french fries are a stretch {however they do taste good)
Dont you think the movies studios and music studios would love have a new licensing "scheme" like the software manufators ala microsoft playing big brother as you reinstall your OS.
Look at the privacy invasion when you install OSX
And who give a boot for thier privacy policy
Once they go under you info is sold
They dont keep thier agreements yet they ask us too.
Apple will stay in business as long as they keep making good products and the faithful keep buying.
not five at a time, rather
ONE AT A TIME!!

[arn]

Originally posted by daveg5
To the best of my knowledge must people use one computer at a time
.......
So should everyone go out and buy 2 unreals
where the logic to that?


If you and another family member are playing unreal at the same time on two different computers... then yes, technically you are supposed to own two copies.

You and your family member can not (physically) play a DVD on two players at once.
You and your family member can use an application on two computers at once.

I think you can understand the point here. We're not passing judgement, nor are we saying it's "right"... I'm just explaining to you the concept of it, and also answering your original question, which was:


are you telling me it is illegal to install OSX 10.2 on the 3 of them?


The answer is essentially Yes.

...but like I said - don't get all into a tizzy over it... we're not passing judgement... just explaning the reason for a 5-Pack Family license.

arn

[daveg5]

Well I play alone, accept for online play cause, well Im not that good.
But technically speaking your point is well taken and is quite possibly correct
I drive over 65 from time to time, not by much but I do
I have to do something with those 260 horsepower
I jaywalk sometimes It's illegal but I do
Sometimes I dont feed the meter enough coins
Sometimes doing the above 2 things can save your life
sometimes doing they above 2 things can save your life
sometime it can kill you
Point being I may be legally incorrect here
But sometimes that is the best place to be
and sometimes it is not it all depends on the circumstances
I'm sure Steve Jobs wont loose any sleep over one of the faithful using 10.2 on all of his machines without buying the new family pak.
and I wont loose any sleep over his trips in his jets and his 1 dollar a year job nor for Bill Gates and his millions.
When Apple or should I say moto, IBM catch up to AMD/INTEL and produce some truly lending edge hardware to go with thier leading edge software
then maybe just maybe I will buy 3 family Paks. 3GHZ already
Technally speaking it is not illegal to install all the macs in your house if you dont click on agree let something uh fall on the mouse or train your pets they love to learn new tricks.

[Gigglebyte]

Originally posted by daveg5

Look at the privacy invasion when you install OSX
And who give a boot for thier privacy policy
Once they go under you info is sold
They dont keep thier agreements yet they ask us too.

Hate to burst your bubble here dave but Apple does not sell your info to 3rd parties. It can be shared with other companies but ONLY if they agree to their terms (which says they are NOT to just go around and sell it). How do I know this...I work for Apple and I believe in our policies.

As for your rant on buying the OS and you will use it on what ever machine you want maybe you should read the agreement that your mouse 'accidentaly' fell on because what it basicaly says is that Apple is letting you USE the software (in other words you don't OWN it) on one machine.

this is intelectual property and when people do pirate the product it effects everbody down the line because it DOES effect the development of new products and apps. What do you think would happen if only 5% of people purchase Jag and the other 95% 'borrow' it. There probably wouldn't be much more development on the product..and this goes for ANY product or app.

As for why the family pack was not announced earlier I have no idea on it but got the e-mail a couple of days ago and I think it is a great thing. I work with people that have multiple systems and to spend $129 a pop is kind of tough if you have 3 or 4 systems. As far as the corporate structure goes there is an unlimited user for OS X server but since I don't work on the server side of the house I am not quite sure how that works on the client side.

And where does your brain fail on the using UT on ONE machine at a time? If you purchase the license to use the sw you can load it on multiple machines but only use one at a time you don't have to purchase multiple copies.

Now does anybody here remember AutoDesk (they do AutoCAD)? When version 9 and 10 were out they cost about $4k a copy and guess what happened if they found out that you had a single copy LICENSE on multiple machines? They would sue you and give you the 'option' of purchasing the number of licenses for the number of machines it had been running on or they would take you to court and sue for copyright infringment AND WIN! Why? it all has to do with the license they HAD to agree to because it stated this would run on ONE CPU (and they had to change that when dual processors started coming out) at a time. Did this happen too often? not really but it did happen to a few companies and they got nailed for a lot of money that was due to AutoDesk.

Now according to Dave's logic, once he BUYS the software he should be able to load it on any machine he owns or wants right or am I missing his logic here? Ultimately that is what it sounds like he wants, or maybe he doesn't even want to pay for it but have Apple make it and just give it away..tell you what Dave...why don't you go to work for a company, put in 40-50 hours a week but tell them to keep the paycheck because that is what you are wanting Apple and any other company that produces software to do.

[daveg5]

Hate to burst your bubble here dave but Apple does not sell your info to 3rd parties. It can be shared with other companies but ONLY if they agree to their terms (which says they are NOT to just go around and sell it). How do I know this...I work for Apple and I believe in our policies.

As for your rant on buying the OS and you will use it on what ever machine you want maybe you should read the agreement that your mouse 'accidentaly' fell on because what it basicaly says is that Apple is letting you USE the software (in other words you don't OWN it) on one machine.

this is intelectual property and when people do pirate the product it effects everbody down the line because it DOES effect the development of new products and apps. What do you think would happen if only 5% of people purchase Jag and the other 95% 'borrow' it. There probably wouldn't be much more development on the product..and this goes for ANY product or app.

If Apple goes bankrupt like so many others who promised not to sell your info(all the failed dot coms} Like enron Wolrdcom with there millionaire CEO and pension robbing policies, you know and I know they will sell it in a heartbeat, oops bubble broken. I dont pirate or lend any of my software. key word being my. If 5% of the people only would buy it I agree it would be bye bye apple" But if 95% of the people bought it and used it only on thier home machines then Apple would gain marketshare". Unfortuntely I must agree piracy is bad and its not something I codone.

However my pocketbook is just as important as Apples, more so if you ask me, and my money has intelletual value to it.
If I have supported your machine and convinced others to switch long before the imac and the switch ads.
Then I should be able to load up 10.2 on all the systems in my humble abode no matter how the agree button is clicked. The way I look at it, Apple owes me and needs me just as they think I do them.
And if they really want more switchers make the family pak $129 discontinue the one user pak and then they can claim 5 times more switchers and who actually reads those licenses anyway. Lawyers

[daveg5]

How many of you can honestly say that you have never installed a licensed piece of software on a computer other than the one it was originally intended for.
How many of you have downloaded mp3's not originally from your own cd-tape-lp-8track-dat-reeltoreel -vhs-beta-45-78-see&say collection
downloaded to your mp3 player or burned to cd
I thought so
Have you ever lended or gave a friend of family member a copy of a vhs/beta/dvd/laserdisk that you never owned or just rented.
I thought so

most software companies want you to "buy" thier software with the license hidden from sight. They glady take your money
Once you get home and take forever to read the legatease or so I've been told you find out you are really leasing the product to be used the way they dictate. Is this false advertisement or what?
Are we buying or Leasing indefinately?
Let's be honest!

[stevesien]

I thought some of you might enjoy reading about this old Keynote from 1997, I did.


Amelio's fan dance



Now, about that operating system ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By SCOTT ROSENBERG

apple CEO Gilbert Amelio took center stage at the Macworld Expo in San Francisco Tuesday to explain the company's operating system strategy — and to reassure Mac loyalists that they would not be left adrift as Apple merges with NeXT and builds a new OS.

It was a marathon, two-and-a-half-hour performance that took its theme from "Independence Day," which Apple has been featuring in ads that say: "When you've got just 28 minutes to save the planet, better hope you've got the right computer." Jeff Goldblum, one of the heroes in "Independence Day," even turned up on the podium to introduce Amelio, and talked about "combining forces to strike a blow for humanity."

No doubt Apple's engineers and marketers wish that they could plug NeXT into the Mac universe as effortlessly as Goldblum's "Independence Day" character was able to network his Powerbook with an alien spaceship's computers. In the real world, operating systems are anything but plug-and-play; they require massive development efforts and long-term strategies.

Maybe that's why all the talk about "saving the world" during the Amelio marathon was just a little unsettling. The suffocatingly thick crowds had gathered to hear something far more mundane: how Amelio and company plan to save their operating system.

Amelio got to that, but not before lengthy ramblings, a ritualistic trotting-out of executives and celebrities, and an overextended bout of technology demonstrations.

Regarding the $100-150 million quarterly loss Apple just announced, Amelio explained that "Santa never came" this year; in other words, Apple sold a lot fewer Performas than it hoped. But the company's still sitting on a $1.7 billion cash reserve, so not to worry.

Instead, Amelio wanted us to see some of the cool stuff Apple's researchers are working on — like "knowledge management systems" that automate the summarizing of documents and "data detectors" that lift addresses, phone numbers and Web addresses from documents and pop them into databases.

Thanks, Gil, but everyone knows Apple always has neat projects simmering in the labs. What about that operating system?

Oh, he'd get to that. But first some special guests. Jim Barksdale of Netscape tells us how many Macs he owns. A Microsoft exec wishes Apple well. (Really.) Sun's Eric Schmidt reassures us that "Apple really gets it about the Net." Peter Gabriel wants us to know that "The Mac has been a great friend to artists."

Yes, thanks, but what about that operating system?

Okay, okay, but first look at this video about airplane designer Burt Rutan, who built the instrument panel of an experimental aircraft around a Powerbook and has "had no reliability problems at all."

Wish I could say that about my Powerbook. So, about that OS...

Amelio took pains to insist that Apple was not abandoning the current MacOS, System 7. Indeed, the most enthusiastic response of the day from the audience came during the demo of Tempo, the next System 7 upgrade, due for a July release. Tempo will introduce the upgraded Finder file-management system from Apple's aborted Copland operating system; it will be multithreaded, which means you can do things with more than one file at once. As Tempo copied two files simultaneously while also launching an application, the Macworld crowd cheered. This was the sort of thing they'd been waiting for from Apple for too long — not saving the world.

Tempo will be followed by two more upgrades to System 7 in 1998. These upgrades will gradually merge with the new OS Apple will build based on NeXT's technology, code-named Rhapsody. Rhapsody will be built around the same "kernel" or core system that NeXT uses — a version of Unix known as Mach.

So will Rhapsody run Mac software? Eventually. Amelio finally got around to the slide that showed his OS strategy. At the bottom, a layer labeled PowerPC. That's the chip, the hardware. Above that, a layer labeled "Modern Core OS." That must be Rhapsody. Above that, the layer is split into a "blue box" and a "yellow box."

The yellow box is where the applications built on the new NeXT-based system will run; the blue box is where "legacy" Mac applications will run. The blue box, Amelio explained, is not an emulation — "it's all about compatibility, and it will provide equal or better performance than you get today" (except with certain applications that talk directly to the computer's hardware).

This little blue box, which will not arrive until mid-1998, seems mighty important, and it's good to know that Apple has its color scheme worked out. But the haste with which Amelio rushed through this central explanation was unnerving. It did not inspire confidence, and that was what Amelio needed to do.

Steve Jobs, at least, beamed confidence when he took the stage to show how wonderful his Next software is — how speedily OpenStep can develop new applications, how network-friendly his OS is, and how many different Quicktime movies it can run simultaneously. And nifty these tools were indeed. But they're not exactly new, and how well they will migrate to Apple's OS and user base remains an open question.

Jobs at least spoke directly to the group that will have the most influence on the fate of Apple's strategy — the developers who will need to flock to the new software if it is to succeed. "We've got to get the spark back with the developers," Jobs said.

For his part, Amelio seemed to be paying dutiful but unenthusiastic tribute to the developers — and avoiding details about the OS as much as possible. He rushed through the end of his presentation and ushered Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak onto the stage for a photo-op with Jobs.

By the end, Amelio had spent more time welcoming "special guests" in the audience like Muhammad Ali, Gregory Hines, Sinbad and top execs from PacTel and Bank of America than he had introducing what should have been the guest of honor — his own company's strategy.

It's still impossible to predict where Apple's NeXT move will take it. If Tempo is as much fun as it looks, that may give Apple a breather with its current user base — and time to properly crossbreed NeXT's software with its own. But shouldn't these features have been available long ago? Isn't that the root of Apple's problem today?

Apple has said, "Trust us — it's coming in six months" too many times before for the promise to evoke much excitement today. Maybe that's why Amelio worked so hard today to bury the substance of his talk under a mountain of demos and cameos.

[Pants]

we all fall into the trap of "ive heard it so many times it MUST be true". EULA - especially pertaining to OS's havent actually been challenged. QED, wether its legal or not is moot. I actually agree with Dave - ESPECIALLY in the case of 10.2 - buying a computer with a barely working os (hardware, after all, is only half the package) and then having to stump up cash for a 'working' version is almost definately an illegal sales practice. If you bought a washing machine and it didnt rinse, would you a) pay more for a software upgrade or b) take it back and kick up a stink? why do we accept computers as being intrinsically any different to any other white goods we buy (and then OWN)?

as for the family pack - i suspect this move was late simply because SJ saw it as a good opportunity to say 'hey, folks!! were not M$!". There has been a lot of sour faces over apples newly found 1 os 1 machine thoughts and .Mac skinning - and this is a nice move. However, as Ars Technica point out, how long this will last is another thing...

[skunk]

Whatever the motives, it's a bloody good move by Apple, especially in view of the criticism they have suffered lately. Since the business 10-pack is $499, it's also a recognition that families will tend to use their hardware less. The price-points would have been better at $99 single, $149 family, but at least it's substantial move in the right direction, and I expect if you shop around you'll get it at these prices anyway.

[woodsey]

Why doesnt apple just offer free os upgrades for life?

Every time an OS update comes out, go to your local apple centre and burn a coppy.

Otherwise you could order in and have it mailed out for a small charge.

It could be used as part of the switch campaign.
Win xp ... $$$$
Mac OS ... FREE for life!

Anyone agree?

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by onemoof
The Apple Store still isn't selling any multiple license versions of OSX besides the family pack. There is no 10 user license for example. I guess users in the corporate environment have to pay the full price per computer

You can contact Apple and get a corporate license. They do not advertise it, maybe, but you even have an Apple sales rep somewhere assigned to your area, who will be able to get that information for you. Look in the apple contact us pages for their corporate sales number.

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by daveg5
I bought a dvd to watch on one of my 5 dvd players.
I rented a video to watch on one of my 4 vhs players.
I bought a cd for the car the cd walkman the dvd player and the 100 disk changer.


You are not violating your license in all those cases. You are not copying the DVD to your computer and then selling the original disk. How can you be naive enough to think that it is the same thing? You really are comparing apples to oranges here.

It is more like you live in an apartment and hook up all your neighbors to your cable box so they could all watch it for free.

Is it moral? Who cares. Is it illegal in the US, you bet. You cant watch a dvd in all 5 players at once, nor a video. The CD on the other hand is an interesting question, and I may be breaking the law. I have all 4300 songs from my cd collection on my Ti800, but what if i am listening to the same song as my wife, while she is using the CD. I am not sure there, but it might be illegal. I am not going to worry though, because it is legal to copy your cd to tape or mp3 player (including computer) as long as you own a copy of the cd.

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by sith33
I don't see it as gouging. To use the DVD example... you're well within your right to install the OS, use it, uninstall it and install it somewhere else. Thats what you're really doing when you watch a DVD, since the actual content of the DVD doesn't remain with the player. Now, if you want to watch the DVD on two players at the same time, you're legally (well, and physically) prevented from doing so...

Props to the newbie. That is an excellent rebuttal to that arguement. It is also a tough arguement to counter on the current line of thinking.

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by woodsey
Why doesnt apple just offer free os upgrades for life?

Every time an OS update comes out, go to your local apple centre and burn a coppy.

Otherwise you could order in and have it mailed out for a small charge.

It could be used as part of the switch campaign.
Win xp ... $$$$
Mac OS ... FREE for life!

Anyone agree?

I'm sorry, I don't. You see, I want my Apple hardware to have good software. I think that many people would agree with me that the reason that they put up with "the gigahertz gap" is that Intel/AMD hardware does not run the MacOS.

I want to know that apple does have a source of revenue to keep the OS the best in the world. I pay for my QT Pro and 10.2, not because of the legality, but because I think it is worth the money. If I didn't think it was worth it, I wouldn't use it.

[skunk]

Absolutely! But what's with the 4 posts on the trot? Bite-sized chunks?

And, Onemoof, they ARE selling 10-packs for business: AppleStore>Apple Software>3rd item down.

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by Pants
I actually agree with Dave - ESPECIALLY in the case of 10.2 - buying a computer with a barely working os (hardware, after all, is only half the package) and then having to stump up cash for a 'working' version is almost definately an illegal sales practice.



10.1.5 is a pretty good OS. I never had any crashes while running it, and I was pushing the operating system hard, running fink.sourceforge.net software. Dual screen rootless X-windows, probably 20 apps at the same time during the workday.

Compare it to Windows, particularly NT 4.0. NT was this new technology (like OS X) that was architectularly better than Windows 95 and 98. Many things broke, but buy Service Pack 5, most of the bugs were worked out of the system, and it ran pretty well. You could have purchased the original NT 4, then many years later, still legally install all the bug fix SP's. Then Windows 2000 comes along (compare to 10.2). It is really NT 5. It has new bugs (like 10.2), but many new features. Nt4 SP 5 runs pretty well, yes it's previous versions had lots of bugs and incompatibility problems (like early versions of 10), but by SP 5, it was pretty rock solid.

Maybe you never used NT, you might be better off because of it. If you are having problems with your current 10.1.5, then I would recommend a fresh install of the OS. Anyone who has used a computer for more than a couple of years, knows that every so often, a fresh install is needed to get rid of system instabilities.

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by skunk
Absolutely! But what's with the 4 posts on the trot? Bite-sized chunks?

Well, I could read through the entire thread, and build one huge post that responded to all of the comments and people that I wanted to address, but instead I prefer to reply to each comment individually. I don't think that my comments overlap each other in their replies. They may address the same topic, but that is refered to as being "on-topic" which is encouraged. This morning is the first I have seen this thread, and it was full of good stuff to talk about.

[afm]

Originally posted by woodsey
Why doesnt apple just offer free os upgrades for life?


That's more or less what Sun does: You pay for
the hardware, and the Software is free, as long
as it's Sun hardware. The downside is that hardware
becomes more expensive, as it has to pay for software
development. You'll be surprised about RAM prices
from Sun.

[peterjhill]

We have a ton of Sun hardware at work, but often when we upgrade machines, instead of buy Sun boxes, we are getting Dell rack servers and installing Linux and BSD on them. Solaris vs Linux is not as competitive as Mac OS vs Linux or Windows, therefore, they probably should not charge users to pay for upgrades. People who had personal sun boxes (like myself) opted to replace their desktop *nix boxes with non Sun machines. I now have a dell desktop running linux and my OS X laptop. As access to *nix is pretty important for my job, I am happy to pay for OS X, as it is much better than any other alternative.

Cisco also has free software upgrades for their switches and routers (as long as you stay with the same type of software (Enterprise, IP/IPX, etc). Of course, eventually you need to buy new hardware to run the latest software.

[afm]

To complain about commercial software that costs money is rather hypocritical: that's how the
economy works. If you don't like this, you have two options. a) steal the software, b) do not
use it. If you only want to pay 90$ for Photoshop, why don't you try Gimp? You'll probably be able
to do most of what you want do to without the slightest danger to get in conflict with the law.

If you don't want to pay for upgrades of the software, you also have two options: a) steal the
upgrade and b) don't upgrade. If you don't want to pay for the work Apple has put into Jaguar, why
not use an alternative like Linux or FreeBSD? Of course you won't have Aqua, but you can get your
job done in KDE just as well. You really don't need a luxury car to get from A to B, a bike will
often be sufficient, and maybe better for your health, too.

[daveg5]

First I would like to congratulate all the honest people out there who actually admit to doing something that might be "illegal"
Virtually all of us do it, except Apple employees who usually get substantial discounts, and sometimes even freeware.
I think $99 one year-$19 upgrade next 6mos-$129 next year is just a little greedy. am I alone here?
I also think that going from$.00 itools-$49-$99 .net(OOPS .mac} is even more greedy and to do it at the same time is a slap in the face.
Will I have to renew my lease next year to use 10.3?. after all we never own the software we buy, just the hardware(I hope we own that or is their a family pak for that also}
Sorry to rant so much fellows.
But if I dont who will ?.
I see Apple becoming more and more like Microsoft. It wont be long before we have to Dial up Apple dot com for each install and use a serail#.
I love Apple, that is precisely why I get on thier case from time to time.
Maybe a slap will knock some since in thier heads.
They need to stop the bait and switch tactics.
Get controllers that can actually use ddr
I dont mind having a slower computer then the Wintels as long as it gets the job done.
But dont give me false hope, tell it like it is ddr does basically no good in the new machines{correct me if I'm wrong on this)
I dont mind paying for upgrades but over $100 a year per machine[3] (one PM 8600 thats not even supported (thats probably illegal too) I wonder why?
It's simply outrageous
So my mouse will have things accidently fall on it at installation time from now unless fluffy my cat learns some new tricks
because I'm not going to agree to lease what I just bought unless they put it outside the box in bold letters this is a lease for one user one computer and can only be use as we see fit must be upgraded in a year at $129.00.
How many people would buy it if Apple was that honest.
I'm gonna get my one copy of 10.2 on 8/24 and fluffy is gonna learn a new trick
Never the less I do have a new powerbook in my future once they reach 1.2GHZ and have 10.3 installed

[daveg5]

Yes there is a 3rd option
buy the software legally at full price! once a year that is! only because it was incomplete the first 2 times no dvd sluggish scanner drivers, audio software etc.
install the software on your desktop,laptop, and newly unsupported machine
teach your cat to paw at mice
this is instnctively easy
at the oportune time
make 1 backup copy
dont sell , share or give away said software.
As long as you dont agree to the license it is not binding
Only use on your machines bought from said company enjoy
after 2 year(1 1/2 actually) they finally got it right
at your expense
Or you can buy 3 copies 1st year, 3 copies 6mos later and now buy a family pac
What is trulyright?
What is truly fair?

[peterjhill]

DaveG5,

Please read the entire piracy and Mac OS X thread for all further replies to your comments.

My on topic comment is, I am glad that Apple is smart enough to offer this license. It is smart and makes good business sense. I am curious though, If I have a child living at home in school, could I then buy the educational price family license?

[daveg5]

I read the piracy thread , prettyinteresting
Lots of points of view
More reason then ever for Apple to offer the family pac
with free upgrades for 3 years
that a get people to switch
and they can make it up with other hardware and software sales
and no home user that buys and installs on his own computer would ever be called a pirate
pirates dont pay for any thing they just take
they can take away the agreement altogether except for making and or selling sharing copies
talk about thinking different
not like Microsoft

[Pants]

Originally posted by peterjhill
We have a ton of Sun hardware at work, but often when we upgrade machines, instead of buy Sun boxes, we are getting Dell rack servers and installing Linux and BSD on them. Solaris vs Linux is not as competitive as Mac OS vs Linux or Windows, therefore, they probably should not charge users to pay for upgrades. People who had personal sun boxes (like myself) opted to replace their desktop *nix boxes with non Sun machines. I now have a dell desktop running linux and my OS X laptop. As access to *nix is pretty important for my job, I am happy to pay for OS X, as it is much better than any other alternative.



utter garbage. I cant believe you bothered typing that in order to justify your point! Solaris not as 'competitive' as windows- for what? playing dvds and you may have a point but jeez...! buying dells instead of sun boxes? I suspect if you can justify that statement, then you a) wanted to play quake on your sparc ultra, or b) didnt know why you bought the sun in the first place! here let me swap you a sparc 10 with a dell.... and as for linux on dells- it is only in the last few days you could even buy a dell box minus windows, and then only on a 'one-off' basis.

And no, my opinion of osX10.5 being poor is exactly that - its dog slow in comparison to XP (why compare to NT when its been around for so long? why not XP?), whilst printing is problematic at best - two major parts of an os. Some of the bundled apps are poor at best - mail is a joke, while the amount of grief i have had getting devtools installed is bordering on the comedic.

If apple starts to behave like Microsoft , then it had better start offering better value for money. If it is just a more expensive version of the same, then hey, I wont be the loser. I really despise the 'morally better' tone of some posters here - at best most are illogical, and at worst most sound like some mouthpiece for the RIAA. Some one please point to me a judgement which has fully upheld EULAs please.

[Pants]

Originally posted by peterjhill
DaveG5,

Please read the entire piracy and Mac OS X thread for all further replies to your comments.

My on topic comment is, I am glad that Apple is smart enough to offer this license. It is smart and makes good business sense. I am curious though, If I have a child living at home in school, could I then buy the educational price family license?

an educational priced family licence... see how daft this entire thing is? if you had a 'family' of 5 members, then assuming its not some hippy incestous commune, all families of 5 members are almost definately going to have a kid at school. therefore, why have two pricing structures for a 'family' licence? Unless apple is being loose with the word 'family'? (like they are slack with the term 'DDR' and 'free' (not including postage packing and handling charge...) ). I dont care about paying for things, I sincerely object to having my intelligence abused by marketing idiots! :)

[lilscoy]

Eh, I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in. I just want to say that I absolutely agree with dave. Once I buy software, I should be able to do with it what I want...of course, with some limits. I don't think I should be able to copy it and sell it...making profit off of it is a whole other issue. But, I should be able to make as many copies as I want for myself. One for my laptop, one for my desktop, and one for my girlfriend's desktop, who lives in the same "household". This goes with cds and dvds as well. I should be able to copy a cd and have one for the house, and one for the car, and an mp3 version for my computer. I bought this cd, you know? I don't think it's any different than buying copies for each place. I mean, that just sounds silly: "you can have it on two computers, but only use one at a time". Is that really going to help any company sales? Also, I want to point out that software, dvds, and cds are all the same. They are all some form of media. And I'm not sure if you guys have heard of the Superdrive, but it does let you copy dvds and have a copy for different rooms. Now I know so many are going to flame me for this, but I also think it should be legal to rip dvds and have a separate copy for each dvd player, etc. It's my dvd. I'm not selling it. It makes no difference to Hollywood. Well anyway, I guess I want to finish by saying that I can somewhat understand a mutliple liscence fee for companies, but for families?? That's so silly. I just wish people could see that it's not companies trying to make their money...they are trying to milk you for yours.

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by Pants

utter garbage. I cant believe you bothered typing that in order to justify your point!

Take a chill pill dude. Did you read the post that was above mine?

Posted by afm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by woodsey
Why doesnt apple just offer free os upgrades for life?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's more or less what Sun does: You pay for
the hardware, and the Software is free, as long
as it's Sun hardware. The downside is that hardware
becomes more expensive, as it has to pay for software
development. You'll be surprised about RAM prices
from Sun.

So I was commenting on how Sun not charging for upgrades makes sense in the market that they are in. Sun is in a different market than Apple. Therefore I was pointing out that it makes sense to give free upgrades to Solaris.

Maybe you need it spelled out more clearly for you. I am sorry that I didn't quote the article I was referring to, I thought that the proximity of the two posts would be clear enough.

To be more clear, I was not comparing Solaris to Windows. If you read my post I said:

Solaris vs Linux is not as competitive as Mac OS vs Linux or Windows

Hey that pretty much agrees with what you said.

Speaking of agreeing, when I click on the Mac OS X EULA, guess what, I actually agree with it. Apple has spent alot of money developing the software, and I think that they are worthy of some of money money.

As for comparing Win NT to Mac OSX, I was not comparing them in direct terms, as in, Win NT is as good as OS X. I was comparing the fact that Microsoft decided to make some money from NT version 5 and renamed it 2000. I think that the features that are offered in 10.2, are at least as compelling as the differences between NT4 and 2000

So I am doing this comparison

Mac 10.1.5 is to Mac 10.2
as
Win NT 4.0 SP5 is to Windows 2000 SP0

Why didn't I do this:
Win 2000 vs WinXP
instead? Because I don't think that the upgrade from 2000 to XP was as equally significant as the change from 10.1.5 is to 10.2

I have been running 10.2 (legally) since 6c105, and find that the interface is much snappier with the Quartz Extreme. There is the addition of PPTP and ipv6, which is important to me. The kerberos integration, the speedier network drive access, the improved email client (which I actually switched to, since it now supports kerberos authentication), the new address book (which I also now use instead of Palm Desktop), Sherlock 3 (which is as good as watson, but is now included in the upgrade price), ichat (I dont use msn, yahoo, or icq that often). The whole system seems better optimized. I can see that they spent alot of effort on this release. It is not like the 10.1.5 release, which was more of a bug fix, minor optimization, add support of new hardware release.

So, maybe I should have been more clear, so that you would understand my point. okay, no problem. As you can see, I am happy to clarify myself.

About the dev tools, are you talking about the ones for OSX? I have never had any problems with it. As I recommend to someone else, if your OS is so screwed up, look on the side of the keyboard opposite the processor. It is most likely that too many poorly designed software apps have been installed, and that is what is mucking up the system. I've done it. I am much happier after formating my HD and doing a total clean install of the 10.2 GM.

As for XP being better than 10.1.5, I don't agree with you. If I did, then I would not be using an Apple computer. I would probably have a Dell laptop, and put up with having the Dell repairman at my office once a month like I did before I got my Tibook. The apple hardware is great, but as I said before, it is the OS that compells me to buy from Apple, not the hardware.

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by lilscoy
Eh, I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in. I just want to say that I absolutely agree with dave. Once I buy software, I should be able to do with it what I want..

Well, it will cost you much more that $169 (or whatever they are charging) to "buy" the Mac OS. Lets see, their market capitalization is about 5.6 billion dollars. For them to sell you their OS, I would say it would cost you about 2.8 billion dollars, as the only way you would be able to "buy" their OS would be if you were in possession of more than half of the outstanding stock. Of course where you to try to buy that much stock, it would cost you more, maybe up to 4 or 5 billion dollars, as all other shareholders would oppose the sale of apple's crown jewels to you, and would try to block the sale.

You see, when you buy a box from apple that has a disk in it that is labeled "Mac OS X 10.2" you are not "buying" the software. The only rights that you have to the software are those that Apple, as the owner of the software, grants you. Just like if you rent a car from Alamo, you can't then go sell the car to someone else, or take it to Mexico, if they tell you that you are not allowed to do it. It is not a moral question, in my mind, it is a legal one. It is about property ownership, and the protection thereof. It is this protection of ownership (in the US) that encourages companies like Apple to create these things of value, knowing that they can then turn a profit, that is then either reinvested in the company (as Apple does) or is shared with "shareholders" in the form of dividends.

So the closest you would come to "owning" mac OS X would be if you went out and bought one share of their stock. You would then be a part owner of the software. You still couldn't violate the license agreement, since the officers of the company, that the shareholders voted on to run the company think that the license is what is required.

[cleo]

I have an iBook and an iMac. I ordered one copy of Jaguar. I know that it is illegal to install it on both machines, and I'm not looking to rehash that argument. Had the Family Pack been available earlier I would have purchased it, but I was not about to pay for Jaguar twice.

My question is, does anyone know if Apple has integrated any device like those that MS and Adobe employ to check for multiple copies of the same license on a local network into Jag? In other words, will my one copy of Jaguar actually WORK on both machines, or should I somehow try to cancel my order and get the Family Pack instead?

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by cleo
In other words, will my one copy of Jaguar actually WORK on both machines, or should I somehow try to cancel my order and get the Family Pack instead?

I don't think so. I am running the GM at work, and we have it running on about 6 development machines, including mine, and there have been no complaints from the OS. It should be the exact same version that will be shrink wrapped.

So you should have no technical problems with running it on more than one machine.

this is in no way an endorsement to others. merely an informational response

[skunk]

In the C/Net article, the Apple rep was insisting that Apple wouldn't stoop to such "draconian" measures: they just want to help us do the right thing. Make of that what you will. It almost brings tears to the eyes:)

I would imagine there will be a follow-up offer pretty soon to those who have bought single-user licences to upgrade them to 5-user for $70.00, otherwise a lot of people will be really pissed off.

[Pants]

Originally posted by peterjhill

About the dev tools, are you talking about the ones for OSX? I have never had any problems with it. As I recommend to someone else, if your OS is so screwed up, look on the side of the keyboard opposite the processor. It is most likely that too many poorly designed software apps have been installed, and that is what is mucking up the system. I've done it. I am much happier after formating my HD and doing a total clean install of the 10.2 GM.

As for XP being better than 10.1.5, I don't agree with you. If I did, then I would not be using an Apple computer. I would probably have a Dell laptop, and put up with having the Dell repairman at my office once a month like I did before I got my Tibook. The apple hardware is great, but as I said before, it is the OS that compells me to buy from Apple, not the hardware.

no - the disc structure got screwed on the install. however, I am slightly amazed that you can identify and repair a fault in a machine you haven't seen. impressive 5k1ll5.

hmm...so you're telling me that software is now the compelling arguement in buying apple equipment? hmm....well, thats a fair observation, and one I agree with. However, how long would apple last if this view was taken to it logical conclusion? Apples hardware selling point (and its inflated prices) have always been justified by attention to detail and quality - c.f. Sun. And as a comparison, have you SEEN the prices apple charge for RAM?

As for agreeing to tortuous EULA , well, as I said - point me to a definitive case upholding their legality. I dont think you can, and as such are just spouting the industrys chosen standpoint. Law is not made by repetition alone. Any other goods you 'buy' you own and can do with as you will - so why is software so different? you do not license shoes or your washing machine, and if they were defective, you'd take them back, not pay for an 'upgrade'. Software is held back by arcane semi-legalese - what other industry promotes the sale of defective goods and covers its ass with threats of lawyers and 'agreements' which bind you without any form of dialogue or negotiation?

[G4scott]

I can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading here...

You have to be stupid to say that you didn't agree to the software license and still installed the software. It won't let you install it unless you click 'agree', and once you do that, you Have agreed to the license. If you don't agree, don't click. A court of law isn't going to believe that your cat can click the mouse button only when the software licenses come up. Besides, even if your cat could, and you didn't agree, you shouldn't use the software, and uninstall it immediately.

As for your "10 and 10.1 were still beta's" gripe, you can go shove it up your @$$. Is windoze 98 what 3.1 was supposed to be? I think not. OS X is a new OS, and I don't know what the hell you're comparing it to. OS 9 may feel snappier, but that's about it. Apple's been working hard to make many improvements under the hood of OS X, and they can't do everything at once. It takes time to develop an OS. If Apple had waited until now to release the first version of OS X, it wouldn't be half of what Jaguar is, and you would hardly have any applications.

Is Apple really being greedy by asking for money to support an internet service that costs millions a year to keep running, or charging for an upgrade to an OS that costed them 9 million in R&D? It is you who is being greedy by asking for Apple to give you the best of what they got while paying as little as you can.

You can install jaguar on as many computers as you want, and i personally dont give a flying rat's @$$. Just remember that it's people who buy the single license and install it on 5 machines that will make Apple put in piracy protection. If you made an intelligent complaint to Apple about the price of their software, they might do something nicer, but as long as you violate the user license, you have no right to complain if Apple puts in piracy protection, so **** and quit your bitching, because we've already heard it from tons of other people, and you are no different than the bigots who think that they can do whatever they please with software because they bought it.

The only thing here outrageous is how you think that you are the victim of a company trying to make money in a crappy economy. If nobody pays for Jaguar, then don't expect the next version of OS X to be much better, because Apple will cut the R&D costs so that they aren't developing their OS at a loss.

Cut the crap about how Apple is making sub standard equipment and charging too much for it. If you really love Apple, stop your bitching in these forums and write to Apple about your complaints. Whining here won't do anything about it.

It's idiots like you who really piss me off...

[lilscoy]

Hey peterjhill,
Your argument has no stature. You are being just as ridiculous as the companies. Of course I'm not talking about the operating system has a whole. I'm talking about the software on the cd that I bought for $130. That is what I can do anything I want with. If I bought the actual operating system then I could do even more (for the record, I'd open source it :p ). Anyway, you blew your point when you compared it to a rental car. You RENT those. When you BUY a car, no you are not paying for the entire car company, but you can do whatever you want to or with the car you bought, right? I hate it when people seem to crack down more on those who purchase the software and use it twice (oh heaven forbid) than those who buy it, copy it, and sell it to make their own profit. Man, so many of you take Apple's word for it as if that's how the Business world should be. I mean, I love Apple to death, but it desn't mean they're right about everything. You should check out other companies' stances. Check out Linux or other many open source developers, or just those who make software with no real restrictions. Open your mind. Sometimes I feel like Apple or other companies would benefit so much more if they opened their minds just a little bit more.

[lilscoy]

Hey g4scott,
First of all, if you want to argue about a crappy economy, you can look at the companies themselves, not the people. It's not coming from people who use their software. I admit, our economy is not in the most stable point, but it's like that because of the companies themselves. Maybe if they took a break from breaking tax laws, or giving their CEOs and Board of Directors million dollar bonuses every few months, their money might be making more profit. Or how about those starving baseball players getting ready to strike because they can't make that few extra million spending. I'm sorry to edge off topic, but g4scott, you need to cool it. Apple WILL NEVER LOSE MONEY from people using their software on more than one computer of their own. The profit they make will be plenty. I totally give them props for the software they create, and I do feel like they are doing us favors by making it, but they would be nowhere without us buying it and supporting them.

[BobVB]

Originally posted by G4scott
IJust remember that it's people who buy the single license and install it on 5 machines that will make Apple put in piracy protection.I don't think that's even a 'if'. The only reason to put out a family pak is so it is in place when on the next major update, or maybe the one after that, Apple will limit the OS install to one machine. They want to be able to say "Oh, we know this isn't an inconvenience - you all have been buying the family paks and 'doing the right thing' all along, haven't you?"

The family pak is just preliminary groundwork for 'one machine installation per purchase' products somewhere down the road.

Enjoy the free ride while you can.

[MacArtist]

ADOBE Photoshop
End User License Agreement
2.1. General Use. You may install and Use a copy of the Software on your compatible Computer, up to the Permitted Number of Computers.
2.4. Portable Computer Use. The primary user of the Computer on which the Software is installed may also make a second copy for his or her exclusive use on a portable Computer provided the Software on the portable Computer is not being used at the same time the Software on the primary computer is being used.

Apple OS X
End User License Agreement
1.General. The software (including Boot Rom code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the “Apple Software”) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Computer Inc…
…you own the media on which the software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple’s Licensor(s) retain ownership of the software itself.
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions
A. This license allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. This license does not allow the Apple software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time. You may make one copy of the Apple Software (excluding the Boot Rom code) in machine-readable form for back-up purposes only; provided that the back-up copy must include all copy-write or other proprietary notices contained on the original.

This means that with OS X you legally have to buy as many copies of the OS as you have computers regardless if they are your own personal computers or they aren’t being used at the same time.

With Adobe’s software as well as many other applications, you can have a copy of their software on your desktop and portable at the same time provided that you are only running one copy at any given time.

Apple could do a lot worse things with the installation of their OS, such as requiring it to access the internet to see if it had been installed before on a different machine, etc. And whether you agree with the EULA or not, you have to click agree in order to install the OS and are there by legally bound to the agreement.

So, this family pack of OS X is a great idea for those people with multiple Macs and want to keep things legal.

And those of you still griping about the "10 and 10.1 were betas" and we shouldn't have to pay for 10.2, you didn't have to buy and/or use 10 & 10.1 so stop your whining. If everyone bought all the copies of software required by the EULAs maybe the developers could afford to drop their prices.
Piracy perpetuates the increase in software prices.

[onemoof]

One point I'd like to clarify for those people who think there's nothing wrong with doing what they want with their software since they paid for it. Well I agree, there's nothing wrong with BUYING a software program, music CD, DVD, etc. and doing what you want with it most people don't have the money to BUY the software. If you OWN Mac OS X 10.2 then you are the exclusive owner in all the world (I'm pretty sure that Apple is the only owner of OS X). I'm betting that you never actually BOUGHT OS X 10.2, perhaps you LICENSED it. You own the box and CD it came on but you don't OWN the software. Apple retains the rights to the software.

[lilscoy]

Hey MacArtist,
You, of course, can feel how you want to feel about it. I totally respect each and everyone's opinion. But, I just feel like I have to say something. It's not fair to say that if people followed the EULA, developers could afford to drop their prices. There is no reason why the developers couldn't drop their prices and still make plenty of profit. Not just with Apple, but other companies are skyrocketing their prices. You can't say that it has to do with the unstable economy, or inflation. If you know anything about the econmoics in this country (which unfortunately, I do) you would see that the numbers don't match up. And, you definitely can't say higher prices are due to the fact of people using their software more than once. That's just silly too. In fact, I believe it's the opposite. People are pirating and such due to the fact of higher prices. Another thing I have to say, is that I don't want to single out dvelopers. They are awesome. It's just they aren't getting paid enough. But that hasn't nothing to do with sales. Like I said before, if the CEO's would stop taking million dollar bonuses and giving it back to the developers, it would start to make more sense.

[lilscoy]

Hey onemoof,
Your point is credible, but it doesn't matter. Call it want you want but don't be silly. Ok, so I don't own the SOFTWARE, and I own the LICENSE. Fine, then I should have the right to do whatever I want (to an extent) with the LICENSE that I purcahsed. I think that "extent" goes as far as being able to put it on both of my computers. I really don't think that harms anything. I know the Apple EULA says to put it on only one computer, but I'm just saying how I think it should be. I think the real crime is copying the software or OS, and selling it to make your own profit. There is no way Apple or anybody would lose money if families just put software that they bought on every computer in their house (which by average, isn't a lot of computers per household). If they want to, they can worry themselves about companies who put it on every computer. I don't think that is wrong either, but at least it makes a little more sense. Anyway, I just wish people would look at the real harm out there than someone who buys Officev.X and puts it on his computer, and say, his son's laptop as well.

[dannsh]

I have been reading all of the posts.

The problem as I see it is that Apple has made another marketing blunder.
I base this on history form 1984 to present regarding the operating system.
Apple should have simpley come out and offered 10.2 for $129 as a 5 machine family license. A 10 machine small buisness license for $260.

I have new Macs all came with 10.1 installed. I have pre-ordered 10.2 and I have no plans on returning it to buy the "family license". Apple again is a day late and a dollar short in understanding pricing structures for the average family.

I guess you can say I am agreeing with Dave on most of his points.

Apple needs to grandfather the current 10.2 preorders to family license and change their pricing structure.

Danny

[Vector]

In regards to the question of whether or not it is illegal to be listening to a mp3 of a song you own and someone listenign to the cd, it is not. In most cases music companies allow for 1 copy of a cd be made in case of accidental loss or for convenience. The copy can be physical or digital it does not matter as long as it is made for your own personal use and not for profit. It is also legal to make a copy of a vhs tape in case the vcr eats it or whatever as long as it is not for distribution. It is allowed for cds and tapes for backup, i am not sure of the laws on dvs.

[oldMac]

lilscoy is absolutely right. Software companies are charging too much so that they can pay million dollar bonuses for all of their executives while the lowly software developer gets screwed.

The truth is, that if software companies took those million dollar bonuses and distributed them to the employees, then those companies would make more money... Oh, wait... now that doesn't quite make sense.

Ok, well, that doesn't really matter, because software companies could lower their prices and then there would be less piracy and they would sell more copies so that they could make more money. Then, because they were selling more copies, they could drop the price more and MAKE MORE MONEY!

HOLY COW, lilscoy, I think you just put yourself on the short list for a NOBEL PRIZE!!! This is freaking BRILLIANT. You must really know something "about the current economics of this country" that those overpaid software execs don't.

I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT NOBODY HAS FIGURED THIS OUT YET!!!


Of course, in a working MARKET ECONOMY, these BALANCES have already been reached given the current circumstances. That's not to say that an egg won't appear someday that allows a new chicken to appear and dramatically change those circumstances.

[Pants]

Originally posted by MacArtist

Apple could do a lot worse things with the installation of their OS, such as requiring it to access the internet to see if it had been installed before on a different machine, etc. And whether you agree with the EULA or not, you have to click agree in order to install the OS and are there by legally bound to the agreement.

EXACTLY - if the damn thing insistson installing or shipping with (and therefore Im paying for it) something I dont want, i have NO choice but to not use any of it. That hardly seems an 'agreement'. And who here honestly has read pages of EULA ? and of those who understood all the ramifications? I doubt many here....

no one has, as yet , pointed me to case justifying the full legal authority of an EULA, but has just spouted that they are 'law'. If they can, I'll take their arguments more seriously....



So, this family pack of OS X is a great idea for those people with multiple Macs and want to keep things legal.

And those of you still griping about the "10 and 10.1 were betas" and we shouldn't have to pay for 10.2, you didn't have to buy and/or use 10 & 10.1 so stop your whining. If everyone bought all the copies of software required by the EULAs maybe the developers could afford to drop their prices.
Piracy perpetuates the increase in software prices.

it shipped with this here iBook. A computer without a working os is a merely a fancy, expensive box. The OS is intrisic to the computer working, and if it doesnt work, then why treat it any different to, say, a new but broken toaster?

The old, tired arguement about buying licences and dropping prices is merely industry guff. Its not been shown to happen - after all, billy boy has how much money in the bank? and office is how much? 500 sheets? the price hasnt dropped because I bought 100 licences - nope, it goes up, because its easy to skin people for money and lay on the emotional blackmail. Sell it for a reasonable price and I'll buy - skin me, and expect me to treat the company with equal contempt.

How many times does apples marketing have to boob for people here to stop defending them? some time companies need to be *told* they are behaving like fools, especially by those most loyal to them. I am seriously having a hard time convincing anyone around here that apple are a 'decent' firm, especially when i have to defend their crass marketing stunts like single speed 'ddr'.

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by lilscoy
Hey peterjhill,
Your argument has no stature. You are being just as ridiculous as the companies. Of course I'm not talking about the operating system has a whole. I'm talking about the software on the cd that I bought for $130. That is what I can do anything I want with. If I bought the actual operating system then I could do even more (for the record, I'd open source it :p ). Anyway, you blew your point when you compared it to a rental car. You RENT those. When you BUY a car, no you are not paying for the entire car company

Hello dense person. I think the arguement is quite valid. When you rent a car you are entering into an agreement with the car rental company that you will abide by certain conditions, and in return will get use of the vehicle, which you do not own.

When you purchase a box of software, you are paying money and entering into an agreement with a company for the right to use the software, agreeing to certain conditions, one being that you do not own the software.

Whereas a rental car company will probably sell you the car for a reasonable price, as they can easily purchase another, Apple does not have the ability or desire to go out and purchase a replacement OS, and would probably not want to sell you Mac OS, and then need to license the software from you so that they could include a copy of it with their hardware. It would turn apple into dell, and you into microsoft.

So, my arguement is quite valid, and your complaints against it are very weak.

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by lilscoy
Apple WILL NEVER LOSE MONEY from people using their software on more than one computer of their own. The profit they make will be plenty. I totally give them props for the software they create, and I do feel like they are doing us favors by making it, but they would be nowhere without us buying it and supporting them.

If you use the software, against the terms set-forth in your agreement with them, then they will have lost a sale, and therefore WOULD LOSE MONEY.

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by Pants


no one has, as yet , pointed me to case justifying the full legal authority of an EULA, but has just spouted that they are 'law'. If they can, I'll take their arguments more seriously....
[/B]
Go look near the end of the piracy and mac os x thread and you will see some links and quotes of the US criminal code outlining why software piracy is illegal.

[lilscoy]

Well, once again these boards are getting flustered with people attacking to preserve themselves. I really enjoyed giving my opinions only to hear a response from others and maybe get some good discussion going. It's actually been quite stimulating, and I'm glad we can have these talks. But, it just gets sour.
Anyway,
oldmac, your sarcasm it greatly appreciated, however very lame. You should have thrown more jokes in and it would have been better. :) Well, if you did know how the U.S. economy worked, you would understand my points. I'd like to see your real take on it, but without the sarcasm.

perterjhill,
As for you calling me dense and my arguments weak, hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. I would hope that you could tell from my comments that I am not dense. I don't think you're dense. My point about the rental car, is that you rent the car, and BUY the license. That analogy has no basis. Like I said, you are better off comparing it to when someone BUYS a car. But then, I guess, that would stand all over your point. And also, you're wrong about the losing money thing. My point is that most families would either copy the OS to another computer or not. If they couldn't or wouldn't copy it, they certainly wouldn't go buy another one. So no, Apple wouldn't lose any money because the majority wouldn't purchase another copy...many would think it's not worth it.

[Pants]

Originally posted by peterjhill

Go look near the end of the piracy and mac os x thread and you will see some links and quotes of the US criminal code outlining why software piracy is illegal.


uhh...thats not the answer. Software piracy may be illegal (the copying and selling of software), that was not my point. That, however, doesnt imply that the typical EULA is a legally binding contract.

[daveg5]

Eh, I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in. I just want to say that I absolutely agree with dave. Once I buy software, I should be able to do with it what I want...of course, with some limits. I don't think I should be able to copy it and sell it...making profit off of it is a whole other issue. But, I should be able to make as many copies as I want for myself. One for my laptop, one for my desktop, and one for my girlfriend's desktop, who lives in the same "household". This goes with cds and dvds as well. I should be able to copy a cd and have one for the house, and one for the car, and an mp3 version for my computer. I bought this cd, you know? I don't think it's any different than buying copies for each place. I mean, that just sounds silly: "you can have it on two computers, but only use one at a time". Is that really going to help any company sales? Also, I want to point out that software, dvds, and cds are all the same. They are all some form of media. And I'm not sure if you guys have heard of the Superdrive, but it does let you copy dvds and have a copy for different rooms. Now I know so many are going to flame me for this, but I also think it should be legal to rip dvds and have a separate copy for each dvd player, etc. It's my dvd. I'm not selling it. It makes no difference to Hollywood. Well anyway, I guess I want to finish by saying that I can somewhat understand a mutliple liscence fee for companies, but for families?? That's so silly. I just wish people could see that it's not companies trying to make their money...they are trying to milk you for yours.
By the way
What is your pets name?

[Pants]

Originally posted by peterjhill


Hello dense person. I think the arguement is quite valid. When you rent a car you are entering into an agreement with the car rental company that you will abide by certain conditions, and in return will get use of the vehicle, which you do not own.

When you purchase a box of software, you are paying money and entering into an agreement with a company for the right to use the software, agreeing to certain conditions, one being that you do not own the software.



hmm...before calling people dense - read what you wrote. The word 'rent' as in the car, has a completely different meaning contractually to the word 'purchase'. Purchase implies a change of ownership - on no software that I have bought does it say, writ large on the box, " for rent only". To apply conditions AFTER the sale has been made (a sale is after all a contract) is not feasible.

this is why the typical EULA is a total crock, and indefendable.

[Gigglebyte]

Originally posted by lilscoy
My point about the rental car, is that you rent the car, and BUY the license.

part of the problem people have is terminology...you are not BUYING a license on the software, you are just paying for the LTU (license to USE) the software. If you want to put it into a vehical analgy I would say it is more like leasing than renting becuase what you are paying for is the right to use that car and at the end of your lease you either purchase it or return it based on the agreement you agreed to at the time of the lease.

Now when we look at the LTU it is giving you the right to use that software for as long as you want and you don't ever have to upgrade to the next thing. If you take it back to the lease on a car, at the end of the lease you can turn it in for a new car....hhhhuummmm that sounds like upgrading to me now should that be done for free or at a cost?

Now for those of you that want a free OS, go get linux....oh I forgot...since it is free there isn't much development that goes into it (not like on a Mac or Wintel platform) and it is done because people want to do it and are not there to make money! Do you remember when Red Hat was trying to sell a FREE OS? They had a huge IPO and after a short period people realized that they were paying for something that is free.

OS X being a beta, if my memory serves me correct if you had purchased 10.0 or had a machine that came with 10.0 you could go to 10.1 for $19.95 which covered S/H and all the updates to 10.1.5 are FREE. Now there is a NEW version of the OS that has had a lot of time and money poured into it and people are bitching that they have to pay for it. Look back up at the Linux coment...you want a free OS go to linux.

.Mac is not something that is being forced on ANYBODY to use. If you want an account then you pay for it. You get 100Meg of iDisk, e-mail that you can access from just about any mail app that you want to use, backup and anti-virus sw. Now I did a quick check and for 100meg of web space costs about $5-6/month or $60-70/year. If you don't want all the extras then get a yahoo account and deal with all those annoying popups. $99/year isn't that bad when you look at what you get, even if you don't use all the features that are there.

[ncbill]

There are a couple of issues here and as usual people are getting them wrong.

1. Copyright law.

Current law treats software the same as a book.

In other words you own the copy of software you have purchased, and as a home user can treat it the same way you can treat a book.

Which pretty much means you can do anything you want when using it yourself, even changing the splash screen to give yourself credit as programmer. You of course cannot sell or distribute any modified copies.

If you sell it you have to transfer the original and all copies (retaining none)

2. Software licenses.

Most home users purchase software in the retail box either at the store or online.

In those cases the "licenses" whether printed or "clickthrough" when you start the program are invalid and unenforcable.

The short explanation is that you did not have the opportunity to review those terms before purchase and so are not bound by them after the sale is complete.

There have been those who argue that there should be some implied license to software - well, UCITA was supposed to address that but it only passed in 2 states before it died forever.

Some jurists have argued that if you print the licensing terms on the outside of the box (so the consumer can review them before purchase) the agreements would be enforcable, not that I've seen many software boxes with 8-point legalese on the back lately.

peterjhill, I'm sorry if you are a programmer but that's essentially how 19th century copyright law and consumer fair use doctrine treats software here in the 21st century. When I go out to Compusa and buy 10.2 for my home none of that EULA verbage is legally enforcable.

[MacArtist]

Originally posted by lilscoy
Hey MacArtist,
You, of course, can feel how you want to feel about it. I totally respect each and everyone's opinion. But, I just feel like I have to say something. It's not fair to say that if people followed the EULA, developers could afford to drop their prices. There is no reason why the developers couldn't drop their prices and still make plenty of profit. Not just with Apple, but other companies are skyrocketing their prices. You can't say that it has to do with the unstable economy, or inflation. If you know anything about the econmoics in this country (which unfortunately, I do) you would see that the numbers don't match up. And, you definitely can't say higher prices are due to the fact of people using their software more than once. That's just silly too. In fact, I believe it's the opposite. People are pirating and such due to the fact of higher prices. Another thing I have to say, is that I don't want to single out dvelopers. They are awesome. It's just they aren't getting paid enough. But that hasn't nothing to do with sales. Like I said before, if the CEO's would stop taking million dollar bonuses and giving it back to the developers, it would start to make more sense.
This is the whole "which came first, the chicken or the egg" debate. I'm not saying that the only reason that software prices are sky high is because of piracy. And to say that people pirate software because the prices are so high, doesn't mean that it is right.

And while it could result in better profit margins for a company if the CEO's refused the million dollar bonuses, they developers for these companies are actually getting paid pretty good. The developers that aren't making a suitable paycheck don't have millionare CEOs.

Back to the topic at hand, the "Family Pack OS X" is a good idea and the only viable legal way to install OS X on to your multiple Mac home computers.

[Gigglebyte]

Originally posted by MacArtist

And while it could result in better profit margins for a company if the CEO's refused the million dollar bonuses, they developers for these companies are actually getting paid pretty good. The developers that aren't making a suitable paycheck don't have millionare CEOs.

Off topic - I couldn't agree with you more...for those of you who think CEO's are overpaid (and I will admit that some of them are) they also make the major decisions that effect not just the employees of that company but all of their customers too. Now who should get the big bucks...the programers who are using company equipment, while working for the company in the company labs/facalities and being paid BY the companies to do what they are doing PROGRAMING or the ones that make the major decisions. Just imagine if you built up a company from nothing to a multi billion dollar business but you paid all your programers millions of dollars...how long would they stay? not verry if you ask me.

On topic - I think it is a great idea to have the family pack as an option and I would hope that people are honest enough to follow it.

[MacArtist]

Originally posted by Pants


EXACTLY - if the damn thing insists on installing or shipping with (and therefore Im paying for it) something I dont want, i have NO choice but to not use any of it. That hardly seems an 'agreement'. And who here honestly has read pages of EULA ? and of those who understood all the ramifications? I doubt many here....

no one has, as yet , pointed me to case justifying the full legal authority of an EULA, but has just spouted that they are 'law'. If they can, I'll take their arguments more seriously....

it shipped with this here iBook. A computer without a working os is a merely a fancy, expensive box. The OS is intrisic to the computer working, and if it doesnt work, then why treat it any different to, say, a new but broken toaster?

The old, tired arguement about buying licences and dropping prices is merely industry guff. Its not been shown to happen - after all, billy boy has how much money in the bank? and office is how much? 500 sheets? the price hasnt dropped because I bought 100 licences - nope, it goes up, because its easy to skin people for money and lay on the emotional blackmail. Sell it for a reasonable price and I'll buy - skin me, and expect me to treat the company with equal contempt.

How many times does apples marketing have to boob for people here to stop defending them? some time companies need to be *told* they are behaving like fools, especially by those most loyal to them. I am seriously having a hard time convincing anyone around here that apple are a 'decent' firm, especially when i have to defend their crass marketing stunts like single speed 'ddr'. [/B]

On every machine that shipped with OS X 10 or 10.1 was there not also a full copy of OS 9 that most of the people with grips about OS X claims is a better OS. Couldn't you also install Linux PPC on your Mac. Just because it came with OS X 10 or 10.1 doesn't mean that you had no choice but to use it.

And your right about buying licences and dropping prices is merely industry guff. It's standard economics of supply and demand. More people want it, charge more money for it, make more money. Less poeple buying it, charge more money for it, cover profit margins. Ideally, more people buy it, charge less for it, still cover desired profit margin.

As mentioned in one of my previous posts, Apple could always put copy protection measures that limit the istallation of the OS on one computer. And this could, as another poster said, be the framework for that path.

The "family pack" is the best, legal way to install OS X on multiple Macs. If you choose to use it great, if you don't so be it. There's nothing to stop you yet.

[daveg5]

I can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading here...

You have to be stupid to say that you didn't agree to the software license and still installed the software. It won't let you install it unless you click 'agree', and once you do that, you Have agreed to the license. If you don't agree, don't click. A court of law isn't going to believe that your cat can click the mouse button only when the software licenses come up. Besides, even if your cat could, and you didn't agree, you shouldn't use the software, and uninstall it immediately.

Dave g5 : why the name calling, I thought the forums were here to post opinions on the subject at hand, not to make personal attacks on those with whom you disagree, are you Steve Jobs or what? First off I did not agree to the EULA license.
and I am still training fluufy (he says hi, I'll sell uh, that's license him to you if you want. The "Eula has not been proven legal yet you act like it is the U.S. Constitution" or something. why should I uninstall what I did not agree to use{pop up ads anyone}

As for your "10 and 10.1 were still beta's" gripe, you can go shove it up your @$$. Is windoze 98 what 3.1 was supposed to be? I think not. OS X is a new OS, and I don't know what the hell you're comparing it to. OS 9 may feel snappier, but that's about it. Apple's been working hard to make many improvements under the hood of OS X, and they can't do everything at once. It takes time to develop an OS. If Apple had waited until now to release the first version of OS X, it wouldn't be half of what Jaguar is, and you would hardly have any applications
.
Dave g5: whos to say 10.2 is not Beta Apple did not put Beta on the box of 10.-10.1 did they. OSX 10.2 is the same as 10.0 except with bug fixes, drivers, quatz extreme and I admit a few new and copied apps{Watson anyone -who they bought in order to stop a lawsuit) that should have been there in the first place. If Apple had waited until it was ready I would not have had to indure such sluggishness and if they were betas then they should have been priced accordingly.
Is Apple really being greedy by asking for money to support an internet service that costs millions a year to keep running, or charging for an upgrade to an OS that costed them 9 million in R&D? It is you who is being greedy by asking for Apple to give you the best of what they got while paying as little as you can. If anyone should shove 10.2 anywhere it should be you, just make sure you by another copy before you shove it down their(fluffy is hitting the mouse button now}, how did that feel?
According to you the EULA is more sacred then the" Bible and Constitution" and will still debate those daily, and they have been around alot longer.

You can install jaguar on as many computers as you want, and i personally dont give a flying rat's @$$. Just remember that it's people who buy the single license and install it on 5 machines that will make Apple put in piracy protection. If you made an intelligent complaint to Apple about the price of their software, they might do something nicer, but as long as you violate the user license, you have no right to complain if Apple puts in piracy protection, so **** and quit your bitching, because we've already heard it from tons of other people, and you are no different than the bigots who think that they can do whatever they please with software because they bought it.

Dave g5: You could have fooled me Im not a pirate I buy my software and dont give it away.Actually it is people like you that will tempt Apple to add piracy protection as they see an opertunity to add to thier pockets. people like me have cats name fluffy that know how to get what you pay for no more, no less. I think you are the one doing the bword I,m just an Apple fan and user trying to prevent Apple from becoming a Microsoft.
And you sound like Bill Gates closest friend.
Apple a great company but they would be no where without user like me telling it like it is. I'm not in anyones pocket not even Apple's when they start
behaving badly and that is what they are doing.

The only thing here outrageous is how you think that you are the victim of a company trying to make money in a crappy economy. If nobody pays for Jaguar, then don't expect the next version of OS X to be much better, because Apple will cut the R&D costs so that they aren't developing their OS at a loss.

Dave g5: I'm not a victim, me and fluffy get our money's worth. I "buy" all the upgrades and install them on my 3 computers, with the cats help in the future.
With $4 billion in the bank I dont think they are operating at a loss
Seriously for a second:Dont you think Apple should "allow" a user with a Powermac and a Powerbook to install 10.2 on both machines.
Is that so far fetch.
Well I'm not waiting for Apples blessing.

Cut the crap about how Apple is making sub standard equipment and charging too much for it. If you really love Apple, stop your bitching in these forums and write to Apple about your complaints. Whining here won't do anything about it.

It's idiots like you who really piss me off...

Dave g5: I think you do the pword buy your self
Someone that works for Apple is in this thread so it is getting to thier attention. whining wont do anything for it .
but telling it like it is will.
Apple is making great hardware I have no problem with that its just the moto chip and controllers that prevent ddr from working to its potential ata133? why limit us to 137Gb, firwire2? only 2 firewire and usb front jacks. 1.25Ghz tower? Tibook 800MHZ ibook with cdrom! $1499.
even so I will gladly pay more for a mac and osx just not multi copies of 10.2 for each cpu

__________________
"She's gone from suck, to blow!"
The best way to accelerate your pee-cee is at 9.8 meters/second^2
Ailce! Who the **** is Alice

[soilchmst]

Even for educational licensing, it would cost 100 bucks for five sites licenses of a Windows OS. This is not a bad deal.
Also, this thinking has caused mac gaming to suffer. In tight knit Mac communities, one copy of a mac game shows up and soon everyone has a copy. Many companies shy away from making Mac games since the Mac market share is soo small. If they sell a game on a PC, sure 50 % of the people playing it never bought it, but that still a lot of people did. 100 % Mac users need to buy the software they love to encourage companies to keep making software for the mac.
I think the talk about CEOs making to much is right. Steve J. should only be getting 50 cents instead of the whole dollar;) :p

[G4scott]

I do agree that it would be nice to be able to buy one copy of a program, and legally be able to install it on all of my computers. Maybe Apple will do this in the future, and maybe they won't (OS X server has an unlimited client use, whereas other OS's charge up the nose).

Once again, as for the "10.2 is what Mac OS X should've been" argument, I don't see how some people can say that. 10.2 is an upgrade to 10.1. It offers some new and upgraded features. If windoze 2000 is what NT 4.0 should've been from the start, then microsoft is also behind the times. Apple works hard to make their OS the best that they can, but it takes time and research to make the enhancements that they do. It would've been nice to have OS X up to the speed of 10.2 when it first came out, but that's like asking to go 300mph in a ford escort a week from today. Besides, I don't think that anyone here has the right to say what OS X should've been like when it first came out.

If you look at the EULA, you will see that is says something to the effect of: Do not use this product if you do not agree to the EULA. Apple takes your word for it, and doesn't put in any serial codes or anything like that, but companies like microsoft have resorted to using extreme measures for copy protection. I do agree that it is outrageous to have to spend $1600 for Office for all of my computers, and that companies should let you legally install it on more than 1 computer, or just charge a fraction of what the original cost is for an extra license.

dave, I am not calling you a pirate, I'm just saying that you might want to look at what you're saying. I understand that it's easier to buy 1 copy of some software and install it on more than 1 machine, and I'm sure that everybody in these forums has done it more than once (including me.) The only thing is that defiance isn't the best way to tell Apple that you think they're charging too much. You should try writing e-mails to Apple, or calling them (that may be an expensive way to contact them, though...) The family pack isn't the best way to discount multiple users, but it's a start for something that could help Apple, and us in the long run. If Apple sees that people are willing to pay a bit more for 5 licenses instead of buying the single license copy and install it on 5 computers, they may offer better multiple license discounts in the future.

I'm sorry to flame you, but your ideas, and some others on this thread have been quite obscure... That, and I was in a bad mood...

[dannsh]

You can call Apple's Customer Care line at 1-800-767-2775 on Monday.

I would suggest Apple require the serial numbers of the Family Machines and
then allow them the single copy price (up to five machines).

I remember those days when the OS was free and came on floopies.
Just go down to your Apple dealer and make the copies.
But then my first computer was a Heathkit 8080.

Oh well I digress. Change is hard.

Danny

[oldMac]

Most of these arguments are about whether or not it is legal for an individual with more than one machine to install a single copy of Mac OS X on multiple machines.

According to the EULA, the answer is NO.

Arguments can be made about whether or not "click" EULAs are truly enforceable because there has not been a significant case in the United States that challenged their enforceability. However, EVERY MAJOR SOFTWARE COMPANY HAS USED SUCH AGREEMENTS FOR SEVERAL YEARS. The longer we go with no challenge to such agreements, the more likely they will be considered "standard practice" by the courts and become enforceable by default assuming that the particular agreement is not deemed "unreasonable". (Not likely, if that agreement says the same thing as the thousands of others out there.)

Clearly software is not exactly like a book, a music album or a movie.
If it was, there would be much less argument as we have a lot of prior experience, accepted practice and law regarding "fair use" for these items.

Part of the problem is our natural inclination to attempt to simplify and organize everything into well-established categories. The truth is that while many pieces of software are like books, many are not.

In the case of a book, music or movie, no value is gained in "simultaneous use" by an individual. There is convenience in having multiple copies of a music album or movie. Having 100 copies of the latest Britney Spears album does not make the album sound better.

Additional value only starts to come from a music album or movie if you start giving those extra copies to other people (ie, friends and family).

For example, single player games are like this. There is no intrinsic value (beyond convenience) in having the same copy of Solitaire running on several machines simultaneously.

Alternatively, there is a lot of value in running multiple copies of a rendering package simultaneously on several machines. Should someone be able to run 100 copies of RenderMan for the price of a single license?

Some software is more fuzzy...
For example, having Mac OS X.2 running on two machines simultaneously and printing from one machine through the other or using the disk of another machine over the network, or accessing the internet via a gateway, or using one machine as a mail server...

Does this constitute "using" two copies of software simultaneously? There's an argument as to whether the machine is being used as a type of "proxy". This can be argued as a "convenience use" of multiple copies though it's not exactly the same as a music CD.

It's difficult to argue against someone having a single copy of an operating system installed on both a Desktop and a Laptop if they only use one at a time because it's similiar to the "copy for personal use" types of law that apply to books.

However, if I put Mac OS X on my computer and then I put it on my wife's computer and then I put it on my daughter Janie's computer and we're all using it for our own "personal use", then I think we've got a small problem from both the legal and ethical perspective.

I'm applaud Apple for recognizing the situation and at least attempting to address it with a "family license". We can only hope that other companies also start to address this as multi-computer families become more common.

[daveg5]

First off let it be known I think "the Eula is a bunch of crap" when it concerns computers in one resident. and I am not to shy to say it.
It is not Law and is untested and unproven.
Virtually everyone on this thread has installed mac OS's on multiple machines whether they admit it or not and I'm just coming straight out and saying I dont feel one bit guilty in the least and will continue to do so.

I also installed Logic gold and Cubase 5.0 which I paid for $799. Its on all 3 of my machines and I'm not about to give them a check for $1600.
It will have a new feature called system link that allows you to sync up more then 1 cpu on there next release and I will use 1 piece of software for all my computers bought of course and I dont feel guilty.

At least Adobe reconizes that people are keeping there desktops and buying a laptop to compliment it. however if I ever do buy Photshop, its going on all my machines, not just 2 and if I need to use usb print sharing and share files over my home network you better believe I will.
Basically I use my g4 upgraded Biege G3 for my audio video intense stuff. my 8600 for usb printing and storage it has four drives and cd burning and my powerbook for conveinance.
Apple could really start something fresh and new here.
A unlimited residential agreement for non business home users
they could show comercials showing the cost difference between a typical home with 3-5 cpu's on xp and OSX.(then fluffy could retire}
but the handwriting is on the wall 10.3 will have copy protection and its not my fault. instead its the fault of a greedy Apple and some Apple user's who are afraid to say anything bad about Apple. these are the people that Apple is targeting with their new "dual" buy everything twice strategy.
However I am a little less militant now cause many of the points are well taken and I may alter my opinion slightly.
CEO's are overpaid, why? they get bonuses whether they decisions are good or bad they dont get fired they get severence pay. give them double what the programmers developers get and give everyone equal bonuses from Jobs to the Janitor when times are great and take it away when times are bad to all employees equally. then you would see companies step up to the plate

The Eula is something that each company makes up indivdually to fit thier whim. every license by every company for every piece of software is different and as such totally unenforcable for the home users.
why does server buyers get to install unlimited on all thier machines
and home users who pay almost as must for thier cpu is ridiculous
It is not illegal to install your software that you bought on all your machines you bought in your home.
Show me a case(and there might be one) where some Judge has ruled so.
The" EULA is not LAW"
In other words you own the copy of software you have purchased, and as a home user can treat it the same way you can treat a book.

Which pretty much means you can do anything you want when using it yourself, even changing the splash screen to give yourself credit as programmer. You of course cannot sell or distribute any modified copies.

[ncbill]

As you've indicated, there have been very few court cases on software EULAs
(most instead on copyright issues)

In the absence of any definitive guidance from court decisions, standard contract law appplies, under which EULAs are unenforceable contracts of adhesion.

The software companies have no legal basis for claiming EULAs are enforcable in the absence of a statute such as UCITA, which was written so overbroad it was doomed from the start.

It matters little that all software companies include these agreements when none have been held to be valid in court (there is _one_ case but that is more of a copyright violation involving derivative use for profit)

Whether you like it or not our industrial age copyright laws treat software for the home non-commercial user as one treats a book for that same person.

Whether you like it or not those laws include broad fair use provisions. You may make as many backup copies as you like of the software, or modify it in any way for your own personal non-commercial use.

This doesn't address how you think software should be treated (especially if you own a software company) but it is the state of the law today, and you can't wish it away by printing legal verbage where the consumer can't see it prior to purchase, even if you have been doing it for years.

This is no argument, but the state of the law tooday.

If you want to change it pass a law or bring a number of successful civil actions.

oldmac writes:

Arguments can be made about whether or not "click" EULAs are truly enforceable because there has not been a significant case in the United States that challenged their enforceability. However, EVERY MAJOR SOFTWARE COMPANY HAS USED SUCH AGREEMENTS FOR SEVERAL YEARS. The longer we go with no challenge to such agreements, the more likely they will be considered "standard practice" by the courts and become enforceable by default assuming that the particular agreement is not deemed "unreasonable". (Not likely, if that agreement says the same thing as the thousands of others out there.)

Clearly software is not exactly like a book, a music album or a movie.
If it was, there would be much less argument as we have a lot of prior experience, accepted practice and law regarding "fair use" for these items.

Part of the problem is our natural inclination to attempt to simplify and organize everything into well-established categories. The truth is that while many pieces of software are like books, many are not.

In the case of a book, music or movie, no value is gained in "simultaneous use" by an individual. There is convenience in having multiple copies of a music album or movie. Having 100 copies of the latest Britney Spears album does not make the album sound better.

[daveg5]

In the case of a book, music or movie, no value is gained in "simultaneous use" by an individual. There is convenience in having multiple copies of a music album or movie. Having 100 copies of the latest Britney Spears album does not make the album sound better.
Say you have a book or magazine with a great picture of Halley Berry or Jennifer Love Hewitt and you scan the picture enlarge edit to Dave g5 with love and hang it on your wall while at the same time reading the book it came from why not 4 pictures 4 all 4 walls. I can even make one of Morris for my cat from the nine lives ads.
Company comes over and we want to watch snow dogs. thier is to many people for the living room so I send the kids upstairs with a copy of the movie to watch at the same time the grown ups do downstairs.
There is a party over my house every one is listening to Bruce Springsteen's new cd copies or in the boombox outside and in the kitchen inside. I listen while taking fluffy for a walk on my ipod.
all this is happening simutaneously.
in most instances you are right no value is gain by simutaneous use.
but sometime it is what makes ownership great

[bigsixty]

Within 2 weeks after 10.2 was announced I submitted feedback on the OSX feedback page requesting the ability to be able to purchase a "family pack" and even used those words. I have 3 macs at my house that I want to upgrade to 10.2 and since I am a software developer I strongly feel that it is a good idea to support the companies that produce the software you like to use. I like to feel that in some way they listened to my request although I am probably not the only one to ask for some relief in a full priced upgrade.

I will buy this thing even if I am the only one that will purchase the "legit" multi-computer license. I'm glad I didn't pre-order the regular copy. No - I don't have an extra $100 or so to just throw away - and no - I'm not perfect when it comes to software piracy.

I hope 10.2 is as good as everybody says it is - if so it is worth the price.

I don't think apple is a perfect company - and sure I'd be even more happy if this was a $19.95 upgrade - even buying 3 of them - BUT - I do want them to be around to make os 10.5 for a quad g5 machine. Even though they aren't JUST a software company - they can't afford to give their software away for free. If you want free software - go use Linux or something.

And there are WAY too many posts in this thread for me to think that people will actually READ what I have said - let alone care :)

[daveg5]

Within 2 weeks after 10.2 was announced I submitted feedback on the OSX feedback page requesting the ability to be able to purchase a "family pack" and even used those words. I have 3 macs at my house that I want to upgrade to 10.2 and since I am a software developer I strongly feel that it is a good idea to support the companies that produce the software you like to use. I like to feel that in some way they listened to my request although I am probably not the only one to ask for some relief in a full priced upgrade.



Dont be to hard on your self
But now since you havae thier ear ask them to make the family pak $129.
No one on this thread is advocating free or illegal copies
there is nothing illegit to buying 1 copy of said software and using it on all your personal use machine.
However that said, you said you were a developer and I gather you are a business making money from said use of software. that throws a different curve to discussion.
How big of enterprise is this, are the macs at home for home use.
The EULA is not law or legal it is a wish list of the software company to scare users into submission and to prevent piracy from honest folk.
However even in your case if this is a true home residence install the single copy bump mouse accidently.
you bought it it is yours.
Just dont make or give awy illegal copies

[Gigglebyte]

Originally posted by daveg5

No one on this thread is advocating free or illegal copies
there is nothing illegit to buying 1 copy of said software and using it on all your personal use machine.

and this is where you are still wrong as it IS illegal to load the sw on multiple machines


you bought it it is yours.

still wrong as you only have the right to USE the sw and only OWN the media it came on and you can do with that what you want. if you want to to make a wind chime out of it great...it is your CD to do with what you want. The sw that is on that CD is a different matter because unless your name is Apple Computer you don't OWN the software.

Now dave...why don't you call Apple's legal department and tell them that you don't agree with the pricing structure and are going to load 10.2 on any and all the computers you want and see what the response is.



but thehandwriting is on the wall 10.3 will have copy protection and its not my fault. instead its the fault of a greedy Apple and some Apple user's who are afraid to say anything bad about Apple.

now why isn't this your fault...aren't you going to buy a single copy (if you are even going to buy it) and load it on all your machines? and it sounds like you are not affraid to say things in this forum but will you actually contact Apple and let them know that you aren't affraid to say something bad about them? Call customer relations, call legal, plead your case there and let us know the results.

[Pepzhez]

In the piracy thread I said - about 10,000 times - that the EULA is not a legally binding document. No software company is exactly willing to test it in court mainly because they are deathly afraid that it will be found legally invalid. As it stands now, the EULA is simply wishful thinking. Anyone can write anything they want in a EULA. Wasn't there a brief controversy not too long ago about some Microsoft drawing or paint app whose EULA stated that the program could not be used to produce any work which "ridiculed Microsoft Corporation" or some words to that effect? I wonder if they ever deleted this from the EULA?

Now if an Apple EULA, say for FCP stated that FCP could not be used to ridicule Apple or Steve Jobs - in other words, if they were dictating your content, would you stand for that? It seems to me that many people here would, as so many of the defenders of the EULA on this thread are following the logic that the EULA is the law, therefore we must obey. No questions asked.

What amazes me in this (and the piracy thread as well) is that so many people here are not only misinformed about copyright law and what their legal rights are (there are plenty of informative web sites on this subject - why don't you look them up?), preferring instead to believe everything Apple or Microsoft tells them, but even stranger, are more than happy to forfeit their fair use rights. But I will not. If I buy a CD or DVD, it is my right to make as many backup copies as I damn well please, and if I feel like plugging in 300 hi-fi systems at once and play each copy simultaneously, then that is my businesss. And I defy you or Apple or the RIAA to stand up in court and give one believable reason how such an action in any way harms them. Lost sales? Give me a break! I am sure that a judge would find that as laughable as the jury would.

I really have to disagree that this "family pack" is a good alternative for those of "high ethical standards", as someone here said. I actually think the offer is a scam aimed at those in possession of a high level of stupidity. Only Apple is implying that this is an issue of "ethics", as the EULA on a single copy of Jaguar is not even in accordance with current law anyway, so please tell me how it has come to pass that what is and isn't ethical is now decided by the Apple Corporation? If you want to send extra money to Apple for no real reason, so be it, but I find it deeply disturbing that your peace of mind, your sense of what is right and wrong is being dictated by a corporation.

All of you Apple fetishists really should read Ulrike Meinhof's theory of Konsumterror.

[MacArtist]

Granted there is not going to be a case brought up against joe consumer for installing one copy OS X on more than one home computer. It just isn't financially feasable for Apple to spend several $100 an hour for their lawers to press the matter.

The EULA is not there just for S&G, it is a legal contract that you enter into, whether you believe in it or not, when you install and use a piece of software. Thus it can be enforced if the company so chooses.

Apple has in fact been fairly lax in enforcing it's EULA because if you so choose, you can install OS X or most any other Apple software on as many computers without a problem. This could and most likely will change in the future.

Other companies have not been so nice in this respect. From putting in code that checks the local network for mutliple copies of the serial number being use a one time, to complex software keys being required in order to install a piece of software.

And to all of you preaching about fair use rights. They are very subject, and vary from one copyrighted material to another.

[daveg5]

It is actually Illegal and I should start a class action suit against these companies telling me what I can and cannot do in my own home on my own systems bought from thier own companies.
What other industry has the nerve to hide agreements inside the box out of site on the cd and then tell you you are only buying the box and the blank cdrom and if you use this or that it must be used in this or that way.
It wont stand up in any court. At least not in the free USA.
What I do in my home is my business and does not take a penny away from Apples profits as everyone who thinks as I do will not magically overnight offer Apple $$$ for each of or computer.
Last I checked this is a free country.

no one has, as yet , pointed me to case justifying the full legal authority of an EULA, but has just spouted that they are 'law'. If they can, I'll take their arguments more seriously....
[/B]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go look near the end of the piracy and mac os x thread and you will see some links and quotes of the US criminal code outlining why software piracy is illegal.
peterjhill

Dave g5: no one here is pirating software. we are buying it

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lilscoy
Apple WILL NEVER LOSE MONEY from people using their software on more than one computer of their own. The profit they make will be plenty. I totally give them props for the software they create, and I do feel like they are doing us favors by making it, but they would be nowhere without us buying it and supporting them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you use the software, against the terms set-forth in your agreement with them, then they will have lost a sale, and therefore WOULD LOSE MONEY.
peterjhill
Dave g5 Apple does not lose a sale when people such as I install on multiple machines in our house because we are not going to buy another copy no matter what so no sell is lost period.

Hello dense person. I think the arguement is quite valid. When you rent a car you are entering into an agreement with the car rental company that you will abide by certain conditions, and in return will get use of the vehicle, which you do not own.

When you purchase a box of software, you are paying money and entering into an agreement with a company for the right to use the software, agreeing to certain conditions, one being that you do not own the software.

Whereas a rental car company will probably sell you the car for a reasonable price, as they can easily purchase another, Apple does not have the ability or desire to go out and purchase a replacement OS, and would probably not want to sell you Mac OS, and then need to license the software from you so that they could include a copy of it with their hardware. It would turn apple into dell, and you into microsoft.

So, my arguement is quite valid, and your complaints against it are very weak.

Dave g5: Oh no here goes the rental car again At least the renteal and car leasing companies are upfront .
They tell you right out the gate you are renting or leasing and must return said vehicle at said time or pay a penalty.
and if you want to buy the tell you right out that you are buying.
Compare this with Apple and others "Buy now $129 less then a dollar per feature" Just check Apples site, if I am leasing or renting OSX than should I retrun it when I am done.? Nothing to suggest not owning is printed on the box.
This is false advertisement if you are correct and therefore negates any so called binding contract.
I can down load 7.5 for free its has an EULA also and that should tell you how much creedance it has.
NONE!
open your eyes EULA are
1. hidden from plain site. makes it illegal
2.are different for every app from every company. no standard again illegal
3.are not and have not ever been enforced because they are unenforcable and an envasion of privacy{It would work well in a dictorial society with drones}
4. Eula is simply stupid, dont believe the hype

[daveg5]

It is actually Illegal and I should start a class action suit against these companies telling me what I can and cannot do in my own home on my own systems bought from thier own companies.
What other industry has the nerve to hide agreements inside the box out of site on the cd and then tell you you are only buying the box and the blank cdrom and if you use this or that it must be used in this or that way.
It wont stand up in any court. At least not in the free USA.
What I do in my home is my business and does not take a penny away from Apples profits as everyone who thinks as I do will not magically overnight offer Apple $$$ for each of or computer.
Last I checked this is a free country.

no one has, as yet , pointed me to case justifying the full legal authority of an EULA, but has just spouted that they are 'law'. If they can, I'll take their arguments more seriously....
[/B]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go look near the end of the piracy and mac os x thread and you will see some links and quotes of the US criminal code outlining why software piracy is illegal.
peterjhill

Dave g5: no one here is pirating software. we are buying it

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lilscoy
Apple WILL NEVER LOSE MONEY from people using their software on more than one computer of their own. The profit they make will be plenty. I totally give them props for the software they create, and I do feel like they are doing us favors by making it, but they would be nowhere without us buying it and supporting them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you use the software, against the terms set-forth in your agreement with them, then they will have lost a sale, and therefore WOULD LOSE MONEY.
peterjhill
Dave g5 Apple does not lose a sale when people such as I install on multiple machines in our house because we are not going to buy another copy no matter what so no sell is lost period.

Hello dense person. I think the arguement is quite valid. When you rent a car you are entering into an agreement with the car rental company that you will abide by certain conditions, and in return will get use of the vehicle, which you do not own.

When you purchase a box of software, you are paying money and entering into an agreement with a company for the right to use the software, agreeing to certain conditions, one being that you do not own the software.

Whereas a rental car company will probably sell you the car for a reasonable price, as they can easily purchase another, Apple does not have the ability or desire to go out and purchase a replacement OS, and would probably not want to sell you Mac OS, and then need to license the software from you so that they could include a copy of it with their hardware. It would turn apple into dell, and you into microsoft.

So, my arguement is quite valid, and your complaints against it are very weak.

Dave g5: Oh no here goes the rental car again At least the renteal and car leasing companies are upfront .
They tell you right out the gate you are renting or leasing and must return said vehicle at said time or pay a penalty.
and if you want to buy the tell you right out that you are buying.
Compare this with Apple and others "Buy now $129 less then a dollar per feature" Just check Apples site, if I am leasing or renting OSX than should I retrun it when I am done.? Nothing to suggest not owning is printed on the box.
This is false advertisement if you are correct and therefore negates any so called binding contract.
I can down load 7.5 for free its has an EULA also and that should tell you how much creedance it has.
NONE!
open your eyes EULA are
1. hidden from plain site. makes it illegal
2.are different for every app from every company. no standard again illegal
3.are not and have not ever been enforced because they are unenforcable and an envasion of privacy{It would work well in a dictorial society with drones}
4. Eula is simply stupid, dont believe the hype

[Gigglebyte]

Originally posted by daveg5
It is actually Illegal and I should start a class action suit against these companies telling me what I can and cannot do in my own home on my own systems bought from thier own companies.

Dave...why don't you just do that then. I would love to see this taken to court and find out just how enforcable the EULA is.

Bottom line is if Apple decides to do copy protection on their future apps and OS YOU could be one of the reasons.

[skunk]

Perhaps it would be rather an expensive excercise. Especially in the case of domestic use, the EULA is probably on very shaky legal ground. Let's get this straight once and for all: IT IS NOT LAW. There is a huge difference between the law and a contract drawn up by a buyer or seller of goods in order to maximise their own benefit. Many contracts are not lawful even when agreed by both parties, and aspects of many EULAs are probably not lawful likewise. When one party cannot even read the thing until the seal is broken and the money paid, the whole "contract" could probably be overturned in any court.

However, it would far harder to argue against a serial no which simply prevented simultaneous networked use of identical copies (as with PS etc), and it would be so easy for Apple to make the installation identifiable, that this should really be seen as a period of grace.

[skunk]

6. Disclaimer of Warranties. YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT USE OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK AND THAT THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO SATISFACTORY QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, ACCURACY AND EFFORT IS WITH YOU. EXCEPT FOR THE LIMITED WARRANTY ON MEDIA SET FORTH ABOVE AND TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE APPLE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITH ALL FAULTS AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, AND APPLE AND APPLE'S LICENSORS (COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS "APPLE" FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 6 AND 7) HEREBY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLE SOFTWARE, EITHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND/OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OF ACCURACY, OF QUIET ENJOYMENT, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. APPLE DOES NOT WARRANT AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE, THAT THE FUNCTIONS CONTAINED IN THE APPLE SOFTWARE WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS, THAT THE OPERATION OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE, OR THAT DEFECTS IN THE APPLE SOFTWARE WILL BE CORRECTED. NO ORAL OR WRITTEN INFORMATION OR ADVICE GIVEN BY APPLE OR AN APPLE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHALL CREATE A WARRANTY. SHOULD THE APPLE SOFTWARE PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE ENTIRE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR LIMITATIONS ON APPLICABLE STATUTORY RIGHTS OF A CONSUMER, SO THE ABOVE EXCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

I'd say that several parts of this EULA clause are highly questionable. Whoops! All those who say they're OK because they never read these things had better look away now....TOO LATE!

[daveg5]

Dave...why don't you just do that then. I would love to see this taken to court and find out just how enforcable the EULA is.

Bottom line is if Apple decides to do copy protection on their future apps and OS YOU could be one of the reasons.

I would love to it would be a scream, just think
A hard working blue collar family man with his cat{fluffy} in the courtroom
demonstrating how he installs he software without agreeing to anything.
Giving the history of how he stated on the atari 800xl then atari st, amiga and macintosh and how he threw awy his dreaded P.C. and copycat windows
for a mac classic then 7500, beigeg3, powerbook 3400, how he loves the software but thinks the hardware is underpowered.
I would bring in all my switchers that I caused to switch to Apple.
Show them my family photos, movies and music I make with "my software and my machine"
I would bring a copy of all the software and OS's that I bought and 7.5 with is free. reseal them and accuse apple of false advertising.
I would show all there ads , print and media and witch they say buy and purchase repeatedly.
never lease or rent
I would show thier warranty to show how much faith they have in thier product{how much they cover thier own butt}

Thier lawyers could then ask my cat if he agrees with the EULA
And who taught him to click
They could then explain that they lost 2 "sells"(key word being sell not lease, not rent} to me because I did not buy a box for each computer.
They would close by saying because of Dave g5 we will implement a system lockout like microsoft to stop this blatant stealing.
If you read between the lines what they are really saying is because of uninformed users, the ones like sheep that we have thought control we can make more money buy making them feel guilty enough to by the same thing 2 and 3 times over. cause their is no way Dave g5 and othersmart freedom non sheep non conformist will never go for this.
people who believe in the EULA are the reason for the upcoming security measures not me
they can get money from them not me
Simple Logic
Case close I when and finally Apple reaches 2GHZ in 2005 I reinvest in the company and get rid of the EULA for home users!

[Pepzhez]

Many contracts are not lawful even when agreed by both parties, and aspects of many EULAs are probably not lawful likewise. When one party cannot even read the thing until the seal is broken and the money paid, the whole "contract" could probably be overturned in any court.

Well said! And consider that every software retailer's return policy requires that the returned item be "unopened" in order for you to get your money back (I've never seen an exception). So if you happen to disagree with the EULA (which you cannot read before opening the seal) and choose not to run the software because of this, you are unable to get your money back regardless.

If this isn't the most unethical business practice imaginable! Now how in the world does anyone find this to be legally binding (much less "ethical"). Indeed, which other industry tries to pass off such a scam?

And just how quickly do you think this ridiculous "contract" - a contract you cannot read beforehand and one that gives you no rights, not even the right to get your money back should you disagree with it - would be laughed out of court?

Let's say it again: the EULA is NOT the law!

[skunk]

The EULA is NOT the Law!!

[dannsh]

Daveg5 give up - Gigglebyte does not care about consumer rights.

[daveg5]

> Daveg5 give up - Gigglebyte does not care about consumer rights.

Although he did make some interesting arguments, I cant help but think he's a corporate mole or something and I respect but strongly disagree with his viewpoints.
Are there anymore Darksiders out there?
This is a great and important thread.
As we consumers are sick and tired of being blamed for all of the industries problems.
Being called thieves and pirates.{when we keep it afloat and promote thier products}
And law breaker when no law was broken except by the corporate cartels
which is better known as"Home Licensing".
This is nothing more than "Protection Money" being paid to greedy (on ocassion to thugs} Company Execs. who cant even be trusted to count thier own money correctly{actually our money too}
I hope the guy who said he works for Apple presents this thread to them and then we can have single home unlimited use and a real money back guarantee.{wishful thinking}
Just for kicks, here goes
"THE EULA IS NOT THE LAW"
Get over it.

[skunk]

EDMJ?:p

[daveg5]

I think we scared or intimadated all of the naysayers.
Once they saw the license and warranty in Apple own words, there was nothing they could say, especially when they have the box themselves at home.

Now "no home user should feel any guilt for loading up software that he bought, game, cd, dvd, OS or otherwise on all of his machines and he can make as many copies as he/her sees fit.{just dont sell or give away}
You are not a criminal and you are not the reason that the industry is down in the dodrums.

And I dare Apple or Microsoft or any one else to prove me wrong in a Court of Law not "Licenses"

"We Shall Overcome"
I cant resist to say it one more time what all software companies hate to hear the truth
The "EULA is NOT THE LAW"

[peterjhill]

Good for you. You have found a cause, and are going to fight for you beliefs. I commend you. I disagree with you, but that does not stop me from acknowledging your right to your own opinion. I wish you luck, as I feel that you are going to need it, as there is a long history of preserving the right of ownership in the U.S. Your fight would of course be much easier in China, where the ownership laws are looser. The problem there is that the government pretty much owns everything.

Perhaps there are some EULA’s that are illegal, in part or in whole. I had a lease for an apartment that decreed that I had to refrain from putting my clothes on the floor. Imagine what kind of crap a software company could put in a EULA, it could be scary. Even if they are illegal, your opposition will have a very strong argument that they need to secure some rights as the creator of the intellectual property that they have worked hard and spent money developing. I wonder what a jury made up of average citizens would think of the arguments that both you and Apple could bring to them. We could hold a mock trial here at MacRumors.com. We could have a moderated thread, Arn could be the judge. We could start a different thread first to ask for volunteers for jury duty, who would be required to read all the posts. A representative from the Anti-EULA group and one from the pro-rights of software companies could each pick 6 people from the volunteers. Each side could state their case. I am not sure how we could fairly deal with objections against each others arguments and their validity, though.

We could even limit the argument to a simple statement, such as, “Does a person have the right to install software on as many computers as they wish, as long as they own the computers, and have purchased a box with media containing the aforementioned software?” I am sure that we would have to go to committee to refine the question, of course, as you may disagree with my phrasing of the question.

So, let me know what you think. How far do you want to take this thread? The Piracy thread went to about 300 posts, I believe. I would suggest that we start a new thread, though, as this is becoming somewhat off-topic. Something like EULA – right or wrong. If you wish to start the thread, please be my guest, and if you could post the path to the new thread, I would be glad to join you there. I will promise that I will do my best to refrain from any personal attacks, and hope that the courtesy will returned.

[MacArtist]

Ok. I agree to some extent that having the EULA inside the box instead of outside the box in plain view seems like an under-handed technique. But unless this is your very first interaction with a computer you know it is there. It's not something new.

They all have the same basic information, something along the lines of "this is a license to use, you own the media but the actual software remains the intellectual property of said company, if you don't agree don't use." And that is what it really boils down to, intellectual property. Somebody spent the time and money to develop this piece of software and justly should be compensated for it.

Those of you claim that fair use rights give you the ability to do as you wish with something that you paid for. the following is taken right from the copy right law:
Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107)

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors

And this section is the law on computer programs taken from the Copyright Law:
117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117)

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.-Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.-Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.

(c) Machine Maintenance or Repair.-Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner or lessee of a machine to make or authorize the making of a copy of a computer program if such copy is made solely by virtue of the activation of a machine that lawfully contains an authorized copy of the computer program, for purposes only of maintenance or repair of that machine, if-

(1) such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed; and

(2) with respect to any computer program or part thereof that is not necessary for that machine to be activated, such program or part thereof is not accessed or used other than to make such new copy by virtue of the activation of the machine.

(d) Definitions.-For purposes of this section-

(1) the "maintenance" of a machine is the servicing of the machine in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine; and

(2) the "repair" of a machine is the restoring of the machine to the state of working in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine.

Take from it what you will.

[daveg5]

Good for you. You have found a cause, and are going to fight for you beliefs. I commend you. I disagree with you, but that does not stop me from acknowledging your right to your own opinion. I wish you luck, as I feel that you are going to need it, as there is a long history of preserving the right of ownership in the U.S. Your fight would of course be much easier in China, where the ownership laws are looser. The problem there is that the government pretty much owns everything.

Thank you
lately the right of ownership for individuals has been under constant attacks from home taping with beta vhs, cassette tapes, cd copies, mp3 copies, dvd copies video games and software copies.
It has moved from those making illegalcopies for profit or just giving them away to the purchasers of said media being called criminals and unethicals for using the products that they buy in their on homes as they see fit with out any financial lost to to the corporate entities.
The Only difference in China I agree is the State owns everything no questions ask.
Here in America the state owns a lot but businesses own a equal or greater amount. the ones with the least ownership is we the people.
We elect these sometimes creeps and keep the other ones in business when their not cooking thier books.
Its time for our ownership to be taken seriously.
I dont know how to set up a trial thing but I'm in.


Those of you claim that fair use rights give you the ability to do as you wish with something that you paid for. the following is taken right from the copy right law:
Thanks for the copyright stuff I'm no Lawer but it seems to make my case even stronger

Until software manufactors get rid of the many catch-22's and hidden agreements. such as you cant return it if it is open, duh how do you know if its defective if you dont open it and if you can return it you must return it for the same item, talk about a forced sale.
To their credit, companies think all users are crooks and if they had a real moneyback warranty we would all copy it and resell it.{sure some would, but not all}
there EULA vary wildly from 1 app to the next-no cohesiveness-Give us a standard and give us a real warranty, not an as is.
I guess it depends on" what is is".

Look at the Apple warranty: is this a not joke or what.
They take absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for anything and clearly state as is. but you dont see that until after you buy. I had to hunt mine down to be sure.
Hopefully someone with gutts and a lot of money will take this to court and end this Protection scheme. not for profit just to give the end user in writing the writes he/she already has morrally, ethically and just old fashion commonsensely

[balliet]

I have a question for everyone who thinks its ok to install software on multiple computers. Where do you draw the line?

Should I be able to install my copy of OS X on all my relatives’ computers? My friends’ computers? My school's computers? My company’s computers? What if I passed out free OS X cds in front of the apple store on Friday night?

If you answered no to any of the above questions, what makes that any different than installing it on two computers you own?

[edit: missed a few apostrophes in there]

[daveg5]

I have a question for everyone who thinks its ok to install software on multiple computers. Where do you draw the line?

Should I be able to install my copy of OS X on all my relatives’ computers? My friends’ computers? My school's computers? My company’s computers? What if I passed out free OS X cds in front of the apple store on Friday night?


If you answered no to any of the above questions, what makes that any different than installing it on two computers you own?

[edit: missed a few apostrophes in there]
You awnsered your own question in the last line.
It is ok to install your copy of OSX (I'm taking for granted that you bought it legally} on any of the computers that you own and your residence.
This is why I am trying to get apple to call it a single home instead of user purchase.
You step over the line when you install your copy of OSX on your relatives computer{although many may argue that if she lives in your home and you both use the computer}Your friend{she's cute needs to get a job and buy her own Diff Address} , your school{great discounts Diff Address}l, your company{for profit Business diff address}
Friday night is a party night maybe saturday?
Just kidding, I think everyone would agree that last one is a no brainer.
We've been for the most part pretty consistent thru this thread. basically this is it.
You Bought a copy of OSX
You Own 2 desktops and a laptop
you dont give away free things on friday night
Instead you install and use the software you bought on the machines you bought, sometimes even at the same time over your network, i.e. printer sharing file sharing etc.
you make a couple of copies for safe keeping
You become an advocate for apple and try to influence your friends, relatives, school, and company to make the switch.
and you dont install on any machine not yours at your residense.
there may be extreme cases that this may change but for the most part that it.

[balliet]

Ok, daveg5. I'm glad you didn't agree agree to those last few. You could've justified it using some of the arguments you mentioned before, its good to see you do draw a line somewhere.

Now another question. Lets say you are going to a concert or a movie and buy one ticket. Is it ok to sneak other family members in? (Lets assume the movie/concert isn't sold out, so you woudn't be taking anyone else's seat).

Just to express my opinion, I think it is wrong to install it on more than one computer, but to be honest, if I had two macs I'd probably do it. (I also think lying is wrong but I've been known to lie on occasion...)

[daveg5]

Now another question. Lets say you are going to a concert or a movie and buy one ticket. Is it ok to sneak other family members in? (Lets assume the movie/concert isn't sold out, so you woudn't be taking anyone else's seat).

It is wrong
But I am guilty of going into a higher paid reserved seat on ocassion or sneaking in the more exspensive movie or r rated movie in my youth.
We are only human. and we justify by saying no one is losing anything which is technically true.

I remembers back then working at mcdonalds night shift. one manager would throw away all the left over food and say it was stealing if he agreed to let us have any.
The other manager would say take home what you want or its gonna get thrown away and by the way get a coke you've all worked hard
You can guess who had the best sales cleanest store and more upbeat employees
Legally he was probably stealing
Morally he was probably wasting good food
But i think what he did was right because everyone involved and not came out better.
Sometimes you can be too strict and unbending to the point of stopping your own growth
This is what Apple is close to becoming
I hope that I am wrong

[christof]

Hi everyone---

I'm glad that Apple has a Family Pack available for Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar... I definitely plan on purchasing it for my home.

I've heard, however, the Apple is going to announce an Apple Software Subscription plan... Does anyone know about this?

I'd really look forward to subscribing to this if Apple priced it aggressively (against Microsoft). It seems they would, considering the new Family Pack pricing.

Here's to hopes of iPhone for CDMA (Verizon Wireless)...

[skunk]

But we're talking about the EULA, not copyright. The former is an attempt to form a contract with the minimum benefit to the consumer (sorry, "licensee") and minimum exposure for the vendor (sorry, "licensor"), probably to such an extent that it contravenes the law, more or less so depending on what each jurisdiction's law will allow. The latter is a question of the law itself: it may be iniquitous or not, but it has the advantage of being agreed.

And I want Pepzhes on our team!

[rEd Eye]

Well I think Apple quite nicely ripped everyone off who bought OSX,or a machine with OSX included by default in the last six months who now has to pay full price for it again if they wish to finally enjoy a "functional OSX."
What a jolly bunch of paying to be beta tester suckers we are!
That's $260 US,or $400 Canadian invested in your OS even if you bought X1.5 a day before Jaguar was released.What a joke!
If I had twenty macs,I would install one licence of OSX.2 on all machines just out of spite!

Look out,here comes the new and improved "Mac-rosoft" corporation to steal all your pennies!

[skunk]

If you go to the AppleStore site, there's still no indication on the main OS X pages that there is a "family pack" at all. Many people visiting the site will STILL not be aware of their options. What is Apple going to do for all those who might have considered buying a family pack had they known, all those who don't live in the States and can't get one anyway, and all those who have already bought? Are they going to upgrade them to 5-user licences for $70? If they really want to drive adoption of OS X they should (a) be more straightforward about it, and (b) make it cheaper. If this is not just an excercise to create a false impression of the OS uptake (each 5-machine licence will be counted as 5 sales even if only installed on two computers: someone else posted this point but I can't find it), then surely they should offer a deal where you can buy one copy (for, say, $99) and additional licences for $19.95 each. This would be much fairer and would genuinely encourage compliance with the rules Apple stipulate.

As things are, we are being asked to pay a lot of money for a revision of the OS which is only now getting the functionality of OS 9, albeit without support for a lot of relatively recent hardware. I don't understand how we can have had so many updates for the drivers of CD-RW drives and yet so few for scanners and printers: is it that much easier, is Apple writing CD-RW drivers, or what?

[skunk]

I have just spoken to Apple (a) to point out that their US website STILL encourages you to buy the single-user licence without mentioning the Family Pack at all (unless you know where to look), which is incompetent - verging on dishonest - marketing, and (b) it's still not available in Europe at all. But since then, I think I've sussed WHY it's not available: it's a Europe-wide deal, and there are countries like Germany (back me up here please, Pepzhes) where you are PERMITTED BY LAW to install any program on any machine you own, and therefore the whole family pack deal would be irrelevant. These EULAs are looking more perforated by the minute.

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by skunk
I have just spoken to Apple (a) to point out that their US website STILL encourages you to buy the single-user licence without mentioning the Family Pack at all (unless you know where to look), which is incompetent - verging on dishonest - marketing

hurm, i go to www.apple.com, click on "store" then click on "apple software" and the first item is Mac OS X 10.2, and the second item is Mac OS X 10.2 Family pack. Boy, that is real tough to find. I would never guess to look in the store for a product.

I will admit that if you go to
www.apple.com -> software -> macos x, and click on buy now, you will taken directly to the single user license version with no mention of the family pack. I think they should have put a three line link to the family pack, such as

New!
Family 5-pack of Jaguar
for $xxx.xx

But I would not go as far as saying that they are incompetent, and that it is difficult to find the software. Personally, when I want to buy something from the apple online store, i go straight to the store, and do not click off of the product pages. YMMV

[skunk]

Anyone going to the AppleStore for the first time would naturally click on the large OS X picture, which would not tell them about it. Likewise if you click on OS X in the menubar. This is not clever. It may well be an oversight, but it's been like that for three days already, which looks like incompetence to me. It just looks as if they'd be quite happy for you to pay over the odds.

And what the hell is YMMV?

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by skunk
Anyone going to the AppleStore for the first time would naturally click on the large OS X picture, which would not tell them about it. Likewise if you click on OS X in the menubar.

And what the hell is YMMV?

http://www.gaarde.org/acronyms/?lookup=Y

As I said YMMV, or Your Mileage may vary.

So that is how you surf the site. It is unfortunate that apple did not consider this style of purchasing, and instead went with the store approach. As I said, I think that they should at the very least have a licensing options link from the single user page that they take you to. I can see your point. I don't call it incompetent, as I would reserve that word for something like describing how Microsoft implements security. I think that the majority of people who would purchase the family pack, are probably fairly familiar with the Apple web site, and would probably go to the store. The person that you are speaking about,
Anyone going to the AppleStore for the first time
most likely does not own multiple macs, and that is what they would purchase.

This is all new to apple, and even Microsoft. Microsoft has nothing like this. I am giving apple some time to figure out how to market it. I personally believe that it is more an experiment by apple, and may not be a permanent option. As a compromise by those who pushed for it, to help calm those against it, perhaps they decided to downplay the product, and rely on word of mouth. Is this incompetent? maybe. You obviously think so. I respect your feelings. I am just saying that I disagree with you. I am glad that the product is available at all.

[skunk]

Can we agree on "very untogether"?

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by skunk
Can we agree on "very untogether"?

:D

We can definitely agree on that. 100%

Sorry for being such a semantic's bitch. The whole family pack and the lack of "hotnews" or apple email information about it does sound like there is some untogetherness going on at apple about this. Most likely it is Steve J. who is disagreeing, but there must be alot of VPs agreeing with it, otherwise it wouldn't be happening at all. I would think that if Steve was behind it as a supporter, that everyone in the free world would know about it.

So, yes, we can definitely agree on it

[skunk]

:D

[daveg5]

If you go to the AppleStore site, there's still no indication on the main OS X pages that there is a "family pack" at all. Many people visiting the site will STILL not be aware of their options. What is Apple going to do for all those who might have considered buying a family pack had they known, all those who don't live in the States and can't get one anyway, and all those who have already bought? Are they going to upgrade them to 5-user licences for $70? If they really want to drive adoption of OS X they should (a) be more straightforward about it, and (b) make it cheaper. If this is not just an excercise to create a false impression of the OS uptake (each 5-machine licence will be counted as 5 sales even if only installed on two computers: someone else posted this point but I can't find it), then surely they should offer a deal where you can buy one copy (for, say, $99) and additional licences for $19.95 each. This would be much fairer and would genuinely encourage compliance with the rules Apple stipulate.
I actually suggested that they do this but at $129 on page 2 of these thread
as they can know claim deceptively at the next macworld how many mac osx boxes have been sold. here it is

However my pocketbook is just as important as Apples, more so if you ask me, and my money has intelletual value to it.
If I have supported your machine and convinced others to switch long before the imac and the switch ads.
Then I should be able to load up 10.2 on all the systems in my humble abode no matter how the agree button is clicked. The way I look at it, Apple owes me and needs me just as they think I do them.
And if they really want more switchers make the family pak $129 discontinue the one user pak and then they can claim 5 times more switchers and who actually reads those licenses anyway. Lawyers

[skunk]

As the EULA restriction is not even legal in Germany (and other countries I guess), can't we just say we all went on a day-trip to Berlin and loaded up our secondary computers there? :p
But seriously, I agree, Dave. Apple should be the first to bite the bullet and say the OS can be loaded on all computers in the household anyway. Firstly because they can't (as of now) enforce anything else, secondly because the restriction is against the law in several countries (so the terms change according to what they can get away with - no surprise there!) - and thirdly because they should be begging us all to bring every possible machine up to 10.2 a.s.a.p., to light a fire under the driver-writers if nothing else.

Since they're not even offering this in Europe yet, I find the choice is made for me. I am expecting an iBook in the next couple of days, so I'll have a copy sort of "free" anyway...;) :D Could I cat-sit for Fluffy for a couple of days?:)

[daveg5]

Just dont let the ipod fall out of his cat back pack
He loves listening to the meow mix song
and the who let the cats out song
meow meow meow meowmeow

[Gigglebyte]

Originally posted by daveg5
Daveg5 give up - Gigglebyte does not care about consumer rights.

Although he did make some interesting arguments, I cant help but think he's a corporate mole or something and I respect but strongly disagree with his viewpoints.

I do care about consumer rights, am not a corporate mole (just somebody that works for a company) and am glad that you think there were some good points. Lets try to put this in every day terms we can all relate to.

You are a programer and you have written this great application. You can see that people will want to use this appliction on all of their computers. Now you are also in this to make money and you charge a fair price for your app but since you ARE in this to make money you want to be paid for every copy that is being used. Now Dave, if you agree that this is a worth while application and will be using it on all of your computers shouldn't the programer get paid for all the machines? Now I know you are going to say that it won't make a difference with a big company like Apple, they make enough money anyway so loading it on your additional machines won't hurt their bottom line. Well you are wrong in that because for every license that isn't paid for but is being used DOES take money away from that programer or company!

Lets make it even easier. You go to work and work 80 hours in a pay period, when you get your pay check should you get paid for all 80 hours or should they only pay you for 60? You put your time in, you did your work, you produced something for them so you should get paid for all your time and work? don't you agree??

[arn]

Daveg5,

Please learn how to use the "quote" button in the replies... or find another way to delimit other people's words from your own. Your replies are difficult to read.

arn

[Gigglebyte]

Originally posted by rEd Eye
Well I think Apple quite nicely ripped everyone off who bought OSX,or a machine with OSX included by default in the last six months who now has to pay full price for it again if they wish to finally enjoy a "functional OSX."
What a jolly bunch of paying to be beta tester suckers we are!
That's $260 US,or $400 Canadian invested in your OS even if you bought X1.5 a day before Jaguar was released.

where I don't agree with you on 10.1 being beta (as it does work quite well) 10.0 was a dog and everybody was given the option to upgrade to 10.1 for $19.95 through the begining of this year. Should the same thing be done for the 10.2 probably, and if enough people bitch to Apple about this it might be changed.

Skunk - also if you go to the OS X and upgrade tab there is a listing for the family pack but I do agree that there should be something listed on that same page for family pack purchases. I have reported this one and hopefully it will be corrected soon

[skunk]

I think there are two different issues here: the OS and the applications. Most of the time, if you have several networked machines, the OS is permanently on, on all machines. It has to be. Without it the hardware has no function. We're not talking upgrades here, either. 10.2 is the first fully-functional version of the software, meaning that it's the first time our computers have been fully functional in X as well, and most of us have already paid for its development to date.

Applications (by third parties) are different. In most cases it's not much trouble to save a file on one machine, close the app and move it to another machine, so you don't really need to have the same app open on more than one machine at a time. This way, it is within for instance Adobe's EULA terms. And it's what PS and Illustrator allow you to do.

I just think we should keep these two instances separate.

[daveg5]

Originally posted by arn
Daveg5,

Please learn how to use the "quote" button in the replies... or find another way to delimit other people's words from your own. Your replies are difficult to read.

arn
sorry I'm didnt know about the buttons thought they were there for decoration
Thanx

[skunk]

Originally posted by daveg5

sorry I'm didnt know about the buttons thought they were there for decoration
Thanx

Me too, actually. Isn't modern technology amazing?!

[ncbill]

¨?°<Dlem with EULAs is with the method of distribution (sticking the software in a retail packaged box) where the consumer cannot review the terms prior to sale.

Since they can't (and have no recourse) the EULA in that case is invalid.

It's a simple application of contract law.

Were the consumer allowed to return the software (try taking an opened 10.2 back to Compusa and see how far you get) then with that recourse available case law would support the EULA, at least in ONE decision in one circuit.

That doesn't address copyright issues, but for non-commercial home use the consumer enjoys broad rights.

(E.g., contrary to what EULAs claim, under current copyright law the consumer can modify the software for their own personal use by applying a "no-CD" patch or changing the credits on the splash screen if they want. Of course they cannot sell/distribute the modified software)

[daveg5]

Originally posted by Gigglebyte


I do care about consumer rights, am not a corporate mole (just somebody that works for a company) and am glad that you think there were some good points. Lets try to put this in every day terms we can all relate to.

You are a programer and you have written this great application. You can see that people will want to use this appliction on all of their computers. Now you are also in this to make money and you charge a fair price for your app but since you ARE in this to make money you want to be paid for every copy that is being used. Now Dave, if you agree that this is a worth while application and will be using it on all of your computers shouldn't the programer get paid for all the machines? Now I know you are going to say that it won't make a difference with a big company like Apple, they make enough money anyway so loading it on your additional machines won't hurt their bottom line. Well you are wrong in that because for every license that isn't paid for but is being used DOES take money away from that programer or company!

Lets make it even easier. You go to work and work 80 hours in a pay period, when you get your pay check should you get paid for all 80 hours or should they only pay you for 60? You put your time in, you did your work, you produced something for them so you should get paid for all your time and work? don't you agree??

Dave g5 replies: Let's take the last one first must of us come in early at least sometimes, work late off the clock, at least sometimes and work for the company at home of the clock , at least sometimes. I think at the end of the year we employees should tally up-itemize or what ever all the extra hours and free advertising we give are companies the bill. I guarantee you it we be more than 80 hours worked!
But anyway I am forced to agree with you on that point.

Now on the first point I disagree and here's why: That programmer needs to get paid for the great program just once by the home user, because the EULA that he is about to hide in the box along with the as is warranty (you open it you bought it, its defective but I,ll give you another one of the same thing} are an insult to any consumer.
And just like other media cd,s dvds vhs etc I am "allowed and expected to use it on all compatable devices in my house" or why buy it. a cd for #1 cd player a dvd for #2 dvd player a OS for #3 computer.
To be fair there was a time whenthere was only 1 cd player in the house, 1 vhs player in the house, 1 dvd player in the house, 1 computer in the house,
but we bought and bought and that day has pass.

Any programmer with a great app should expect and be grateful that his app is on every machine in the house and that it was paid for in full and not pirated. this is the best advertisement and compliment he could have
and I guarantee he will be in buisness a long time. Not only that if his app is so good why not give a real moneyback guarantee. Throw away any EULA and let it be a home license.

I mean where would Apple or any other computer company be if we did not have more than 1 computer per house hold. If the hardware company folds then software is next.
Very good argument though

[daveg5]

Sorry about the "mole comment"
I guess I need to practice what I preach and keep it unpersonal as possible(unless attack of course}

[daveg5]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gigglebyte
[B]

. Well you are wrong in that because for every license that isn't paid for but is being used DOES take money away from that programer or company!

And this is where will totally disagree, its like night and day yes and no.

First off, for money to be taken away money must be given, still there?

I and people with a similar view as I will never repeat "never" pay for more than 1 copy of software for" home use on all of our systems" {no amount of security will stop that as it is meant for people who honestly think the EULA is the law}, unless we go insane or something.
So therefore since there is no way we will pay double for the exact same thing and no money given then logic concludes no money is lost.

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by ncbill
[B]...with EULAs is with the method of distribution (sticking the software in a retail packaged box) where the consumer cannot review the terms prior to sale.

you would probably appreciate this:
http://zork.net/refund/issuetwo.html

It is about people wanting a microsoft return day for everyone who did not agree with the EULA, and to try to get a refund directly from Microsoft.

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by daveg5

Now on the first point I disagree and here's why: That programmer needs to get paid for the great program just once by the home user, because the EULA that he is about to hide in the box along with the as is warranty (you open it you bought it, its defective but I,ll give you another one of the same thing} are an insult to any consumer.

What about people like ambrosiasw.com who make great games that you can download for free. They still have an EULA. They are certainally within their rights to only license one copy of it with the key they give you. So, in this case, they are not hiding their EULA, they even let you try out the software, download it for free. Are you saying that those programmers don't deserve your money if you like their product? After all, no one is forcing you to use it.

And just like other media cd,s dvds vhs etc I am "allowed and expected to use it on all compatable devices in my house" or why buy it. a cd for #1 cd player a dvd for #2 dvd player a OS for #3 computer.

Well, we discussed this before. With a dvd, vhs tape, or a cd, the content stays with the media. With software, you are transferring the content to your computer. When you take the media out, the content remains on that computer. When you then take that media and put it into another computer and install it, you are then copying the content to another device, in violation with the terms of use (which can be debated on its legality, but is a separate issue IMHO)

If you were to take your CD and make five copies of it, and play them simultaneously, maybe you would be violating copyright law, but I am not sure.
There is a difference though between the two, please explain to me why you disagree if you do, because I am curious at how you justify the similarity between the two, when I see only difference.

Any programmer with a great app should expect and be grateful that his app is on every machine in the house and that it was paid for in full and not pirated. this is the best advertisement and compliment he could have
and I guarantee he will be in buisness a long time. Not only that if his app is so good why not give a real moneyback guarantee.

Mercedes would be happy if everyone had one of their cars in their garage, but they would expect to be paid for every mercedes that you owned. In the same manner, a software engineer would want every copy of their software that you had installed, to be paid for, particularly for an Operating System, that runs whenever the computer is on.

So back to shareware, you do get to try before you buy. You dont even need to return it if you don't like it, because you don't have to pay for it until you have tried it out. So should they be treated differently? Would you pay for a copy of a program that you had running on all of your computers under this model, or do you still stand by with you feelings that you should be able to do whatever you want with the software (even if it does not come in a box).

Throw away any EULA and let it be a home license.

It is just a name, why wouldn't they be the same thing? An EULA could be written to allow for many different types of licenses.

I mean where would Apple or any other computer company be if we did not have more than 1 computer per house hold. If the hardware company folds then software is next.
Very good argument though
So, what is your point? Like the Mercedes analogy above. Where would car makers be, if every home only had one car? Well, as long as every car was paid for, and not stolen, they would be doing quite well. If people only paid for one of the cars, and had 4 stolen ones in their garage, they would be in trouble.

Software manufacturers must build their pricing structure for the software based on projected sales of the software. As the percentage of computers that are running copies of the software, for which the manufacturer has not received compensation, then the company will profit less, and will have to make up for the lost sales in some other way. As for the companies making profits, even with lost sales, good for them, but that still does not justify software piracy, IMHO. Maybe you feel differently. That's great. As I said before, I respect your right to own your beliefs, but that does not mean that I endorse them or agree with them.

[daveg5]

Originally posted by peterjhill

you would probably appreciate this:
http://zork.net/refund/issuetwo.html

It is about people wanting a microsoft return day for everyone who did not agree with the EULA, and to try to get a refund directly from Microsoft.


Dave g5: thats a cool thread it shows how silly EULA are.
Thanx
Even Fluffy is laughing!

[skunk]

Originally posted by peterjhill

What about people like ambrosiasw.com who make great games that you can download for free. They still have an EULA. They are certainally within their rights to only license one copy of it with the key they give you. So, in this case, they are not hiding their EULA, they even let you try out the software, download it for free. Are you saying that those programmers don't deserve your money if you like their product? After all, no one is forcing you to use it.

Apologies to Arn and all: I haven't worked out how to break a quote
Answer: No convincing argument that I can see against a User Licence here

Well, we discussed this before. With a dvd, vhs tape, or a cd, the content stays with the media. With software, you are transferring the content to your computer. When you take the media out, the content remains on that computer. When you then take that media and put it into another computer and install it, you are then copying the content to another device, in violation with the terms of use (which can be debated on its legality, but is a separate issue IMHO)

Answer: Not a terribly good analogy, really. You can copy the content of all of those media to your computer, and you don't have to download the content of a boot CD. A User Licence is perfectly feasible with all these media, with the ability to use the media in any machine you own.

If you were to take your CD and make five copies of it, and play them simultaneously, maybe you would be violating copyright law, but I am not sure.
There is a difference though between the two, please explain to me why you disagree if you do, because I am curious at how you justify the similarity between the two, when I see only difference.

Answer: You would not be violating copyright, although you might well be violating the peace of the neighbourhood! What difference do you see, exactly?

Mercedes would be happy if everyone had one of their cars in their garage, but they would expect to be paid for every mercedes that you owned. In the same manner, a software engineer would want every copy of their software that you had installed, to be paid for, particularly for an Operating System, that runs whenever the computer is on.

Answer: But a car is not a CD. And if everyone paid for one copy of all their software, CDs, DVDs, games, etc., nobody would be out of pocket. It's the pirates who are queering the pitch.

So back to shareware, you do get to try before you buy. You dont even need to return it if you don't like it, because you don't have to pay for it until you have tried it out. So should they be treated differently? Would you pay for a copy of a program that you had running on all of your computers under this model, or do you still stand by with you feelings that you should be able to do whatever you want with the software (even if it does not come in a box).

Answer: USER LICENCE.

It is just a name, why wouldn't they be the same thing? An EULA could be written to allow for many different types of licenses.

Answer: EULAs are written to gain maximum benefit for the licensor under whichever jurisdiction the software is sold. YEMV.

So, what is your point? Like the Mercedes analogy above. Where would car makers be, if every home only had one car? Well, as long as every car was paid for, and not stolen, they would be doing quite well. If people only paid for one of the cars, and had 4 stolen ones in their garage, they would be in trouble.

Answer: False analogy. Oranges and apples.

Software manufacturers must build their pricing structure for the software based on projected sales of the software. As the percentage of computers that are running copies of the software, for which the manufacturer has not received compensation, then the company will profit less, and will have to make up for the lost sales in some other way. As for the companies making profits, even with lost sales, good for them, but that still does not justify software piracy, IMHO. Maybe you feel differently. That's great. As I said before, I respect your right to own your beliefs, but that does not mean that I endorse them or agree with them.

We are NOT talking piracy. You are missing the point. One User Licence per User. No problem, no shafting, fair use. Why not?

[skunk]

How the hell DO you quote sections of a post? Help!:(

[Gigglebyte]

Skunk - to do a partial quote do a regular one and look at the tags that are placed at the begining and end of the quote and you will see what you need to do

[skunk]

Why, thanks, Big G :)

[Gigglebyte]

Peter - thank you for that post...you did it better than I would have and got the point across....I hope

Dave - don't want to burst your bubble again but the profit is not made on most of the hard ware...in general there is BARELY a double digit margin on that side of the house...money is made but not a lot...not like music CD's which cost apx $.50 to make (including the case and printed material) but they sell for $12-18 each.

Skunk - you say that you should be able to load the sw on any computer that you own...but where do you draw the line? a company OWNS the computers that their employees use so should they have to purchase copies of the sw for each machine? buy a corporate SITE LICENSE? or just buy one? All the Family Pack is a site license for your house...it is the same price for 2 as it is for 5 just as a corporate license can be an unlimited number of concurent users (but they pay for that too)

[skunk]

Businesses should buy as many licences as they have users of each application programme. They're making - or hoping to make - a profit themselves from the use of the programme, otherwise they wouldn't buy it. For the OS, if OS X Server is unlimited, why not OS X? It's part of the computer. Apple can generate OS sales with each new computer anyway (don't think they don't factor it into the price).

[skunk]

in the ".Mac Subscriptions Extended" thread, a VERY interesting development. See the last post on page 3 from Erik 1975.

[Gigglebyte]

Originally posted by skunk
Businesses should buy as many licences as they have users of each application programme. They're making - or hoping to make - a profit themselves from the use of the programme, otherwise they wouldn't buy it. For the OS, if OS X Server is unlimited, why not OS X? It's part of the computer. Apple can generate OS sales with each new computer anyway (don't think they don't factor it into the price).

ok you agree that businesses should buy as many licenses as they use because they make a profit from that application...well the company that made the sw they are using wants to make a profit too so does it matter if it is for a company using it for profit or an individual just using it?

As to why there is an unlimited version of the server...there are companies that need that but they pay $999 for that and to be honest I am not sure what the unlimited user license does for the server as I don't work with that product.

I am sure they factor the cost of the OS into the price of the computer but that is not really where the money is made...it is in the perferals, sw and add-on's. Now there was a line of thought (I think it was Dave) that there should be free upgrades for life....and I am sure that there could be some pricing structure to accomidate that but I think you would have a computer that cost $10-20k

[skunk]

Sure, the software is where they make tons of profit. But is it justifiable profit if they need to rely on unenforceable and one-sided contracts to extort the money? I don't think this changes anything. I'm sure they could work out a reasonable volume licensing deal, or make their money on the servicing contract, like they obviously aim to do with OS X Server. Home use is different in so many ways.

[skunk]

Who is running a single computer for life? Everyone buys a new machine every now and then, and guess what? It comes with a current OS. So you start over.

[Gigglebyte]

Originally posted by skunk
Who is running a single computer for life? Everyone buys a new machine every now and then, and guess what? It comes with a current OS. So you start over.

you are right...people DO buy a new computer now and again...but if you only relied on that kind of income then you would NOT see much in the way of development for the OS...unlesss you built the cost of the R&D into the computer. Now I dont' know how many engineers it took or how long it took them to get 10.2 online but lets just guess at some reasonable numbers. If your average engineer gets say $75k a year and you have say 1000 engineers working on the project the company is going to incur a cost of $75 million/year. Now did it take that many engineers being paid that much...I have no idea....but it gives you an idea on what it costs to develop software...and this money has to be paid out BEFORE the product even goes to market!

[dannsh]

I phoned Apple Customer Care today and had a very nice conversation wi th a young lady.

We talked about Apples history of OS Software updates and upgrades and the current issue of single user versus Family License. She said that Apple came up with the Family License at the request of some customers.

I suggested that Apple needs to find a more creative way to provide home customers a family license. It appears too much like a business license.

The family license could be more value added. Let's said we pay $200 to $300 to provide a site license for the family which would include unlimited customer support for all of the machines in the house. Or if all three machines are covered by Apple Care, then let the upgrade be free and run on all machines.

I pointed out, that based upon human behavior, the Famly Plan may not have the results thar Apple desires.

I suggested that Apple Marketing think outside of the box and not look like every other software vendor.

Anyway I put in my suggestions to Apple. The Rep. was clicking away on here keyboard and said she would pass on my suggestions.

Danny

Oh yes. I got the iMac notice today that my subscription will be until Sept. 2003.

[skunk]

One OS: $75,000,000
One LearJet: $90,000,000
Running costs: about the same.
Relative cost: PEANUTS.

And well done, Dannsh. I have had a go at them too. I hope everyone subscribing to these boards is also letting Apple know what they think.

[daveg5]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gigglebyte
[B]Peter - thank you for that post...you did it better than I would have and got the point across....I hope

Dave - don't want to burst your bubble again but the profit is not made on most of the hard ware...in general there is BARELY a double digit margin on that side of the house...money is made but not a lot...not like music CD's which cost apx $.50 to make (including the case and printed material) but they sell for $12-18 each.

Reply:Last time I checked Apple makes about 15-30+% on each hardware sell.
Resellers however barely make 5 unless there is an incentive going on at the time.
A software companies cd OSX to us, cost the same .50 box, agreement and all yet sells for $129 or $199 5 pak.
.mac is $99 and is no where as complicated as an OS to make. Yea I know they pay for the servers, upkeep, etc. Big deal its the price of doing business and I wager the reason a few people switched.
Both retailer and Apple make double digit on that one.
I wonder what the EULA and warranty for .mac says.

I do however agree with you that Apple, Dell or whotever should not put all there hopes in hardware alone and trust me Apple never has.

How did we get to cars? at least ther enot rentals anymore.
you play a copy of your cd in the car while your wive plays the same copy at home there is no need to call on the ceephone to make sure you are not playing at the same time.

As far as shareware goes the same argument applies. If you like it and use it buy it install on which ever machines you deem necessary. if not delete it.
That reminds me I need to buy or delete. let me throw out a plug for {OSX-windowshade-double click and it rolls up just like 9. there's an application switcher program like 9 forgot the name and in OS9 there a-dock-sort of a psuedo dock.
Thanks for reminding me as we should really payfor shareware we use.
Not demos or freeware though.

Even with shareware there should be some type of warranty
Say you by it with the promise that it works with your printer are soundcard that you did not buy yet, you buy it and it does not work what is your recourse.
the same dreaded we can only exchange it for the same item mess.
Oh Well.

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by Gigglebyte
As to why there is an unlimited version of the server...there are companies that need that but they pay $999 for that and to be honest I am not sure what the unlimited user license does for the server as I don't work with that product.


The 10 user vs unlimited is the number of concurrent users accessing the server. In Windows land this is called a client access license, and they have similar options. For a company, not only do they need to pay for windows licenses, but they must also pay for how many can access the server at one time. It ends up making the whole thing pretty fair.

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by daveg5

.mac is $99 and is no where as complicated as an OS to make. Yea I know they pay for the servers, upkeep, etc. Big deal its the price of doing business and I wager the reason a few people switched.

The price of doing business. Well, investors in Apple do not want them to run too many loss leaders. Apple is not a charity. It is not www.apple.ORG. Servers are expensive, even more expensive is the redundant power with a backup generator. Then multiple redundant network connections, probably gigabit ethernet to a major network service provider. Then the round the clock monitoring. .mac is an expensive service to run. I would rather pay a small fee to make sure the service stays around. Remember that they could have just dumped it altogether. Didn't Gateway have an ISP service, that went away, and I think that the members of that, who were paying for the service have more legal cred than someone who was getting a free service.

How did we get to cars? at least ther enot rentals anymore.

You are not too keen on analogies are you? w is to x as y is to z
Both items are things that have alot of development money put into them prior to sale. Both are made by for-profit corporations. Cars and computers are both things that a household might have more than one of. Both are things that should be paid for. If you can't see the relation, then our disagreement is most likely too wide for too much further discussion.

I still think that the agreement that one makes when renting a car is similar to the agreement one makes when licensing software. Both are an agreement/contract with a company, made often by and individual without a lawyer being present. Violation from either could give reason for the company to bring action against the indvidual in a court of law. You are looking to far into the comparison, when you say, well you're buying one, and renting the other. No ****. Guess what, one is a car, and one is an ethereal right to use a specific arrangement of bits. I am not comparing the objects. I am not comparing the ownership types. I am comparing the agreements. This was a counter arguement against the enforcability of an EULA.

Even with shareware there should be some type of warranty
Say you by it with the promise that it works with your printer are soundcard that you did not buy yet, you buy it and it does not work what is your recourse.
the same dreaded we can only exchange it for the same item mess.
Oh Well.
Consumer protection is an interesting thing. If you really had problems with a piece of software, you could bring the publisher (individual person or company, like Ambrosia) to small claims court and sue them for your money back. I bet you that most shareware publishers would refund your money, rather than have you start bad mouthing them. I am personally very careful with shareware that I pay for. I have paid for quite a bit, in the same way I bought my MacRumors.com mug, because I like to support things that I use and enjoy. I want the software engineers to keep up with bug fixes and possible features. That is also why I preordered my 10.2. Do you know what is funny, I am already running 10.2 legally, since my company is a premier developer member. I am thinking of keeping the box sealed in the shrinkwrap just for fun. I could have cancelled my order, as I had not gotten in on the developer release until after I made the purchase, but I decided that I would feel better with the box.

I am foolish with my money? Probably, you should see how many dvds I have. So what, is what I think. My money flow helps keep the economy going. That is what a recession really is, after all, people hoarding their money, afraid to spend it.

Well enough of that.

[tjwett]

this is so silly. maybe you are all better people than me but if i came home with 10.2 in a box and had a few Macs in my house you can bet i'd be installing it all over the place. conveinient how they wait for a few thousand single licences to sell before this magically appears. Steve Jobs can take the family pack and install it in his @ss.

[Pepzhez]

I am fully on the anti-EULA team, no problem there!

First, let us clarify: I think we need to look at the origin of these ridiculous EULAs, even if it is rather obvious to most of us on this thread. The very reason the computer/software industry was able to shoehorn these alleged "contracts" into their products in the first place was and is due to the obscurantism surrounding the nature of the industry. Let's face it, neither the legal profession or the government had the slightest understanding of how computers and apps worked, or what they were even for. In short, anything computer-related was perceived as mysterious and intimidating gobbledygook, so all the more better to let the industry write its own rules, i.e. - let the experts get on with it.

Let us also note that at the time - roughly the entire 1980s and early 90s - computers were a negligible consumer market, a fringe industry at best (province of the geeks and obsessive hobbyists who likewise had specialized knowledge). The market and potential of the entire concept was a big unknown. (IBM, for example, unwittingly laid the foundation for Microsoft's world domination simply because they believed hardware, not software, was where the future lay.) The real money was in selling hardware and applications to business, and it is obvious that the consumer EULAs we still have today - as the model was cast back in the halcyon days when no one in the legal/civil realm knew a computer from a toaster - are badly adapted/reworded (if even that) revamps of business licences, which in themselves may be questionable to begin with.

It should also be noted that the time frame in which this all took place - the 1980's, mainly - is concurrent with Reagan/Bush administration policies on business deregulation and decided lack of corporate oversight.

That, at least, is a brief primer, however simplified, on how they got away with it all to begin with.

[Gigglebyte]

Originally posted by daveg5
Reply:Last time I checked Apple makes about 15-30+% on each hardware sell.
Resellers however barely make 5 unless there is an incentive going on at the time.

resellers don't make a lot on the products but Apple's margin isn't huge...there is a larger margin on the PowerMacs but when it comes to portable products there is not a large one.


A software companies cd OSX to us, cost the same .50 box, agreement and all yet sells for $129 or $199 5 pak.
.mac is $99 and is no where as complicated as an OS to make. Yea I know they pay for the servers, upkeep, etc. Big deal its the price of doing business and I wager the reason a few people switched.
Both retailer and Apple make double digit on that one.

sort of blew that one on the cost becase I was just looking at the mfg cost of the product and not what goes into the creation of the product. where .mac is concerned there IS the cost of the servers, bandwidth, maintance and all the behind the scenes stuff and if it is a choice between paying for the service or not having it which would you prefer?

[Gigglebyte]

Originally posted by Pepzhez

It should also be noted that the time frame in which this all took place - the 1980's, mainly - is concurrent with Reagan/Bush administration policies on business deregulation and decided lack of corporate oversight.


I would rather have no corporate oversite than the gov't giving secrets to China like Slick Willie but this isn't the right forum for that is it :D but seriously....if you look at the home market for software and a single license per CPU you have Mr. Bill Gates to thank for that when he told IBM and any mfg that was making an IBM clone that if they wanted to put his OS on ANY of the computers they produced they would have to put it on ALL of them so they wouldn't short Microsoft on their licensing fees. Now that was eventualy deemed unfair business practices and they can't do that any more but the precident had been set.

[MacArtist]

Originally posted by skunk
Businesses should buy as many licences as they have users of each application programme. They're making - or hoping to make - a profit themselves from the use of the programme, otherwise they wouldn't buy it. For the OS, if OS X Server is unlimited, why not OS X? It's part of the computer. Apple can generate OS sales with each new computer anyway (don't think they don't factor it into the price).

The 10user/unlimited user for OS X Server is not the same as putting OS X on as many computers you own. OS X Server can only be used on one computer just like OS X. The number of users represents the number of client machines accessing the server at one time. ie if you have:
1 server & 1 copy of OS X Server 10 users
you can have up to:
10 Macs & 10 copies of OS X connected to it

but if you have:
11+ Macs & 11+ copies of OS X connected to it
you need to get OS X Server unlimited users

[daveg5]

Originally posted by tjwett
this is so silly. maybe you are all better people than me but if i came home with 10.2 in a box and had a few Macs in my house you can bet i'd be installing it all over the place. conveinient how they wait for a few thousand single licences to sell before this magically appears. Steve Jobs can take the family pack and install it in his @ss.

I'm with you tj
But he might have a hard time getting off those tight jeans

[daveg5]

Originally posted by Gigglebyte


resellers don't make a lot on the products but Apple's margin isn't huge...there is a larger margin on the PowerMacs but when it comes to portable products there is not a large one.



sort of blew that one on the cost becase I was just looking at the mfg cost of the product and not what goes into the creation of the product. where .mac is concerned there IS the cost of the servers, bandwidth, maintance and all the behind the scenes stuff and if it is a choice between paying for the service or not having it which would you prefer?

My point with .net oops .mac is that when it was itools and free to all mac users I had a very effective argument to give to people why mac is better by simply saying look at this great product and you get to use it for free if you need more storage or features you can easily pay for those sepretly.
I have no problem with Apple charging for the service and they could have done so gradually.
19.99-29.99 etc.
but when you jump from 0-$100 overnight thats way off base.
Its as if they are trying to recoup all of itools losses overnight.

I mean Acura makes great cars. but they lose money on the nsx
what being handbuilt and all thier lucky to sell 1000 ayear
But it is exactly this loss leader that gets people in the dealership and they may leave with atl, cl, or mini me RSX.
thats why I said it was the cost of doing business
You sometimes lose money on something to make money on something else

[daveg5]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peterjhill
[B]


Mercedes would be happy if everyone had one of their cars in their garage, but they would expect to be paid for every mercedes that you owned. In the same manner, a software engineer would want every copy of their software that you had installed, to be paid for, particularly for an Operating System, that runs whenever the computer is on.



So, what is your point? Like the Mercedes analogy above. Where would car makers be, if every home only had one car? Well, as long as every car was paid for, and not stolen, they would be doing quite well. If people only paid for one of the cars, and had 4 stolen ones in their garage, they would be in trouble.

Peter I just dont get the car analogy
I gather it is because I see the car as hardware.
And the gas, battery, sparkplugs, cds, etc etc that you can put in it and any of your other cars as the software that you bought and have the right to put in any of your vehicles.
Can you explain to us how a car in your eyes is like software
I can only see it as hardware i.e. computer that you put other thingsi.e. software in

[skunk]

Thanks for the "primer", Pepzhez. It's very useful to have the origins of this bandit-style "business" model set out so concisely. Like the US patenting regime, this is another area where regulations are being made for and interpreted by corporations and their lawyers to everyone else's great detriment. We are being fleeced. A different model is needed, re-establishing fair use and common sense as the criteria.

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by MacArtist


The 10user/unlimited user for OS X Server is not the same as putting OS X on as many computers you own. OS X Server can only be used on one computer just like OS X. The number of users represents the number of client machines accessing the server at one time. ie if you have:
1 server & 1 copy of OS X Server 10 users
you can have up to:
10 Macs & 10 copies of OS X connected to it

but if you have:
11+ Macs & 11+ copies of OS X connected to it
you need to get OS X Server unlimited users

Yeah, just what I said like ten posts ago. Except that you can have 50 macs connect to a server running the 10 user license. The only thing is that only 10 clients will be able to access the server at any one time, further connection attempts will result in server busy messages.

50 clients is probably too many for the people to put up with, but I think that 20 people would be fine. Most server accesses are fairly infrequent. It is like using a hub, it is not ideal, but if you cant afford a switch, it will do.

[daveg5]

Originally posted by Gigglebyte


I would rather have no corporate oversite than the gov't giving secrets to China like Slick Willie but this isn't the right forum for that is it :D but seriously....if you look at the home market for software and a single license per CPU you have Mr. Bill Gates to thank for that when he told IBM and any mfg that was making an IBM clone that if they wanted to put his OS on ANY of the computers they produced they would have to put it on ALL of them so they wouldn't short Microsoft on their licensing fees. Now that was eventualy deemed unfair business practices and they can't do that any more but the precident had been set.

You,re kidding right "no coporate oversite" the so called "secrets" given to China were freely available on the net, Clinton just duped them into to buying something that was freely availble elsewhere and made money for our country in the process.
I mean if you gonna blame an administration be fare and blame them all.
Nixon: "I did not do anything wrong"
Carter: We will not go (olympics)
Reagan "I do not recall "
Bush: who dosn't know what a price scanner is "read my lips" Bush and the pretty Secretary
Clinton :"It depends on what "IS" is. {Clinton is a lawyer should I say more} Clinton and the Intern
Bush #2: "Social Security is not a Federal Program"{bush was an alcholic and drunk driver need I say more.

"If you gonna trash one trash all."

They all get money from the big business guys and if they get elected its payback time.
They all have cheated on thier wives, only some have got caught.
They all lie when it suits them
But no oversite would mean Apple would have been long gone and microsoft would have reigned supreme.
Having just the Gov in control is bad, agreed.
Having just business in control is bad
either way the consumer is screwed
We need to have all 3 otherwise its a dictatorship cause they are already in it together.
consumers unite

[skunk]

It's not going to happen without one company taking the lead, and it's going to need a philosopher, not an accountant, in charge.

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by daveg5

Peter I just dont get the car analogy
I gather it is because I see the car as hardware.
And the gas, battery, sparkplugs, cds, etc etc that you can put in it and any of your other cars as the software that you bought and have the right to put in any of your vehicles.
Can you explain to us how a car in your eyes is like software
I can only see it as hardware i.e. computer that you put other thingsi.e. software in

Hello... McFly...

Analogy one.
The piece of paper whose words that you agree to when you rent a car is similar to the, used to be piece of paper, but often now, text during install, whose words you agree to when you install software.

This is also similar to the piece of paper, whose words you agree to when you open a bank account. They are all full of statements that you are agreeing to. They are not laws. They are contract terms. If you violate them, you may not be breaking the law, but if the software company decided to, or the rental car company, or the bank, who cares what, if you agree to something, and violate the agreement, you may face possible civil legal action by that company. It is in that court of law, that the individual terms that you have violated will be judged for or against their legality. I am sure that if you did buy one or zero copies of 10.2, and installed it on two machines, and apple did decide to take you to court (which they probably wouldn't, just for the costs to do so) They would say, he agreed to only install this software on one machine, and you would say, I didn't agree to that, and a trial would continue, and in the end, a jury of your peers would decide your fate.

I am sure if you were brought to trial, that there would be a bunch of lawyers offering to represent you for free. I don't know what the result is.

It is not a car that I am comparing in this analogy, it is a contract between you and a company.

Analogy two:
You have purchased one or zero copies of 10.2 media, and have installed it on two machines. Assuming that you did not buy the family license, but instead the single user license.

You know have two manifestations of apples intellectual property at your house. So, you have paid for one product designed and manufacturered by a group of people, but you will have stolen the second copy. Now if you go buy a car, or a blender, or a dvd, whatever, and then you "steal" another copy of the same item, you would have paid for one product, and stolen the second copy.

Now there are differences, but I say they don't matter. You don't need to go to a software store and steal a second box in order to be able to carry out the theft. You can do that with the first box that you have bought. But in the end, you will end up with a product stolen from a group of people, in each case.

I am curious, daveg5, how old are you? I can understand completely Skunk's disagreement with EULA's and questioning their legality. That is an arguement that is completely different from my arguement. I can not imagine you to be much older than 25, on the high end. I am just curious.

If you don't understand the analogy, well, then I will have to give up trying to explain them, and have to declare it hopeless.

[Pants]

peter:-

Mercedes would be happy if everyone had one of their cars in their garage, but they would expect to be paid for every mercedes that you owned. In the same manner, a software engineer would want every copy of their software that you had installed, to be paid for, particularly for an Operating System, that runs whenever the computer is on.


i wish we COULD compare computers to cars, but this analogy would make the computer industry quake in fear! :) you buy a mercedes, and it runs - it needs no os upgrade, and comes with a bunch of warranties. If something is found to be at seriously at fault later in the cars lifetime, the car is called back and fixed for free - you dont even need to be the person that originally bought the car new.

Can you imagine this happening with a computer? In your analogy of cars and computers (especially an apple - THE only reason we buy them is for the inherent, perceived, quality), you buy your merc, have a software glitch meaning it would start on tuesdays or refuses to go to the supermarket, and it would be up to *you* to purchase a fix. In years gone by this would be illegal, and yet its common practice in software....why? because we, the consumer, have become accustomed to it, and now spout the indsutry line...no wonder Apple are not asking us to think different any more - we can be fleeced too!!

An os is *intrinsically* different to an application - without an os, its just a box.


cant believe this thread is still going..
:)

[daveg5]

Well said Pants:
I will exspand on that one:
If cars were computers {are had the Licensing sytem}
You would buy a car and only after buying it would you get to see the agreement. the warranty would be as is.

You would have to buy additional licensing for each passenger or a family pak
and upgrade that for the full price every year.

And if you "sneak an unauthorized person in you would be in violation of the EULA and those called a pirate or thief and the reason for lost sales and a bad economy.
I think the big 3 would love it.
no warranty
no safety features or recalls
no standards
and the auto indutry makes all the rule

[daveg5]

Originally posted by Gigglebyte


I would rather have no corporate oversite than the gov't giving secrets to China like Slick Willie but this isn't the right forum for that is it :D but seriously....if you look at the home market for software and a single license per CPU you have Mr. Bill Gates to thank for that when he told IBM and any mfg that was making an IBM clone that if they wanted to put his OS on ANY of the computers they produced they would have to put it on ALL of them so they wouldn't short Microsoft on their licensing fees. Now that was eventualy deemed unfair business practices and they can't do that any more but the precident had been set.

You,re kidding right "no coporate oversite" the so called "secrets" given to China were freely available on the net, Clinton just duped them into to buying something that was freely availble elsewhere and made money for our country in the process.
I mean if you gonna blame an administration be fare and blame them all.
Nixon: "I did not do anything wrong"
Carter: We will not go (olympics)
Reagan "I do not recall "
Bush: who dosn't know what a price scanner is "read my lips" Bush and the pretty Secretary
Clinton :"It depends on what "IS" is. {Clinton is a lawyer should I say more} Clinton and the Intern
Bush #2: "Social Security is not a Federal Program"{bush was an alcholic and drunk driver need I say more.

"If you gonna trash one trash all."

They all get money from the big business guys and if they get elected its payback time.
They all have cheated on thier wives, only some have got caught.
They all lie when it suits them
But no oversite would mean Apple would have been long gone and microsoft would have reigned supreme.
Having just the Gov in control is bad, agreed.
Having just business in control is bad
either way the consumer is screwed
We need to have all 3 otherwise its a dictatorship cause they are already in it together.
consumers unite

[BobVB]

Originally posted by peterjhill
[B]
You know have two manifestations of apples intellectual property at your house. So, you have paid for one product designed and manufacturered by a group of people, but you will have stolen the second copy. Now if you go buy a car, or a blender, or a dvd, whatever, and then you "steal" another copy of the same item, you would have paid for one product, and stolen the second copy./B]

No, since 'stealing' requires the taking of something without right or permission. In this scenerio they have permission for a copy - the second is a 'copyright infringement', not a theft.

But Apple has itself gone to the darkside in recently - they've lied ('All low power MP3 players have a high pitched whine'), they've mislead ('1-3 days shipping' for items that don't ship for weeks), and they've strongarmed ('We aren't offering any sort of email only account for .mac even though the customer basis wants it, even though we encouraged people to use their @mac.com account as their primary account. No, .mac is a 'take it or leave it' bloatware package). So they've lost the right to demand a normative or 'moral' reason to comply with their license - you can't effectively ask people to adhere to a higher moral standard than you do yourself.

We are now in another paradigm - the "It's only illegal if you get caught" one. So their only effective solution will be adding a 'one copy one computer' licensing scheme or just live with the fact that many people are just as ethical as they are and get over it.

[ncbill]

As much as we are debating the theory here, it's even worse in terms of practical enforcement.

There is really no way anyone can examine what software a home user has unless that person invites them into their home and shows them what's on the computer(s).

BTW, your bank account analogy doesn't work because you get to see the terms of the agreement before you sign on the dotted line.

A better analogy for your assertion would be you contracting for and submitting payment for a red T-bird at the local dealership and then the dealer delivering a black Camaro.

Originally posted by peterjhill


I am sure that if you did buy one or zero copies of 10.2, and installed it on two machines, and apple did decide to take you to court (which they probably wouldn't, just for the costs to do so) They would say, he agreed to only install this software on one machine, and you would say, I didn't agree to that, and a trial would continue, and in the end, a jury of your peers would decide your fate.

[skunk]

If you are connected to the Net, of course they can find out what's on your computer!! "They" might well have done so already...

And a better analogy would be ordering a red T-Bird and receiving a sealed package containing a red T-Bird with two wheels, a 1999 V8 and half the controls not wired up...:)

[Gigglebyte]

Originally posted by ncbill
A better analogy for your assertion would be you contracting for and submitting payment for a red T-bird at the local dealership and then the dealer delivering a black Camaro.


off topic here but this happened to my parents...they had purchased a 1997 Dodge Ram V10 (paid cash) but the local dealer didn't have the truck so they made a trade with a dealer in Portland but when the drivers when to pick up the truck it had been sold to somebody else! Now mind you the truck was already paid for and my parents were not too happy about that one but you are right that it would be impractical to enforce any kind of licensing on a home basis and it really is a moot point..I am arguing this point more as a matter of ethics than anything.....DAVE :p

[ncbill]

If you want to argue ethics you are better sticking with copyright issues, as some of the "licensing" terms contained in EULAs are laughable.

For example, at least on the PC game side, it is common for EULAs to prohibit even making a backup copy of the game CD, even if you need the CD in the drive to play the game (I don't know about you, but I prefer to leave the original CD for a $50 game in the jewel case).

This is in direct conflict with copyright law, which allows you to make archival copies of software.

It also can in no way be construed to be an ethical violation, as you still have the original CD you bought on the shelf.

The reason we do this is in reality if the original CD is damaged there is no way you will be getting a replacement for less than the full retail price.

Originally posted by Gigglebyte


but you are right that it would be impractical to enforce any kind of licensing on a home basis and it really is a moot point..I am arguing this point more as a matter of ethics than anything.....DAVE :p

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by ncbill

For example, at least on the PC game side, it is common for EULAs to prohibit even making a backup copy of the game CD, even if you need the CD in the drive to play the game (I don't know about you, but I prefer to leave the original CD for a $50 game in the jewel case).


Do you know what I love about mac gaming vs pc, is that all the games work fine using a disk image of the cd. I play war3 all the time without the cd anywhere near my computer. I agree that it is a silly thing to say. They are just hoping that you will believe it.

[skunk]

It seems smoother, too. And if you have two or more Macs networked, you can use disk images to play a multiplayer game with one CD.....:D :D

[daveg5]

Disk images are great I use to hate hunting down a cd just to make a drumbeat in Rebirth Drum software.
Yea this is a great thread, had a lot of fun wuth both sides
as we put forth just about every concieveable situation.
Any one get 10.2 yet.
How about it was anyone so full of guilt and ethics thatthey purchased a family pac.
I am waiting about a week or two, to read comments of users with my ancient biege g3.
And then I will buy the "$129 Family pac for all my pc's"

[skunk]

Mine's up and running (on 3 Macs - my cat has obviously had a few tips from Fluffy, but I'm damned if I know how he got the CD into the Cube) and it works sweetly. Very much quicker, especially on startup. Of course, the minute they bring out a family pack in Europe I'll be queuing up to give them ALL my money :D :D

[skunk]

Just checked the AppleStore UK: Jaguar Family Pack is GBP159.00, vs. Single User GBP98.99 (weird price!) Checked the German AppleStore too: it's there, but on neither site does it say anything about 5 users?!? And all the German stuff on 10.2 is in English!? Seems very confused...:( :( The same applies to the French site: no number of licences specified, and all the spiel is in English. The French will LOVE that!!:rolleyes:

[seppoj]

The Family Pack in Germany costs 254 Euro. Have a look at:

http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/germanstore.woa/913/wo/yVxek09uo8uAZ0nRO6/1.3.0.3.34.8.3.1.13.0

[skunk]

But as far as I am aware, the law in Germany is different: I believe that you are allowed by law to install software on any of your home computers for the price of one licence. Which makes the family pack a bit redundant.

Now I'm in a bit of a quandary: I've just got a copy of Jaguar with my new iBook. Should I go out and buy a five-pack to put on my Cube and iMac? What would you do? :(

Answers on a postcard, please :)

[King Cobra]

If you are looking to legaly install OS X on more than one computer, get the family pack for $199. If you are looking to install the one-user OS X license on multiple computers:
(A) Legally, you will have to buy a second box, bringing the cost up to about $260, or
(B) Illegally, you could install that copy of OS X on multiple computers for $129.

[skunk]

Illegally, I can install it for nothing, as it came with the iBook.

The point is, there should be a way I can legalise myself without feeling I'm being a fool...:confused:

[cgmpowers]

If this is directed to me, I'm legal. I have not only one single license but I have the family license for 5 computers as well...so I'm more than covered..

Christopher

Originally posted by skunk
But as far as I am aware, the law in Germany is different: I believe that you are allowed by law to install software on any of your home computers for the price of one licence. Which makes the family pack a bit redundant.

Now I'm in a bit of a quandary: I've just got a copy of Jaguar with my new iBook. Should I go out and buy a five-pack to put on my Cube and iMac? What would you do? :(

Answers on a postcard, please :)

[skunk]

That sounds extravagantly honest. Me, I'm reluctant to splash out another GBP159.00 when I've just spent twelve hundred on the iBook. There really should be a deal where you can get additional licences for the same household for the equivalent of $20 a throw on top of your original copy, or pay $70 equivalent to upgrade to 5-user. They will HAVE to do something like this for all those who bought a single-user 10.2 before the 5-pack was announced. It's great that Apple are being responsive - if that's what it is - but if the result is to penalise early adopters AGAIN, it just won't DO! :mad: