Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
3 Mac's - Family Pack of Leopard required?
- Thread starter Sean Dempsey
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Who obviously make the UK laws. They are another entity who try to blur the distinction to benefit themselves.
Look anyway this thread is turning into something pointless, and all i was doing is arguing semantics. Please re-read my bits if you did not get that. I was not condoning anything which from your replies you'd think I was.
The topic question has been answered many times, and was yes, and I think we have unfortunatly staryed to far from it, myself probably confusing the matter begin pedantic. So I'll try be quiet for a bit (being pedantic can be addictive though you know).
One final thought though is it not more more interesting that the fact is I will be buying OS X 10.5 for my mac and think it it reasonably priced for a OS. However even disregarding the ridiculous infated price od it, I certainly will not be upgrading (if you can call it that) any of my PC's to Vista. After all isn't the most important thing about an OS that it improves your computing experience? And after using Vista on people's machines all it does it make things worse.
I expect to be paid for my work.
You expect to get paid for yours - unless you're doing voluntary work.
...
Why shouldn't Apple get paid for theirs?
If you wrote some commercial software you'd expect to be paid for each copy used. You would not be happy if I paid for one licence and gave a copy to all my friends/family.
You may say "It's ok because Apple made $20b". Does that mean it's ok to steal as long as the person/company you steal from is richer than you? If you agree that it is, please remember that the vast majority of people in the world have less than you. Would you like them to form an orderly queue outside your door or should they just break it down in the rush for your stuff. Well, you're richer than them, right?
If you want more than one licence, pay for it. If you don't want to pay for your OS, install Linux.
You expect to get paid for yours - unless you're doing voluntary work.
...
Why shouldn't Apple get paid for theirs?
If you wrote some commercial software you'd expect to be paid for each copy used. You would not be happy if I paid for one licence and gave a copy to all my friends/family.
You may say "It's ok because Apple made $20b". Does that mean it's ok to steal as long as the person/company you steal from is richer than you? If you agree that it is, please remember that the vast majority of people in the world have less than you. Would you like them to form an orderly queue outside your door or should they just break it down in the rush for your stuff. Well, you're richer than them, right?
If you want more than one licence, pay for it. If you don't want to pay for your OS, install Linux.
That's because the Single license gets the educational discount but the family pack does not.
Well think about it, you get money off because you are a student, not your family.
For 5 licences the family pack is really cheap, how much would it cost of 5 Windows Vista licences?
It would be impossible for Apple to make a case against this. Apple would have to prove that your son "Johnny" doesn't live with you. It's your word against Apples.
High School kids do it all the time for sports, they move a set or two of clothes into a relatives home and claim they live there, prove that they don't. If they have one piece of mail going to the home then it makes it almost impossible, unless Apple hires an investigator to sit and watch the home, you think apple will do this for one lousy license? Not in a million years.
I'd say it boils down to a matter of personal choice.
I won't lie, the second Leopard goes gold master, I'm downloading it. No doubt in my mind.
However, the second it arrives on the Apple store online, I will purchase it.
I have 2 Macs in my house that are able to run Leopard. I will purchase a copy of Leopard and install it on the two computers. No family pack.
The way I see it, Apple makes Mac OS so that it can only be run on a Mac. That alone means that I paid more for the hardware. It's like the cost of the OS upgrade is built in to the cost of the hardware itself.
Just as Microsoft charges ~$500 for Vista Ultimate premium or whatever, Apple still indirectly charges for Mac OS. "But Mike, the OS that comes on the computer is what you're paying for, NOT the future upgrades!!11!".
Me paying about $99 for Leopard (student price) is good enough. Apple makes a killing on their hardware, and me installing it on 2 machines instead of just 1 isn't going to hurt. And yes, if everyone did it, Apple would still be in big business.
Am I wrong for downloading Leopard release candidate and purchasing it when it comes out? I don't think so. In fact, I'd even say I would be part of the beta testing team, along with anyone else running 10.5.0, regardless of it coming to you in boxed or downloaded form, so long as you have (or will have) a license.
My $0.02
I won't lie, the second Leopard goes gold master, I'm downloading it. No doubt in my mind.
However, the second it arrives on the Apple store online, I will purchase it.
I have 2 Macs in my house that are able to run Leopard. I will purchase a copy of Leopard and install it on the two computers. No family pack.
The way I see it, Apple makes Mac OS so that it can only be run on a Mac. That alone means that I paid more for the hardware. It's like the cost of the OS upgrade is built in to the cost of the hardware itself.
Just as Microsoft charges ~$500 for Vista Ultimate premium or whatever, Apple still indirectly charges for Mac OS. "But Mike, the OS that comes on the computer is what you're paying for, NOT the future upgrades!!11!".
Me paying about $99 for Leopard (student price) is good enough. Apple makes a killing on their hardware, and me installing it on 2 machines instead of just 1 isn't going to hurt. And yes, if everyone did it, Apple would still be in big business.
Am I wrong for downloading Leopard release candidate and purchasing it when it comes out? I don't think so. In fact, I'd even say I would be part of the beta testing team, along with anyone else running 10.5.0, regardless of it coming to you in boxed or downloaded form, so long as you have (or will have) a license.
My $0.02
Actually... you can put it on as many computer as you want legally, but you can only run one copy at a time. So, put in on as many computers as you wish, but only have one computer running it at a time. ...for it to be legal.
When I bought a copy of iWork '08, I asked one of the salespeople if I could put it on two of my machines. The above is what they told me.
I'm curious to see if Apple do what Adobe started doing and have every end-user agreement include a workstation and a laptop. That was pretty rad of Adobe (considering their stance on piracy, they're some of the toughest in the business in regards to pursuing people for breaking user agreements and pirating software), as I would have had to spend a ton of extra money to be able to work remotely.
Well said.
I think Apple provides good value and I will continue to pay for what I use.
LMO
Or you could pop the bananas in your magic banana cloning machine and replace the orignals where you found them.
I'm not condoning piracy but I don't think you can compare theft of tangible items to EULA violation by using a single copy of OS X on multiple machines.
Apple's got us all drinking its Kool-Aid. Listen to our discussion, Apple. We're contemplating buying a single license or a family pack of licenses. Moral gray-area aside, Apple is gaining users either way. Take into account that the discs are physically the same - it doesn't even say family-pack on the disc itself (sleeve is different) - and any family packs sold are just incremental revenue for them. If a good number of us choose to be completely legal, that's great for Apple. If not, Apple still gets your business.
And I'm happy it's that way, because, it's already a whole integrity-level above what Microsoft has to deal with. None of this "Vista's not worth crap so I'm going to try to rip off Microsoft." They give us a good product, trust us to buy it legally, and if we step into the moral-gray, it's still good revenue for them either way. It's a win-win and a vendor-customer relationship I like.
And I'm happy it's that way, because, it's already a whole integrity-level above what Microsoft has to deal with. None of this "Vista's not worth crap so I'm going to try to rip off Microsoft." They give us a good product, trust us to buy it legally, and if we step into the moral-gray, it's still good revenue for them either way. It's a win-win and a vendor-customer relationship I like.
The answer to this question is :
"Stop trying to take advantage of Apple because Apple gives us the priviledge. Just buy the Family Pack"
"Stop trying to take advantage of Apple because Apple gives us the priviledge. Just buy the Family Pack"
I have 10,713 songs on my computer. All but fewer than 50 songs are on the original CDs and stored in my garage. All of the remaining songs (less than 50) were purchased from Amazon.com for $0.99 each.
Stealing is stealing is stealing - - no matter how you look at it - - no matter how you attempt to justify it - - stealing is stealing is stealing!
you paid a lot of money to have a Mac as it is. buying a single use version of leopard for three computers doesn't sound like cheating to me. i paid 1200 for my Mac, i feel as though i've made a nice investment into Mac.
Irrelevant. Just because you don't think it's fair doesn't excuse you from violating the licensing scheme. And that has nothing to do with how much your computer cost you. I don't get free appliances automatically just for buying an expensive house.