App Store Delivery Lets Apple Slash Lion Pricing

[Just "Vinnie"]

Apple's smart enough not to alienate their business and volume purchasers (and who of those are going to want to update on day 1...?), so I'd say it's about 95% sure there'll be a DVD or USB solution.

I don't understand everyone's confusion about all of this. Apple is weening the user base from physical media. It's really that simple.

That doesn't mean it's right or I agree with it.

And... this is very telling about the plans for the Optical Drive in the next MBP release.

I wonder how much Micro$oft are going to charge for Windows 8?
And how many different versions?

Now that you can get Lion for £20, why should MS charge £200 for the 'Home' version..!

Because Windows is on 9 out of 10 computers?

 

[KnightWRX]

This is how it works: (Also a fact)

The manufacturer puts out a product and says you can only buy it this way
You like it and figure out how to buy it the way they offer it
You don't like it or the way they sell it, don't buy it.

In your hurry to berrate me, did you miss this part of my post ?

So either I'll cave and register for the Mac App Store (if I can even find it on my 10.6.6 Mac, I think I deleted it out of boredom) and buy it or I'll just wait for a DVD option, for which I'd pay extra and bother to convert to USB myself to install on my driveless MBA.

Cutting down options cuts down adoption. That's a fact.

Seriously ? I think everything you stated is something I realise tyvm. The fact remains : The more you limit options the more you hurt adoption. That's a fact, undeniable. With more options, you reach more people. I would gladly pay 49.99$ for a DVD. I'd gladly pay for 39.99$ for a .ISO or .DMG download outside the MAS as I have been installing my OSes over the Internet for the last 12 years or so (Apple isn't quite being innovative here).

I'm just very hesitant to use the Mac App Store for this. I know I don't want to have anything to do with it for applications.

 

[notjustjay]

I wonder how this will change things for what other OS companies will charge for a major release (namely Microsoft), and how they will choose to deploy their software.
It seems the ecosystem surrounding Apple is what enables them to really innovate and push the envelope.
I couldn't imagine paying $400 for Windows 8 Ultimate Premium Black Edition.

The ecosystem surrounding Apple is also a moneymaker, which is what enables them to lower the price of the OS update -- which spurs increased adoption, and as a poster pointed out earlier in the thread, encourages more people to have active iTunes accounts with credit cards linked to them.

The reason Apple can charge so much less than Microsoft is because Apple makes money off you everywhere you turn. They make money off the digital download. Presumably you're installing Lion on a Mac, which Apple made money off (unless it's a hackintosh). Once installed, you're likely to buy music, videos, and apps for your Mac, iPhone, or iPad -- and Apple takes a cut of that again. As more and more apps migrate to the App Store, Apple's cut will only keep increasing. Imagine their cut on a full retail copy of Adobe CS5.5!

 

[KnightWRX]

It doesn't make it illegitmate either.

If it's not legit, it's illegitimate. I don't do illegitimate.

The terms of the Mac App Store allow you to purchase an install apps on all of your Macs, provided you use the same Apple ID. There's no provision that says that you have to stay logged in to the Mac App Store to continue using that app.

That's the point. My GF's Mac is not my Mac. I don't use, and I certainly won't log into the MAS on it with my CC info. Not that I don't trust her, that's just not how we do stuff together.

 

[ftaok]

If it's not legit, it's illegitimate. I don't do illegitimate.

Err, no. In this particular case, the terms that Apple puts forth for the MAS can allow for scenarios to be either legit or not legit. That's the point.

If I were to login to my friend's Mac and install Lion, that would not be legit. If I were to login to my Mac (that my daughter also uses), that would be legit.

Apple's terms allow for legitimate uses for owners that have multiple Apple IDs for MAS purchases.

That's the point. My GF's Mac is not my Mac. I don't use, and I certainly won't log into the MAS on it with my CC info. Not that I don't trust her, that's just not how we do stuff together.

Then you'll have to buy Lion twice. I know it sucks that the terms are different than previous updates, but that's how it goes.

 

[electrolux76]

The post states:
"(app store only)has brought consternation to some, particularly those in rural areas without reliable high-speed Internet and folks in enterprise and educational IT departments.

I'm sorry but anyone in enterprise or educational IT departments that are still deploying OS X by walking around with install discs have no business being called IT professionals.

 

[KnightWRX]

Err, no. In this particular case, the terms that Apple puts forth for the MAS can allow for scenarios to be either legit or not legit. That's the point.

Yes, and again : In my scenario, it's not legit. Why are you now in the theoritical world of fantasy scenarios ? I was discussing my particular case. It's not legit, it's unlicensed and thus illegitimate.

What are you arguing exactly ?

Then you'll have to buy Lion twice. I know it sucks that the terms are different than previous updates, but that's how it goes.

Yes, I know, thank you. I said so myself. I also said I'll then just wait and see if there are other options before I cave.

Again, what's your point ? In my case, it both costs more to go the legal route (60$ instead of 50$) and I'm stuck doing the download twice in order to comply to the EULA's of both Lion and the Mac App Store.

I'm sorry but anyone in enterprise or educational IT departments that are still deploying OS X by walking around with install discs have no business being called IT professionals.

And you propose they run around logging into the App Store and download lion ? You're suggesting they break the terms of the license by installing 1 copy on multiple computers when that is not allowed for commercial use ? You're suggesting they forgo their NetInstall infrastructure in favor of the MAS, completely outside the corporate LAN ?

I think you shouldn't tell people that they have no place in IT if you don't even understand the problems faced with the current, only, installation method officially announced.

 

[farleysmaster]

Yes, and again : In my scenario, it's not legit. Why are you now in the theoritical world of fantasy scenarios ? I was discussing my particular case. It's not legit, it's unlicensed and thus illegitimate.

What are you arguing exactly ?



Yes, I know, thank you. I said so myself. I also said I'll then just wait and see if there are other options before I cave.

Again, what's your point ? In my case, it both costs more to go the legal route (60$ instead of 50$) and I'm stuck doing the download twice in order to comply to the EULA's of both Lion and the Mac App Store.



And you propose they run around logging into the App Store and download lion ? You're suggesting they break the terms of the license by installing 1 copy on multiple computers when that is not allowed for commercial use ? You're suggesting they forgo their NetInstall infrastructure in favor of the MAS, completely outside the corporate LAN ?

I think you shouldn't tell people that they have no place in IT if you don't even understand the problems faced with the current, only, installation method officially announced.

On the other hand, the EULA's not yet available.

 

[ftaok]

Yes, and again : In my scenario, it's not legit. Why are you now in the theoritical world of fantasy scenarios ? I was discussing my particular case. It's not legit, it's unlicensed and thus illegitimate.

What are you arguing exactly ?

I'll refer you to post #139 where I answered a scenario that you put out there where "Others might just be peeved because there is no more 49$ family pack and Lion is going to cost them extra because all the Macs in the household don't share accounts and CCs."

Then you came back and posted your particular scenario where my answer wouldn't work. At the time, you were discussing a general case, not your particular situation. Please don't change the scenario then accuse me of arguing off topic.

Bottom line, the new terms will work for some, but won't work for others.

 

[KnightWRX]

On the other hand, the EULA's not yet available.

The Mac App Store's is. And my scenario runs afoul of that EULA unless I pay twice and download twice.

I'll refer you to post #139 where I answered a scenario that you put out there where "Others might just be peeved because there is no more 49$ family pack and Lion is going to cost them extra because all the Macs in the household don't share accounts and CCs."

Yes, others who share my scenario. Again, your point ? Do I really have to point out every minute detail to prevent conversations from going off on wild tangents ? Geez.

 

[farleysmaster]

On the other hand, the EULA's not yet available.

On the other other hand, I just watched part of the WWDC keynote speech where blokey said "Lion will be available ONLY in the mac app store" which is quite a decisive way of saying it if it only applies to consumers...

 

[ftaok]

Yes, others who share my scenario. Again, your point ? Do I really have to point out every minute detail to prevent conversations from going off on wild tangents ? Geez.

Yes, if you want the discussion to stay within a narrow topic band, then you need to be a little more specific. How hard would it have been to say "others who share my scenario" rather than the generic "others"?

Incidentally, you kept the discussion/arguement going by suggesting that it would be illegitimate to install Lion on Macs within the same household that do not share AppleIDs, which is not true. I essentially provided a scenario that seems to adhere to the terms of the MAS, but it won't work in your scenario since you don't own or use GFs Mac. You also seem to be unwilling to share an AppleID with your GF, which is totally fine.

Anyways, I think this particular discussion has been beaten to death.

 

[farleysmaster]

The Mac App Store's is. And my scenario runs afoul of that EULA unless I pay twice and download twice.

Do you have an admin account on your GF's computer? That may fall into "on any Apple-branded products running Mac OS X (“Mac Computer”) that you own or control".

It's still possible that as an installer rather than app, Lion may come under a different EULA than the general MAS one, and WWDC man was just being a bit er... non-specific.

 

[KnightWRX]

Do you have an admin account on your GF's computer? That may fall into "on any Apple-branded products running Mac OS X (“Mac Computer”) that you own or control".

Why would I have an admin account on my GF's Mac ? It's hers. If you to even start making changes and different scenarios up, you're probably not being 100% legit. I am 100% legit.

Again, I'll probably just cave if there's really no other option, but I'd rather have a more convenient option, which the DVD was.

Yes, if you want the discussion to stay within a narrow topic band, then you need to be a little more specific. How hard would it have been to say "others who share my scenario" rather than the generic "others"?

Implicit. Obviously, "others" who don't share my scenario aren't peeved, so they aren't the others I'm talking about. Reading comprehension, elementary school level.

 

[farleysmaster]

Why would I have an admin account on my GF's Mac ? It's hers. If you to even start making changes and different scenarios up, you're probably not being 100% legit. I am 100% legit.

Again, I'll probably just cave if there's really no other option, but I'd rather have a more convenient option, which the DVD was.

You wouldn't. But it may be a loophole, and loopholes are legit until they're closed.

 

[KnightWRX]

You wouldn't. But it may be a loophole, and loopholes are legit until they're closed.

Loopholes are what those of lesser morality use to justify their actions even though they know they are running afoul of rules in place. Letter of the law vs spirit of the law.

 

[Scrumper]

If we want to share common apps (let's say Angry Birds), then I can login to their Mac under my ID to download/install, then logout. Of course automatic updates would no longer be automatic.

That's a good point that I haven't seen made before. All very well to log in with the same account on your family's different Macs to get the app but you would then have to do that again every time there was an update.

As far as the Lion download goes, yes I'd certainly prefer a physical disc, simply because it gives me more options but I'm hoping that if it really is download only (forever) that there will at least be a facility to burn the .dmg or .pkg to an external removable medium. In my limited experience with the Mac App Store so far, apps have been magically installed as soon as they have downloaded without my ever having seen the install file itself; still less knowing where it resides on my system...if indeed it actually still does.

 

[maccompaq]

To back this up, all anyone had to do was read the Mac APP store terms and conditions at the bottom of the page, it says you can download it as many times as you like for personal use...

Things happen. Your hard drive dies thus your computer no longer works, so you cannot download Lion again.

 

[KnightWRX]

In my limited experience with the Mac App Store so far, apps have been magically installed as soon as they have downloaded without my ever having seen the install file itself; still less knowing where it resides on my system...if indeed it actually still does.

There is no install file. One of the prerequisite to even be approved for Mac App Store inclusion is that your app is simply a self-contained bundle that can be moved to /Applications as the only installation procedure (like all those apps that you simply drag to /Applications).

The file itself resides in /Applications. That's what you download and that's where it got stored.

 

[farleysmaster]

Loopholes are what those of lesser morality use to justify their actions even though they know they are running afoul of rules in place. Letter of the law vs spirit of the law.

There's a difference between Civil and Criminal though. If Apple want to specifically exclude a behaviour it's much easier for them to change their EULA than it is to change, say, criminal, or tax law. Still it's a point of opinion.

It's hard to feel you're acting immorally when I could have 40 computers and let my girlfriend use 39 of them, and as long I was in charge of them, I could install Lion on them for 50p each, and you'd need to spend $60 for two. It's not got a lot to do with morals does it? It's pretty arbitrary, and most likely not spelled out in a way that's helpful to you because your case is a very rare one.

 

[farleysmaster]

There is no install file. One of the prerequisite to even be approved for Mac App Store inclusion is that your app is simply a self-contained bundle that can be moved to /Applications as the only installation procedure (like all those apps that you simply drag to /Applications).

The file itself resides in /Applications. That's what you download and that's where it got stored.

But there is patently an install file for Lion. It's a special case.

 

[Scrumper]

But there is patently an install file for Lion. It's a special case.

I certainly hope there will be!

 

[electrolux76]

But there is patently an install file for Lion. It's a special case.

I believe it's downloaded to:
Users/username/Library/Application Support/AppStore

 

[KnightWRX]

But there is patently an install file for Lion. It's a special case.

I certainly hope there will be!

The install file is an "App bundle" that resides in /Applications. That is the self-contained application bundle.

The app you're sold is not Lion the OS, it's Lion the installer. You simply run it as you would any other app.

 

[DaveDaveDave]

The idea that savings from physical distribution factored in at all is laughable.
....
Snow Leopard was already being sold at a great loss - There's no way $30 a pop comes close to recovering the development cost. They just don't care, because OSX is developed solely to drive hardware sales - not be a viable business on its own.

Snow Leopard and Lion's potential profits are completely different stories. I'll argue that Lion's development will not be a loss on it's own revenue basis, and back it up with numbers:

It's hard to guess how many upgrades of Snow Leopard sold and how many Lion will sell, but this chart should help:

http://www.ifoapplestore.com/stores/charts_graphs.html

It looks to me like somewhere in the ballpark of 5 to 6 million CPUs were sold between the Intel Mac debut (late 2005) and the release of Snow Leopard (late 2009). So let's guestimate it at somewhere between 140 and 180 million in revenue for the Snow Leopard upgrade, and not even include the revenue of new users drawn in to the hardware/software combination by features like Exchange integration.

I wouldn't say it's "laughable", but it is chicken scratch compared to the nearly 40 billion Apple did in 2009.

Lion is a little different - the number of Upgradable Intel CPUs sold to date is much bigger. Almost all CPUs sold since 2007 and many earlier ones are potential sales. CPU sales from 2007 are somewhere around 9 million, resulting in a minimum 270 million in potential upgrade revenue.

With 2 years of development since the Snow Leopard release, if you payed all the engineers 1 million dollars per year each, you could hire 135 engineers. Obviously, that's a wee bit high in salary and a few too many cooks, IMO. Any way you slice it, there's profit.

What's really interesting is when you compare the ratio of profit to employee between Microsoft and Apple: Last I checked, Apple's ratio was double that of Microsofts.

Dave