Apple Announces Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther)

[Mr. G4]

I ordered my 17" Alu last Saturday also.
I knew about the rumor of Oct 24.
I though that Apple gave a 30 day grace period.
I guessed I'm wrong.

BTW, I still haven't recieve the machine yet. 🙁

Originally posted by bankshot
I knew it! 😡

Somehow I just knew that since we had to have our new PowerBooks this week at work, that Apple would wait us out by just a few days and then announce Panther with no free update for us! The machines haven't even arrived yet (were supposed to be here yesterday, what's up with that?), but since they were ordered last Friday, I'm sure they do not qualify. YOU SCREWED US OVER, APPLE!!!




Just kidding. 😀

It's true about the new PowerBooks, but I was fully aware of what would likely happen when we finally had to order last week. It was really too bad, but I don't fault Apple. Anyone who ordered before today expecting a free upgrade was, quite frankly, a bit foolish. Glad it worked out for you G5 people... 🙂

While $258 (2 machines) is small peanuts for a large company to pay, I may have trouble convincing them to buy it. Just getting some PowerBooks approved in a workplace where Mac and Apple are almost dirty words (we removed those two words from all the purchase paperwork just to be sure -- just PowerBook G4, Service Protection Plan, Keyboard, etc... heh) was a major accomplishment. To turn around so soon and tell them, by the way, we need this other software we didn't tell you about last week may piss some people off. I don't know... If it were free, that'd make it a whole lot easier! 😛

That said, I already pre-ordered for home, $69 educational discount, baby! Woohoo! 😎

 

[tny]

Originally posted by pjhornak
right, you and the riaa call it piracy the rest of the free world calls it fair use... the way you capitialized THE to emphasize your point was brilliant BTW

1. Apple is not, so far as I know, a member of the RIAA.

2. What you're talking about isn't fair use at all. If the OS ran off uncopyable fixed media, rather than the harddrive, you'd have an argument. If the same person listening to the same song at the same time from two different sources were any different to listening to the song from one source, you might have a useful analogy between the Apple license and the RIAA's anti-"piracy" crusade.

IANAL

 

[Stella]

A lot of new software will not run on any thing below 10.3, just like a lot of software requires 10.2

However, progression is progression.

Originally posted by ryan
10.1 was a free upgrade. Nobody forces you to upgrade. Would you rather Apple stop making their software better?

 

[chazmox]

Re: Re: yeah but,

Originally posted by tny
IANAL

The reason the license is only good for one computer is because it's, well, a license. It's not a criminal law issue, it is a contract issue: you are in effect buying a contract to use the OS on the computer, and that contract limits you to using it on one. Copyright law theoretically would allow you to delete Panther from one computer and install it on another, then delete it from that and install it on the first, etc., which would be the equivalent of playing a music CD on different CD players. But having the software running simultaneously on both isn't fair use, and so is not protected by law, and it is also a violation of the the license. If you don't like it, then take OS X off and put Darwin on. You won't get most of the benefits, and won't be able to run much of the software, but at least you won't feel cheated having to pay a licensing fee for each computer.

I believe you are absolutely correct. I just find it egregious that one person has too buy multiple licenses for thier own personal use.

The Boland model mentioned above makes more "common" sense to me as a use/license model.

 

[pyewacket]

My Alu book hasn't even arrived yet and Apple is already trying to get more money out of me. I'm very disappointed in Apple. This is no way to treat your customers.

 

[Stella]

Just consider it a yearly "Apple Tax"

🙂

Originally posted by pyewacket
My Alu book hasn't even arrived yet and Apple is already trying to get more money out of me. I'm very disappointed in Apple. This is no way to treat your customers.

 

[radhak]

So Can I use the Coupons?

I bought my iMac on Sep 26th from MacZone, and received 3 Green coupons marked 'OS X Upgrade'. (Don't remember if it mentions the version number too). So can I use one of these coupons to get Panther? Heck, I am willing to throw in all three coupons if that helps me save $129 😉

 

[matthew24]

Hope I will be lucky

Ordered a BTO 15" Powerbook by phone last monday, so I hope I will be lucky, otherwise Apple will be lucky, ain't too bad either.🙄

 

[BOOMBA]

Originally posted by iwantanewmac
I bought a new mac 8 days ago and now I have to pay again $149 for an upgrade...bah..................

Too bad, but no one should feel sorry for you or anyone else here.

I think no one that posts to this forum was taken unawares. we all follow the rumor sites, and we all knew this was coming within the month. Apple always charges $129.oo for updates.

I think we should stop crying that we have to pay for it, and start getting excited about the features/speed improvements it promises to deliver.

 

[robbieduncan]

Re: So Can I use the Coupons?

Originally posted by radhak
I bought my iMac on Sep 26th from MacZone, and received 3 Green coupons marked 'OS X Upgrade'. (Don't remember if it mentions the version number too). So can I use one of these coupons to get Panther? Heck, I am willing to throw in all three coupons if that helps me save $129 😉

No!

Only G5 Owners or people who buy a Mac from today on get Panther for shipping and handling. It's that simple. The 3 coupons do not entitle you to Panther (or any other non-free upgrade) for free. I believe that in the past they enabled you to get CDs of things like 10.x.y if you bought 10.x

 

[QCassidy352]

Originally posted by iwantanewmac
I bought a new mac 8 days ago and now I have to pay again $149 for an upgrade...bah..................

yeah... I bought one 6 days ago, and I have to pay for a full upgrade... this is total bull****.

and btw, I resent being treated like a second class citizen just because I didn't buy a G5. What, a powerbook (or imac or ibook for that matter) doesn't make me a valuable enough customer?? 😡

Too bad, but no one should feel sorry for you or anyone else here.

I think no one that posts to this forum was taken unawares. we all follow the rumor sites, and we all knew this was coming within the month. Apple always charges $129.oo for updates.

I think we should stop crying that we have to pay for it, and start getting excited about the features/speed improvements it promises to deliver.

I disagree that we weren't taken unawares. Rumors sites were predicting that upgrades would be given to buyers within a month of the annoucement. I certainly did not expect to have to pay full price when I bought a computer *one week* before "the announcement." It will certainly make me think twice about buying a mac anytime near an OS update in the future.

 

[1adonis1]

Re: Re: yeah but,

Nah i was trying to be funny, i only own 1 mac, and will buy the Panther after about 2 weeks after it's released. Come christmas, i will purchase a new PowerBook, and it will come loaded with Panter🙂

Originally posted by tny
IANAL

The reason the license is only good for one computer is because it's, well, a license. It's not a criminal law issue, it is a contract issue: you are in effect buying a contract to use the OS on the computer, and that contract limits you to using it on one. Copyright law theoretically would allow you to delete Panther from one computer and install it on another, then delete it from that and install it on the first, etc., which would be the equivalent of playing a music CD on different CD players. But having the software running simultaneously on both isn't fair use, and so is not protected by law, and it is also a violation of the the license. If you don't like it, then take OS X off and put Darwin on. You won't get most of the benefits, and won't be able to run much of the software, but at least you won't feel cheated having to pay a licensing fee for each computer.

 

[robbieduncan]

Re: Why oh why

Originally posted by plutnicki
Why can't they just make one copy cost $129, and then add like $20 per licence? 5 licenses for $200 is a bargain, if you have 5 people.

Now, here's a question, if I buy the 5 licence family pack, and I get 5 people together to buy it, that's like $40 per person. Great right? But only one copy of the media. Can I then legally make 5 copies of the media (one per license, right?) and give one copy to each licensee?

That seems more reasonable. I've got two Macs, my father in law has 1, and a good friend I just convinced to switch has one. Legally, could I sell the 5th license to someone with a copied set of disks (for $40, not for $129...).

What rules go along with these multi-user packs?

Thanks...

...Jim

The rules were on the Apple website somewhere when this was available for Jaguar. It is for home use only. You all have to live in the same building. It does not cover college dorms or similar situations. So no you cannot get 4 friends together to do this.

 

[cr2sh]

I doubt you can do this, but is it possible to get a student discount on the family pack? Say my Dad was a teacher could he buy it for the rest of the family at a discount rate? I can't find it in the apple store.. anyone? thanks!

 

[robbieduncan]

Re: Re: Why oh why

Originally posted by robbieduncan
The rules were on the Apple website somewhere when this was available for Jaguar. It is for home use only. You all have to live in the same building. It does not cover college dorms or similar situations. So no you cannot get 4 friends together to do this.

In fact here is the exact text:


* 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.

Taken from the AppleStore page for the Family Pack (not posting link as it will time out).

 

[tny]

Originally posted by jxyama
if you make a copy from an original CD and use it for your own personal use, it's perfectly legal regardless of the origin of the CD. (yes, if you steal a CD from a store and make a copy of it, you are a thief but not a "pirate." 😀 )

IANAL

The analogy is to photocopying a book. It is legal for a scholar to photocopy a book in a library so he can bring the copy home to consult for his own personal use without preventing others from using the library copy. In this instance, the copying is just an extension of borrowing. However, the scholar can't sell the photocopy to someone else, and the copy machine's owners can't charge more than the normal photocopying price. The particular branch of fair use jxyama is talking about is an extension of this situation; the law doesn't to my knowledge distinguish between the purposes of the fair use. But it is possible that the exact situation described by jxyama would not be considered fair use by a court.

There are other kinds of fair use as well, for instance, quotation in a review, library borrowing, etc., all of which are adaptable to the medium, the content, and the situation. The law doesn't spell out exactly what fair use is; that's something that depends upon precedent and common law, and interpretation of the law's intent. That's part of why limits are so easily placed on fair use: because one can argue over what fair use means. But there are certain things which it is clear are not matters of fair use: swapping files over p2p, for instance, clearly isn't fair use (I suspect the MPAA may be losing more from targeting file sharing than they are gaining in their mythical "lost revenues" recovered from suing over file sharing; the fact is that most adults who want an album buy the CD, and adult file sharers rarely trust someone else to rip music they want to listen to long-term; rather they will download one or two songs from a bad album, download songs that aren't easily available, like concert bootlegs, or download for sampling purposes before buying the CD; file sharers who don't buy CDs tend to be kids who wouldn't buy the CD anyway because they don't have the spare cash.), nor is using the same operating system media to load an OS on two computers (which will likely be used simultaneously at times) without a license that explicitly allows that.

These weren't big problems in the days of analog media, because analog copies degrade so quickly. It's only with digital media and digital copies (in which the second generation - not the second encoding, but the second copying of the file - is theory as good as the first generation) that the issue has exploded. But the fact is that someone buying a CD does get a better copy than one would get from p2p, so the model should still work.

 

[cr2sh]

Originally posted by tny
The analogy is to photocopying a book.

It's almost worth $129 to me for you guys to stop debating this nonsense. Let's just rejoice in warm, purple, panther goodness.

 

[pjhornak]

Originally posted by tny
1. Apple is not, so far as I know, a member of the RIAA.

2. What you're talking about isn't fair use at all. If the OS ran off uncopyable fixed media, rather than the harddrive, you'd have an argument. If the same person listening to the same song at the same time from two different sources were any different to listening to the song from one source, you might have a useful analogy between the Apple license and the RIAA's anti-"piracy" crusade. As it is, you're just blowing smoke.

IANAL

Apple??? please read the quote again....where do you see Apple..... I'll be blowing smoke in Costa Rica for the next two weeks....I'll make sure I pay a fee to the guy who shaped my board when I let someone else ride a wave with it...brah you've been blowing some smoke... and from what I can see on the board sharing it with others

 

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by cr2sh
It's almost worth $129 to me for you guys to stop debating this nonsense. Let's just rejoice in warm, purple, panther goodness.

Or $199 for the One Big Happy Family Pack...

 

[pjhornak]

Originally posted by cr2sh
It's almost worth $129 to me for you guys to stop debating this nonsense. Let's just rejoice in warm, purple, panther goodness.

I'm down for that ... Aloha...

 

[OSXpert]

G5 buyer

I got my G5 on Sept 2nd, which is all well and good, but im wondering if i miss out on the festivities at the apple store because i have to get the upgrade online? can i bring my coupons or serial number to the apple store on the 24th or am i resigned to simply wait for it to ship?

 

[Teronke]

Charging for full price OS 10.3 for recent G4 purchasers is ridiculous.

It's absolutely unfair considering that Apple kept completely quiet as to the timing for updated iMacs and Powerbooks just so they could sell a few more of the old units ...

yet when they wanted publicity they announced 10.3 months before it was ready and now expect people who purchased G4s after the launch in August to fork out full price

To be fair the special upgrade price should be extended to all purchasers who purchased after 10.3 was announced in August.

This is the sort of thing really rubs customers up the wrong way. Doubly so since this coming so soon after the 10.2.8 fiasco.

Not happy Apple!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Frisco]

Originally posted by Lord Bodak
Last I checked, you can only "install" a set of sheets on one bed at a time. 😀

I have 2 small beds in my house. What I do is buy King Size sheets then cut them in half. It fits my 2 small beds perfectly!

Just kidding--that was stupid wasn't it? I am such a geek-sorry.

 

[pjhornak]

Originally posted by tny
1. Apple is not, so far as I know, a member of the RIAA.

2. What you're talking about isn't fair use at all. If the OS ran off uncopyable fixed media, rather than the harddrive, you'd have an argument. If the same person listening to the same song at the same time from two different sources were any different to listening to the song from one source, you might have a useful analogy between the Apple license and the RIAA's anti-"piracy" crusade.

IANAL

uncopyable?!?!?...please define and show example... good luck... while you are at it please show us the loch ness monster...

 

[nalfein]

Originally posted by ppk
I ordered a new PB from the on line store on September 16 (got it Spetember 23) and followed the link from the up to date page that allowed me to log in and get the update for $19.95 + shipping and tax ($25.39 total). Anyone who bought around that time may want to try this before shelling out big bucks.

Same thing for me ...

order sept. 18 and receive sept 29 and my serial work great ... i try to buy it. will see what's happen