Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yes it is. I will not sign in to her computer. It is not mine, I will not touch it. For the time between the sign in, authorize, download, the computer will be able to use my account unless I start messing with it.

It's bad enough I have to sign in the MAS on mine alone, something I never planned on doing in the first place, I will not start having to learn about different settings.

Again, drop it, it is how it is in my situation. Keep arguing about it if you want, it doesn't make me wrong. Again, I will either live with it or tone down my moral compass and cheat Apple. I alone will make this decision, but that won't change that for my situation, they have now broken a perfectly working solution that was the family pack.

Who cares what you do. Quit "whining" about it.:(
 
Yes it is. I will not sign in to her computer. It is not mine, I will not touch it. For the time between the sign in, authorize, download, the computer will be able to use my account unless I start messing with it.

It's bad enough I have to sign in the MAS on mine alone, something I never planned on doing in the first place, I will not start having to learn about different settings.

Again, drop it, it is how it is in my situation. Keep arguing about it if you want, it doesn't make me wrong. Again, I will either live with it or tone down my moral compass and cheat Apple. I alone will make this decision, but that won't change that for my situation, they have now broken a perfectly working solution that was the family pack.

Trying to be a glass-half-full guy, I truly believe that have fixed what was undoubtedly a much-abused unenforced solution that was the "Family Pack."

The prior definition of "Family" in the fine print of the licensing agreement was "a person or persons who share the same housing unit such as a home, apartment, mobile home, or condominium, including students who are primary residents of that household but reside at a separate on-campus location. This license does not extend to business or commercial users."

It was necessarily broad because it would have taken pages of legalese to define all other contingencies of what constituted a "Family" as defined by the "Family Pack." Easier to just to make it essentially "any 5 people who live under one roof" than to get into how related people needed to be, if they had to be married, if civil unions count, roommates, etc. I think the name of the product suggests who Apple was really targeting, but the fine print demonstrated the challenge of defining that audience. And of course without any restrictions there's little doubt the licensing agreement was widely abused and disregarded (though not by you, KWRX, the way it was written).

Now there is one simple way to define and regulate "Family" in the year 2011: A group of up to 5 people who are willing to share an iTunes account and a credit card with each other. Unfortunately, as you say, this excludes you and "it is how it is in my situation." Looks like going to an Apple Store may be a viable option for you and the GF.
 
That is not a documented way by Apple and thus is not an approved way. (...) That doesn't make them ok morally or legally.
I understand it is your own situation, but what's all that fuss about?
I don't see how paying for both licenses, yet using one installer isn't moral. Can you explain that?
About being illegal/piracy/whatever other word you used, no it is not. It is pretty much a grey area. It might not be approved, but Apple won't send SWAT.
 
I just realized... For Leopard users, must they pay for the update to Snow Leopard, followed by the update for Lion? That seems a bit absurd to me, and I wonder if Apple has thought of an alternative option for those customers. I know my parents are negligent with their software updates, and likely are still on 10.5.
Yup. Thankfully it's only $30 USD per upgrade, but from Leopard you have to go to Snow Leopard to get to Lion.
The Mac Apple Store was not available until sometime in SL, and Lion is supposed to be available only through the Mac Apple Store.
 
I understand it is your own situation, but what's all that fuss about?

I don't know, ask all the posters that are trying hard to persuade me that the facts aren't what I say they are, and failing miserably. They are the ones making a big fuss over my simple situation.

You just joined in with them btw.

I don't see how paying for both licenses, yet using one installer isn't moral. Can you explain that?

It isn't moral if you find that breaking copyright law is immoral. That again is left as an exercise to each individual as morality and legality are not intertwined. For my part, as a software developer, I find respecting copyright law to be important.

About being illegal/piracy/whatever other word you used, no it is not. It is pretty much a grey area. It might not be approved, but Apple won't send SWAT.

Nope, it's not a grey area. It is illegal. That Apple will not press charges or file a lawsuit does not make it legal. It simply means that Apple is not willing to bear the costs of litigating (either criminally or civil) for that kind of smallish action.
 
Nope, it's not a grey area. It is illegal. That Apple will not press charges or file a lawsuit does not make it legal. It simply means that Apple is not willing to bear the costs of litigating (either criminally or civil) for that kind of smallish action.

I say BULL! It is not illegal to buy two copies of Lion but download once and copy it over for installation on the second machine.

Continue to be the self elected Canadian ISP martyr if you wish, but you are making much ado over nothing.
 

http://www.cultofmac.com/dedicated-...n-some-apple-stores-report/105113#more-105113

"we’ve heard rumblings that some stores will be receiving maxed out Mac Pro towers to be used as Lion distribution caching centers. Some believe that these stations would allow customers to purchase Lion (3.5GB) from the Mac App store and download it directly from the store server in minutes. This would be a huge help to customers who do not have access to a broadband Internet connection or users who want to walk through the install process with an Apple employee during a personal training session."

If this is true then who has two thumbs and is never buying Snow Leopard, THIS GUY.
 
They are the ones making a big fuss over my simple situation.
You just joined in with them btw.
Hehe. No, it is you who is making a fuss, especially with one installer not being moral.

It isn't moral if you find that breaking copyright law is immoral.
What copyright law are you breaking? You pay the two licences, just use one installer. Whatever you owed is paid.

Nope, it's not a grey area. It is illegal. That Apple will not press charges or file a lawsuit does not make it legal.
That is not what I meant. That Apple doesn't approve this specific way of installing doesn't mean it is illegal. So it means it is unapproved, not illegal. Hence the grey area.
 
I'll have to download twice for the 2 Macs in my household. No going around it, we don't share the same iTunes account so we can't share the installer. I'll also happen to have to pay twice, 60$, so this is going to cost me 10$ more than the Family Pack cost for Snow Leopard and I'll get 3 less licenses.

So this is an issue in certain scenarios. That's what Porco is pointing out : Lack of options is bad and doesn't make for a smooth experience for everyone. More options means more people will have a smooth experience getting this thing installed, which would help adoption.

Don't be fooled : The reason Lion is MAS exclusive is to force the MAS into relevance.

No, you only have to download once and pay once. The installer itself can be easily burned to a DVD or copied to a network share.
 
I don't know, ask all the posters that are trying hard to persuade me that the facts aren't what I say they are, and failing miserably. They are the ones making a big fuss over my simple situation.

You just joined in with them btw.



It isn't moral if you find that breaking copyright law is immoral. That again is left as an exercise to each individual as morality and legality are not intertwined. For my part, as a software developer, I find respecting copyright law to be important.





Nope, it's not a grey area. It is illegal. That Apple will not press charges or file a lawsuit does not make it legal. It simply means that Apple is not willing to bear the costs of litigating (either criminally or civil) for that kind of smallish action.

So the question is; are you a bit inebriated? Apple, MS, Adobe etc. really could care less how you install their software as long as you buy a license. I have a habit of saving .dmg's to an external HDD so I can re install at will. When I change HDD on my laptop do you think I re-download everything? No I go to my .dmg store and re-install stuff thats why licenses are transportable. Get down off the moral horse already.
 
I don't think you're quite understanding what we're talking here. I'll leave it at that.

Actually I think he does and it's the other conversation that is nonsensical. Why do some of you think how Apple distributes store images has anything to do with the data centres and the infrastructure that are in place to support the app stores? The mind boggles. :ek:
 
Where did I say I wanted worse service ? We have crap service to begin with, I want better. IE : Cheaper, higher caps, higher bandwidth. What we pay here for 30 mbps with 150 GB monthly cap is ridiculous when you look at other countries. For a first world nation with great infrastructure, the oligopoly of telecoms here sure likes to keep the leash tight and expensive and the CRTC is too daft to do something about it.

When I say don't discuss it, it's simple : You don't understand Canadian telecoms politics nor do you seem to have the slightest clue how it operates and works here.



Who said I hate digital downloads ? All my OS installs have been done over the Internet since the 90s (either directly over HTTP/FTP or by downloading an ISO of the OS), ever since I switched to Linux as my operating system. Apple is late to the game as far as OS installs over the Internet goes. Welcome to 1995 is what I say.

Heck, I have a well furnished Steam account for games.

It's the MAS and it's licensing scheme that I dislike. If Apple offered a Family Pack license purchase outside the MAS and a download for an ISO file, that would be the best option.



I'm not throwing any fuzz. I was answering a post. It's the people who keep replying to me offering options of piracy that are throwing a fuzz. Like you just did. ;)

Again guys it's very simple : The facts are the facts. Live with them. No need to reply to me to tell me how many options I have. The legitimate option is plainly : 2 copies, 2 downloads. End of story. Drop it and I will drop it. Keep replying, and I'll need to keep correcting you with the facts.

P.S you couldn't download a digital installer in 95 with linux either..you could get the ISO but that was the extent of it.
 
I say BULL! It is not illegal to buy two copies of Lion but download once and copy it over for installation on the second machine.

Say bull all you want, but the fact is, COPYright is the Right to decide how your work is copied. Downloading is making a copy from Apple's server to your computer. Hence Apple gets to decide.

They have not granted you permission to do as you say. It's not grey. The fact they won't litigate does not make it legal, as you have no right to decide for Apple how their work is to be distributed/copied.

Again, I'm not the one making a fuss, the people who keep replying to me are.


P.S you couldn't download a digital installer in 95 with linux either..you could get the ISO but that was the extent of it.

I bet to differ. I installed RedHat over FTP using only a boot floppy. All 400 MB of it.


Actually I think he does and it's the other conversation that is nonsensical. Why do some of you think how Apple distributes store images has anything to do with the data centres and the infrastructure that are in place to support the app stores? The mind boggles. :ek:

You think Apple's big data center only serves one purpose ? I have news for you... Our own data centers house both our customer facing applications and our internal systems. That's just how datacenters are.
 
Where did I say I wanted worse service ? We have crap service to begin with, I want better. IE : Cheaper, higher caps, higher bandwidth. What we pay here for 30 mbps with 150 GB monthly cap is ridiculous when you look at other countries. For a first world nation with great infrastructure, the oligopoly of telecoms here sure likes to keep the leash tight and expensive and the CRTC is too daft to do something about it.

When I say don't discuss it, it's simple : You don't understand Canadian telecoms politics nor do you seem to have the slightest clue how it operates and works here.

While I cannot speak for all of Canada, this is surely true within Toronto. All ISPs that aren't distributed over cable use Bell's lines, and as a result are subject to Bell's arbitrary throttling. Thus, there is a universal cap within Toronto on line speed. Furthermore, each ISP reserves the right (and takes advantage of that right) to throttle more, and to set their own caps. There is not an uncapped, unlimited, and high value ISP within Toronto.

Who said I hate digital downloads ? All my OS installs have been done over the Internet since the 90s (either directly over HTTP/FTP or by downloading an ISO of the OS), ever since I switched to Linux as my operating system. Apple is late to the game as far as OS installs over the Internet goes. Welcome to 1995 is what I say.

Heck, I have a well furnished Steam account for games.

It's the MAS and it's licensing scheme that I dislike. If Apple offered a Family Pack license purchase outside the MAS and a download for an ISO file, that would be the best option.

I understand Apple's decision to move to an online distribution, and it is not for 'ease of use' for the end user - it is to sell people on the ease of use of the Mac App Store itself, and hopefully gain momentum on that front. Just as updating by purchasing Snow Leopard at an Apple Store might make one purchase other products or accessories while they're there, the Mac App Store expedites people buying Mac OS X 'accessories (software)' while they're in shopping mode. My guess is that if the Mac App Store did not exist, there would be no digital distribution for this OS.

I'm not throwing any fuzz. I was answering a post. It's the people who keep replying to me offering options of piracy that are throwing a fuzz. Like you just did. ;)

Again guys it's very simple : The facts are the facts. Live with them. No need to reply to me to tell me how many options I have. The legitimate option is plainly : 2 copies, 2 downloads. End of story. Drop it and I will drop it. Keep replying, and I'll need to keep correcting you with the facts.

Your life is your life. I'm sorry this new method is an inconvenience for you, it's a bummer!
 
The stereotype of OS X being a toy/not a real computer stems from some truth. The transition to iOS from OS X is going to further this 'truth'

I have NO desire to use a dumbed down/watered down operating system that cripples a REAL desktop computing experience. Keep iOS on mobile devices, leave real computers the way they are.

Exactly what is a real computer??
 
You think Apple's big data center only serves one purpose ? I have news for you... Our own data centers house both our customer facing applications and our internal systems. That's just how datacenters are.

And you have insider knowledge on exactly how Apple's data centres work and how their retail distribution channel infrastructure is set up? You speak with so much authority yet say so little. I have to make the assumption from your emo posts that you're still quite a young whelp and still have much to learn. Please don't try to tell me how data centres work or what they're used for.
 
Exactly what is a real computer??

Anything from this onwards:

welcome-babbageengine.jpg

http://www.computerhistory.org/babbage/
 
There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. The Mac App Store does not track "authorized computers." There are no "slots." There is no 5 computer limit. You don't authorize through iTunes. You don't authorize a computer at all. Individual apps have the option to request authorization if the developer wishes.

You can install an app downloaded for personal use on any number of computers that you own or control. There is no requirement that you redownload the app to install it on an additional computer in Apple's terms.

http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html#APPS
(Search for "MAC APP STORE PRODUCT USAGE RULES")
 
Say bull all you want, but the fact is, COPYright is the Right to decide how your work is copied. Downloading is making a copy from Apple's server to your computer. Hence Apple gets to decide.
Copyright is there to protect the creators, so they can be paid for their work accordingly. If you pay the two licences and use one installer, the only thing you are "infringing" is Apple's approved method. Again, lack of approval doesn't necessarily make it illegal, if at all. You say it is, so show me the law that states it.
And I am much more interested in why you find this immoral.

Again, I'm not the one making a fuss, the people who keep replying to me are.
Personally, I am very surprised as to why you find the one installer method immoral, hence my initial reply and calling it "fuss". Weren't you expecting any replies by posting here?
 
There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. The Mac App Store does not track "authorized computers." There are no "slots." There is no 5 computer limit. You don't authorize through iTunes. You don't authorize a computer at all. Individual apps have the option to request authorization if the developer wishes.

You can install an app downloaded for personal use on any number of computers that you own or control. There is no requirement that you redownload the app to install it on an additional computer in Apple's terms.http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html#APPS
(Search for (MAC APP STORE PRODUCT USAGE RULES")

Amen Brother!!! Got that KinghtWRX??? :rolleyes:
 
I wouldn't go that far (and I didn't). We don't know what the final Lion SLA will say. It could be different than the basic terms for other apps.

The Lion website states it can only be installed on a Mac that has been authorised under your App Store account. So the limit is the number of machines that can be authorised in this manner.
 
The Lion website states it can only be installed on a Mac that has been authorised under your App Store account. So the limit is the number of machines that can be authorised in this manner.

"You may auto-download Eligible Content or download previously-purchased Eligible Content from an Account on up to 10 Associated Devices, provided no more than 5 are iTunes-authorized computers."
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.