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.
Leopard: Single User vs. Family Pack (?)
- Thread starter jasko
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
That rules means that the OP shouldn't ask this question in two different forums and create two threads. What you're discussing (the morality of license agreements) isn't really relevant to the OP's situation, because you aren't in a position to change Apple's terms. I think you have some great moral and philosophical insights to share, but they belong in a different forum. If you want to start a thread about the morality of software contracts in the appropriate place, I'll be sure to respond
You picked a bad place to ask this question. Everyone here thinks Apple is their best friend and that whenever Apple releases a product, they're just doing their fans a solid.
Oh I get quite pissed at Apple sometimes (like their pricing and quality of the Mighty Mouse, their raising of student pricing on software, etc), but I do play by the rules. If I can't afford something, I'm not going to go out of my way to break contracts. It's really a quid-pro-quo ideal. As long as I respect Apple's software license, I get a cheaper (much cheaper compared to Vista) OS, and one that has fewer activation hassles.
Excellent point, if you can't afford it, save up for it rather than pirate it. I don't understand people who argue over pricing of software and claim because it's expensive they're entitled to violate the license. Do you steal expensive cars because you can only afford cheaper versions?
IMHO Apple would not think a group of 5 good friends or roommates considering themselves a "Family" is a problem.
What you should not do is buy a single user and pass it around.
That will just hurt the end user in the long run.
What you should not do is buy a single user and pass it around.
That will just hurt the end user in the long run.
I don't think we should be using "Law" and "EULA violations" interchangeably. They are completely different beasts. If anything a EULA violation is a breach of contract, not to mention EULAs have never been tried in court.
With that said, Apple is very generous with its O/S licensing. They don't slap us with serial numbers, activation or mandated registration (to skip registration you simply use
+ Q).
If Leopard is worth it to you, pay for it.
Apple is a hardware company. Therefore, operating system revenue is minor compared to overall sales. They know that anyone who is installing Mac OS X has a Macintosh computer. That's why such pro-consumer licensing and lack of enforcement exists with regards to Mac OS X. Lets hope it stays that way.
With that said, Apple is very generous with its O/S licensing. They don't slap us with serial numbers, activation or mandated registration (to skip registration you simply use
+ Q).If Leopard is worth it to you, pay for it.
Apple is a hardware company. Therefore, operating system revenue is minor compared to overall sales. They know that anyone who is installing Mac OS X has a Macintosh computer. That's why such pro-consumer licensing and lack of enforcement exists with regards to Mac OS X. Lets hope it stays that way.
I don't think we should be using "Law" and "EULA violations" interchangeably. They are completely different beasts. If anything a EULA violation is a breach of contract, not to mention EULAs have never been tried in court.
With that said, Apple is very generous with its O/S licensing. They don't slap us with serial numbers, activation or mandated registration (to skip registration you simply use
If Leopard is worth it to you, pay for it.
Apple is a hardware company. Therefore, operating system revenue is minor compared to overall sales. They know that anyone who is installing Mac OS X has a Macintosh computer. That's why such pro-consumer licensing and lack of enforcement exists with regards to Mac OS X.
Excellent points, and a great post
I wonder if Apple even makes anything off of OS X updates at all. Seeing as how retail copies of OS X is only a portion of the total OS X distribution (many users will buy new Macs after Leopard comes out), and the costs of development are fairly high, Apple might only make enough to pay for its costs.
That's a good point, sometimes overlooked, that Apple knows who ever uses it is already a hardware customer.
However minor the revenue from selling just the OS, obviously Apple cares or they wouldn't charge for it. When they don't care and feel it's that minor then I'm sure they'll make it free like iTunes software.
The more people that are encouraged to second guess Apple's pricing motives and spirit of the EULA the sooner Apple will embrace Microsoft's anti-piracy solutions ... do we want that?
The more people that are encouraged to second guess Apple's pricing motives and spirit of the EULA the sooner Apple will embrace Microsoft's anti-piracy solutions ... do we want that?
Apple OS's used to be free. Steve & Steve's philosophy was that a computer was useless without an OS, and as they were more into the hardware, the OS and all updates were free. All you needed to do was bring in a few blank floppies to your local Apple reseller and it was all good.
That was the case up to System 7 ($99, if I remember correctly), when it was realized that folks would actually pay for an OS (thanks a lot, Microsoft).
a couple of years ago I did some online searches and found that in fact EULAs have been argued over in court and that court decisions have upheld their validity as legally binding documents.....the idea that they've not come up in the courtroom seems to be one of those oft repeated internet claims that isn't really true
You accept the agreement when you install the OS. By deviating from the EULA, you are going against what you agreed to. How is that "right"?Deuz Augustine said:
This is truly a black and white issue. Those who say otherwise are simply trying to justify their behavior. Do what you want...there are no processes in place to enforce the licensing...just don't try and justify it.
It's amazing how liberal and anti-establishment this board is (see: politics forum), except for when it comes to sharing an OS with some friends even though you paid for multiple licenses.
It's even more amazing the number that try and justify their actions as "right", simply because they can rationalize it as such. It still does not make it so.
rationale: "I could have just bought the single and gave it to friends. I'm giving them $70 that I didn't need to, so that's OK." No. Period.
rationale: "Well, it's the same as if I had a big family in the house." No. Period.
Agreed it's PR and Marketing to give families a package deal, but it is still their terms and conditions - giving it away to friends around town violates the purchase contract and abuses the spirit of the offer. They don't HAVE to sell a 5 package license for consumers.
Keep encouraging this behavior and Apple could: 1) eliminate the package offer, 2) raise the price, or 3) require authorization - and, that WOULD be a crime.
OS X revenues
I was just wondering about that. there was a poll, I think of Macworld, indicating that at least 40% of mac owners would get Leopard right the first day. Let's say 50% the first month. The qualifying installed base would be....10 million? That is 5 million times ...say $80 (to take into account single user and family packs): that's $ 400 million the first month. Not bad. You can do a lot of coding for that. Anyway, just an estimate.
I was just wondering about that. there was a poll, I think of Macworld, indicating that at least 40% of mac owners would get Leopard right the first day. Let's say 50% the first month. The qualifying installed base would be....10 million? That is 5 million times ...say $80 (to take into account single user and family packs): that's $ 400 million the first month. Not bad. You can do a lot of coding for that. Anyway, just an estimate.
Actually, it does. There is no such thing as universal right and wrong. We've had plenty of laws -- and we still do -- that were silly and warranted breaking. And this isn't even a law.
Um... Ok. Making an agreement, then breaking it is "right"?.
I don't need any laws or courts to tell me it is wrong to do.
(btw: there are volumes of laws governing contracts)
Um... Ok. Making an agreement, then breaking it is "right"?.
I don't need any laws or courts to tell me it is wrong to do.
(btw: there are volumes of laws governing contracts)
I give up. Have fun, Macrumors Moral Police.
OS X is apple's proverbial 'trump card'. Discuss.
All answers must be in times new roman font, 12 point, with one inch margins. Document all sources.
All answers must be in times new roman font, 12 point, with one inch margins. Document all sources.
I give up. Have fun, Macrumors Moral Police.
Lol. I feel your pain, I gave up a while ago ;-)
I think the original poster's question has been answered (and then some). We're trying to consolidate things a bit more, so if you'd like to discuss this or similar topics a bit more, head on over to this thread, check out the FAQ, and feel free to ask additional questions there. Thanks!
- Status