Mac Box Set Family Pack

[MacForMeOneDay]

Once released, I was probably going to get the new iLife'09 and iWork'09 Family packs, as I have 2 Macs at home. Separately these are $99 each. So, $198 for both.

The Mac Box Set Family Pack is $229, and appears to simply really just shove the 3 separate DVDs into a single outerbox/UPC.

So my thought is, is there any reason that I should be able to buy the Box set, then sale the OSX Leopard DVD(s). Essentially breaking up the box set.
So I would keep the iWork and iLife DVDs, but sale the Leopard DVD. As long as I can get $32 for the Leopard DVD, I'd come out ahead (ignoring shipping/taxes etc)

It seems like a win-win for me, unless there is something that ties all three together. I thought that since none of them now require entering a Serial, that it seems like it should be an issue.

Any thing I'm missing?

 

[roland.g]

Something more constructive to do with your time.

 

[MacForMeOneDay]

Something more constructive to do with your time.

nice. very constructive.
It takes me 10minutes of total time to list, then ship a small item on ebay. So yes, $32 is not worth it, but the going price on ebay for Leopard Family pack is well beyond that.

 

[rockinrocker]

i'm sure it'd be a violation if the EULA, though I have no idea if there's anyway to trace it or know that it's from a set...

 

[atszyman]

i'm sure it'd be a violation if the EULA, though I have no idea if there's anyway to trace it or know that it's from a set...

Is there a separate EULA covering the box set? People have sold codes for applications bundled from MacZOT in the Marketplace forum here without anyone seeming to raise the issue. The pack is the bundling of the three apps into a more attractive price. As long as he's not trying to break up the Family pack for Leopard and selling it as one family pack (and not installing it anywhere prior to the sale), I see no reason why there should be any ethical or legal reasons that would prevent him or anyone else from doing selling the box set components as individual Family Packs for each application.

 

[roland.g]

i'm sure it'd be a violation if the EULA, though I have no idea if there's anyway to trace it or know that it's from a set...

That's more what I was thinking. It seems rather a shame that instead of buying what you need, either the 2 family packs or the boxed set, that you are trying to figure out a way to sell of the piece that you don't need for a profit, or rather to reduce the cost of the others. Wouldn't it make more sense to try and find the iWork and iLife family packs for less at somewhere like Amazon, Microcenter, or MacZones, instead of this more unethical approach.

 

[Achiever]

That's more what I was thinking. It seems rather a shame that instead of buying what you need, either the 2 family packs or the boxed set, that you are trying to figure out a way to sell of the piece that you don't need for a profit, or rather to reduce the cost of the others. Wouldn't it make more sense to try and find the iWork and iLife family packs for less at somewhere like Amazon, Microcenter, or MacZones, instead of this more unethical approach.

I can't kill the OP for asking the question, though. It is a fair problem to point out that a consumer can usually only buy a single license or a family package which often contains 5 licenses. Well, many (even most perhaps??) don't need five licenses of any software. Many families need two or at most three. What does one do with the extra unused licenses they paid for? And I know the difference in price on the iLife/iWork suites is only $20 for the extra 4 licenses, but in this day and age there has to be a better way to do it. How about $79 for the initial license and then $5 for each additional add on license? No reason to waste more money buying licenses that are unnecessary and will go unused.

I know this is slightly off topic from the OP's question, but this has bugged me for a while and it is somewhat related.

 

[atszyman]

That's more what I was thinking. It seems rather a shame that instead of buying what you need, either the 2 family packs or the boxed set, that you are trying to figure out a way to sell of the piece that you don't need for a profit, or rather to reduce the cost of the others. Wouldn't it make more sense to try and find the iWork and iLife family packs for less at somewhere like Amazon, Microcenter, or MacZones, instead of this more unethical approach.

Why is this unethical? Apple is bundling the software together for a discount. he's not planning on using one of the three pieces of software at all, why can he not sell that portion as a brand new family pack to someone else?

If I go to a Tire dealership and they're having a special deal where if I buy 4 tires I get the 5th (spare) at half price, but I have a completely perfect spare, why can't I buy the 5th at a discount and sell it for more than I paid further reducing the cost of the 4?

The OP is not breaking up a family pack or anything of the sort. I don't believe that the bundle has any extra EULA associated with it other than the EULA that applies to each individual family pack. As long as he doesn't use the Leopard family pack he should be perfectly fine ethically and legally in selling it.

 

[roland.g]

Fine you see how long it takes you to become a millionaire collecting pennies off the street.

 

[atszyman]

Fine you see how long it takes you to become a millionaire collecting pennies off the street.

Never said it was a good way to make money.

But if you can buy a bundle for nearly the same price and think that you can sell parts of the bundle you won't use to cover the difference or more, then why not? I just don't see anything ethically or legally wrong with what the OP is thinking of doing.

What's the worst that could happen? It doesn't sell and he he's out $30 but has licenses for Leopard if he picks up a cheap Mac somewhere along the line that doesn't have it installed. If he were asking if he could install the extra family pack licenses on friends' computers then I'd be one of the first to point out that it is in violation of the EULA, but I don't believe what he's proposing is wrong in any way.

 

[sahnert]

I can't kill the OP for asking the question, though. It is a fair problem to point out that a consumer can usually only buy a single license or a family package which often contains 5 licenses. Well, many (even most perhaps??) don't need five licenses of any software. Many families need two or at most three. What does one do with the extra unused licenses they paid for? And I know the difference in price on the iLife/iWork suites is only $20 for the extra 4 licenses, but in this day and age there has to be a better way to do it. How about $79 for the initial license and then $5 for each additional add on license? No reason to waste more money buying licenses that are unnecessary and will go unused.

I know this is slightly off topic from the OP's question, but this has bugged me for a while and it is somewhat related.

I think of it more like the DRM'd files on the iTunes store. It is not the same as paying for 5 licenses, but rather the ability to install on "up to" five computers. On iTunes, if I buy (license) a track or album with DRM, I am allowed to listen to it on "up to" 5 computers. Just because I only listen to on one or two computers doesn't mean I am wasting money because I pay for the ability to play it on three more computers.

In my opinion, they family pack pricing is pretty generous and worth it even if you only install it on two computers.

To the OP, I don't know for sure if there is anything illegal about doing what you are suggesting, but why not get just the two family packs and save money up front? To me, the amount of profit on the sale of leopard would not be worth the time involved listing it for sale, packaging it, taking it to the PO, etc.

 

[roland.g]

I can't kill the OP for asking the question, though. It is a fair problem to point out that a consumer can usually only buy a single license or a family package which often contains 5 licenses. Well, many (even most perhaps??) don't need five licenses of any software. Many families need two or at most three. What does one do with the extra unused licenses they paid for? And I know the difference in price on the iLife/iWork suites is only $20 for the extra 4 licenses, but in this day and age there has to be a better way to do it. How about $79 for the initial license and then $5 for each additional add on license? No reason to waste more money buying licenses that are unnecessary and will go unused.

I know this is slightly off topic from the OP's question, but this has bugged me for a while and it is somewhat related.

I think of it more like the DRM'd files on the iTunes store. It is not the same as paying for 5 licenses, but rather the ability to install on "up to" five computers. On iTunes, if I buy (license) a track or album with DRM, I am allowed to listen to it on "up to" 5 computers. Just because I only listen to on one or two computers doesn't mean I am wasting money because I pay for the ability to play it on three more computers.

In my opinion, they family pack pricing is pretty generous and worth it even if you only install it on two computers.

To the OP, I don't know for sure if there is anything illegal about doing what you are suggesting, but why not get just the two family packs and save money up front? To me, the amount of profit on the sale of leopard would not be worth the time involved listing it for sale, packaging it, taking it to the PO, etc.

Exactly. They don't look at it like 5 licenses. They look at it like single vs. multiple license. They just cap it at 5 since that is a commonly used industry standard. You may have 2 or 3 computers. Some people might have up to 5, but realistically probably not more than that. They understand that it is not cost effective for you to buy multiple full price retail copies for each machine, so they extra cost covers the household. Say a husband and wife each have a laptop and they have a desktop. That's three machines. If they had to buy a license for each they would probably just install it on all 3 machines. But the family pack makes Apple more money and gives them more assurance people are complying with software licensing.

 

[Achiever]

Exactly. They don't look at it like 5 licenses. They look at it like single vs. multiple license. They just cap it at 5 since that is a commonly used industry standard. You may have 2 or 3 computers. Some people might have up to 5, but realistically probably not more than that. They understand that it is not cost effective for you to buy multiple full price retail copies for each machine, so they extra cost covers the household. Say a husband and wife each have a laptop and they have a desktop. That's three machines. If they had to buy a license for each they would probably just install it on all 3 machines. But the family pack makes Apple more money and gives them more assurance people are complying with software licensing.

That's exactly my point. Apple is making more money by giving to us with 5 licenses, when there is certainly a happy medium. Take the $20 difference in price between the iLife/iWork single and family packs. That equate to $5 for each of licenses 2-5. Why not do it at $5 per extra license, so the husband and wife with three machines you use as an example, pay $$89 for their three licenses instead? Apple still makes more money, the extra licenses can always be purchased as extras online and it keeps people from feeling somewhat ripped off that there are unused licenses that have been paid for. I would like to think it might also help alleviate piracy at some level, but not likely given the type of person who pirates.

 

[roland.g]

No you still don't get. It's $79 for the single license. $79 + $20 for multi instead of paying $158. It doesn't matter what the multi is since you are saving having to pay $79 a second time. They just cap it at 5 so you get the idea not to get carried away. If you had Mom and Dad each with a laptop, a home desktop and 3 kids each with laptops for a total of 6 computers, I seriously doubt Apple would care if you installed a family pack on all 6 since you bought 6 machines. They just want to know that you aren't using a single license for multiple machines. You can't look at it like at 2, 3, or 4 type situation. It's 1 or more than 1.

 

[Achiever]

No you still don't get. It's $79 for the single license. $79 + $20 for multi instead of paying $158. It doesn't matter what the multi is since you are saving having to pay $79 a second time. They just cap it at 5 so you get the idea not to get carried away. If you had Mom and Dad each with a laptop, a home desktop and 3 kids each with laptops for a total of 6 computers, I seriously doubt Apple would care if you installed a family pack on all 6 since you bought 6 machines. They just want to know that you aren't using a single license for multiple machines. You can't look at it like at 2, 3, or 4 type situation. It's 1 or more than 1.

Trust me, I really do "get it" and I think you are mistaken when you state that Apple cares how many machines I install software on with my single user license. Point of fact, their iLife upgrades do not have serials for installs and iWork '09 does not have any serials either. This means that someone can buy a single user disk and still put it on as many computers as they want to. If Apple seriously cared about this on the consumer end, they would act differently. (Their pro software on the other hand...) They are clearly aware of this possibility, and are simply content to rely on the honesty of their customer. But if you were a single user - say a recent college grad or a family on a budget - with a desktop and a laptop in the home, and you know that you can buy the single user license for $79 and put it on both computers or $99 for the same two computers, which are you going to choose. Now imaging the price difference was $79 vs. $84 for a "license +1." I think many more people are likely to be "honest" and pay for that one additional usage license if the cost were minimized, even slightly.

And yes, I understand that $99 is less expensive than $158. I was never arguing that we were being charged $158, nor that we should have been. What I am arguing, again, is that there is a happy medium on software packages and how they handle multiple computer installs for the SAME USER in the SAME HOUSEHOLD. Not just with Apple software, mind you, but with third party developers, as well. Many third party developers (1Password immediately comes to mind) assign licenses for the USER, not the computer. Others do not.

 

[roland.g]

Trust me, I really do "get it" and I think you are mistaken when you state that Apple cares how many machines I install software on with my single user license. Point of fact, their iLife upgrades do not have serials for installs and iWork '09 does not have any serials either. This means that someone can buy a single user disk and still put it on as many computers as they want to. If Apple seriously cared about this on the consumer end, they would act differently. (Their pro software on the other hand...) They are clearly aware of this possibility, and are simply content to rely on the honesty of their customer. But if you were a single user - say a recent college grad or a family on a budget - with a desktop and a laptop in the home, and you know that you can buy the single user license for $79 and put it on both computers or $99 for the same two computers, which are you going to choose. Now imaging the price difference was $79 vs. $84 for a "license +1." I think many more people are likely to be "honest" and pay for that one additional usage license if the cost were minimized, even slightly.

And yes, I understand that $99 is less expensive than $158. I was never arguing that we were being charged $158, nor that we should have been. What I am arguing, again, is that there is a happy medium on software packages and how they handle multiple computer installs for the SAME USER in the SAME HOUSEHOLD. Not just with Apple software, mind you, but with third party developers, as well. Many third party developers (1Password immediately comes to mind) assign licenses for the USER, not the computer. Others do not.

It would be far too expensive and complicated to produce, stock and sell boxes for 2, 3, 4, and 5 licenses. And it would be just as difficult to do it at the point of sale. Are you saying that Apple should sell a 2 user box for $84 and then offer $5 license cards online and at retail stores for when you want to add additional licenses.

 

[Achiever]

It would be far too expensive and complicated to produce, stock and sell boxes for 2, 3, 4, and 5 licenses. And it would be just as difficult to do it at the point of sale. Are you saying that Apple should sell a 2 user box for $84 and then offer $5 license cards online and at retail stores for when you want to add additional licenses.

Absolutely not. I agree the overhead in producing, shipping and stocking these boxes would make it completely not worth it. I am suggesting that the sales of additional licenses can easily be conducted online. This is how a large majority of the third party apps are already sold and distributed for the Mac. Let Apple sell it's single user disks in stores, and the "up to 5" packs if it so chooses. But let somebody add a license or two through online download afterwards or if the initial purchase to be online, similar to how the recent iWork '09 was made available to purchase directly from the trial version (perhaps '08 too, I don't recall) it is eminently doable to get 2 or 3 licenses at the point of sale with no issues and also meshes well with Apple's direction toward cloud computing. This also applies to the numerous 3rd party software examples whereby it is individual user or "up to 5" with no in between. In some of those cases, the multi-pack is still a markup of 60-80% over the cost of the single user license for the ubiquitous installation on a second computer for a single user.

 

[roland.g]

I guess I am agreeing with you then. As Apple already does this. And their additional online purchasing system is so seamless you barely even notice it.

You buy a single license copy for $79.
Or you buy a 2 license copy for $99, only $20 more.
But wait, what if you need a 3rd license. Well, there's the magic. Just insert the disc into the 3rd machine, it automatically contacts Apple's online licensing system and purchases it for you.
Same with the 4th and 5th licenses. Kind of like tires or whatever. It's their buy 2 get 3 free promotion. That's right. That 3rd license is $0. Same with the 4th and 5th. Except that unlike tires, 12 packs of cola, or bags of potato chips, you can't actually sell the 3 licenses that you got for free without violating the EULA.

Did you actually think Apple considers the additional licenses at $5 each. No. They expect that most family packs will end up on 2-3 machines and that $20 or so is a fair upcharge. It is actually more for OS X. For those that need a 4th or 5th, it's built in, but it certainly isn't the expected norm when they sell them.

I'm not asking you to agree with me on this. I'm just telling you that you're wrong.