Mac OS X Family Pack... Now Available

arn

macrumors god
Original poster
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
14,502
1,785
Rupert emailed and let us know that the Mac OS X 10.2 Family Pack is now available from the US Apple Store for $199:

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.


The Family Pack pricing was first revealed in this Wall Street Journal article by Walter Mossberg.
 

cgmpowers

macrumors regular
Mar 21, 2002
129
0
Nice but a bit too late...

I ordered two copies of the OS 10.2 single licenses and one has already 'shipped'. After spending what was well over an hour on the phone with Apple (and in 3 different departments)..the first copy cannot be canceled (as their computer says it's shipped).

I did cancel my second copy and order the family license of OS 10.2.. But when I get the single license..I'll have to call Apple BACK and get an RMA number to return it.

So in closing...it would have been nice if I had the option to cancel the single license earlier (before it shipped)...and if they had talked about this family license earlier then it would have helped me from all this frustration.

I'm not sure when I'll get the family license...prob now it'll be a week later than the single license that's being returned..

Christopher

p.s. My 1st copy says SHIPPED, cannot be canceled and does NOT have a UPS/FedEx tracking number..
 

Gus

macrumors 65816
Jan 1, 2002
1,078
0
Minnesota
Yeah

That's been my big complaint since this story broke. I'm pissed that Apple waited until thousands of us ordered to talk about this Family thing. Maybe Walt Mossberg just let the cat out of the bag early, or maybe Apple wanted to boost their order numbers. Who knows, just bad form on Apple's fault with the timing I think.

My 2¢

Gus
 

MidnightRambler

macrumors newbie
Jul 21, 2002
27
0
You know, I really dislike liberals.

Now, I'm not one of those Gary Baur, Religious Right types, ..but I grew up thinking a family consituted a mother, father and a couple of kids.

In recent years the liberal fringe has encroached on our collective reality and extended the concept of 'family' to include whatever individuals one feels warm and fuzzy towards. There need not be a blood relation or geographical proximity within the new 'family' paradigm. I've always been opposed to such a broad view of family, but I'm begining to see its advantages.

What do you say, bros? Do four of you feel like kicking in $39.80 a piece towards this upgrade? ;)


Gesturing in the general direction of Cupertino,
the MidnightRambler


(and don't be thinking I feel too warm and fuzzy toward any of yous)
 

elgruga

macrumors 6502
Dec 31, 2001
434
0
Canada
Jaguar not selling too well?

Looks as if Jaguar aint selling all that well.....now this strange offer of a 'family pack'.

Sounds like the grocery store.

Oh well, its a good deal. How many will get 4 friends together and do this?

"My buddies came over for a few beers and crashed in the basement, so we figure its OK to order the 5-pack"

Its $60 CAD each copy - thats a discount of $163 CAD on buying a single. (yes, its $223 inc. tax up here in Canada)

Whats the betting some people will buy them and then sell the individual packs for $100 CAD apiece?

Are Apple going to check that we are all living in the same house?

As i said, a kind of weird offer, but good, very good.
 

elgruga

macrumors 6502
Dec 31, 2001
434
0
Canada
these are licences....

Oh, these are OS X licenses for 5.

One copy, OK to put it on 5 boxes - does that mean its ok to copy it on to 5 discs legally?

I guess it does......
 

onemoof

macrumors member
Jul 23, 2002
75
0
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Not legal to "get a bunch of friends together"

It clearly states in the license that this is NOT a 5 user license. This IS a site license for homes up to 5 computers. You can only let your friends use your license if their legal residence is the same as yours.
 

mac15

macrumors 68040
Dec 29, 2001
3,099
0
why couldn't you just install OSX 5 times with one licence, why pay when you don't have to this is silly
 

arn

macrumors god
Original poster
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
14,502
1,785
Originally posted by mac15
why couldn't you just install OSX 5 times with one licence, why pay when you don't have to this is silly
While you can, it's technically not legal. For that matter, why pay for it all all, when you can get a copy from a friend?

Obviously, it has to do with where you draw your "line"... but let's not drag this into a pro/anti piracy thread. If you want to add your own personal views of it, read this piracy thread first...

no need to repeat/reignite that arguement...

arn
 

daveg5

macrumors 6502a
Nov 28, 2001
741
0
this is silly!!

I have 3 macs already. are you telling me it is illegal to install OSX 10.2 on the 3 of them? Am I to buy this family pak or goto jail.
Is this more price gouging?
 

onemoof

macrumors member
Jul 23, 2002
75
0
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
no multiple user licenses

The Apple Store still isn't selling any multiple license versions of OSX besides the family pack. There is no 10 user license for example. I guess users in the corporate environment have to pay the full price per computer
 

oldMac

macrumors 6502a
Oct 25, 2001
522
1
Nice Recognition by Apple

It's good of Apple to recognize that families often have more than one machine these days and that "upgrading" to the latest and greatest can get pretty expensive.

Though most households will probably continue buying a single copy and "sharing" it among the various machines, it's good that Apple is giving folks a more economical option.

Does Apple currently offer these types of discounts to business?
 

daveg5

macrumors 6502a
Nov 28, 2001
741
0
this is really silly!!

I bought a dvd to watch on one of my 5 dvd players.
I rented a video to watch on one of my 4 vhs players.
I bought a cd for the car the cd walkman the dvd player and the 100 disk changer.


OOPS i'm a crook, my piracy is causing these industries billions in lost sales (to who? to me and my family of course) as I dont own any of these things while in my pocession. I just pay a price to "use" them as "specified by the seller" on one device.

I better call best buy and order 4 more dvds,
and blockbusters and order 3 more videos,
and circuit city for a 102 more cds since the 100disk cd changer, cd walkman, and dvd player dont have "permission" to be used by one purchased cd.

The next time I bring fries home from Mcdonalds, I'm not sharing unless each of my family members buys "permission" ala a license to eat them up.
This is utterly ridiculous.

If I buy a operating system it is mine to use as I see fit and I will load it on my Powermac and my powerbook and my unsupported machine,
So there.
 

oldMac

macrumors 6502a
Oct 25, 2001
522
1
daveg5

Dave,

This is nothing new.

If you read the license agreements (you know, that thing you agreed to when you started using your software) for your software, you'll find that nearly ALL software is licensed for use on one machine.

Pretty much all software companies legally require that you purchase a separate copy of software for each machine that you install on.

Additional Note:

Many license agreements also state that it's okay to install the software on multiple machines so long as only one copy is being used at any one time.

I would tend to agree with you that, from a historical standpoint, it would make sense that you should have permission to install the software on any number of your personal machines, but it doesn't hold that you would be able to make copies of it to give to others (including family).

btw... you've got a much better argument regarding music or movies. There is no intrinsic value in having multiple copies of a CD for personal use other than convenience. It *is* possible to increase the value of an OS by running multiple copies of an operating system on different machines simultaneously. If you don't believe that, ask Pixar why they have a render farm.
 

cgmpowers

macrumors regular
Mar 21, 2002
129
0
Not to use the "M" word..but

Many of the Microsoft licenses (like Word and Office) had allowed you (in the past, not sure if anymore) allowed you to install one desktop copy and one copy on a laptop.

I know this personally from MS themselves. I had problems with FrontPage 2000 and Outlook 2000 and they said it was perfectly fine for me to install it on both my home machine and my mobile laptop...WITH the exception of not having both running at the same time.

I have noticed, for example, that if I have MS's Entourage installed on my iBook and running---I cannot physically get into it on my iMac... But wasn't against the lisences to install it on both machines as longas I own both machines.

I do not, to my knowledge, know if this is true for Apple. I do not think I can legally have Final Cut Pro installed on my iBook and my iMac...

Chrisopher
 

sith33

macrumors newbie
Jul 16, 2002
18
0
Just to throw in a reminder of what "them other folks deal with" ... if you try to install your copy of Windows XP on more than one machine, it will literally stop you from doing so. The OS phones home to microsoft to ask permission to run, and if they see you've already got it installed on another machine ... no permission. Try running two copies of Office V.X with the same serial number on machines that are networked together...

I'm surprised this is the first time this has come up. I don't think i've ever seen "big-name" commercial software that lets you install on more than one machine, and use both at the same time.. (legally).

I don't see it as gouging. To use the DVD example... you're well within your right to install the OS, use it, uninstall it and install it somewhere else. Thats what you're really doing when you watch a DVD, since the actual content of the DVD doesn't remain with the player. Now, if you want to watch the DVD on two players at the same time, you're legally (well, and physically) prevented from doing so...
 

nuckinfutz

macrumors 603
Jul 3, 2002
5,504
314
Middle Earth
Dave

Sheesh man where did you get that warped logic from?

DVDS are media not applications.

Don't you feel kinda odd that no one else here agrees with your point of view?

This is a good idea from Apple for those that have a high ethical standards. I just wish I had 5 OSX capable Macs at home.
 

ryskt

macrumors newbie
Jul 19, 2002
3
0
Northern Virginia / D.C.
Software isn't free to develop, why should it be free to use?

Not that I'm necessarily on the side of all of the restrictions and problems with items such as software, music and movies.... but...

Each of these items takes time and effort and money to develop. While the RIAA is a bit ridiculous in their tactics, their argument is valid... Mp3's, software piracy and services like Napster and Gnutella cause them to lose money. They promote illegal copying and duplication of copyrighted works and products. I can personally say that since I started downloading mp3s from the internet and burning them to CD, my CD buying volume dropped drastically. The music on CD's and ultimately in Mp3's was written, produced and performed by people at great cost to the studio and occasionally the artist themselves. The software on the OS X 10.2 install CDs was written, produced and distrubuted at great cost to Apple.

I know first hand how time and cost intensive developing software is. If one of the products I produced was freely distributed to anyone who didn't feel like paying for it, my paycheck would eventually disappear and I wouldn't be able to put food on my table. While this seems obvious at a micro level to a single developer developing a single product, it has the same ultimate effect on larger companies like Apple. If they were to allow anyone who wants it to freely copy and distribute their operating system, they would not be earning the revenue that ultimately could mean the difference between continued operations or bankruptcy.

In an economy such as this, I think it's understandable that Apple is charging people for web-content hosting and email hosting with the .mac platform. They have to buy the bandwidth and hardware used for such services. I also think it's understandable for them to charge for their operating system and other software. They have to keep their heads above water or the business itself would be in danger.

I think the family licensing package is a good step for Apple. While it could have been announced at the beginning of pricing announcements for Jaguar, it's still a good deal for those out there that can't afford to pay $129 per copy for each macintosh they might own but don't want to violate copyright laws and still want to support further Apple development. Perhaps the reason it was announced later, after some people had already ordered more than one copy, is because they simply didn't think of it until now. When they realized that Jaguar wasn't selling at the rates they hoped, they may have come up with this deal to boost sales, or they may have realized that some people simply can't afford it any other way.

The CD and DVD argument posted earlier has very little relevance on this issue. You don't play your DVD in all 5 of your DVD players at once, it's not possible. You do, however, copy the operating system to each computer and use it simultaneously on each one. If DVD players required you to copy the contents of the DVD to the player before playing the movie, then it would be relevant. You can, at any time, wipe the operating system off of any computer and install it to another one.

I guess my point is that everyone should pick their battles. The family licensing deal was probably created to help users afford the cost of upgrading multiple computers they own. Kudos to Apple for the forsight to at least announce it before the boxes got to the shelves.
 

daveg5

macrumors 6502a
Nov 28, 2001
741
0
Dvds are both media and applications, at least microsoft thinks my Xbox games are.
And I did not agree to anything when I installed my OS.
Something just fell on the mouse uh "accidentally" and I just continued the process.
Apple agreed to take my money
I agreed to take their software and use it as I see fit on all the devices that I own in my house and car
If I want to put OS9 in the cd changer so be it .
If I want to flush it down the toilet as I have from time to time so be it.
As long as I dont give it away for free or profit its my business
If Apple disagrees than they can give me a refund for my 2 copies of 9
and one copy of OS8.1(cash only)
Now I would never use an illegal copy of Jagwire (maybe just to see if its worth it} but thats it and I dont encourage it.
And strictly speaking I maybe wrong and a little comical
But surely someone who owns more then one apple Computer in his home
is out there and agrees with me that as far as I am concerned once I buy.
I will use on all my machines in my house
And if that is illegal then I will continue to violate a stupid and unfair law
with out any care
Mcdonalds fries would taste good right now even to a vegatarian.
Darn it I didnt' buy my license
 

daveg5

macrumors 6502a
Nov 28, 2001
741
0
one at a time

To the best of my knowledge must people use one computer at a time
they may play unreal on one
and then later on another one
you can erase unreal of your harddrive at anytime
and load it on another one
So should everyone go out and buy 2 unreals
where the logic to that?
So the dvd and cd argument is as valid as ever
However the french fries are a stretch {however they do taste good)
Dont you think the movies studios and music studios would love have a new licensing "scheme" like the software manufators ala microsoft playing big brother as you reinstall your OS.
Look at the privacy invasion when you install OSX
And who give a boot for thier privacy policy
Once they go under you info is sold
They dont keep thier agreements yet they ask us too.
Apple will stay in business as long as they keep making good products and the faithful keep buying.
not five at a time, rather
ONE AT A TIME!!
 

arn

macrumors god
Original poster
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
14,502
1,785
Re: one at a time

Originally posted by daveg5
To the best of my knowledge must people use one computer at a time
.......
So should everyone go out and buy 2 unreals
where the logic to that?
If you and another family member are playing unreal at the same time on two different computers... then yes, technically you are supposed to own two copies.

You and your family member can not (physically) play a DVD on two players at once.
You and your family member can use an application on two computers at once.

I think you can understand the point here. We're not passing judgement, nor are we saying it's "right"... I'm just explaining to you the concept of it, and also answering your original question, which was:

are you telling me it is illegal to install OSX 10.2 on the 3 of them?
The answer is essentially Yes.

...but like I said - don't get all into a tizzy over it... we're not passing judgement... just explaning the reason for a 5-Pack Family license.

arn
 

daveg5

macrumors 6502a
Nov 28, 2001
741
0
technically speaking

Well I play alone, accept for online play cause, well Im not that good.
But technically speaking your point is well taken and is quite possibly correct
I drive over 65 from time to time, not by much but I do
I have to do something with those 260 horsepower
I jaywalk sometimes It's illegal but I do
Sometimes I dont feed the meter enough coins
Sometimes doing the above 2 things can save your life
sometimes doing they above 2 things can save your life
sometime it can kill you
Point being I may be legally incorrect here
But sometimes that is the best place to be
and sometimes it is not it all depends on the circumstances
I'm sure Steve Jobs wont loose any sleep over one of the faithful using 10.2 on all of his machines without buying the new family pak.
and I wont loose any sleep over his trips in his jets and his 1 dollar a year job nor for Bill Gates and his millions.
When Apple or should I say moto, IBM catch up to AMD/INTEL and produce some truly lending edge hardware to go with thier leading edge software
then maybe just maybe I will buy 3 family Paks. 3GHZ already
Technally speaking it is not illegal to install all the macs in your house if you dont click on agree let something uh fall on the mouse or train your pets they love to learn new tricks.
 

Gigglebyte

macrumors member
Aug 16, 2002
41
0
Re: one at a time

Originally posted by daveg5

Look at the privacy invasion when you install OSX
And who give a boot for thier privacy policy
Once they go under you info is sold
They dont keep thier agreements yet they ask us too.
Hate to burst your bubble here dave but Apple does not sell your info to 3rd parties. It can be shared with other companies but ONLY if they agree to their terms (which says they are NOT to just go around and sell it). How do I know this...I work for Apple and I believe in our policies.

As for your rant on buying the OS and you will use it on what ever machine you want maybe you should read the agreement that your mouse 'accidentaly' fell on because what it basicaly says is that Apple is letting you USE the software (in other words you don't OWN it) on one machine.

this is intelectual property and when people do pirate the product it effects everbody down the line because it DOES effect the development of new products and apps. What do you think would happen if only 5% of people purchase Jag and the other 95% 'borrow' it. There probably wouldn't be much more development on the product..and this goes for ANY product or app.

As for why the family pack was not announced earlier I have no idea on it but got the e-mail a couple of days ago and I think it is a great thing. I work with people that have multiple systems and to spend $129 a pop is kind of tough if you have 3 or 4 systems. As far as the corporate structure goes there is an unlimited user for OS X server but since I don't work on the server side of the house I am not quite sure how that works on the client side.

And where does your brain fail on the using UT on ONE machine at a time? If you purchase the license to use the sw you can load it on multiple machines but only use one at a time you don't have to purchase multiple copies.

Now does anybody here remember AutoDesk (they do AutoCAD)? When version 9 and 10 were out they cost about $4k a copy and guess what happened if they found out that you had a single copy LICENSE on multiple machines? They would sue you and give you the 'option' of purchasing the number of licenses for the number of machines it had been running on or they would take you to court and sue for copyright infringment AND WIN! Why? it all has to do with the license they HAD to agree to because it stated this would run on ONE CPU (and they had to change that when dual processors started coming out) at a time. Did this happen too often? not really but it did happen to a few companies and they got nailed for a lot of money that was due to AutoDesk.

Now according to Dave's logic, once he BUYS the software he should be able to load it on any machine he owns or wants right or am I missing his logic here? Ultimately that is what it sounds like he wants, or maybe he doesn't even want to pay for it but have Apple make it and just give it away..tell you what Dave...why don't you go to work for a company, put in 40-50 hours a week but tell them to keep the paycheck because that is what you are wanting Apple and any other company that produces software to do.