Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mac OS X Family Pack... Now Available

Simple Question

I have an iBook and an iMac. I ordered one copy of Jaguar. I know that it is illegal to install it on both machines, and I'm not looking to rehash that argument. Had the Family Pack been available earlier I would have purchased it, but I was not about to pay for Jaguar twice.

My question is, does anyone know if Apple has integrated any device like those that MS and Adobe employ to check for multiple copies of the same license on a local network into Jag? In other words, will my one copy of Jaguar actually WORK on both machines, or should I somehow try to cancel my order and get the Family Pack instead?
 
Re: Simple Question

Originally posted by cleo
In other words, will my one copy of Jaguar actually WORK on both machines, or should I somehow try to cancel my order and get the Family Pack instead?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I am running the GM at work, and we have it running on about 6 development machines, including mine, and there have been no complaints from the OS. It should be the exact same version that will be shrink wrapped.

So you should have no technical problems with running it on more than one machine.

this is in no way an endorsement to others. merely an informational response
 
In the C/Net article, the Apple rep was insisting that Apple wouldn't stoop to such "draconian" measures: they just want to help us do the right thing. Make of that what you will. It almost brings tears to the eyes:)

I would imagine there will be a follow-up offer pretty soon to those who have bought single-user licences to upgrade them to 5-user for $70.00, otherwise a lot of people will be really pissed off.
 
Originally posted by peterjhill

About the dev tools, are you talking about the ones for OSX? I have never had any problems with it. As I recommend to someone else, if your OS is so screwed up, look on the side of the keyboard opposite the processor. It is most likely that too many poorly designed software apps have been installed, and that is what is mucking up the system. I've done it. I am much happier after formating my HD and doing a total clean install of the 10.2 GM.

As for XP being better than 10.1.5, I don't agree with you. If I did, then I would not be using an Apple computer. I would probably have a Dell laptop, and put up with having the Dell repairman at my office once a month like I did before I got my Tibook. The apple hardware is great, but as I said before, it is the OS that compells me to buy from Apple, not the hardware.
Click to expand...

no - the disc structure got screwed on the install. however, I am slightly amazed that you can identify and repair a fault in a machine you haven't seen. impressive 5k1ll5.

hmm...so you're telling me that software is now the compelling arguement in buying apple equipment? hmm....well, thats a fair observation, and one I agree with. However, how long would apple last if this view was taken to it logical conclusion? Apples hardware selling point (and its inflated prices) have always been justified by attention to detail and quality - c.f. Sun. And as a comparison, have you SEEN the prices apple charge for RAM?

As for agreeing to tortuous EULA , well, as I said - point me to a definitive case upholding their legality. I dont think you can, and as such are just spouting the industrys chosen standpoint. Law is not made by repetition alone. Any other goods you 'buy' you own and can do with as you will - so why is software so different? you do not license shoes or your washing machine, and if they were defective, you'd take them back, not pay for an 'upgrade'. Software is held back by arcane semi-legalese - what other industry promotes the sale of defective goods and covers its ass with threats of lawyers and 'agreements' which bind you without any form of dialogue or negotiation?
 
daveG5 what teh hell is your problem?!?!?!

I can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading here...

You have to be stupid to say that you didn't agree to the software license and still installed the software. It won't let you install it unless you click 'agree', and once you do that, you Have agreed to the license. If you don't agree, don't click. A court of law isn't going to believe that your cat can click the mouse button only when the software licenses come up. Besides, even if your cat could, and you didn't agree, you shouldn't use the software, and uninstall it immediately.

As for your "10 and 10.1 were still beta's" gripe, you can go shove it up your @$$. Is windoze 98 what 3.1 was supposed to be? I think not. OS X is a new OS, and I don't know what the hell you're comparing it to. OS 9 may feel snappier, but that's about it. Apple's been working hard to make many improvements under the hood of OS X, and they can't do everything at once. It takes time to develop an OS. If Apple had waited until now to release the first version of OS X, it wouldn't be half of what Jaguar is, and you would hardly have any applications.

Is Apple really being greedy by asking for money to support an internet service that costs millions a year to keep running, or charging for an upgrade to an OS that costed them 9 million in R&D? It is you who is being greedy by asking for Apple to give you the best of what they got while paying as little as you can.

You can install jaguar on as many computers as you want, and i personally dont give a flying rat's @$$. Just remember that it's people who buy the single license and install it on 5 machines that will make Apple put in piracy protection. If you made an intelligent complaint to Apple about the price of their software, they might do something nicer, but as long as you violate the user license, you have no right to complain if Apple puts in piracy protection, so **** and quit your bitching, because we've already heard it from tons of other people, and you are no different than the bigots who think that they can do whatever they please with software because they bought it.

The only thing here outrageous is how you think that you are the victim of a company trying to make money in a crappy economy. If nobody pays for Jaguar, then don't expect the next version of OS X to be much better, because Apple will cut the R&D costs so that they aren't developing their OS at a loss.

Cut the crap about how Apple is making sub standard equipment and charging too much for it. If you really love Apple, stop your bitching in these forums and write to Apple about your complaints. Whining here won't do anything about it.

It's idiots like you who really piss me off...
 
Oh jeez...

Hey peterjhill,
Your argument has no stature. You are being just as ridiculous as the companies. Of course I'm not talking about the operating system has a whole. I'm talking about the software on the cd that I bought for $130. That is what I can do anything I want with. If I bought the actual operating system then I could do even more (for the record, I'd open source it :p ). Anyway, you blew your point when you compared it to a rental car. You RENT those. When you BUY a car, no you are not paying for the entire car company, but you can do whatever you want to or with the car you bought, right? I hate it when people seem to crack down more on those who purchase the software and use it twice (oh heaven forbid) than those who buy it, copy it, and sell it to make their own profit. Man, so many of you take Apple's word for it as if that's how the Business world should be. I mean, I love Apple to death, but it desn't mean they're right about everything. You should check out other companies' stances. Check out Linux or other many open source developers, or just those who make software with no real restrictions. Open your mind. Sometimes I feel like Apple or other companies would benefit so much more if they opened their minds just a little bit more.
 
Hmmmm....

Hey g4scott,
First of all, if you want to argue about a crappy economy, you can look at the companies themselves, not the people. It's not coming from people who use their software. I admit, our economy is not in the most stable point, but it's like that because of the companies themselves. Maybe if they took a break from breaking tax laws, or giving their CEOs and Board of Directors million dollar bonuses every few months, their money might be making more profit. Or how about those starving baseball players getting ready to strike because they can't make that few extra million spending. I'm sorry to edge off topic, but g4scott, you need to cool it. Apple WILL NEVER LOSE MONEY from people using their software on more than one computer of their own. The profit they make will be plenty. I totally give them props for the software they create, and I do feel like they are doing us favors by making it, but they would be nowhere without us buying it and supporting them.
 
Re: daveG5 what teh hell is your problem?!?!?!

Originally posted by G4scott
IJust remember that it's people who buy the single license and install it on 5 machines that will make Apple put in piracy protection.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's even a 'if'. The only reason to put out a family pak is so it is in place when on the next major update, or maybe the one after that, Apple will limit the OS install to one machine. They want to be able to say "Oh, we know this isn't an inconvenience - you all have been buying the family paks and 'doing the right thing' all along, haven't you?"

The family pak is just preliminary groundwork for 'one machine installation per purchase' products somewhere down the road.

Enjoy the free ride while you can.
 
the difference between OS & app Licenses...

ADOBE Photoshop
End User License Agreement
2.1. General Use. You may install and Use a copy of the Software on your compatible Computer, up to the Permitted Number of Computers.
2.4. Portable Computer Use. The primary user of the Computer on which the Software is installed may also make a second copy for his or her exclusive use on a portable Computer provided the Software on the portable Computer is not being used at the same time the Software on the primary computer is being used.

Apple OS X
End User License Agreement
1.General. The software (including Boot Rom code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the “Apple Software”) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Computer Inc…
…you own the media on which the software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple’s Licensor(s) retain ownership of the software itself.
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions
A. This license allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. This license does not allow the Apple software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time. You may make one copy of the Apple Software (excluding the Boot Rom code) in machine-readable form for back-up purposes only; provided that the back-up copy must include all copy-write or other proprietary notices contained on the original.
Click to expand...
This means that with OS X you legally have to buy as many copies of the OS as you have computers regardless if they are your own personal computers or they aren’t being used at the same time.

With Adobe’s software as well as many other applications, you can have a copy of their software on your desktop and portable at the same time provided that you are only running one copy at any given time.

Apple could do a lot worse things with the installation of their OS, such as requiring it to access the internet to see if it had been installed before on a different machine, etc. And whether you agree with the EULA or not, you have to click agree in order to install the OS and are there by legally bound to the agreement.

So, this family pack of OS X is a great idea for those people with multiple Macs and want to keep things legal.

And those of you still griping about the "10 and 10.1 were betas" and we shouldn't have to pay for 10.2, you didn't have to buy and/or use 10 & 10.1 so stop your whining. If everyone bought all the copies of software required by the EULAs maybe the developers could afford to drop their prices.
Piracy perpetuates the increase in software prices.
 
buying vs. licensing

One point I'd like to clarify for those people who think there's nothing wrong with doing what they want with their software since they paid for it. Well I agree, there's nothing wrong with BUYING a software program, music CD, DVD, etc. and doing what you want with it most people don't have the money to BUY the software. If you OWN Mac OS X 10.2 then you are the exclusive owner in all the world (I'm pretty sure that Apple is the only owner of OS X). I'm betting that you never actually BOUGHT OS X 10.2, perhaps you LICENSED it. You own the box and CD it came on but you don't OWN the software. Apple retains the rights to the software.
 
Hey...

Hey MacArtist,
You, of course, can feel how you want to feel about it. I totally respect each and everyone's opinion. But, I just feel like I have to say something. It's not fair to say that if people followed the EULA, developers could afford to drop their prices. There is no reason why the developers couldn't drop their prices and still make plenty of profit. Not just with Apple, but other companies are skyrocketing their prices. You can't say that it has to do with the unstable economy, or inflation. If you know anything about the econmoics in this country (which unfortunately, I do) you would see that the numbers don't match up. And, you definitely can't say higher prices are due to the fact of people using their software more than once. That's just silly too. In fact, I believe it's the opposite. People are pirating and such due to the fact of higher prices. Another thing I have to say, is that I don't want to single out dvelopers. They are awesome. It's just they aren't getting paid enough. But that hasn't nothing to do with sales. Like I said before, if the CEO's would stop taking million dollar bonuses and giving it back to the developers, it would start to make more sense.
 
Okay...

Hey onemoof,
Your point is credible, but it doesn't matter. Call it want you want but don't be silly. Ok, so I don't own the SOFTWARE, and I own the LICENSE. Fine, then I should have the right to do whatever I want (to an extent) with the LICENSE that I purcahsed. I think that "extent" goes as far as being able to put it on both of my computers. I really don't think that harms anything. I know the Apple EULA says to put it on only one computer, but I'm just saying how I think it should be. I think the real crime is copying the software or OS, and selling it to make your own profit. There is no way Apple or anybody would lose money if families just put software that they bought on every computer in their house (which by average, isn't a lot of computers per household). If they want to, they can worry themselves about companies who put it on every computer. I don't think that is wrong either, but at least it makes a little more sense. Anyway, I just wish people would look at the real harm out there than someone who buys Officev.X and puts it on his computer, and say, his son's laptop as well.
 
I have been reading all of the posts.

The problem as I see it is that Apple has made another marketing blunder.
I base this on history form 1984 to present regarding the operating system.
Apple should have simpley come out and offered 10.2 for $129 as a 5 machine family license. A 10 machine small buisness license for $260.

I have new Macs all came with 10.1 installed. I have pre-ordered 10.2 and I have no plans on returning it to buy the "family license". Apple again is a day late and a dollar short in understanding pricing structures for the average family.

I guess you can say I am agreeing with Dave on most of his points.

Apple needs to grandfather the current 10.2 preorders to family license and change their pricing structure.

Danny
 
In regards to the question of whether or not it is illegal to be listening to a mp3 of a song you own and someone listenign to the cd, it is not. In most cases music companies allow for 1 copy of a cd be made in case of accidental loss or for convenience. The copy can be physical or digital it does not matter as long as it is made for your own personal use and not for profit. It is also legal to make a copy of a vhs tape in case the vcr eats it or whatever as long as it is not for distribution. It is allowed for cds and tapes for backup, i am not sure of the laws on dvs.
 
Software is too expensive

[sarcasm] lilscoy is absolutely right. Software companies are charging too much so that they can pay million dollar bonuses for all of their executives while the lowly software developer gets screwed.

The truth is, that if software companies took those million dollar bonuses and distributed them to the employees, then those companies would make more money... Oh, wait... now that doesn't quite make sense.

Ok, well, that doesn't really matter, because software companies could lower their prices and then there would be less piracy and they would sell more copies so that they could make more money. Then, because they were selling more copies, they could drop the price more and MAKE MORE MONEY!

HOLY COW, lilscoy, I think you just put yourself on the short list for a NOBEL PRIZE!!! This is freaking BRILLIANT. You must really know something "about the current economics of this country" that those overpaid software execs don't.

I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT NOBODY HAS FIGURED THIS OUT YET!!!
[/sarcasm]

Of course, in a working MARKET ECONOMY, these BALANCES have already been reached given the current circumstances. That's not to say that an egg won't appear someday that allows a new chicken to appear and dramatically change those circumstances.
 
Re: the difference between OS & app Licenses...

Originally posted by MacArtist

Apple could do a lot worse things with the installation of their OS, such as requiring it to access the internet to see if it had been installed before on a different machine, etc. And whether you agree with the EULA or not, you have to click agree in order to install the OS and are there by legally bound to the agreement.
Click to expand...


EXACTLY - if the damn thing insistson installing or shipping with (and therefore Im paying for it) something I dont want, i have NO choice but to not use any of it. That hardly seems an 'agreement'. And who here honestly has read pages of EULA ? and of those who understood all the ramifications? I doubt many here....

no one has, as yet , pointed me to case justifying the full legal authority of an EULA, but has just spouted that they are 'law'. If they can, I'll take their arguments more seriously....



So, this family pack of OS X is a great idea for those people with multiple Macs and want to keep things legal.

And those of you still griping about the "10 and 10.1 were betas" and we shouldn't have to pay for 10.2, you didn't have to buy and/or use 10 & 10.1 so stop your whining. If everyone bought all the copies of software required by the EULAs maybe the developers could afford to drop their prices.
Piracy perpetuates the increase in software prices.
Click to expand...

it shipped with this here iBook. A computer without a working os is a merely a fancy, expensive box. The OS is intrisic to the computer working, and if it doesnt work, then why treat it any different to, say, a new but broken toaster?

The old, tired arguement about buying licences and dropping prices is merely industry guff. Its not been shown to happen - after all, billy boy has how much money in the bank? and office is how much? 500 sheets? the price hasnt dropped because I bought 100 licences - nope, it goes up, because its easy to skin people for money and lay on the emotional blackmail. Sell it for a reasonable price and I'll buy - skin me, and expect me to treat the company with equal contempt.

How many times does apples marketing have to boob for people here to stop defending them? some time companies need to be *told* they are behaving like fools, especially by those most loyal to them. I am seriously having a hard time convincing anyone around here that apple are a 'decent' firm, especially when i have to defend their crass marketing stunts like single speed 'ddr'.
 
Re: Oh jeez...

Originally posted by lilscoy
Hey peterjhill,
Your argument has no stature. You are being just as ridiculous as the companies. Of course I'm not talking about the operating system has a whole. I'm talking about the software on the cd that I bought for $130. That is what I can do anything I want with. If I bought the actual operating system then I could do even more (for the record, I'd open source it :p ). Anyway, you blew your point when you compared it to a rental car. You RENT those. When you BUY a car, no you are not paying for the entire car company
Click to expand...

Hello dense person. I think the arguement is quite valid. When you rent a car you are entering into an agreement with the car rental company that you will abide by certain conditions, and in return will get use of the vehicle, which you do not own.

When you purchase a box of software, you are paying money and entering into an agreement with a company for the right to use the software, agreeing to certain conditions, one being that you do not own the software.

Whereas a rental car company will probably sell you the car for a reasonable price, as they can easily purchase another, Apple does not have the ability or desire to go out and purchase a replacement OS, and would probably not want to sell you Mac OS, and then need to license the software from you so that they could include a copy of it with their hardware. It would turn apple into dell, and you into microsoft.

So, my arguement is quite valid, and your complaints against it are very weak.
 
Re: Hmmmm....

Originally posted by lilscoy
Apple WILL NEVER LOSE MONEY from people using their software on more than one computer of their own. The profit they make will be plenty. I totally give them props for the software they create, and I do feel like they are doing us favors by making it, but they would be nowhere without us buying it and supporting them.
Click to expand...

If you use the software, against the terms set-forth in your agreement with them, then they will have lost a sale, and therefore WOULD LOSE MONEY.
 
Re: Re: the difference between OS & app Licenses...

Originally posted by Pants


no one has, as yet , pointed me to case justifying the full legal authority of an EULA, but has just spouted that they are 'law'. If they can, I'll take their arguments more seriously....
[/B]
Click to expand...
Go look near the end of the piracy and mac os x thread and you will see some links and quotes of the US criminal code outlining why software piracy is illegal.
 
No.

Well, once again these boards are getting flustered with people attacking to preserve themselves. I really enjoyed giving my opinions only to hear a response from others and maybe get some good discussion going. It's actually been quite stimulating, and I'm glad we can have these talks. But, it just gets sour.
Anyway,
oldmac, your sarcasm it greatly appreciated, however very lame. You should have thrown more jokes in and it would have been better. :) Well, if you did know how the U.S. economy worked, you would understand my points. I'd like to see your real take on it, but without the sarcasm.

perterjhill,
As for you calling me dense and my arguments weak, hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. I would hope that you could tell from my comments that I am not dense. I don't think you're dense. My point about the rental car, is that you rent the car, and BUY the license. That analogy has no basis. Like I said, you are better off comparing it to when someone BUYS a car. But then, I guess, that would stand all over your point. And also, you're wrong about the losing money thing. My point is that most families would either copy the OS to another computer or not. If they couldn't or wouldn't copy it, they certainly wouldn't go buy another one. So no, Apple wouldn't lose any money because the majority wouldn't purchase another copy...many would think it's not worth it.
 
Re: Re: Re: the difference between OS & app Licenses...

Originally posted by peterjhill

Go look near the end of the piracy and mac os x thread and you will see some links and quotes of the US criminal code outlining why software piracy is illegal.
Click to expand...


uhh...thats not the answer. Software piracy may be illegal (the copying and selling of software), that was not my point. That, however, doesnt imply that the typical EULA is a legally binding contract.
 
I feel ya!

Eh, I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in. I just want to say that I absolutely agree with dave. Once I buy software, I should be able to do with it what I want...of course, with some limits. I don't think I should be able to copy it and sell it...making profit off of it is a whole other issue. But, I should be able to make as many copies as I want for myself. One for my laptop, one for my desktop, and one for my girlfriend's desktop, who lives in the same "household". This goes with cds and dvds as well. I should be able to copy a cd and have one for the house, and one for the car, and an mp3 version for my computer. I bought this cd, you know? I don't think it's any different than buying copies for each place. I mean, that just sounds silly: "you can have it on two computers, but only use one at a time". Is that really going to help any company sales? Also, I want to point out that software, dvds, and cds are all the same. They are all some form of media. And I'm not sure if you guys have heard of the Superdrive, but it does let you copy dvds and have a copy for different rooms. Now I know so many are going to flame me for this, but I also think it should be legal to rip dvds and have a separate copy for each dvd player, etc. It's my dvd. I'm not selling it. It makes no difference to Hollywood. Well anyway, I guess I want to finish by saying that I can somewhat understand a mutliple liscence fee for companies, but for families?? That's so silly. I just wish people could see that it's not companies trying to make their money...they are trying to milk you for yours.
By the way
What is your pets name?
 
Re: Re: Oh jeez...

Originally posted by peterjhill


Hello dense person. I think the arguement is quite valid. When you rent a car you are entering into an agreement with the car rental company that you will abide by certain conditions, and in return will get use of the vehicle, which you do not own.

When you purchase a box of software, you are paying money and entering into an agreement with a company for the right to use the software, agreeing to certain conditions, one being that you do not own the software.
Click to expand...

hmm...before calling people dense - read what you wrote. The word 'rent' as in the car, has a completely different meaning contractually to the word 'purchase'. Purchase implies a change of ownership - on no software that I have bought does it say, writ large on the box, " for rent only". To apply conditions AFTER the sale has been made (a sale is after all a contract) is not feasible.

this is why the typical EULA is a total crock, and indefendable.
 
Re: No.

Originally posted by lilscoy
My point about the rental car, is that you rent the car, and BUY the license.
Click to expand...

part of the problem people have is terminology...you are not BUYING a license on the software, you are just paying for the LTU (license to USE) the software. If you want to put it into a vehical analgy I would say it is more like leasing than renting becuase what you are paying for is the right to use that car and at the end of your lease you either purchase it or return it based on the agreement you agreed to at the time of the lease.

Now when we look at the LTU it is giving you the right to use that software for as long as you want and you don't ever have to upgrade to the next thing. If you take it back to the lease on a car, at the end of the lease you can turn it in for a new car....hhhhuummmm that sounds like upgrading to me now should that be done for free or at a cost?

Now for those of you that want a free OS, go get linux....oh I forgot...since it is free there isn't much development that goes into it (not like on a Mac or Wintel platform) and it is done because people want to do it and are not there to make money! Do you remember when Red Hat was trying to sell a FREE OS? They had a huge IPO and after a short period people realized that they were paying for something that is free.

OS X being a beta, if my memory serves me correct if you had purchased 10.0 or had a machine that came with 10.0 you could go to 10.1 for $19.95 which covered S/H and all the updates to 10.1.5 are FREE. Now there is a NEW version of the OS that has had a lot of time and money poured into it and people are bitching that they have to pay for it. Look back up at the Linux coment...you want a free OS go to linux.

.Mac is not something that is being forced on ANYBODY to use. If you want an account then you pay for it. You get 100Meg of iDisk, e-mail that you can access from just about any mail app that you want to use, backup and anti-virus sw. Now I did a quick check and for 100meg of web space costs about $5-6/month or $60-70/year. If you don't want all the extras then get a yahoo account and deal with all those annoying popups. $99/year isn't that bad when you look at what you get, even if you don't use all the features that are there.
 
Some basics on software copyright and licensing

There are a couple of issues here and as usual people are getting them wrong.

1. Copyright law.

Current law treats software the same as a book.

In other words you own the copy of software you have purchased, and as a home user can treat it the same way you can treat a book.

Which pretty much means you can do anything you want when using it yourself, even changing the splash screen to give yourself credit as programmer. You of course cannot sell or distribute any modified copies.

If you sell it you have to transfer the original and all copies (retaining none)

2. Software licenses.

Most home users purchase software in the retail box either at the store or online.

In those cases the "licenses" whether printed or "clickthrough" when you start the program are invalid and unenforcable.

The short explanation is that you did not have the opportunity to review those terms before purchase and so are not bound by them after the sale is complete.

There have been those who argue that there should be some implied license to software - well, UCITA was supposed to address that but it only passed in 2 states before it died forever.

Some jurists have argued that if you print the licensing terms on the outside of the box (so the consumer can review them before purchase) the agreements would be enforcable, not that I've seen many software boxes with 8-point legalese on the back lately.

peterjhill, I'm sorry if you are a programmer but that's essentially how 19th century copyright law and consumer fair use doctrine treats software here in the 21st century. When I go out to Compusa and buy 10.2 for my home none of that EULA verbage is legally enforcable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back