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.
Mac OS X Family Pack... Now Available
- Thread starter arn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
where I don't agree with you on 10.1 being beta (as it does work quite well) 10.0 was a dog and everybody was given the option to upgrade to 10.1 for $19.95 through the begining of this year. Should the same thing be done for the 10.2 probably, and if enough people bitch to Apple about this it might be changed.
Skunk - also if you go to the OS X and upgrade tab there is a listing for the family pack but I do agree that there should be something listed on that same page for family pack purchases. I have reported this one and hopefully it will be corrected soon
Not the same thing
I think there are two different issues here: the OS and the applications. Most of the time, if you have several networked machines, the OS is permanently on, on all machines. It has to be. Without it the hardware has no function. We're not talking upgrades here, either. 10.2 is the first fully-functional version of the software, meaning that it's the first time our computers have been fully functional in X as well, and most of us have already paid for its development to date.
Applications (by third parties) are different. In most cases it's not much trouble to save a file on one machine, close the app and move it to another machine, so you don't really need to have the same app open on more than one machine at a time. This way, it is within for instance Adobe's EULA terms. And it's what PS and Illustrator allow you to do.
I just think we should keep these two instances separate.
I think there are two different issues here: the OS and the applications. Most of the time, if you have several networked machines, the OS is permanently on, on all machines. It has to be. Without it the hardware has no function. We're not talking upgrades here, either. 10.2 is the first fully-functional version of the software, meaning that it's the first time our computers have been fully functional in X as well, and most of us have already paid for its development to date.
Applications (by third parties) are different. In most cases it's not much trouble to save a file on one machine, close the app and move it to another machine, so you don't really need to have the same app open on more than one machine at a time. This way, it is within for instance Adobe's EULA terms. And it's what PS and Illustrator allow you to do.
I just think we should keep these two instances separate.
EULA vs copyright, again
¨?°<Dlem with EULAs is with the method of distribution (sticking the software in a retail packaged box) where the consumer cannot review the terms prior to sale.
Since they can't (and have no recourse) the EULA in that case is invalid.
It's a simple application of contract law.
Were the consumer allowed to return the software (try taking an opened 10.2 back to Compusa and see how far you get) then with that recourse available case law would support the EULA, at least in ONE decision in one circuit.
That doesn't address copyright issues, but for non-commercial home use the consumer enjoys broad rights.
(E.g., contrary to what EULAs claim, under current copyright law the consumer can modify the software for their own personal use by applying a "no-CD" patch or changing the credits on the splash screen if they want. Of course they cannot sell/distribute the modified software)
¨?°<Dlem with EULAs is with the method of distribution (sticking the software in a retail packaged box) where the consumer cannot review the terms prior to sale.
Since they can't (and have no recourse) the EULA in that case is invalid.
It's a simple application of contract law.
Were the consumer allowed to return the software (try taking an opened 10.2 back to Compusa and see how far you get) then with that recourse available case law would support the EULA, at least in ONE decision in one circuit.
That doesn't address copyright issues, but for non-commercial home use the consumer enjoys broad rights.
(E.g., contrary to what EULAs claim, under current copyright law the consumer can modify the software for their own personal use by applying a "no-CD" patch or changing the credits on the splash screen if they want. Of course they cannot sell/distribute the modified software)
Re: Re: One More Time!!
Dave g5 replies: Let's take the last one first must of us come in early at least sometimes, work late off the clock, at least sometimes and work for the company at home of the clock , at least sometimes. I think at the end of the year we employees should tally up-itemize or what ever all the extra hours and free advertising we give are companies the bill. I guarantee you it we be more than 80 hours worked!
But anyway I am forced to agree with you on that point.
Now on the first point I disagree and here's why: That programmer needs to get paid for the great program just once by the home user, because the EULA that he is about to hide in the box along with the as is warranty (you open it you bought it, its defective but I,ll give you another one of the same thing} are an insult to any consumer.
And just like other media cd,s dvds vhs etc I am "allowed and expected to use it on all compatable devices in my house" or why buy it. a cd for #1 cd player a dvd for #2 dvd player a OS for #3 computer.
To be fair there was a time whenthere was only 1 cd player in the house, 1 vhs player in the house, 1 dvd player in the house, 1 computer in the house,
but we bought and bought and that day has pass.
Any programmer with a great app should expect and be grateful that his app is on every machine in the house and that it was paid for in full and not pirated. this is the best advertisement and compliment he could have
and I guarantee he will be in buisness a long time. Not only that if his app is so good why not give a real moneyback guarantee. Throw away any EULA and let it be a home license.
I mean where would Apple or any other computer company be if we did not have more than 1 computer per house hold. If the hardware company folds then software is next.
Very good argument though
Dave g5 replies: Let's take the last one first must of us come in early at least sometimes, work late off the clock, at least sometimes and work for the company at home of the clock , at least sometimes. I think at the end of the year we employees should tally up-itemize or what ever all the extra hours and free advertising we give are companies the bill. I guarantee you it we be more than 80 hours worked!
But anyway I am forced to agree with you on that point.
Now on the first point I disagree and here's why: That programmer needs to get paid for the great program just once by the home user, because the EULA that he is about to hide in the box along with the as is warranty (you open it you bought it, its defective but I,ll give you another one of the same thing} are an insult to any consumer.
And just like other media cd,s dvds vhs etc I am "allowed and expected to use it on all compatable devices in my house" or why buy it. a cd for #1 cd player a dvd for #2 dvd player a OS for #3 computer.
To be fair there was a time whenthere was only 1 cd player in the house, 1 vhs player in the house, 1 dvd player in the house, 1 computer in the house,
but we bought and bought and that day has pass.
Any programmer with a great app should expect and be grateful that his app is on every machine in the house and that it was paid for in full and not pirated. this is the best advertisement and compliment he could have
and I guarantee he will be in buisness a long time. Not only that if his app is so good why not give a real moneyback guarantee. Throw away any EULA and let it be a home license.
I mean where would Apple or any other computer company be if we did not have more than 1 computer per house hold. If the hardware company folds then software is next.
Very good argument though
Re: EULA vs copyright, again
you would probably appreciate this:
http://zork.net/refund/issuetwo.html
It is about people wanting a microsoft return day for everyone who did not agree with the EULA, and to try to get a refund directly from Microsoft.
you would probably appreciate this:
http://zork.net/refund/issuetwo.html
It is about people wanting a microsoft return day for everyone who did not agree with the EULA, and to try to get a refund directly from Microsoft.
Re: Re: Re: One More Time!!
If you were to take your CD and make five copies of it, and play them simultaneously, maybe you would be violating copyright law, but I am not sure.
There is a difference though between the two, please explain to me why you disagree if you do, because I am curious at how you justify the similarity between the two, when I see only difference.
So back to shareware, you do get to try before you buy. You dont even need to return it if you don't like it, because you don't have to pay for it until you have tried it out. So should they be treated differently? Would you pay for a copy of a program that you had running on all of your computers under this model, or do you still stand by with you feelings that you should be able to do whatever you want with the software (even if it does not come in a box).
Software manufacturers must build their pricing structure for the software based on projected sales of the software. As the percentage of computers that are running copies of the software, for which the manufacturer has not received compensation, then the company will profit less, and will have to make up for the lost sales in some other way. As for the companies making profits, even with lost sales, good for them, but that still does not justify software piracy, IMHO. Maybe you feel differently. That's great. As I said before, I respect your right to own your beliefs, but that does not mean that I endorse them or agree with them.
What about people like ambrosiasw.com who make great games that you can download for free. They still have an EULA. They are certainally within their rights to only license one copy of it with the key they give you. So, in this case, they are not hiding their EULA, they even let you try out the software, download it for free. Are you saying that those programmers don't deserve your money if you like their product? After all, no one is forcing you to use it.
Well, we discussed this before. With a dvd, vhs tape, or a cd, the content stays with the media. With software, you are transferring the content to your computer. When you take the media out, the content remains on that computer. When you then take that media and put it into another computer and install it, you are then copying the content to another device, in violation with the terms of use (which can be debated on its legality, but is a separate issue IMHO)
If you were to take your CD and make five copies of it, and play them simultaneously, maybe you would be violating copyright law, but I am not sure.
There is a difference though between the two, please explain to me why you disagree if you do, because I am curious at how you justify the similarity between the two, when I see only difference.
Mercedes would be happy if everyone had one of their cars in their garage, but they would expect to be paid for every mercedes that you owned. In the same manner, a software engineer would want every copy of their software that you had installed, to be paid for, particularly for an Operating System, that runs whenever the computer is on.
So back to shareware, you do get to try before you buy. You dont even need to return it if you don't like it, because you don't have to pay for it until you have tried it out. So should they be treated differently? Would you pay for a copy of a program that you had running on all of your computers under this model, or do you still stand by with you feelings that you should be able to do whatever you want with the software (even if it does not come in a box).
It is just a name, why wouldn't they be the same thing? An EULA could be written to allow for many different types of licenses.
So, what is your point? Like the Mercedes analogy above. Where would car makers be, if every home only had one car? Well, as long as every car was paid for, and not stolen, they would be doing quite well. If people only paid for one of the cars, and had 4 stolen ones in their garage, they would be in trouble.
Software manufacturers must build their pricing structure for the software based on projected sales of the software. As the percentage of computers that are running copies of the software, for which the manufacturer has not received compensation, then the company will profit less, and will have to make up for the lost sales in some other way. As for the companies making profits, even with lost sales, good for them, but that still does not justify software piracy, IMHO. Maybe you feel differently. That's great. As I said before, I respect your right to own your beliefs, but that does not mean that I endorse them or agree with them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: One More Time!!
We are NOT talking piracy. You are missing the point. One User Licence per User. No problem, no shafting, fair use. Why not?
We are NOT talking piracy. You are missing the point. One User Licence per User. No problem, no shafting, fair use. Why not?
partial quotes
Skunk - to do a partial quote do a regular one and look at the tags that are placed at the begining and end of the quote and you will see what you need to do
Skunk - to do a partial quote do a regular one and look at the tags that are placed at the begining and end of the quote and you will see what you need to do
thank you
Peter - thank you for that post...you did it better than I would have and got the point across....I hope
Dave - don't want to burst your bubble again but the profit is not made on most of the hard ware...in general there is BARELY a double digit margin on that side of the house...money is made but not a lot...not like music CD's which cost apx $.50 to make (including the case and printed material) but they sell for $12-18 each.
Skunk - you say that you should be able to load the sw on any computer that you own...but where do you draw the line? a company OWNS the computers that their employees use so should they have to purchase copies of the sw for each machine? buy a corporate SITE LICENSE? or just buy one? All the Family Pack is a site license for your house...it is the same price for 2 as it is for 5 just as a corporate license can be an unlimited number of concurent users (but they pay for that too)
Peter - thank you for that post...you did it better than I would have and got the point across....I hope
Dave - don't want to burst your bubble again but the profit is not made on most of the hard ware...in general there is BARELY a double digit margin on that side of the house...money is made but not a lot...not like music CD's which cost apx $.50 to make (including the case and printed material) but they sell for $12-18 each.
Skunk - you say that you should be able to load the sw on any computer that you own...but where do you draw the line? a company OWNS the computers that their employees use so should they have to purchase copies of the sw for each machine? buy a corporate SITE LICENSE? or just buy one? All the Family Pack is a site license for your house...it is the same price for 2 as it is for 5 just as a corporate license can be an unlimited number of concurent users (but they pay for that too)
Simple, really
Businesses should buy as many licences as they have users of each application programme. They're making - or hoping to make - a profit themselves from the use of the programme, otherwise they wouldn't buy it. For the OS, if OS X Server is unlimited, why not OS X? It's part of the computer. Apple can generate OS sales with each new computer anyway (don't think they don't factor it into the price).
Businesses should buy as many licences as they have users of each application programme. They're making - or hoping to make - a profit themselves from the use of the programme, otherwise they wouldn't buy it. For the OS, if OS X Server is unlimited, why not OS X? It's part of the computer. Apple can generate OS sales with each new computer anyway (don't think they don't factor it into the price).
Stop Press!
in the ".Mac Subscriptions Extended" thread, a VERY interesting development. See the last post on page 3 from Erik 1975.
in the ".Mac Subscriptions Extended" thread, a VERY interesting development. See the last post on page 3 from Erik 1975.
Re: Simple, really
ok you agree that businesses should buy as many licenses as they use because they make a profit from that application...well the company that made the sw they are using wants to make a profit too so does it matter if it is for a company using it for profit or an individual just using it?
As to why there is an unlimited version of the server...there are companies that need that but they pay $999 for that and to be honest I am not sure what the unlimited user license does for the server as I don't work with that product.
I am sure they factor the cost of the OS into the price of the computer but that is not really where the money is made...it is in the perferals, sw and add-on's. Now there was a line of thought (I think it was Dave) that there should be free upgrades for life....and I am sure that there could be some pricing structure to accomidate that but I think you would have a computer that cost $10-20k
ok you agree that businesses should buy as many licenses as they use because they make a profit from that application...well the company that made the sw they are using wants to make a profit too so does it matter if it is for a company using it for profit or an individual just using it?
As to why there is an unlimited version of the server...there are companies that need that but they pay $999 for that and to be honest I am not sure what the unlimited user license does for the server as I don't work with that product.
I am sure they factor the cost of the OS into the price of the computer but that is not really where the money is made...it is in the perferals, sw and add-on's. Now there was a line of thought (I think it was Dave) that there should be free upgrades for life....and I am sure that there could be some pricing structure to accomidate that but I think you would have a computer that cost $10-20k
It's like the Wine List
Sure, the software is where they make tons of profit. But is it justifiable profit if they need to rely on unenforceable and one-sided contracts to extort the money? I don't think this changes anything. I'm sure they could work out a reasonable volume licensing deal, or make their money on the servicing contract, like they obviously aim to do with OS X Server. Home use is different in so many ways.
Sure, the software is where they make tons of profit. But is it justifiable profit if they need to rely on unenforceable and one-sided contracts to extort the money? I don't think this changes anything. I'm sure they could work out a reasonable volume licensing deal, or make their money on the servicing contract, like they obviously aim to do with OS X Server. Home use is different in so many ways.
It's not for life
Who is running a single computer for life? Everyone buys a new machine every now and then, and guess what? It comes with a current OS. So you start over.
Who is running a single computer for life? Everyone buys a new machine every now and then, and guess what? It comes with a current OS. So you start over.
Re: It's not for life
you are right...people DO buy a new computer now and again...but if you only relied on that kind of income then you would NOT see much in the way of development for the OS...unlesss you built the cost of the R&D into the computer. Now I dont' know how many engineers it took or how long it took them to get 10.2 online but lets just guess at some reasonable numbers. If your average engineer gets say $75k a year and you have say 1000 engineers working on the project the company is going to incur a cost of $75 million/year. Now did it take that many engineers being paid that much...I have no idea....but it gives you an idea on what it costs to develop software...and this money has to be paid out BEFORE the product even goes to market!
you are right...people DO buy a new computer now and again...but if you only relied on that kind of income then you would NOT see much in the way of development for the OS...unlesss you built the cost of the R&D into the computer. Now I dont' know how many engineers it took or how long it took them to get 10.2 online but lets just guess at some reasonable numbers. If your average engineer gets say $75k a year and you have say 1000 engineers working on the project the company is going to incur a cost of $75 million/year. Now did it take that many engineers being paid that much...I have no idea....but it gives you an idea on what it costs to develop software...and this money has to be paid out BEFORE the product even goes to market!
I phoned Apple Customer Care today and had a very nice conversation wi th a young lady.
We talked about Apples history of OS Software updates and upgrades and the current issue of single user versus Family License. She said that Apple came up with the Family License at the request of some customers.
I suggested that Apple needs to find a more creative way to provide home customers a family license. It appears too much like a business license.
The family license could be more value added. Let's said we pay $200 to $300 to provide a site license for the family which would include unlimited customer support for all of the machines in the house. Or if all three machines are covered by Apple Care, then let the upgrade be free and run on all machines.
I pointed out, that based upon human behavior, the Famly Plan may not have the results thar Apple desires.
I suggested that Apple Marketing think outside of the box and not look like every other software vendor.
Anyway I put in my suggestions to Apple. The Rep. was clicking away on here keyboard and said she would pass on my suggestions.
Danny
Oh yes. I got the iMac notice today that my subscription will be until Sept. 2003.
We talked about Apples history of OS Software updates and upgrades and the current issue of single user versus Family License. She said that Apple came up with the Family License at the request of some customers.
I suggested that Apple needs to find a more creative way to provide home customers a family license. It appears too much like a business license.
The family license could be more value added. Let's said we pay $200 to $300 to provide a site license for the family which would include unlimited customer support for all of the machines in the house. Or if all three machines are covered by Apple Care, then let the upgrade be free and run on all machines.
I pointed out, that based upon human behavior, the Famly Plan may not have the results thar Apple desires.
I suggested that Apple Marketing think outside of the box and not look like every other software vendor.
Anyway I put in my suggestions to Apple. The Rep. was clicking away on here keyboard and said she would pass on my suggestions.
Danny
Oh yes. I got the iMac notice today that my subscription will be until Sept. 2003.
$75,000,000?
One OS: $75,000,000
One LearJet: $90,000,000
Running costs: about the same.
Relative cost: PEANUTS.
And well done, Dannsh. I have had a go at them too. I hope everyone subscribing to these boards is also letting Apple know what they think.
One OS: $75,000,000
One LearJet: $90,000,000
Running costs: about the same.
Relative cost: PEANUTS.
And well done, Dannsh. I have had a go at them too. I hope everyone subscribing to these boards is also letting Apple know what they think.