Poll: Do you buy 'family packs'?

[ThunderRobot]

Legally purchased but illegally installed if installed on more than one system at a time.

Justify it how you will. But, if you wrote software for a living, I bet you wouldn't feel the same way about it. Do condone people stealing from you?

S-

I write software for a living, but would never expect a client to purchase the exact same product twice as Apple customers are expected to do with some elements of iLife.

Nor would I expect an existing customer to pay the same as a new customer if I was only giving them selected new features.

Apple have got a lot right in their pricing policy. But there is also still room for improvement.

 

[scaredpoet]

Personally, I think the family pack pricing is right enough for me to take advantage. However other people do it is up to them, but the extra $20 to be "legit" is worth it to me, especially when you figure that you can't do the same for counterpart Microsoft products.

 

[sidewinder]

I write software for a living, but would never expect a client to purchase the exact same product twice as Apple customers are expected to do with some elements of iLife.

Nor would I expect an existing customer to pay the same as a new customer if I was only giving them selected new features.

Apple have got a lot right in their pricing policy. But there is also still room for improvement.

Thunderobot,

The point here isn't what you think about Apple's policies regarding their software.

You may not agree with Apple's policies, but you agree that they have the right to set the policies the way they want to, right? Or, if I bought your software and didn't like your policies, it's okay that I ignore them and do as I see fit with your software?

S-

 

[Mal]

Recently I've been getting NFR copies so it's not an issue, but I usually just buy the single because I only have one computer.

My dad made it a practice to buy the single packs and then install it on all of the computers in the family, even those not living at home. I never cared for it, but he'd been doing it for a long time, so it's not likely he's going to listen to me (and I'm not going to report him or anything, that'd just be petty and stupid). Apple has gotten a lot of money from him anyways, but to be fair, it's a good bit less than they deserve.

jW

 

[snberk103]

I write software for a living, but would never expect a client to purchase the exact same product twice as Apple customers are expected to do with some elements of iLife.

Nor would I expect an existing customer to pay the same as a new customer if I was only giving them selected new features.

Apple have got a lot right in their pricing policy. But there is also still room for improvement.

The question here is not whether your pricing scheme and Apple's pricing scheme is fair (in your opinion). The question is whether you'd be happy if one of your clients felt that your pricing scheme, however flexible, was unfair and was more more copies and installing them on systems that your license did not allow.

I will admit that some of Apple's pricing could be improved, but to say that you will pay Apple on the same license terms as you expect to get leaves the door open of people to pay you on the same terms that they feel is fair.... however they define is fair.

There are some software writers who charge a "whatever you think is fair" price for their work. I believe you are advocating, whether you realize it or not, that kind of pricing structure.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Whoo... This got heated.

For the record, Microsoft's "Single-use" license allows for one copy on a desktop computer, plus one copy on a mobile computer; as long as both copies are not being used simultaneously.

Per the Leopard EULA (emphasis mine):

Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time

Very obviously "one computer".

Per the iLife EULA (emphasis mine):

Single Use. The Apple Software is being licensed to you as a bundle and 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 Apple-labeled computer at a time...

Very obviously "installed on one computer." No Microsoft-like "install on two, use on one." Explicitly NOT that, in fact.

The iWork EULA is nearly identical to the iLife EULA, only some slight wording changes to mention the trial version. Again, explicitly not allowed to even exist on more than one computer.

I will admit to using my Leopard family pack on 6 computers. However, three of those computers are almost never even powered on, so I'm willing to fudge it on that one.

One legalese thing I'm curious about is using an external disk to boot multiple computers... If I install Leopard (with iLife and iWork) on an external hard drive, and use that drive to boot more than one machine (although obviously never simultaneously,) would that run afoul? It's only *INSTALLED* on a single instance, after all... (By my reading of the EULAs, that would, indeed, be disallowed, as it says not just 'install', but 'install, use and run'.)

 

[ThunderRobot]

Thunderobot,

The point here isn't what you think about Apple's policies regarding their software.

You may not agree with Apple's policies, but you agree that they have the right to set the policies the way they want to, right? Or, if I bought your software and didn't like your policies, it's okay that I ignore them and do as I see fit with your software?

S-

As per my original post in the thread - I did mention it was going slightly off-topic. My post was made in reply to points raised in the thread, not to the original post. There is a difference and as a result my post was pertinent to the discussion. At absolutely no point did I advocate ignoring Apple's policies, again if you check my original post you will see that I did, in fact, respect the policy, even if I disagree with aspects of it.

The question here is not whether your pricing scheme and Apple's pricing scheme is fair (in your opinion). The question is whether you'd be happy if one of your clients felt that your pricing scheme, however flexible, was unfair and was more more copies and installing them on systems that your license did not allow.

I will admit that some of Apple's pricing could be improved, but to say that you will pay Apple on the same license terms as you expect to get leaves the door open of people to pay you on the same terms that they feel is fair.... however they define is fair.

There are some software writers who charge a "whatever you think is fair" price for their work. I believe you are advocating, whether you realize it or not, that kind of pricing structure.

No, I'm not advocating a 'what the customer thinks is fair' policy. I am advocating choice. I am advocating a system where a customer isn't expected to re-purchase an existing product because it's part of a bundled suite.

Hypothetically speaking, if the label on the box said Microsoft iLife and forced users to repurchase software they already owned because it was part of a suite, the manufacturer would be castigated in this forum. However Apple get off without criticism and when someone dares criticise people can't wait to defend Apple.

I believe the point I made is fair. I believe Apple are unfairly abusing their position to force people to buy software they already own because they want the new features in iPhoto - the only iLife app I use.

I am aware of this and I make my choices accordingly. However I have the right to point out it's not the best possible system for users.

 

[sidewinder]

Hypothetically speaking, if the label on the box said Microsoft iLife and forced users to repurchase software they already owned because it was part of a suite, the manufacturer would be castigated in this forum. However Apple get off without criticism and when someone dares criticise people can't wait to defend Apple.

If Microsoft sold Microsoft Office for $79 and they made me re-buy it for $79 any time there was a major update (every year or so), I would not complain.

The bottom line is that what you get in iLife is cheap at $79. If Apple makes me re-buy it to get new versions of the applications every year or so, I don't have a real problem with that.

If iLife cost $199, then I would expect their to be an upgrade plan.

S-

 

[ThunderRobot]

If Microsoft sold Microsoft Office for $79 and they made me re-buy it for $79 any time there was a major update (every year or so), I would not complain.

The bottom line is that what you get in iLife is cheap at $79. If Apple makes me re-buy it to get new versions of the applications every year or so, I don't have a real problem with that.

If iLife cost $199, then I would expect their to be an upgrade plan.

S-

I could have guaranteed a response such as that. The price is irrelevant to the issue at large. The current structure requires users re-purchase material they already own. It could be $1 or $100. It doesn't matter. It is an unfair system.

 

[sidewinder]

I could have guaranteed a response such as that. The price is irrelevant to the issue at large. The current structure requires users re-purchase material they already own. It could be $1 or $100. It doesn't matter. It is an unfair system.

No, they own a license to use a particular piece of software. That license does not guarantee major updates. They do not "own" the software.

S-

 

[snberk103]

As per my original post in the thread - I did mention it was going slightly off-topic. My post was made in reply to points raised in the thread, not to the original post. There is a difference and as a result my post was pertinent to the discussion. At absolutely no point did I advocate ignoring Apple's policies, again if you check my original post you will see that I did, in fact, respect the policy, even if I disagree with aspects of it.



No, I'm not advocating a 'what the customer thinks is fair' policy. I am advocating choice. I am advocating a system where a customer isn't expected to re-purchase an existing product because it's part of a bundled suite.

Hypothetically speaking, if the label on the box said Microsoft iLife and forced users to repurchase software they already owned because it was part of a suite, the manufacturer would be castigated in this forum. However Apple get off without criticism and when someone dares criticise people can't wait to defend Apple.

I believe the point I made is fair. I believe Apple are unfairly abusing their position to force people to buy software they already own because they want the new features in iPhoto - the only iLife app I use.

I am aware of this and I make my choices accordingly. However I have the right to point out it's not the best possible system for users.

Hello ThunderRobot

I've just re-read both your posts, and I see your point now. My error was in responding to only your 2nd post which, out of context, sounded as if you were saying something that you weren't. My apologies.

And I agree with. I wish Apple had an upgrade policy. I know IBM OS/2, at the end, had an upgrade price. But they sent you the full installation, with no checks for existing installations. Of course, IBM didn't make enough money from OS/2 to keep it going, so perhaps there is a lesson there?

In order for upgrades to be enforceable there would need to be some mechanisms for checking for installations, etc etc. Apple may have just decided to make things simple and cheap, and to average out the cost of the first purchase with the upgrade purchase. Certainly, if Apple were to drop the cost of upgrades then we could expect them to recoup the lost revenue by charging more for the base package. Would we be any further ahead in the end?

 

[Doctor Q]

I buy family packs for the Apple software I install on our various family Macs.

I read the license terms of all my software, and have often asked the vendor to explain the rules of a license when it wasn't clear. Some software is licensed by the person while other software is licensed by the computer. Some software licenses allow the primary user to install on two Macs as long as one is a laptop.

SuperDuper! is a tricky one, because they ask you to use your best judgement and decide for yourself how many copies to pay for!

 

[ThunderRobot]

No, they own a license to use a particular piece of software. That license does not guarantee major updates. They do not "own" the software.

S-

Sidewinder - within the confines of this conversation, it was a simple assumption to know that talking about owning software was to talk about owning the licence.

However if you want to be pedantic and indulge in semantics, feel free.

Fine - I own a licence for iLife 08. I want to purchase a licence for iPhoto 09.

To do that I have to purchase a licence for a suite of programs - many of which I don't want and will never use.

Part of this suite (and therefore part of the total cost of the licence) is iDVD and iWeb. Neither of these programs had major updates. iDVD received nothing and iWeb received a minor bump at best.

Yet I am expected to pay full price for a licence for software which is unchanged from the version I currently own a licence for. That is where my problem is.

There are many arguments a person could make for the current pricing structure (I'll make a couple myself later), but you make none of them. Frankly your lack of reasoned argument, combined with your continued inability to see both sides of a debate - even if you disagree with one - reaks of a psycophantic desire to defend Apple. It makes it very difficult to have a discussion with you.

Hello ThunderRobot

I've just re-read both your posts, and I see your point now. My error was in responding to only your 2nd post which, out of context, sounded as if you were saying something that you weren't. My apologies.

Apology accepted, of course. Confusion happens, especially in a forum situation.

And I agree with. I wish Apple had an upgrade policy. I know IBM OS/2, at the end, had an upgrade price. But they sent you the full installation, with no checks for existing installations. Of course, IBM didn't make enough money from OS/2 to keep it going, so perhaps there is a lesson there?

In order for upgrades to be enforceable there would need to be some mechanisms for checking for installations, etc etc. Apple may have just decided to make things simple and cheap, and to average out the cost of the first purchase with the upgrade purchase. Certainly, if Apple were to drop the cost of upgrades then we could expect them to recoup the lost revenue by charging more for the base package. Would we be any further ahead in the end?

A perfectly reasonable assumption and most likely one of the major reasons it doesn't happen. Combined with the simplicity of selling one version (up-to-date and OEM copies excluded) in all their locations (online, physical and third-party) it makes for an exceptionally simple business model and it's easy to understand why they do it.

I'd be intrigued to know where Apple decide the price of software allows for an upgrade model to be implimented - for example Aperture 2 costs £126 for a retail version or £64 for an upgrade. Or if it's not a cost issue, perhaps it's a user issue. Would the (likely) mainly professional users of Aperture put up with a lack of upgrade option compared to the (likely) mainly hobbyist users of iLife?

Or perhaps there was a determination that the majority of current iLife owners received an OEM copy and they should purchase at least one full price 'upgrade'. I don't know, but I'd imagine that's a possibility.

If Apple was to consider an upgrade option for iLife (unlikely, I know), the infrastructure required for such a move could potentially lead to the necessity to change the distribution system, something which may not balance in the cost / convienance equation.

However perhaps there is scope for a digital distribution system which can check your system for an installed copy before allowing you to purchase an upgrade. I'd certainly have no problem with that, and I'd imagine long term, Apple would be happier pushing a digital distribution service - at least for ugrades.

 

[Ploki]

so. what if you install it on one disk and swap the disk around
its one copy...

 

[messedkid]

Single user Tiger and iLife 06 (durr, came with my macbook).
Single user Leopard.

*cough*
iLife 09 and iWork 09 single user
*cough*

 

[sidewinder]

ThunderRobot,

I was not being pedantic. The simple fact is that not everyone understands that they are buying a license. You muddied those waters.....

I am not specifically defending Apple here. I am defending the right for anyone or any company to restrict the use of software they sell licenses for to a single machine if that is what they want to do. I also am defending the concept of not offering an upgrade path if the actual price of the software is low enough.

Software piracy really bothers me. It is stealing regardless of who you are stealing from.

S-

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Family packs are a wonderful thing - as long as they are used in the way Apple intends them to. This works perfectly for me, as we have 4 Macs in the house that usually all need updating at once. (Not all of them are mine.)

 

[snberk103]

I'd be intrigued to know where Apple decide the price of software allows for an upgrade model to be implimented - for example Aperture 2 costs £126 for a retail version or £64 for an upgrade. Or if it's not a cost issue, perhaps it's a user issue. Would the (likely) mainly professional users of Aperture put up with a lack of upgrade option compared to the (likely) mainly hobbyist users of iLife?

Or perhaps there was a determination that the majority of current iLife owners received an OEM copy and they should purchase at least one full price 'upgrade'. I don't know, but I'd imagine that's a possibility.

If Apple was to consider an upgrade option for iLife (unlikely, I know), the infrastructure required for such a move could potentially lead to the necessity to change the distribution system, something which may not balance in the cost / convienance equation.

However perhaps there is scope for a digital distribution system which can check your system for an installed copy before allowing you to purchase an upgrade. I'd certainly have no problem with that, and I'd imagine long term, Apple would be happier pushing a digital distribution service - at least for ugrades.

It would be an interesting experiment for Apple. Put 3 boxes on the shelf. 1)Full suite, single user license, first time buyer, full price.
2) Full suite, family pack, first time buyer, full price (plus the extra they currently charge)
3) Upgrade versions of the above, with discounted prices.

Put the same CD in each box, as they do now with single and family pack. See if the market place can manage itself.

I would add a 3rd option. Upgrade from single to family pack. Apple can send a certificate. Actually, I like that option for other things too. If you have version '08 and want to upgrade to version '09, go to the online store, buy an upgrade certificate, and use the serial number on it the certificate to download the upgrade. Give the user the option to have the certificate mailed to them, because some people like to have official hardcopies. Imagine how much less shipping, and saved shipping costs, Apple would incur if it went to a certificate model. Apple Stores and Authorized resellers could also sell you an upgrade certificate. Less for them to store and inventory.

 

[diazj3]

With my first iMac, I bought a single copy of iWork back in 2007. Recently I bought a refurb MacBook Pro, and while placing the order - and not having read the license agreement - I asked the Mac Store sales rep if I had to buy a second copy for it... she said I didn't need to, since both computers belong to me and weren't used simultaneously... "that's why the license number is printed twice in the sw documentation" she said.

After reading another thread here, I learned I was in breach of the EULA... so I've called Apple several times - sales, support and customer service - and every time they tell me it's OK to have my two computers with a single license... so for now I guess my conscience is clear.

Nevertheless, once Snow Leopard comes out, I plan to buy the Box Set family pack to update both computers' OS, iLife and iWork and quit having doubts about this.

My guess is that either Apple doesn't care too much about the EULA in cases such as mine, where one person has two computers (and maybe while having a family pack some would feel compelled to share the other 3 remaining licenses outside their household)... or, maybe that Apple's sales, support and customer service reps have no idea about the EULA... either way, I do think Apple should be clearer in such cases.

 

[ThunderRobot]

ThunderRobot,

I was not being pedantic. The simple fact is that not everyone understands that they are buying a license. You muddied those waters.....

I am not specifically defending Apple here. I am defending the right for anyone or any company to restrict the use of software they sell licenses for to a single machine if that is what they want to do. I also am defending the concept of not offering an upgrade path if the actual price of the software is low enough.

Software piracy really bothers me. It is stealing regardless of who you are stealing from.

S-

You're still talking about piracy and ignoring the various points which have been brought up. I'm sorry, but I don't know how to talk to someone who refuses to acknowledge anything but his own point of view.

It would be an interesting experiment for Apple. Put 3 boxes on the shelf. 1)Full suite, single user license, first time buyer, full price.
2) Full suite, family pack, first time buyer, full price (plus the extra they currently charge)
3) Upgrade versions of the above, with discounted prices.

Put the same CD in each box, as they do now with single and family pack. See if the market place can manage itself.

I would add a 3rd option. Upgrade from single to family pack. Apple can send a certificate. Actually, I like that option for other things too. If you have version '08 and want to upgrade to version '09, go to the online store, buy an upgrade certificate, and use the serial number on it the certificate to download the upgrade. Give the user the option to have the certificate mailed to them, because some people like to have official hardcopies. Imagine how much less shipping, and saved shipping costs, Apple would incur if it went to a certificate model. Apple Stores and Authorized resellers could also sell you an upgrade certificate. Less for them to store and inventory.

I would love them to try this. It would be a great experiment and I honestly believe that the majority of Apple users would properly police themselves. I also believe there's a chance Apple would receive more revenue from those who would decide to upgrade to a family pack if they purchase a second machine or upgrade to a '09.

I suspect revenue would increase and infrastructure costs would decrease as there wouldn't need to be as much storage or pressing as well as the shipping you already mention.

 

[themoonisdown09]

Up until 10.5, I only bought a single license because I only had one Mac. Leopard was the first one that I bought a family pack on because I had 2 Macs.

 

[sidewinder]

You're still talking about piracy and ignoring the various points which have been brought up. I'm sorry, but I don't know how to talk to someone who refuses to acknowledge anything but his own point of view.

Whoa there, ThunderRobot. I hear what you are trying to discuss. I have been trying to staying focused on ethics issues while you want to discuss what you think Apple should be doing instead of what they do now. That is a conversation that is endless because none of us here are going to affect what Apple does in that regard. So you can spin your wheels on that part of the conversation if you want. I don't care to get dragged to far into that.

I expressed my opinion and you did not like. Therefore I only acknowledge my own point of view. That's ridiculous.

My point of view is that I don't have a problem with Apple not offering upgrades to iWork and iLife because I think the software is inexpensive enough for what it does to not require it. If the software was more expensive ~($199) then I would argue that there should be an upgrade path. My other point of view is that you should not install Apple software on multiple Apple systems you do not have multiple licenses.

Nowhere have I said that you could not have your own opinion. Nowhere have I accused you of being "pedantic". All I have done is to say I disagree with what you are saying and why I disagree with it. It's unfair for you to say I only acknowledge my opinion because it is different than yours and I choose to stand by it.

S-

 

[Doctor Q]

I bought a Leopard Family Pack thinking I'd need more than one copy. But one Mac couldn't be upgraded (a software compatibility issue with another app) and another Mac got replaced (the new Mac already coming with Leopard), so in hindsight I overpurchased my Leopard licenses. They aren't shareable with non-family, so it was a mistake to get the Family Pack. Live and learn.

Apple's likes to keep things simple, so they offer only a few choices for new and upgrade licenses. I'd rather see them offer percentage discounts when you buy multiple copies past the first, so you can buy exactly the number you need. That might work if purchases were online, but software in boxes can't easily be sold that way. Hence the 5-user Family Pack, which is wonderul for people with 5 household Macs and really annoying for people with 6 Macs.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

I bought a Leopard Family Pack thinking I'd need more than one copy. But one Mac couldn't be upgraded (a software compatibility issue with another app) and another Mac got replaced (the new Mac already coming with Leopard), so in hindsight I overpurchased my Leopard licenses. They aren't shareable with non-family, so it was a mistake to get the Family Pack. Live and learn.

Apple's likes to keep things simple, so they offer only a few choices for new and upgrade licenses. I'd rather see them offer percentage discounts when you buy multiple copies past the first, so you can buy exactly the number you need. That might work if purchases were online, but software in boxes can't easily be sold that way. Hence the 5-user Family Pack, which is wonderul for people with 5 household Macs and really annoying for people with 6 Macs.

You could always (and completely legally,) sell your Family Pack and get a single. Or just trade plus a few bucks.

 

[avionicsman]

Family (buddies @ work) pack

iLife 09 family pack. 5 of us went in on it and for $30(can) why not.