OSX 10.2
 

Hi All,

I have a question...

I have 3 Macs at home, all running on 10.1.5, two of which were purchased only within the last eight months. Do I really now need to spend $129 x 3 to upgrade each of my computers to 10.2? This does not seem to be very fair nor does it make much sense, especially considering how much I have already recently invested in Apple by purchasing two of these Macs.

I would be grateful for some feedback...

Thanks...

Legally, yes. It's not my idea of a fun time, either.

I agree that needing to buy a full version is a dumb move on Apple's part. I have purchased about 30 computers at work in the last 6 months. I am in education though, so the bite isn't as bad as it is with everyone else.

Look at it this way though. What if you had a Windows box. Retail for Windows XP is $290, and the upgrade is $200. And what do you goet for that? I'll leave that for you to decide.

I complained to an Apple rep today, and the way he talked Apple is looking into upgrades, but there was no definate assurance. To me there is only one answer. Don't upgrade. Apple needs our money more than we need 10.2, so if we don't like the price, why pay for it?

I think the point should be to make a clear difference between businesses and family owners.

Business needs the machines for productivity and their goal is to make money. Money to money goes.

Fair enough, let Apple charge them a business price.

The family owner on the other hand, like in my own household, we use the machines for pleasure and enjoyment.

In my case, I already bought the hardware from Apple, giving them my money cash, which in the last two years amounted to over US$12,000.

2 iMacs SE 400 Mhz, 1 G3 Powerbook Lombard, 1 PowerMac G4 867 with 17" flat panel display, 1 iBook 500 Mhz, 1 iMac G4 800 Mhz, 15 flat panel display, 2 iPods 10 GIG. And I paid full for OS 10 when it came out.

Technically, I am now faced with the situation that I need to pay for 5 copies of OS 10.2.

For me, it's not a question of money really. It's just that I don't like to be taken advantage of (taken as a sucker) by the sofware companies or Apple. It's a matter of principle.

I spent so much on you, so give me something back in return, like good service, or the recognition that I am one of your most valued private customers.

So there!

Steve, so much for the family digital hub idea! Care to answer personally?


Cheers...

PS: Side Topic (kind of):
If I have five TV sets at home, I can buy one DVD movie and watch it on any of my five sets without being charged five times. Greediness has no limits, and big business is milking the people out. (check the DVD coding system, and check the music industry and of course the infamous company from "Billing TheGrates" for examples. While some special people get richer every day we see scandals right and left, from governments, to companies like 'Enron', 'WorlCom' etc, you name it. While their executives are selling stock for US$20,000.000 before the prices drop, and other execs build houses for US$15,000.000, at the same time some people can't afford to pay US$129 for a software uprade. Kind of disgusting, it makes me vomit. How much is enough? How much more do these people want ? They are sick. It's time to raise the human consciousness and see through the lies and cheatings because if not, humanity is going to continue being milked by a special 'few' all around the world for a long time to come)

I apologize if my statements sound disturbing to some.

Sao makes a good point, and it is much like a point I heard about Microsoft Office on how business and education get discounts, but the home user does not. Needing to pay full price for 5 copies is wrong. Something needs to be figured out for those of us who want to upgrade our home machines. 5-pack discount or some other incentive makes sense.

There are ways
 

I don't want to be slapped on the wrist, but; there are ways around these woes. Right?

I should say at this point that I don't want to condone breaking EULA of any software in this forum. What I just put forth is a hypothetical, which I feel is warranted by sao's post.

sao et al, I might be wrong on this one, but I think it's permissible to install the same software on both a desktop and laptop. The presumption is that the laptop is a kind of portable version of the desktop and the two are probably synced regularly.

But, no, I haven't read the fine print on this. If it's not legal, then it certainly sounds ethical.

I think Sao makes a good point, followed by bassi and Phil St. Romain's suggestions for "ways around these woes". But I ask you, if it's the moral and ethical thing to do, why should it be illegal? Why should I be made to feel like I am cheating, like I am breaking the law in some way, if I am doing the ethically correct thing. It should be the software companies themselves (including Apple in this case -- and many other non-software companies in countless cases of unspeakable greed all over the world) that come out and do the ethically correct thing. It's about time, don't you think? Why should I be made to feel guilty? I have no 15 million dollar house, or 20 million dollar profit from a stock sale, or even a private Learjet. And me, with my seemingly simple life (no car, still renting, low-paying job), am still living in relative luxury compared with the vast majority who share this planet with us. There is a definite sickening imbalance here. In one hand, people (children) suffering and even starving, and in the other hand, people so greedy they make more than they should need to spend in a hundred lifetimes (and still want more!), and they do not care about (or, worse yet, continue to make money from) those in the other hand.

For how long will we continue to be milked by these large corporations, with their executives and stock holders, making obscene amounts of money? As sao said, "How much is enough? How much more do these people want?" When will they do the right thing? When will they consider us, and not themselves, for once? And here is another question: when will we stand up and say enough to them?

Who is listening? I wonder...

I think a dual install would be "allowed" if you never used the laptop and the desktop at the same time. I am not a lawyer.

Yeah, right.

Like I buy two radios from Sony but I cannot use them at the same time?

Same they are doing in the music industry:

You can listen your CD here but not there.
(In a CD player but not in your computer)

Big daddy tells you what you can do and what you can't do:

Allowed...not allowed. But they take our money!

Balloni!

If I go to the same restaurant regularly and for them business is good, so they decide to go bigger, get better premises, so they do.

Now, I came back to the same restaurant, do they charge me entrance at the front door, citing they spent money upgrading the premises?

No!


Cheers...

Das Capital
 

Beus,

You may be right here, but once you adjust you're lifestyle and ego to being a millionaire, being a billionaire is a thirst that can't be quenched etc. etc.

I'm no millionaire :p so I'm speaking in crude philosophical terms.

As far as the ethical thing, well, if Apple said go ahead and make as many copies of the OS disc as you like, then the internet, your buddies etc. would get a free copy of the OS. And, perhaps distribute it on.
This would be bad business sense, they made a huge effort to get the OS to you. If you like it, then I think it's fair to pay your respects to their programmers. The EULA is there to prevent free distribution, however, the fact that there's no activation key like MS-XP, probably gives leeway to install it on your desktop and laptop, just like Phil suggested.

I mean, we've all probably videotaped a program or film off the TV. Isn't that illegal. Wasn't analog taping of vinyl illegal too. Then why were Walkman's invented, not just for tapes you could buy, or Sony wouldn't have made millions in the 80/90's.
Ethics don't really exist in business, what you do at home is completely up to you.

Re: Das Capital
 

If you just taped it for your own use (i.e. not to sell it to or otherwise give it to your friends, etc.) it is considered fair use under copywrite laws, and is thus not illegal. Same with taping off of the radio or making your own mix CD from your own personal CD library. If you didn't originally pay for it, you can't include it on your mix CD, and you can't give copies of your mix CD to anyone.

What ya'll seem to be getting at is that "digital" copywrite is kind of a grey area, and the RIAA, MPAA, and software giants are trying to define "fair" use as "how I say you can use it." Apple has been pretty good about this. They are playing fairly while respecting tradition definitions of fair use. (Witness that iTunes will not save streaming content from Web Radio - and Jobs made a specific point about not being able to copy playlists via rendevous with iTunes3, but that it would stream as long as the other computer was awake, DVD player disables the screen capture feature from the finder, etc.) While the EULA may say that you can put it on one computer, you never hear of apple taking someone to court for installing the OS on two (or three) computers that the individual owns. The game changes when you give a copy to a friend. That is obviously not fair use, and I don't think anyone would argue that Apple has the legal right to prosecute.

The picture is different in a place of business too. Since each machine is supposedly to increase the ability to turn profit, it is not unreasonable to expect that each computer (which probably has a different user) should be required to have a unique license (or a multiuser license).

Let us all hope that congress doesn't buckle to the industires ideas of fair use in the digital age. Fair use should still be fair use.

bassi,
Hey, let's not mix things.
I have a lot of respect for programmers.
But Apple programmers are getting paid good salaries by Apple, shouldn't be paid by me.


Nobody is asking this from Apple.
What I ask is that they have the guts to clarify openly something that obviously everybody does, and accept that bonafide homeowners with more than one computer need to buy only one copy of the software.


Business is an abstract concept.

People make business. Without people there is no business.
And then, there are people and there are people.

I personally know businessmen who have morals and principles, and care.
The ones without it are plain cheaters, who will sell your mother if they could.


That's not true anymore. Especially with the computers at my home. Web sites put cookies in your home, they follow what you do, where you surf, what you look and what you buy.

And big software companies, like Adobe, check who are you and keep bothering you all the time. Back off, I am at home. You got your money, so now don't bother me anymore.


By the way, sbur, that was an intelligent post, finally somebody gets the point. I enjoyed reading it.

But then, why not to clarify, what they are afraid of ?

They want that the subject stays in a grey area, and that makes me feel uncomfortable. Because tomorrow, they could change and take you to court, if they wanted.

Like you say, let's hope they regulate this thing in benefit of the people.


Cheers...

What one gets in return for spending money on say,

is all those products at a price you considered to be fair, otherwise you would not have made the purchase in the first place. I agree that you ARE entitled to good service for a device that due to the complex processes needed to produce it will often have manufactured-in defects.

But those previous purchases do not entitle you to a discount on certain future purchases. When you buy a car, do you get a discount on all the wiper blades, oil, tires etc you need to buy to keep it on the road? Certainly not.

Re: Das Capital
 

I think you miss the point, bassi. First of all, millionaires, billionaires, and even businesses themselves, are all basically human beings, and they can choose to be ethical, or not. A business can be run in an ethical way, if the people choose to be ethical; but cheaters, on the other hand, will cheat, and people motivated by greed, will always want more, even if others suffer.

Furthermore, I never suggested that I intended to distribute Apple's OS X upgrade. What I expressed was my dismay at having to purchase 3 upgrades for MY 3 computers which I use in my own home -- 2 of which were purchased within the past 6 months. To expect that Apple support me by providing me with reasonably priced upgrades to their operating system when I have already spent such a large sum of money on their hardware within only the last 6 months, IMO, is not an unethical expectation.

And, by the way, in this day and age, what you do in your own home is not completely up to you. Through the digital world and the internet, your personal life is constantly being invaded. I don't even think we have any true concept to what extent strangers enter our homes every day, and gather personal information about us through our computers. I guarantee you, if you use software from any of the major software companies -- such as Adobe and Microsoft, just to name two -- they have your name in their databases, and I am sure they know more about you than you would care for them to know (I would guess that we would all probably be shocked to discover all the information they have about us).

sbur, your response is very balanced and clear -- I really appreciate it. And I agree, "Fair use should still be fair use." But I must say though, that with the powers that those running the large corporations wield now, and the astonishing greed which seems to motivate them, I have my doubts what the future holds...

We'll see...

Thanks for your input...

Um, where do you think Apple gets the money to pay those programmers?

rusto,

It beats me, jee, you tell me...

If it's only from software upgrades, poor people, the last one was long ago, they must be starving...


I last heard that Apple had cash reserves of up to:

US$4,000,000,000 (four billion dollars!!)

Poor people... :)


Cheers...

rusto wrote:
You bet I am.

Do you know what an excellent service I get in five stars hotels for that kind of money?

Free pickup by limousine at the airport.
Discounts in the gift shops.
Free entrance for my kids to their activity center.
Invitations for dinner and lunch by the chefs.
Discounts on the 'next stay' packages.
Excellent and cordial service.
Membership as prefered guest.
And all around red carpet treatment.

Just to make me buy my stay there.


Cheers...

rusto,

Please read this quote from my post above:



Do you really imagine that this is wrong? Nobody suggested Apple should not seek to make a profit. Obviously, that is how they will survive as a company. And we, as their loyal customers, obviously want them to survive (not to mention that we ourselves continuously help them to turn a profit with all our purchases). But I believe most of us have supported Apple not just because of their superior products, but also because of the principles they seem to stand for. It seemed that perhaps they had something different -- a heart maybe... I think it is entirely fair to expect that Apple will not seek to turn an even greater profit on me by charging me the full price for 3 upgrades of the operating system which belongs on their computers which I have already spent a large sum of money on.

Is this an unreasonable expectation?

What do you think?

beus , I didn't think you wanted to distribute copies, my only point was that if there was no pointed EULA (we're on fantasy island here) then it allows free distribution. I think fair use as sbur pointed out is, pardon the pun, a fair comment. By the way, I was referring to making mixes or copies of my vinyl collection for my friends, it was the eighties and techno was where it's at dude ;)

As far as ethical businessmen, maybe this does not belong in this thread but, since when has the movement of capital and ethics of large corporations been sound? I'm sure there are a few out there today, ethical because it makes good business sense to cater to a market of ethical people. Good PR is where you find it.
We don't live in free markets, never have, and never will. Just look at the subsidies to most corporations. Apple is a incorporated company and needs to make money, I don't like the way they're acting as much as you, but asking them to be ethical is like asking Bill Gates to give up the Windows source code.
I got an iMac a few months ago, I bought OSX.1 fresh out of the box in January for my TiBook. I would like a nice pricing scheme so I could at least justify getting it as well. I do sympathise with your situation.

Now, as far as what you can do in your home, gentlemen (and ladies), it's quite possible to prevent these types of intrusion, in regards to the software vendors you've mentioned.
In order to do this you need to search the web and play with BBEdit some. Doesn't hurt to have a nice firewall as well.
Legally I can't condone any actions like this, morally or ethically maybe this comes under fair use.

Just kidding.