Slashdot Mirror
Apple Offers "Family License" for Jaguar
DietFluffy writes "According to this article, Apple Computer
will offer a $199 5-user family license for Jaguar (Mac OS X 10.2). The article
notes that the family license program depends on an honor system because unlike
Microsoft, Apple 'does not put technical
barriers in place to prevent people from installing software on more than one
machine.'" It's likely that most families would buy only one license anyway, so Apple stands to lose little. Sounds like a smart move to me. (For those keeping score on today's game, that makes it Apple 2, Microsoft 0.)
this license/marketing concept is similar to gobe's family license. they too marketed it as a response to microsoft's draconian anti-piracy measures.
unfortunately gobe is going bankrupt. (on the upside, gobe productive will be gpl'd).
This is a plan that Microsoft can rip off with impunity.
There are two ways to deal with people who are loose with their software licenses.
1. Clamp down hard to make sure they can only install the software once on a single piece of hardware. Systematically piss off your entire user base.
2. Pragmatically realize that users are going to install their software on every machine in their house. Therefore, change your licensing to make such a practice legal. Charge a reasonable amount to do this.
Note: Item 1 will only work if you are willing to illegally abuse your monopoly.
Cheers to Apple. $199 for 5 home licenses is great because the majority of Mac users I know have two or three Macs in their house and this allows them to "get legal" without breaking the bank.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Developing the OS is anything but free. Apple will never recoup the development costs for Jaguar through revenues from boxed copies. They are a hardware company and only concerned about their bottom line. Departments and budgets are a tool for controlling but at the end of a quarter the performance of the whole company has to be satisfying.
/will be wrong. But Apple will probably not prosecute me or even make me feel like a criminal. They get my money one way or the other and that is the important thing for them. And they will continue to get money from me as long as they will make computers and give me the feeling of being a respected by them. Plus the money that I don't spend on a legit copy of Jaguar for my tower will sooner or later show up as a Mac sale for Adobe -- something that is good for Apple as well.
People might install Jaguar on old machines, but IIRC the oldest machines officially supported by it where officially EOLd about 2,5 to 3 years ago. If you want to compare Apple's situation to MS you could say that they don't care about people pirating Windows as long as they pay for Office -- and essentially this statement used to be true. For MS Office is (or used to be) where the money is. For Apple it's hardware. In my opinion Apple has its priorities right: They go after companies that enable the theft of software (Other World Computing had a programm that allowed to use third party DVD burners with iDVD - but iDVD is payed for when you get a Superdrive)and they go after websites that publish instructions how to turn the free 10.1 upgrade CD into a full installer. But they don't lock their users down with DRM schemes (iPod - Don't steal music) and they don't make it hard to install legit copies of their OS on multiple machines. I did not pay for 10.1. I got it from a friend who got the installer with a new machine. I will not buy Jaguar for my tower. I will instead install the version from the iBook that I'm about to buy. Both times I was
Hank! White!
Why is installing software on more than one computers a bad thing?
Two reasons: principle, and economics.
On the one hand, Apple asks you to buy one copy of the software per computer (except in the case of this 5-pack, of course). If you're not willing to comply with that request, then you should not use the software at all. Using it on two computers without paying for two copies is like taking two newspapers from the machine after putting in only one quarter: it's stealing.
On the other hand, Apple spends a fortune developing this software, but sells it at a much lower price because they're expecting to sell a certain number of copies. That number is based on how many Macs are out there now, and what fraction of the owners will want to use the new software. See, they're counting Macs, not people or families or little groups of warezing teens. If they sell too few copies of OS X 10.2, they won't make their money back, and there won't be a Mac OS X 10.3. So using two copies when you only pay for one indirectly deprives you of future products that you'd like to have.
And, of course, there's the best reason of all: because your momma told you so, idiot.