or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › "Family Pack"... What they haven't told you yet...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Family Pack"... What they haven't told you yet... - Page 3

post #81 of 98
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>

Pirated use of Photoshop by people who think like you drives up the price. There is no question about it. You're not paying for your piece of the pie and I have to pay extra. Of course I don't understand the your financial rationale. Your the one getting the free ride and I'm the one getting gypped!



[ 08-23-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

There is a question about it. I say that people who think like me don't drive up the price of Photoshop. It is only those who pirate Photoshop INSTEAD of buying it who drive up the price. Now, I could potentially be driving up the price of Graphic Converter or Photo Elements by pirating Photoshop (since those products WOULD be products that I might buy). However, I have purchased graphic converter 4 times, so that's not even true.

I have purchased Mathematica Professional ($1499). I promise you, if my grandma were to pirate it and use it for her calculator to add up her domino scores (even if every grandma in the world did this) it wouldn't change the price of mathematica, because none of them were potential customers. DO they need mathematica....? Not really. That doesn't make it impossible for them to use it to add up domino scores. That's about how I use photoshop.
post #82 of 98
"It is only those who pirate Photoshop INSTEAD of buying it who drive up the price."

What precisely did you allude to doing in your original reply?

If every grandma did buy Mathematica Pro, the price would indeed go down.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #83 of 98
What exactly is that hard to understand about IQ's ethics? [And obviously I have to say it right away: I'm not saying it's right or wrong, this is certainly questionable, I'm saying it's easy to understand (=follow the logic)!!!]

Some people's minds just seem to stop working when it comes to certain topics and they have to repeat phrases they were taught during their childhood instead of trying to understand the other's point. It works like electric fences and animals: the animal instinctively knows that it will receive a shock so it won't touch the fence. You also know that your mother will be very angry with you if you torture the cat... and also if you just think of questioning generally accepted value systems/ethics or even current law.

Has it ever occurred to you that there are different laws in different countries, that in the past there was different law? That value systems are constantly changing? What makes you think that today's (your) ethic rules are the only "valid" ones, the "best" that will ever exist?

For those who came up with "... is wrong" and even did that syllogism: What is your definition of "wrong" here? Aren't there different kinds of "wrongs"? Who judges?

My point is: everything must be discussible. If you're not able to do that intelligently, better spare us the phrases we're all completely aware of.

IQ: I'd give up. Eugene is the best when the question is what type of rom was in the beige G3 rev b, but in this matter...
post #84 of 98
This is all just industry propaganda here. The real question is , why is the only industry where blatantly misleading propaganda can be printed on the package and if I don't like it, I can't take it back. Having used Jaguar for a couple of days, I personally don't think it's worth the price I paid. I'd be quite happy to remove it from my machines and give it back to apple. I didn't get a test drive first, I had no way to evaluate how it would perform on my machines. If it was a vacuum cleaner, under the law where I live, I can return it within 7 days. How does it happen that with software, I can't get my money back. This is immoral, lets people profit from unsubstantiated hype. ANd every software company does it. When the software companies who sold me the CD's I never use because they made it sound like I was getting something I wasn't give me my money back, I'll be happy to start acting like the software police. Until then, it's their job, not mine. I haven't paid for too little software, I've paid for too much software. And I wouldn't lift my little finger to help these money hungry dudes. When they start doing the "you have 30 days to return it if you don't use it thing" then I'll have some repect for them, Until then, they're just self promoting, lying thieves.

[ 08-26-2002: Message edited by: norfa ]</p>
post #85 of 98
[quote]Originally posted by 123:

IQ: I'd give up. Eugene is the best when the question is what type of rom was in the beige G3 rev b, but in this matter... <hr></blockquote>

Spare me some of that verbosity, please.

If every single grandmother out there bought Mathematica Pro, would the price of the software go down? Don't be a fool. You know it would. There are millions of grandmas out there.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #86 of 98
I got the Family Five Fun Fnégly Pack at the Apple Store at Tysons.....i waited in line for 1 hour and 15 minutes If I had not been in the first group to go in. I might not have gotten a family pack at all. I only saw 3 copies of it, but i heard there were ten in total! :eek: :eek: <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
post #87 of 98
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>"It is only those who pirate Photoshop INSTEAD of buying it who drive up the price."

What precisely did you allude to doing in your original reply?

If every grandma did buy Mathematica Pro, the price would indeed go down.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I alluded that I did not pirate Photoshop INSTEAD of buying it.

Also, my statement about grandmas was that if every grandma pirated Mathematica the price would not increase. That is a very different statement than "If every grandma DID buy Mathematica Pro, the price would go down."

Your statement is akin to saying something like, "If every grandma donated $1500.00 to Wolfram Research the price of Mathematica would go down." Not only is this totally different than what I said, I"m not even sure if it would decrease the price.
post #88 of 98
Oh pleaaaaase. Your argument is akin to this:

"I'm not paying for it because I never planned on buying it anyway!"

Of course you weren't ever going to pay for *it,* because it's so easy to pirate *it.* I don't think you've thought about this enough. What you are saying is illogical. You're basing your entire argument around the fact that an app can be acquired almost guilt-free for free! This is circular-logic gone haywire.

I don't blame you specifically for this retardation though. If it was as easy to steal homes, hardware, cars and other items you can bet that such crimes would also be rampant.

[ 08-27-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #89 of 98
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
[QB]You're basing your entire argument around the fact that an app can be acquired almost guilt-free for free!
QB]<hr></blockquote>

More precisely, he's basing his argument around the fact that he knows exactly what he would or wouldn't buy if it weren't available for free. But because it IS available for free, he can't really know that. (and the car argument is way off again)


IQ:

You said you are using GoLive but you paid for Homepage because that's what you would have bought if you didn't have GolLive at your disposal. Because you are using GoLive, you'll never detect the weaknesses in Homepage and you'll never know if Homepage meets your needs or if you eventually would have bought something better and more expensive (GoLive for example).
post #90 of 98
[quote]Originally posted by 123:
<strong>

But because it IS available for free, he can't really know that.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And that's precisely why his argument defies logic.

[ 08-27-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #91 of 98
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>Oh pleaaaaase. Your argument is akin to this:

"I'm not paying for it because I never planned on buying it anyway!"

Of course you weren't ever going to pay for *it,* because it's so easy to pirate *it.* I don't think you've thought about this enough. What you are saying is illogical. You're basing your entire argument around the fact that an app can be acquired almost guilt-free for free! This is circular-logic gone haywire.

I don't blame you specifically for this retardation though. If it was as easy to steal homes, hardware, cars and other items you can bet that such crimes would also be rampant.

[ 08-27-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Absolutely incorrect. I have many, many examples where I have paid for software that I could get easily for free. Why would I do this? You are insisting that I wouldn't pay for them if I could get them easily for free. When the fact is, I do pay for software that I can easily get for free. I pay for uncrippled shareware that I already have installed on my machine. The reason I pay for the software is because I know that if I couldn't get them for free, I would be willing to pay for them. Or simply put, they are worth the money for me personally.

Why would I order the Apple's family pack when I could have installed the single pack on all the machines? Why did I pay $205. for the family pack when I could download it for free? Because I realize I am a potential family pack customer, and I don't want Apple to lose a sale.

I do agree with you, that if a lot of things were easily stealable, that there would be more rampant thift crimes. But I can assure you that I would not be one of them.

I think software piracy very negative thing for both companies and customers. But I think the bulk of the negative effects are when people pirate software when they would have purchased it if they could't pirate it.
post #92 of 98
[quote]Originally posted by 123:
<strong>

More precisely, he's basing his argument around the fact that he knows exactly what he would or wouldn't buy if it weren't available for free. But because it IS available for free, he can't really know that. (and the car argument is way off again)

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes. I agree with you. There are likely many software packages that I could not really know what I would do if the products weren't avaliable for free, versus avaliable for free. However, for most software I think I have a pretty good idea. But your point is a good point. And I usually try to error on the conservative side, in that I purchase programs that are in the fuzzy area. I purchased CodeWarrior Pro, even though I don't program for a living, but I thought that I might likely buy it if I couldn't get it for free. Games are a big gray area for me... So I usually buy them... even though I end up never playing them, because I likely would buy them if I couldn't get them for free.

However, I can assure you that I would never buy Maya nor FinalCut Pro nor Poser nor QuarkXPress. I also have not pirated any of these programs. But if I did happen to acquire a copy of them (somebody handed me a CDR with them on it), none of the companies would have lost a sale.

I also agree that the car analogy is not that good of one... I didn't introduce the Volvo analogy... someone else did.

But the idea of me not knowing whether or not I would purchase a program with the knowledge that I could get it free, doesn't mean that I am now void of making an ethical decision.

For example. I will tell you and Eugene that I will provide you both with any and all the free software that you want (totally FREE).... SO know you both have the knowledge that you can have free software. Does this mean that you can no longer make a legitimate and valid prediction on what software you would and wouldn't be willing to pay for?

So, I'm telling you that I will give you Mathematica 4.2 Pro for free.

My question is this. Would you or will you purchase Mathematica 4.2 Pro in the future?

If your answer is no, that you have no plans on purchasing Mathematica 4.2 Pro in the future, then why is that? Is it because I offered it to you free?

But the most important point is whether or not you feel that you can answer the question: Do you have any intentions on purchasing Mathematica 4.2 Pro in the future.
[quote]Originally posted by 123:
<strong>

IQ:

You said you are using GoLive but you paid for Homepage because that's what you would have bought if you didn't have GolLive at your disposal. Because you are using GoLive, you'll never detect the weaknesses in Homepage and you'll never know if Homepage meets your needs or if you eventually would have bought something better and more expensive (GoLive for example).</strong><hr></blockquote>

Very good point. It turns out I was lucky with GoLive, in that I haven't used it for over three years because I've used my purchased copy of BBEdit instead. However, your point still remains, because during the time I used it (very limited for a dorky personal homepage) I might not have been satisfied with Homepage and thought, "Heck maybe I would be willing to spend $400 on GoLive". I'm fairly certain I wouldn't have since it was only for my personal homepage which I was unwilling to spend much money on (backed up by the fact that I never even considered purchasing over 5MB worth of space for $20/yr). But still, it clearly shows a flaw in my ethical stance and indicates there are potential victims. This I have never denied... My original post even alluded to a flaw in the ethics (if you care to go back and look).

I at least thank you for understanding my basic arguement.

[ 08-27-2002: Message edited by: IQ78 ]</p>
post #93 of 98
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>

And that's precisely why his argument defies logic.

[ 08-27-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Like most things, the question is a hard one to approach on pure logical grounds.

I'm not sure where there is a logical falicy with anything I have said (or you have said, for that matter). I think it is simply a problem that can not be solved with logic alone. A problem that can't be totally solved with logic, doesn't mean that it is void of logic or logic falicies. It just means that an absolute conclusion can't be drawn based on a logical progression. This is typical of most social issues (which is what we are dealing with). But again, I'm not sure where I have a breakdown in logic. And certainly, I have not claimed that anyone here has had a breakdown in logic. I've only suggested that people aren't understanding my viewpoint. And it is purely a viewpoint, it is not a creed or morale stance.
post #94 of 98
[quote]Originally posted by IQ78:
<strong>

For example. I will tell you and Eugene that I will provide you both with any and all the free software that you want (totally FREE).... SO know you both have the knowledge that you can have free software. Does this mean that you can no longer make a legitimate and valid prediction on what software you would and wouldn't be willing to pay for?

So, I'm telling you that I will give you Mathematica 4.2 Pro for free [...]

</strong><hr></blockquote>


[Actually, it's almost the same point as the one concerning Golive/Homepage, if you do have a product, you can't estimate its hypothetical value in a situation where you don't have it]
Let's say that I'm now thinking that I'll never buy Mathematica because it's too expensive for me and also because I have Maple and Matlab and can do most of my stuff there. So, I'd say that I'll never buy it and it's therefore ok if you give it to me. I'd then use it a little but not very often, mainly for things Mathematica excels at. But I'll still be thinking that just for those little things, I'd never have bought Mathematica. Now consider this: You don't give me the free copy and I'd work with the other two tools but always encounter certain problems that I think would be done easier in Mathematica. I'll think that it really is annoying that I don't have that program... The amount of money I'm willing to pay for a copy constantly rises until it reaches the level the program is sold and I'll then buy that copy even though I thought that I'll never do so.
post #95 of 98
IQ:

What I don't understand: Once you argue from an ethical point of view and take the law into your own hands (which I think is alright for people like you and me &lt;- this is of course always problematic), why do you think that the free market economy is the best theory to base your ethics on? As I understand it, your idea of ethically correct behaviour is that you can do whatever you like (download, copy etc.), as long as your interaction with the market remains completely unchanged. It is obviously true that no company will win or lose anythning. However, why don't you go further? Let's forget about the market aspects for a moment. I mean, you are using Golive (I know.... let's keep it as an example) but pay for Homepage, why that? You're not using any of Homepage's services so why do you give them money? And on the other hand, you don't give Adobe anything in return for their efforts. Don't you think it would make more sense (ethically) to send that or some other amount of money that you feel is adequate to Adobe since you're using their stuff (and forget about their marketing division which is responsible for the price but focus on the services you actually use)? Such models are of course even more difficult to realize and things seem to become completely arbitrary (for example because it's impossible to determine the exact amount of money you'd be willing to pay for Golive if it weren't free etc.). I just wonder why you stick to the market economy and don't try to find a solution that fits your case even better (is fairer)?

[ 08-27-2002: Message edited by: 123 ]</p>
post #96 of 98
[quote]Originally posted by 123:
<strong>


[Actually, it's almost the same point as the one concerning Golive/Homepage, if you do have a product, you can't estimate its hypothetical value in a situation where you don't have it]
Let's say that I'm now thinking that I'll never buy Mathematica because it's too expensive for me and also because I have Maple and Matlab and can do most of my stuff there. So, I'd say that I'll never buy it and it's therefore ok if you give it to me. I'd then use it a little but not very often, mainly for things Mathematica excels at. But I'll still be thinking that just for those little things, I'd never have bought Mathematica. Now consider this: You don't give me the free copy and I'd work with the other two tools but always encounter certain problems that I think would be done easier in Mathematica. I'll think that it really is annoying that I don't have that program... The amount of money I'm willing to pay for a copy constantly rises until it reaches the level the program is sold and I'll then buy that copy even though I thought that I'll never do so.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Truth be told, I was trying to select a piece of software that you wouldn't even remotely have use for. I understand your point. And it is very good, and correct in my opinion. But it wasn't exactly addressing the point I was trying to make. If you are a user of Matlab and Maple, then I would say that you are a potential Wolfram/Mathematica customer, therefore you shouldnn't pirate Mathematica even if you weren't planning on buying it. Again, your points are very good. But I would say this would put Mathematica in that gray area I discussed earlier. I have not and never would pirate MatLab or Maple. Yes, I know people who would be willing to give me copies. But I decided on Mathematica and that is what I am stuck with.

And actually, it really is the way I should operate with all my software (including GoLive and Photoshop). My point was not that pirating is okay and that it doesn't hurt anyone. My point was there can be some ethics applied to pirating which minimize the damage it causes. I just don't think it is black and white. Of course, it is illegal, and if you believe everything that is illegal is also wrong, it is also wrong.
post #97 of 98
[quote]Originally posted by 123:
<strong>IQ:

What I don't understand: Once you argue from an ethical point of view and take the law into your own hands (which I think is alright for people like you and me &lt;- this is of course always problematic), why do you think that the free market economy is the best theory to base your ethics on? As I understand it, your idea of ethically correct behaviour is that you can do whatever you like (download, copy etc.), as long as your interaction with the market remains completely unchanged. It is obviously true that no company will win or lose anythning. However, why don't you go further? Let's forget about the market aspects for a moment. I mean, you are using Golive (I know.... let's keep it as an example) but pay for Homepage, why that? You're not using any of Homepage's services so why do you give them money? And on the other hand, you don't give Adobe anything in return for their efforts. Don't you think it would make more sense (ethically) to send that or some other amount of money that you feel is adequate to Adobe since you're using their stuff (and forget about their marketing division which is responsible for the price but focus on the services you actually use)? Such models are of course even more difficult to realize and things seem to become completely arbitrary (for example because it's impossible to determine the exact amount of money you'd be willing to pay for Golive if it weren't free etc.). I just wonder why you stick to the market economy and don't try to find a solution that fits your case even better (is fairer)?

[ 08-27-2002: Message edited by: 123 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Great post! You understand what I am saying (thank you) and you make incredibly insight comments. I agree. My current arguement/ethics are based on the effect of the market.

I guess, since that is the envirenment the companies are working in, I thought it would be fair enough to not disturb that envirenment. But when it comes to what would be considered the "right" thing to do, it would seem that sending a little money to Adobe for GoLive would be the right thing to do. However, I still think there would be a victim if Homepage wasn't purchased, since they would not be paid for their efforts and trying to target a market at a price point that fits 'x' number of users needs. I need to have my vote tallied to best benifit the company and the customers.

Of course, there the old ethical check (I forgot which philosopher... maybe Kant) who stated that one must view their actions as if everyone lived the same way, and then ask if society would be better off or worse off... If I did that then HomePage would never see a reason to add those few features that I use in GoLive... or some such thing... So, I don't think my way of living would hold up to the test.
post #98 of 98
I've pirated software in the past, but I didn't have the money to pay for it, so either way the software company wasn't going to get a sale.

However, now that I've been using some pirated apps for several years, I'm used to their functionality and I'll be buying official versions when I have the money.

In this case, the developers are making extra sales because I pirated their software. So it's not true that all piracy is bad.

It would be a much different thing if I pirated software that I could afford to purchase, but I've never done that and have no intentions to do so.

And yes, I payed for OS X even though I didn't really have the money (rice and beans for a few weeks instead of real food). I want Apple to remain profitable, so I'll go the extra mile for them. But no other software developer has earned that sort of loyalty.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › "Family Pack"... What they haven't told you yet...