Jaguar family kit vs XP rape kit
It seems (form a macnn page story) that Apple will be releasing a $199 Jaguar "Family" version that you can install on up to 5 computers!
I thought that the regular $129 Jaguar could be installed on any computer, can't it? Or is Apple cooking up some sort of copy protection/install restriction scheme.
In any event, in comparison to M$'s XP home's (and eventually pro's) very restrictive one copy per computer and "we may or may not believe you have upgraded your computer at some point down the line" stance, this doesn't look too bad!
What do you all think, good? bad? stupid?
I thought that the regular $129 Jaguar could be installed on any computer, can't it? Or is Apple cooking up some sort of copy protection/install restriction scheme.
In any event, in comparison to M$'s XP home's (and eventually pro's) very restrictive one copy per computer and "we may or may not believe you have upgraded your computer at some point down the line" stance, this doesn't look too bad!
What do you all think, good? bad? stupid?
Comments
[ 08-15-2002: Message edited by: xmoger ]</p>
With WinXP, the serial number must be registered with one computer. If you try to register it on another PC, it will not go through and XP will stop working after 30 days (on the second PC). So, there is no choice but to buy their multi-user package (which is a joke), or just use one copy per PC.
If Apple doesn't build this technology into OS X, then I am not sure what the point of having this Family Kit is. MS and Apple should allow home users to install a paid full version of the OS onto a couple of computers. At least two. The problem is, they can't do this if they don't know which is another PC in the house, or a PC at your buddy's house.
[ 08-15-2002: Message edited by: Patchouli ]</p>
<strong>If Apple doesn't know how many computers you're installing the OS on, then why would anyone buy this package? Why not just use the one CD that you bought for all your (home) Macs?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The answer to your question should be quite obvious, Patchouli: Some people are honest and do not like the idea of pirating software, in violation of the terms of the EULA (End User License Agreement). Many people (including me) pay for the software they use, even if there is no copy protection to force them to do so, and do not download it off the 'Net.
Back on topic: Family pricing is a fantastic idea to set Mac OS X apart from Microsoft's greedy pricing and speed the adoption of OS X. As xmoger points out, Apple could afford to introduce family pricing because it can rely on hardware sales to drive revenue and is not dependant exclusively on software sales like Microsoft.
Escher
[ 08-15-2002: Message edited by: Escher ]</p>
<strong>
The answer to your question should be quite obvious, Patchouli: Some people are honest and do not like the idea of pirating software, in violation of the terms of the EULA (End User License Agreement). Many people (including me) pay for the software they use, even if there is no copy protection to force them to do so, and do not download it off the 'Net.</strong><hr></blockquote>Well, I pay for my software too - thanks for insinuating otherwise. There is not a single pirated copy of any program on my Mac. I am not saying you should give the Mac OS X CD to your pals and have them copy it (or download it for that matter). But, I think you should be allowed to copy the OS that you purchased on a couple of computers that you own in your home.
I also can't help but notice that while some people here are totally against pirating software, there are those who don't seem to care when it's a Microsoft product. I've read plenty of posts in the past where people have stolen Office X and actually think it's justified. I for one bought my copy of that program as well.
Anyway, what I am asking is, if Apple doesn't have the technology to know who is using which copy of their OS, why bother offering it? In other words, WILL Apple be monitoring the serial numbers like MS does, or are they doing this in hopes of people just buying the package? If it's the latter, then I guess they have nothing to loose and will make some money from the idea.
Apple has put alot of work into OS X and some users cavalier attitude towards what THEY deem as an appropriate price will eventually have Apple moving to Serial numbers. It'll be our fault in the end for condoning these actions.
<a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1040-949996.html?tag=fd_top"; target="_blank">Apple plan gives break to multi-Mac homes</a>
[quote]
The family license program, to some degree, depends on the honor system. Although legally Mac owners are required to purchase a copy of the operating system for each Mac they own, Apple, unlike Microsoft, does not put technical barriers in place to prevent people from installing software on more than one machine.
"Our software has never had draconian activation," said Bereskin. However, he said that many Mac owners want their installations to be legal, but they're not willing to pay full price for each copy of the operating system.
"This is a great way to allow honest people to remain honest," Bereskin said
<hr></blockquote>
<strong>Well, I pay for my software too - thanks for insinuating otherwise. There is not a single pirated copy of any program on my Mac. I am not saying you should give the Mac OS X CD to your pals and have them copy it (or download it for that matter). But, I think you should be allowed to copy the OS that you purchased on a couple of computers that you own in your home.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You should be able to install the same OS on two computers that you yourself use, but if you're talking multiple computers used by multiple people (e.g., a family), that's another story.
This is an affordable, above-board way to get what amounts to a 5-person license for OS X. I see nothing wrong with it.
<strong>Well, I pay for my software too - thanks for insinuating otherwise. ... Anyway, what I am asking is, if Apple doesn't have the technology to know who is using which copy of their OS, why bother offering it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Patchouli: I didn't mean to insinuate anything about your software purchasing habits. I just thought that your question had an easy answer.
After the WSJ article earlier today, <a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1040-949996.html"; target="_blank">CNet is reporting</a> on Apple's family pricing as well. The article quotes Mac OS X marketing director Ken Bereskin saying that "This is a great way to allow honest people to remain honest." The response from the horse's mouth confirms my explanation above.
Regarding installing one copy of Mac OS X on a single user's multiple computers, Amorph hits the nail right on the head:
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>You should be able to install the same OS on two computers that you yourself use, but if you're talking multiple computers used by multiple people (e.g., a family), that's another story.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Escher
[ 08-15-2002: Message edited by: Escher ]</p>
The family kit is an experiment to see whether Mac users are honest, or if Apple needs to move to serial activation.
It's silly, it's a hassle the average mac user really doesn't need, especially since they'll get all the OS they'll ever need for the life of the machine when they buy the machine. But for the short term, if it helps move more people onto OSX without springing for a whole new machine, then it's not such a bad thing.
Where they ould rally clean up with this is to release a (discussed elsewhere on these boards) fully office compatible suite, bundle a light version free with all their machines, and sell bigger multi-user licenses to institutions (as well as a very cheap OS up-to-date program).
They'd clean up in schools and even make headway into business.
If I had to buy a hundred or more computers for a school or business, the cost of macs is a serious barrier, but if I knew that all of my machines would come with a fully compatible (and M$ office is the defacto 'standard') Office license as well as cost effective upgrades to all my machines. All done simply and without the head-aches of serial numbers and potential audits, then I'd have a 100 eMacs in my school/business right away.
Sorry, Apple, i promise next time, promise <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
"Well, we sold/shipped X# and we used our magic flying monkeys to determine that X#x2 copies were actually installed."
Apple is moving to make more money, following the 15 year lead of Microsoft.
<strong>But do you think it points to the serialization of OSX ???</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, not at all, that would be bad bad bad bombing... you know what I am saying????
<strong>But do you think it points to the serialization of OSX ???</strong><hr></blockquote>
It better not. It's one thing for Micro$oft to do, but OS X is built on FREE software.
<strong>
Apple is moving to make more money, following the 15 year lead of Microsoft.
What, by offering 5 licenses for the price of 1.5?
I read an article back from mid-99 saying that more people used Win3.1 than MacOS, about the same amount used Win95 as MacOS, and fewer used Win98 than MacOS. This says something: Even though more people use Windows than Mac, Windows users are not likely to upgrade. If Apple switched to a serial number scheme, they wouldn't get enough people to upgrade.