Apple Offers "Family License" for Jaguar 42
DietFluffy writes "According to this article, Apple Computer
will offer a $199 5-user family license for Jaguar (Mac OS X 10.2). The article
notes that the family license program depends on an honor system because unlike
Microsoft, Apple 'does not put technical
barriers in place to prevent people from installing software on more than one
machine.'" It's likely that most families would buy only one license anyway, so Apple stands to lose little. Sounds like a smart move to me. (For those keeping score on today's game, that makes it Apple 2, Microsoft 0.)
Nice... (Score:4, Interesting)
Look, no Dragons! (Score:5, Interesting)
Lambast Apple all you want for the price of 10.2, but remember you won't suddenly find that your iMac stopped working because somebody thinks you've stolen the license.
I really want to see how many people will avail themselves of this option. Perhaps the MPAA and RIAA will sit up and notice if people demonstrate that they're willing to pay for reasonable licenses.
Nice move by Apple, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
not a plus (Score:1, Interesting)
Right, except this probably means that there will be more anti-copying mechanisms and perhaps a network-aware multiple copies checker. As you said, most families only buy one copy so unless Apple forces them they wouldn't buy the multiple license scheme. Given the fact that Apple likes to put loyal customers into corners focusing on scoring more money on the OS sounds like something they'd do. It is well within their bounds to this, though, so I'm not too bothered by it. I wouldn't score this as a plus, just another way to squeeze out more money from their limited customer base.
Re:Look, no Dragons! (Score:5, Interesting)
I work at Apple, and I can tell you that if management decided to try to pull that kind of shit, engineering would make quite sure that it was trivial to defeat.
Maybe a VERY smart move (Score:2, Interesting)
The skewed M$ world-view (Score:3, Interesting)
I can tell you exactly why Microsoft's crap OS has dominated for so long. Because there wasn't anything of demonstrably better value or quality to challenge them. For my part I never liked Windows and vehemently stuck with Mac OS all the way from System 7.5 through 9.1. Despite the near-constant crashing (moderated only by vigilant system maintenance) and antiquated underpinnings of classic Mac OS I nevertheless revered it for its overall simplicity. But my Mac OS X experience has made me realize just how bad the old days really were. I can now understand why Apple didn't - and couldn't - launch a serious "switch" campaign until now.
But a few weeks ago I gave a PC-owning buddy of mine his first tour of Mac OS X. His response: "God, I'm so sick of the crappiness of Windows! I've got to kick it to the curb - and soon." Prior to this we had spent the weekend with his PC running Win2K dealing with one BSOD after another after another.
As Mac OS X and Linux gain speed, robustness, and maturity, and Windows gets longer in the tooth the irony will only get thicker. But to me it seems a relatively new phenomenon, only beginning to gain momentum right here and now.
Behold the Quickening!
Re:Wha? (Score:3, Interesting)
In the interest of reasoned debate, I want to challenge you on something. Feel free to ignore me; I'm just striking up a conversation.
You say-- or, more accurately, imply-- that you don't approve of Apple's using its control of the software against the will of the customer. I'm wondering if you really mean that in absolute terms, or if you're just generalizing. Because clearly there are cases in which the will of the customer can be contrary to Apple's best interest. For example, it might be the will of the customer to make copies of Jaguar CDs and sell them for $10 each, but that would clearly be an activity of which Apple would not approve, and which Apple would try very hard to stop.
Would you care to elaborate on what you meant by "uses its control of the software against the will of the customer?"