Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 31st Jul 2008 22:03 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 325305
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Osx - Macintosh combo
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 1st Aug 2008 19:16
in reply to "RE[2]: Osx - Macintosh combo"
Would you hold the same position if the case was a bit different - me purchasing an upgrade copy of program X and using a script to remove the step in the installer asking me for the license key of the the previous version? Would it still be DeveloperOfX's problem that they made the business decision to sell upgrade copies? Would I still be absolved of any responsibility because I've payed for the software?
What a nonsensical analogy. You said it yourself - an upgrade copy. An upgrade copy is different from a full retail version - and Mac OS X is sold as a full, stand-alone retail package. It's not an upgrade - and I can know, I bought Panther, Tiger, and Leopard in retail.
RE[4]: Osx - Macintosh combo
by apoclypse on Fri 1st Aug 2008 19:35
in reply to "RE[3]: Osx - Macintosh combo"
Nope. Every copy of OSX is essentially an upgrade license. The theory is that even if you buy your copy of OSX in the store you should initially already have a copy of OSX on your machine, since Apple doesn't sell any hardware without OSX being installed on it already. So that makes any retail version of OSX an upgrade since you already bought the full license when you bought the Mac, this gets rolled into the cost of the machine. Sounds about right to me.
RE[4]: Osx - Macintosh combo
by lurch_mojoff on Fri 1st Aug 2008 19:44
in reply to "RE[3]: Osx - Macintosh combo"
What a nonsensical analogy. You said it yourself - an upgrade copy. An upgrade copy is different from a full retail version - and Mac OS X is sold as a full, stand-alone retail package. It's not an upgrade - and I can know, I bought Panther, Tiger, and Leopard in retail.
Nonsensical, really? What if not the license (and price, of course) makes an upgrade copy different from a full, retail one? For just about all of the upgrade versions of software I've bought in the last decade it is true that the data inside the installer package or on the installation disk is the exact same as the one in the respective full version and the only difference is a technological measure enforcing the license terms - namely, usually a screen in the installer asking me for the license key of the previous version.
As far as the license of the standalone version of Mac OS X, it states that you can only run the software on an Apple branded hardware, and since you cannot purchase said hardware without a license and a copy of Mac OS X, the upgrade status is implicit. I really don't see what difference would it make if Apple had slapped an "Upgrade Version" sticker on the box and had thrown a few upgrade references in the EULA of the standalone OS X.





Member since:
2007-05-12
I hear this a lot, but, uhm, how is this relevant? What business is it of mine that Apple sells retail copies of their software at a price that doesn't cover its costs? That's an Apple business decision, and has abslutely nothing to do with the case at hand. "
Would you hold the same position if the case was a bit different - me purchasing an upgrade copy of program X and using a script to remove the step in the installer asking me for the license key of the the previous version? Would it still be DeveloperOfX's problem that they made the business decision to sell upgrade copies? Would I still be absolved of any responsibility because I've payed for the software?