Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the '10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: TonyT on Oct 15, '09 09:13:30AM

"..I bought the family-pack DVD, and installed it on my 10.5 laptop and my 10.4 desktop without any problems. "

You're in violation of the SLA that you agreed to when you clicked "Agree".



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: elmimmo on Oct 15, '09 09:41:16AM

Nowhere on the box or disc of my 10.6 (Japanese retail) copy it says it is an upgrade or that it requires a specific previous version of the OS. Only us geeks, reading too much internet literature think this is an upgrade.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: TonyT on Oct 15, '09 10:07:06AM
You agreed to it when you installed 10.6 and clicked "Agree" Take a look in your /Library/Documentation directory for "License" C. Leopard Upgrade Licenses. If you have purchased an Upgrade for Mac OS X Leopard license, then subject to the terms and conditions of this License, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer as long as that computer has a properly licensed copy of Mac OS X Leopard already installed on it.

[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: mantrid on Oct 15, '09 10:22:58AM

What makes you think that section doesn't only apply to the $9.95 "Leopard Upgrade License"? The "Single Use" and "Family Pack" license doesn't include any such clause.

The whole situation is full of ambiguities. I don't know who is right.

Either Apple is forcing Tiger users to buy a more expensive bundle, forcing them to pay more for a package containing software they don't want, acting like some greedy evil megacorporation.

Or the minority of users still on Tiger really are allowed to upgrade for $29, but Apple is allowing their marketing department to imply that they have to buy a Box set, and despite all the confusion, refrain from making a definitive statement one way or another, being happy to pocket the extra cash from honest well intentioned Mac users, like some greedy evil megacorporation.

Either way, Apple looks bad, and either way, it undermines respect for their EULA.

It's rare to see Apple bungle an image issue this badly.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: frgough on Oct 15, '09 10:25:15AM

How about this. Instead of being a timid little church mouse, pay for the family pack, install it on your machines according to the dictates of your conscience and call it good. Apple is not God, and you are not its slave.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: TonyT on Oct 15, '09 11:00:25AM

If you don't want to agree to the License, just click "Do not agree", otherwise click "Agree", admit the theft to yourself and don't try to rationalize it.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: TonyT on Oct 15, '09 10:55:10AM

License is clear. You must copy of Mac OS X Leopard already installed to be in compliance with the SLA.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: elmimmo on Oct 15, '09 08:01:06PM

Sorry pal, that is techno babble added AFTER I payed for a disk that does not state such requirements in the box.

Besides, why License C and not A? A fits what the box says better (no "update" stated anywhere). C says, "If you have acquired an update license…". Well, like I said, I didn't.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: frgough on Oct 15, '09 10:23:38AM

There's one in every crowd...

Leave the guy alone. He paid for a family pack. His karma is good.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: TonyT on Oct 15, '09 11:07:17AM

I'm sure he didn't realize that he's in violation of the SLA for his desktop Mac, otherwise he would not have posted this as a 'Hint'.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: TicToc on Oct 15, '09 04:33:52PM
You're in violation of the SLA that you agreed to when you clicked "Agree".
Sorry, but that's incorrect. Please note that the OP said
..I bought the family-pack DVD, and installed it on my 10.5 laptop and my 10.4 desktop without any problems.

Here's what my license terms say:

B. Family Pack License. If you have purchased a Family Pack license, then subject to the terms and conditions of this License, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on up to a maximum of five (5) Apple-branded computers at a time as long as those computers are located in the same household and used by persons who occupy that same household. By "household" we mean a person or persons who share the same housing unit such as a home, apartment, mobile home or condominium, but shall also extend to student members who are primary residents of that household but residing at a separate on-campus location. The Family Pack License does not extend to business or commercial users.
You quoted section C which relates to Leopard Upgrade Licenses.

[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: TonyT on Oct 17, '09 05:49:25AM

>You quoted section C which relates to Leopard Upgrade Licenses.

Only because it applies. Apple only sells an upgrade disk. Clearly stated on the Apple Website.
I'm amazed at the lengths that people go to (based on these posts) to convince themselves that they've done nothing wrong in order to save a hundred bucks.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: mantrid on Oct 17, '09 06:14:45AM

> Apple only sells an upgrade disk.

So your position is that section C applies to all 10.6 disks, and that all 10.6 disks require a prior installation of Leopard.

That is clearly incorrect considering the first sentence of section C begins "If you have purchased an Upgrade for Mac OS X Leopard license...", the "If" indicating that other types of license to which section C does not apply exist. Furthermore, section A. begins "Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Upgrade license for the Apple Software"... again implying that section C only applies to a subset of cases.

And if you are claiming that Apple only sells an upgrade disk and therefore must have Leopard preinstalled regardless, that means even if 10.4 users buy a Box Set, they would still be ineligible to install it since they don't already have Leopard.

With no indication on the packages as to what licenses are in effect, the situation isn't nearly as black and white as you assert. All Apple would have to have done to make it clear is put "Single Use" license or "Upgrade License" on the box.

Oh, and for the record, I haven't paid a cent for Snow Leopard so it's all academic to me.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: TonyT on Oct 17, '09 07:09:21AM

>So your position is that section C applies to all 10.6 disks, and that all 10.6 disks require a prior installation of Leopard.

No, Apple used the same disk, however, per the SLA (which users agree to) , Tiger users must use the Mac Box Set.

All legalese aside, Apple's intent is perfectly clear.

>Oh, and for the record, I haven't paid a cent for Snow Leopard so it's all academic to me.

Oh, so I guess I should 'interpret' that statement to mean that you borrowed a friends disk to install on your machine. Or do you mean that you use Windows? I guess its up to me to decide.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: mantrid on Oct 17, '09 09:09:44AM

> All legalese aside, Apple's intent is perfectly clear.
How convenient that you choose to set aside the "legalese" when your interpretation of the license agreement has been challenged after you attempted to subject all Apple disks (unwittingly including Box Set customers in the sweeping statement) to clause C. You can't set aside the "legalese" because when it comes down to it, the "legalese" is the only thing relevant to this discussion. The clauses are outlined clearly in the license agreement but the relationship between the clauses and which products they apply to is not.

As you said in your other post, leaving the "family pack" versions out of the discussion, there are $9.95 (or free for the software if you call that shipping and handling), $29 and $169 packages available for purchase to upgrade to Snow Leopard. There are only two relevant clauses in the license agreement, "A: Single Use" and "C: Upgrade", but there are three packages. Which versions fall under which clauses? Quoting the passage you yourself quoted,
> The Snow Leopard single user license will be available for a suggested retail price of $29 (US)

That sure sounds to me like Section "A: Single Use", more so than section "C: Upgrade", applies to the $29 disk. Are you still unwilling to concede that there is ambiguity? Since this seems to tie the specific product to the specific clause in the license agreement, I think that weakens the case for your interpretation that clause A does not refer to the $29 version although I wouldn't consider the quote to be binding as much as the actual license agreement and what is on the box.

> Oh, so I guess I should 'interpret' that statement to mean that you borrowed a friends disk to install on your machine. Or do you mean that you use Windows? I guess its up to me to decide.

You can "decide" all you want, but you need to learn that what you "decide" doesn't change the reality. The fact of the matter is I don't own a compatible Mac so I have no intention of acquiring Snow Leopard, have not acquired it to date, and therefore have not paid a cent for it. But do you see how you took an ambiguous statement, fitted it to your own preconceptions and didn't hesitate to make insinuations based on it? You have thrown around some inflammatory statements in this thread directed toward other members. I think you have established your credibility level.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: TonyT on Oct 17, '09 09:41:42AM

You can rationalize a theft to your hearts content, but it will not change the fact that the user is granted a limited non-exclusive license as long as such computer has a properly licensed copy of Mac OS X Leopard already installed on it.

Whatever makes you sleep at night.....



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: TonyT on Oct 17, '09 09:57:58AM

>That sure sounds to me like Section "A: Single Use", more so than section "C: Upgrade"

Sorry, you can't pick and choose. A and C are not mutually exclusive. Based on your flawed logic, "C." would never apply.

Unless Leopard is installed on your Mac, you cannot legally use the $29 package.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: Snow Leopard DVD is full OS X install disc
Authored by: mantrid on Oct 17, '09 04:09:26PM

> You can rationalize a theft to your hearts content
What theft are you talking about? You can't be referring to me, despite your earlier insinuations, since I clarified that I don't own and can't even install Snow Leopard. If you are generalizing by using the indefinite article, I'm not rationalizing any thefts on behalf of any other posters since the licensing terms have not been properly defined. If Apple were to post a revised EULA or started marking new 10.6 boxes appropriately and people vioated the terms, I certainly would not condone such actions although I wouldn't think badly of anyone who purchased earlier. So why do you think I would have trouble sleeping? Lets get this cleared up. Who are you accusing of theft?

> Sorry, you can't pick and choose. A and C are not mutually exclusive.
Are you sure? What is your Apple employee ID, and have you been authorized to make statements on their behalf? Unless you are connected to Apple, the fact is you don't know any more than the rest of us. Let's see, so you imply that the $29 disk is covered by C (in addition to the A which your Apple>Ars quote matches to). Where does it say that about C and the $29 disk in the license, disk or box? The Box Set is only covered by A but not C? Which paragraph is that in? Who is the one guilty of picking and choosing here? A and B are certainly mutually exclusive. But A and C aren't? C reiterates what is stated in A and adds the Leopard requirement which gives the impression that it is a separate class of license that is distinct from A and B.

> Based on your flawed logic, "C." would never apply.
Why is that? Your logic in arriving at that conclusion is flawed. Nothing I have said would exlude C. from applying to the $9.95 Mac OS X Snow Leopard Up-To-Date upgrade package (that's the one where you only pay shipping and handling). I can certainly see why Apple would insist that users owned Leopard to be eligible for the license that gives you the OS for free. To be eligible, one would have to have bought the last of the Leopard Macs after Snow Leopard was announced and since such systems would have had Leopard pre-installed, the restriction makes sense in that context. In contrast, gouging Tiger users by forcing them to buy a $169 box set seems distinctly un-Apple like. Nothing you have said definitively states that C applies to the $29 disk. It doesn't require any logic at all to engage in your preferred tactic of saying something over and over again, but it isn't a convincing argument and saying it over and over doesn't alter reality. It was your earlier flawed logic that made C apply to all disks (">Apple only sells an upgrade disk") that would have made it impossible for Tiger users to upgrade directly. Actually, if your logic were correct, it would mean Apple marketing would be promoting non-compliance of their own EULA, so I think it is fair to say a trend is emerging with respect to the calibre of your logic.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Ugh. Enough!
Authored by: tedw on Oct 17, '09 12:12:43PM
Anyone who thinks this conversation is going to go anywhere at all should take a few moments to read up on Kohlberg's stages of moral development. So far I've seen every stage reflected in these arguments except stage 1 (the "it's bad because Apple's gonna get you" argument). People at stage 2 are simply not going to understand the stage 5 argument that an SLA represents a social contract that should be respected and interpreted generously, because people at stage 2 don't yet grok society as anything more than a haphazard collection of individuals. And besides, corporations tend to operate at the pre-conventional level in their own right; Apple is better than most (at least it is not obsessively bent on manipulating legalities for its own benefit, the way Microsoft - historically speaking - has always acted), but it's still not that far up the chart. Accept the facts:
  1. people who don't know any better are going to cheat the system
  2. people who do know better aren't
  3. there's not a darned thing you can do to teach the first group to be like the second (they just have to learn on their own)
  4. and most important, that Apple has had the grace not to make everyone's life more difficult by trying to reign in the first group
my advice is to drop the issue, figure out who the cheaters are, and then line up some good halloween tricks to play on them. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]
Ugh. Enough!
Authored by: mantrid on Oct 17, '09 04:22:02PM

I don't think there is a moral dilemma here or any moral reasoning in play here at all. I think only one or two people here have suggested knowingly breaking the license agreement or tried to justify doing so (the site owner ironically being one). Everybody else is split between those that believe that the SLA allows the $29 disk to be used without Leopard, those that believe it doesn't, and those that don't know which is true (like me). Doesn't the number of posters on both sides of the argument say to you the rules in the license are ambiguous?

> And besides, corporations tend to operate at the pre-conventional level in their own right; Apple is better than most ... but it's still not that far up the chart.

Now that is an interesting point and cuts closer to why I want to see the licensing ambiguities clarified by Apple. If Apple is in fact punishing Tiger users for skipping Leopard and gouging them by forcing them (by not offering a stand alone 10.6 upgrade) to buy a $169 box instead of the usual $129, that is the sort of tactic that I disapprove of to the point that I will look toward migrating away from the Mac platform (as it happens, I'm due for a new computer). So when 10.7 comes out retailing in the more traditional $129 range, are 10.5 users still going to be gouged for a $169 box set? If that's the road Apple is taking, I'll be getting out and warning others to avoid Mac lock-in.

If on the other hand the $29 disk is a single user license and it's just marketing pushing the box set for Tiger users, well that's just marketing and a lesser (and tolerable) evil. With this scenario, while Tiger users would be getting a bargain, Mac users tend to jump to upgrade as soon as they can anyway so I wonder how many (or few) of them there actually are and how many of them would bother to upgrade if they have been happy with Tiger up to now. In my vision of Apple as innovation leaders, and the plucky underdog that (historically) represented all that MS was not for all of these years, I could see them absorbing the relatively small cost of giving the few remaining Tiger users a break as a good will gesture to try to move people up to speed with Intel-code only OS X that is 10.6.

The $29 cost is itself a good will gesture so would people have been any less appreciative if it had been $39 to cover the remaining Tiger users without gouging them? Or did the accountants already do a similar calculation, and arrive at the $29 price that took into account Tiger users in the first place?

It isn't about saving a hundred bucks. Resolving what the actual licensing situation is will speak volumes about what type of company the Apple of today is and will factor in whether people want to do business with them.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Ugh. Enough!
Authored by: TonyT on Oct 17, '09 05:30:55PM

> If Apple is in fact punishing Tiger users for skipping Leopard and gouging them by forcing them (by not offering a stand alone 10.6 upgrade) to buy a $169 box instead of the usual $129,

'Punishing', 'Gouging' -- at $40? This is your issue? (and you conveniently neglect to state that the box includes iLife & iWork)

> If that's the road Apple is taking, I'll be getting out and warning others to avoid Mac lock-in.

If? The SL upgrade path is clear. (...and why would you need to warn anyone? They can decide for themselves.)

> Resolving what the actual licensing situation is will speak volumes about what type of company the Apple of today is and will factor in whether people want to do business with them.

Nothing to resolve. The SLA is clear.

"To be clear, installing the $29 upgrade to Snow Leopard on a system not already running a properly licensed copy of Leopard is a violation of the end-user license agreement that comes with the product. But Apple's decision is a refreshing change: rewarding honest people with a hassle-free product rather than trying to punish dishonest people by treating everyone like a criminal. This "honor system" upgrade enforcement policy partially explains the big jump to $169 for the Mac Box Set, which ends up re-framed as an honest person's way to get iLife and iWork at their usual prices, plus Snow Leopard for $11 more." -- http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/2



[ Reply to This | # ]
Ugh. Enough!
Authored by: tedw on Oct 17, '09 05:55:05PM
If you don't believe there's a moral reasoning issue here, you haven't read the Kohlberg link I provided, and haven't really followed the arguments that have been presented. The question at hand is whether the mere fact that one can use the $29 dvd to to install a workable version of SL means that one should do that, despite the fact that Apple indicates pretty clearly that that's not what they want. It's essentially the same as wondering whether you can park in a handicapped zone when you're sure that no disabled people or meter police are around. Sure you can do it, sure you can get away with it, sure you can claim you're not harming anyone - does that make it right? you'll get different responses to that question depending on the moral reasoning of the person you ask.

The way I see this issue, Apple recognized that 10.6 is actually closer to an update of Leopard than a new OS. There are a lot of changes under the hood, of course - too much for Apple to give it away as a free update - but not very many changes to the actual top-level functioning of the OS. Apple compromised, and released it as a new OS at a greatly reduced price. Now, if they had released it as an update, Tiger users would have been forced to buy Leopard for $129, just like every other Leopard user. Doing it this way, though, current Leopard users will have paid $169 dollars (over the long run) while Tiger people will end up getting exactly the same software for only $29. Apple doesn't want that (obviously - even the people who say that the SLA allows it can't claim that Apple wants it), and current Leopard users have a right to be somewhat annoyed by it. The only question here is whether or not a given person gives a flying fig about what Apple wants, or about what annoys other people, or about what the 'correct' thing to do in the situation is; or whether that person is merely interested in getting the best deal possible for him/herself by hook, or crook, or schnook. That question is answered by any given person according to the stage of moral reasoning s/he is at when s/he asks it.

I'm not here to say what's right or wrong in the situation. I'm just pointing out that there's no sense going on about it. Any argument that gets made is only going to get heard by the people who are already predisposed to agree with it, and is just going to sail right by anyone else.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ugh. Enough!
Authored by: mantrid on Oct 18, '09 08:07:04AM
If you don't believe there's a moral reasoning issue here, you haven't read the Kohlberg link I provided, and haven't really followed the arguments that have been presented. I'm not here to say what's right or wrong in the situation.
On the contrary, your comments suggest you have implicitly accepted the interpretation that using the $29 disk with Tiger is against the license and therefore "wrong", and based on that viewpoint, decided that a moral issue is attached to the discussion. By failing to recognize that the alternative interpretation where a person installing over Tiger in the honest belief that they are allowed to do so does not encounter in a morality choice, it may be you who has failed to follow my argument. Almost nobody in this thread is arguing along the lines of the validity and enforceability of EULAs and those that have installed over Tiger seem sincere in their belief that section C does not apply so the morality issue shouldn't even be a part of the discussion. Had they believed it isn't allowed but done so anyway, then yes, moral reasoning would have been involved but only a couple of comments fall into that category.
I'm just pointing out that there's no sense going on about it. Any argument that gets made is only going to get heard by the people who are already predisposed to agree with it, and is just going to sail right by anyone else.
At the heart of the discussion lies the inability of the two sides to agree on what the license agreement allows. Both sides point to the same three clauses to support their point of view. I can see why either side believes as they do, but find attempts to deny, as one poster has done, the existence of the ambiguity itself to be ludicrous.

Further undermining the possibility of having a polite debate is that the "No" side seems predisposed to think that anybody taking the "Yes" side is doing so disingenuously, and immediately casting aspersions on their morality. The blindness to the opposing view or refusal to acknowledge the possible existence of an alternate opinion is reminiscent of trying to argue with religious fundamentalists (of any faith), so I agree with you in so far as productive debate being unlikely but disagree that differing levels of Kohlberg style moral functioning is to blame.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ugh. Enough!
Authored by: tedw on Oct 18, '09 10:17:13AM
On the contrary, your comments suggest you have implicitly accepted the interpretation that using the $29 disk with Tiger is against the license and therefore "wrong", and based on that viewpoint, decided that a moral issue is attached to the discussion. By failing to recognize that the alternative interpretation where a person installing over Tiger in the honest belief that they are allowed to do so does not encounter in a morality choice, it may be you who has failed to follow my argument. Almost nobody in this thread is arguing along the lines of the validity and enforceability of EULAs and those that have installed over Tiger seem sincere in their belief that section C does not apply so the morality issue shouldn't even be a part of the discussion. Had they believed it isn't allowed but done so anyway, then yes, moral reasoning would have been involved but only a couple of comments fall into that category.
The argument that any behavior is ok so long as the person sincerely believed it was ok at the time they did it is (most likely) Stage 3 moral reasoning, in this case casting the person in the role of an 'innocent victim': someone who didn't know it was wrong and is therefore absolved of all responsibility. Unfortunately, that innocence is suspect to begin with (given the number of discussions on this topic floating around the internet) and was certainly tossed out the window by the third or fourth post on this thread. Anyone who has read this far is obliged to take this as a moral issue - even those few who honestly and in all innocence installed 10.6, since they now have to make a moral choice about whether to revert back to Tiger. Further, the claim that I am implicitly making value judgments also seems to be Stage 3 reasoning: you're reducing a primarily philosophical argument to a mere conflict between 'viewpoints', which allows you to equivocate on the moral issue.

moral reasoning is not how you answer a moral question, but how you approach it, including how you decide whether it's a moral question in the first place.

At the heart of the discussion lies the inability of the two sides to agree on what the license agreement allows.
Not quite. One side is arguing about what the SLA allows, the other side is arguing about what the SLA intends. Letter vs. Spirit of the document, with variations. That's a stage difference.
Further undermining the possibility of having a polite debate is that the "No" side seems predisposed to think that anybody taking the "Yes" side is doing so disingenuously, and immediately casting aspersions on their morality. The blindness to the opposing view or refusal to acknowledge the possible existence of an alternate opinion is reminiscent of trying to argue with religious fundamentalists (of any faith), so I agree with you in so far as productive debate being unlikely but disagree that differing levels of Kohlberg style moral functioning is to blame.
Granted that there are people who make that kind of judgement (that's Stage 4 reasoning: a belief that authoritative rules should be followed conscientiously for the good of everyone, and a consequent anger when they aren't). Granted also that there are those on the 'yes' side who seem to have no conception of the value of authoritative rules (which is pure Stage 2 reasoning). Kohlberg is a descriptive typology, not an ascriptive one, so it's not 'to blame' for anything. if you want to disagree about the description, we can discuss that, of course...

[ Reply to This | # ]
Ugh. Enough!
Authored by: TonyT on Oct 18, '09 09:19:07AM

>If you don't believe there's a moral reasoning issue here, you haven't read the Kohlberg link I provided, and haven't really followed the arguments that have been presented.

I have, and I agree.

>It's essentially the same as wondering whether you can park in a handicapped zone when you're sure that no disabled people or meter police are around. Sure you can do it, sure you can get away with it, sure you can claim you're not harming anyone - does that make it right? you'll get different responses to that question depending on the moral reasoning of the person you ask.

I always assumed that anyone that does this would agree that doing so is wrong (...but now I remember that old Seinfeld episode).

>The way I see this issue, Apple recognized that 10.6 is actually closer to an update of Leopard than a new OS. There are a lot of changes under the hood, of course - too much for Apple to give it away as a free update - but not very many changes to the actual top-level functioning of the OS. Apple compromised, and released it as a new OS at a greatly reduced price. Now, if they had released it as an update, Tiger users would have been forced to buy Leopard for $129, just like every other Leopard user. Doing it this way, though, current Leopard users will have paid $169 dollars (over the long run) while Tiger people will end up getting exactly the same software for only $29. Apple doesn't want that (obviously - even the people who say that the SLA allows it can't claim that Apple wants it), and current Leopard users have a right to be somewhat annoyed by it. The only question here is whether or not a given person gives a flying fig about what Apple wants, or about what annoys other people, or about what the 'correct' thing to do in the situation is; or whether that person is merely interested in getting the best deal possible for him/herself by hook, or crook, or schnook. That question is answered by any given person according to the stage of moral reasoning s/he is at when s/he asks it.

Again, agreed.

>I'm not here to say what's right or wrong in the situation. I'm just pointing out that there's no sense going on about it. Any argument that gets made is only going to get heard by the people who are already predisposed to agree with it, and is just going to sail right by anyone else.

Agreed.

> Ugh. Enough!

....And finally, --- Agreed



[ Reply to This | # ]
Ugh. Enough!
Authored by: tedw on Oct 18, '09 10:23:34AM

lol - ok, I can agree with that. :)



[ Reply to This | # ]
off-topic from the Snow Leopard DVD
Authored by: grahamperrin on Jul 15, '11 08:02:26AM
> … warning others to avoid Mac lock-in. … Consider the MacWorld articles referred from my post under Mac OS X Licensing from Mac App Store - MacRumors Forums. Whilst the license for 10.7 has not been published, early indications are that Apple will take an extremely respectable approach to installations and uses of the operating system. Before jumping to conclusions about who should be warned and why, I suggest awaiting further information from Apple. Bear in mind, most of what's currently published is oriented to day one purchases.

[ Reply to This | # ]