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: 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 | # ]