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


Click here to return to the 'Ugh. Enough!' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
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 | # ]