Q: Pages 6.0 issues
-
Oct 4, 2016 10:33 AMby VikingOSX,Your early 2009 iMac is excluded from the macOS Sierra hardware compatibility list. Pages v6 uses features unique to macOS Sierra. On your current hardware, you are done at El Capitan and Pages v5.6.2. Another term: Locked.
As no OS X installation build has ever installed Pages, or other Apple layered products, there is no promissory language in the Terms of Use/Licensing that grant you everlasting free updates to retail applications across all future OS X releases. The licensing terms for Pages itself state that it is restricted to Apple-branded hardware that meets certain specific system requirements. The first paragraph resolves this last sentence per requirements.
-
Oct 4, 2016 1:21 PMby 20Azartguy16,Well, that is the point isn't it? That Apple has "locked" my hardware out by building software that isn't compatible and doing it specifically to induce the purchase of hardware.
Why in the world would any user defend this practice? And I find it interesting that you use abstruse terms such as "installation build" and "layered products." Even if I could figure out what the terms-of-art in general mean, your specific use is unclear.
Also, why would a user cite "promissory language in the Terms of Use/Licensing" in this context? Is there any reasonable expectation that the buyer would read all 241 pages of the "License Agreement" before buying the product and then challenge the sales person's verbal promise that the software would be, and could be, upgraded?
And since this thread will probably be deleted because any criticism of Apple practice, even if part of a legitimate issue and reasonable question, I suppose I'll have to make a copy for further consideration and possible internet use.
-
Oct 4, 2016 3:43 PMby VikingOSX,Apple and non-Apple salespersons are not authorized to make open-ended implied, verbal, or written agreements on Apple's behalf — that products will receive indefinite updates (as you would have us believe). Every company that creates, ships, and sells products (and intends to remain in business) has product life-cycles where those products are discontinued, and replaced. Otherwise, there would be no word “economy” in the dictionary.
Your iMac is nearly 8 years old. Complaining that macOS Sierra isn't available for your Mac, and those years of Pages updates that you did receive — wasn't living up to your original sales interpretation is just wandering off in quicksand...
Everything comes to an end ... eventually.
-
Oct 4, 2016 6:24 PMby PeterBreis0807,No I do not expect you to read the 241 page License Agreement couched in dense legal language. I haven't.
But it is a good start if you read what is actually in front of you and what countless other consumers have been pointing out for decades.
Making a wishful assumption is not going to make it come true.
Peter
-
Oct 4, 2016 10:58 PMby 20Azartguy16,I take offense at the comments such as like "South Park had enormous fun at the expense of Apple users such as yourself" and later suggesting that I didn't "read what is actually in front of you" and other phrases.
If you can't help, fine; but if you don't want to help with constructive responses, how about just backing off and keeping the condescension to yourself.
Thank you again for you helpful comments.
-
Oct 4, 2016 11:33 PMby 20Azartguy16,All I wanted with the question were reasonable responses whether or not I can hope for upgrades to Pages and whether I will be locked out of those upgrades. I didn't want an argument with anyone, just some information and assistance; instead I get aggressive comments that either defend the company, or suggest it's my failure that I find myself in this position.
I'm probably just going to let this whole thing go rather than try and hammer through a wall of fanboy resistance, however, you should know that, depending on jurisdiction, sales representatives may be active parties and generally assumed to be acting de facto as agents for that company.
You can claim agents may not be explicitly "authorized" to make such statements but my assertion that the statement was made stands, and if challenged to prove it I may, or may not, do so depending on my interest in the argument. However, once I have demonstrated the validity of my assertion, for someone to challenge the validity, i.e., "as you would have us believe," then the burden of proof shifts to the other party, Onus probandi incumbent ei qui digit, non ei qui negat.
Or put another way, don't try and teach your grannie how to suck eggs.
