[Licensing] Use one license on several personal computers

Doesn't seem like Parallels cares too much about their user base. I have switched to VMware Fusion (now free for personal use) and I have it installed on five computers. Granted Parallels is a bit better overall but hard to argue with FREE.

 

Captive audiences tend to do this, but simultaneously VMware just doesn't hold candle to Parallels, especially with the terrible risk that Broadcom has brought to the ecosystem. UTM is an option, but it's not as refined either.

 

Same exact use case.. work laptop and personal computer and I do the same dance of registering/unregistering when I want to use one over the other. Never both in use at the same time.

 

Started using Parallels a month or two ago, the software is great. But, as a lot of other people already said in this thread, I find having to switch licenses between my iMac and my MacBook a little bit cumbersome. You should bind the license to the user, not the computers. I, as a lot of other people here, never use Parallels in both computers at the same time.
Either that or offer a discount for the second and subsequent licenses.

 

One more vote for this. It stinks that I can only use Parallels on one machine -- like many devs I have multiple machines and I can't readily think of any other tool that enforces a strikt "one machine only" license these days.

With the new VMWare policies there is new competition, and unless Parallels finally begins supporting nested virtualization really soon, they will become a less promising solution quite quickly. The request to support multi-machine use and consider licensing per user has been open since 2018 now. High time to finally do something about it.

 

It's a shame. Still the same issues after all these years. Looking forward to other solutions.

 

I'm new to Parallels, but decided to give it a go after considering an upgrade of my Intel Mac minis (I have two, plus a MacBook Pro) to new Apple Silicon devices. I also need to be on a Windows device at times, and have for many years used Windows To Go on a good quality USB stick. That solution has been ideal, but isn't going to work on Apple Silicon. So, having seen MS now officially support Windows on a Mac through Parallels I thought this was the future. I had no idea that the licence wasn't single user, non-concurrent on many machines as, quite simply, everybody does that these days. Except Parallels, it seems. I'm not a professional, so can't afford three licenses, so now I don't know what to do. Looks like my Mac upgrades aren't going to be happening yet

 

For the sake of posterity I'll throw my hat into the ring and advocate for user vs. machine licensing. It makes no sense, on the users side, to pay 2X when they only use one license at a time. I can see there must be some analysis that says the incremental revenue is more important but given a user can activate/deactivate at will I'm not sure how important that is. I for one have always considered Parallels my VM go to but this silliness has made me aware of other options I'll check out where I would never have done so otherwise. I guess you're pretty confident!

 

It would be reasonable for Parallels to license per user and be able to activate on at least two machines without having to go through the process of moving the license from one machine to the other. This would indicate that most of the users requesting this enhancement use a desktop for the heavy lifting and a portable machine for rare circumstances where they need to demonstrate something while mobile. This is more critical now that they have discontinued Parallels Access.

 

I was about to subscribe to Parallels, but now I won't be. I have a home desktop, a work desktop, and a macbook. I'll just stick with Crossover or check out VM Fusion. I'm not paying for three subscriptions to use this product.

 

Paying for three subscriptions is rather excessive for one person. They should really switch the license to per person instead of per device. But then venders of enterprise software like to charge per core licensing and I am thankful that Parallels has not shifted to a per core licensing.

 

It would be great to have a roving license key. I have a few MAC's but only use one at a time. If I startup on a different machine than currently has the key it tells me that it will disconnect the other and I agree. Once I have the key I don't need to be on the internet unless I'm going to use another PC. Then you just need to be connected long enough for the license swap to occur.

 

Stopping in again to repeat how terrible this is. All of my other expensive software (Microsoft, Adobe Suite, literally everything else) works on both my iMac and my MacBook. I would pay slightly more for two devices, and would be fine with only one being active at a time. But DOUBLE is absolutely ludicrous and is the only reason I'm looking for Parallels alternatives. It's really a shame that this ridiculous policy is holding back such great software.

 

I love Parallels and have been using it for several years.
Now I have two computers, and for the time being, I've purchased an additional license.
However, I'm considering switching to another software, as I find this licensing model quite unfair -- I don't use both machines at the same time.
You should consider revising your licensing model.

 

One idea, is a compromise.
A "Switch License To This Computer" (Internet communications required) option unlocked, but ONLY for the same Apple ID.
Possible Compromise Rules
- Same Apple ID only.
- Require Internet connection on both computers (for license sync)
- No requirement for Internet connection if you're not intending to switch licenses. Fast license switching can be turned on/off.
- As long as my desktop/laptop is concurrently online, license switching takes only 5 seconds (or less)
- Limit to X unique machines per month|year (but unlimited switching between these unique machines)

In other words, it's status quo (no Internet connection required when License Switching sync is turned off, and only required for the duration of switching)

 

To help win the board of directors in the "Great Parallels Compromise":

Another bonus -- license switching also can be a screen that has an upsell "Purchase More Licenses" button next to the "Switch License Instantly To This Computer" button. Discreet advertising, just a simple extra button that the user sees because they opted to see the screen that has the "Switch License Instantly To This Computer" = more upsell opportunities that aren't annoying popups (like today) = win win?

Economics 101 shows that users who bite at the Fast License Switching carrot (this proposed compromise), a few of the users will find it more convenient to click that upsell button.

More profit instead of less profit?