Gang, one of the reasons when you are presented an EULA with the little Save option (at least on the Mac) is to archive this with the application and read it.
There is no "Save" option in the Windows installer. Sensible, as Windows has only a
90% share of the operating system market vs. 5% for Macs. If you do not manually select the EULA text and save it out in another application, the only way to later see the license is to reinstall i1Profiler.
I see some of X-Rite's logic in the profile creation and usage limitations. The price for the full, non-upgrade version of i1Profiler is $1000. I suspect that I am not the only one on this forum who recalls paying twice that amount for the standard ProfileMaker and Profiler versions (or something over $3K for the ProfileMaker Publish software). The feature set of i1Profiler reflects the price drop. No real profile editor, data manipulation, averaging, and analysis functions that are extremely limited in comparison to MeasureTool, no corrolary to ColorPicker, etc. i1Profiler does make good profiles except - and this is critical - in the case where you need a customized black generation curve. That feature went missing as well.
The EULA allows a color consultant to make on-site profiles. As Darren and I pointed out above, strict interpretation of the subsection c.ii requirements likely means that i1Profiler will need to be installed and run from the client's own computers. Not exactly practical. The 50 profile per year limit is problematic in the real-world. Unless your clients pay exceptionally well, it will be hard to make a living, particularly since a typical press requires a handful of profiles with varying K-Gen curves and GCR/UCR strategies for each paper. I do not know what X-Rite's licensing rates for making more than 50 profiles per year is. Obviously this will be a key factor for in a color consultant's decision of whether to use i1Profiler or not.
The market that X-Rite is killing off is for remote profiling services. I presume that at the $1000 price point, they feel that they stand to lose too many potential customers by adhering to the legacy ProfileMaker licensing scheme. Again, I assume that X-Rite has licensing options for remote profiling services, but I have no insight as to what those might be.
From our company's perspective, the licensing restriction are largely irrelevant. We use our own software for making RGB profiles, and the only press profiles we create are for printers we run jobs at. It was worth the $500 upgrade fee to see where X-Rite was at. Even with the improvements in RGB profiles, our home-grown software more than holds it own. If we use i1Profiler for press profiles, it appears we won't be able to provide the print shop with the profiles after the fact. (Side note: It is trivial to extract an embedded profile from an image. I'll leave the obvious conclusion about whether a print shop can save the profile up to you.) Other profiling service providers will indeed need to be careful about the ramifications of even installing i1Profiler. I have no pretensions of being a lawyer; it will require a good one to determine if the i1Profiler EULA's revocation of previous X-Rite licenses (a) is even contractually valid, (b) applies to ProfileMaker or i1 software versions purchased prior to the X-Rite/GretagMacBeth merger, and (c) only applies to the computer i1Profiler is installed on or to all computers you or your company own.
My primary complaints about i1Profiler, therefore, relate to the missing features and poor workflow. The product simply does not allow for efficiently creating a significant number of profiles, nor does the design consider that profiles may not be used on the computer where they are created. This is fine if X-Rite's target market are hobbyist consumers wanting a more powerful profiling tool than ColorMunki. For commercial work, however, the modest improvement in profile quality (again except for many presses where control over K-gen curves is essential) needs to be weighted against the drawbacks presented by the new, fancy, and woefully inefficient user interface and workflow.