PDA

View Full Version : Will OSX Mountain Lion be free?




BizRunner
Feb 16, 2012, 04:50 PM
It sounds crazy I know, but I feel like OSX is getting to the point where ML may be a free upgrade from Lion. It seems like they are heading the route of iOS.



nostylluan
Feb 16, 2012, 04:53 PM
no.

adamtheturtle
Feb 16, 2012, 04:54 PM
Many tech sites briefed by Apple are reporting it as a "paid update", so unlikely at best. For example The Verge here (http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/16/2801047/mac-os-x-10-8-mountain-lion-preview-photos-video).

talmy
Feb 16, 2012, 04:54 PM
$29 in the Mac App Store, good for all your Macs that it will run on.

ixodes
Feb 16, 2012, 05:00 PM
I sure hope not. Apple's developers and the company itself deserve to get paid.

Enough with all this FREE Entitlement drivel.

I don't care what it costs, I care how it performs. Period.

lulla01
Feb 16, 2012, 05:05 PM
^100 billion in cash reserves is not considered payment.

AustinIllini
Feb 16, 2012, 05:06 PM
It sounds crazy I know, but I feel like OSX is getting to the point where ML may be a free upgrade from Lion. It seems like they are heading the route of iOS.

I was thinking that, too. I can't imagine it costing more than $29, but it might be a little too much to be free.

adamtheturtle
Feb 16, 2012, 05:07 PM
I can imagine a situation when Mac software updates become free like iOS ones. It benefits the store having developers able to require iOS 5 even now because of its widespread adoption.

nicklad
Feb 16, 2012, 05:09 PM
I was thinking that, too. I can't imagine it costing more than $29, but it might be a little too much to be free.

I expect it'll be free otherwise how would Internet Recovery know what you're entitled to? If they're moving to the iOS model, we'll see annual major releases and it'll deprecate hardware faster than before.

Unggoy Murderer
Feb 16, 2012, 06:25 PM
To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if it was cheaper than the last couple of updates. So far, it doesn't feel like a "major" update, like the leap from Tiger to Leopard, or even Snow Leopard to Lion. I would bet an even cheaper price tag of $19.99.

Don't get me wrong, I'd still happily pay $29.99 for ML.

Cougarcat
Feb 16, 2012, 06:32 PM
I expect it'll be free otherwise how would Internet Recovery know what you're entitled to?

They could have pre-ML macs only be able to download Lion with Internet Recovery. Then you'd have to download ML on top of that if you bought it.

talmy
Feb 16, 2012, 06:40 PM
They could have pre-ML macs only be able to download Lion with Internet Recovery. Then you'd have to download ML on top of that if you bought it.

Exactly! In fact that is how it would have to work. If you sell your Mac which came with Lion, the purchaser would only be entitled to Lion and not ML even if you paid for it since App Store software licenses are non-transferrable.

nicklad
Feb 16, 2012, 07:05 PM
Exactly! In fact that is how it would have to work. If you sell your Mac which came with Lion, the purchaser would only be entitled to Lion and not ML even if you paid for it since App Store software licenses are non-transferrable.

And yet no iPhones or iPads work remotely this way... Why should they be any different? At its heart, apple is a hardware company.

Mister9
Feb 16, 2012, 07:42 PM
I'll be kind of upset if I have to pay for the update. I still want my money back for Lion..

maflynn
Feb 16, 2012, 07:48 PM
I'll be kind of upset if I have to pay for the update. I still want my money back for Lion..

You don't have to pay for anything. 10.8 is not an update but an upgrade, if you don't want it, then save your money. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade.

bniu
Feb 16, 2012, 07:54 PM
They could have pre-ML macs only be able to download Lion with Internet Recovery. Then you'd have to download ML on top of that if you bought it.

uh, you know when you do internet recovery, they make you sign in? After you sign in, you could be presented with a prompt that allows you to choose between Lion and Mountain Lion...

jingjianasdfq63
Feb 16, 2012, 07:55 PM
uh, you know when you do internet recovery, they make you sign in? After you sign in, you could be presented with a prompt that allows you to choose between Lion and Mountain Lion

Macintosheux
Feb 16, 2012, 07:58 PM
Nope.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fconsomac.fr%2Fnews-1339-messages-pas-sur-lion.html

http://consomac.fr/images/news/messages.jpg

riam
Feb 16, 2012, 08:43 PM
I think apple is making a bad decision with ML, they plan to release it jus a year after Lion, and they are concentrating their efforts in making a paid update, but there are still some known issues with wifi in Lion so now what we will have to pay to get another update when the last one doesn't even work correctly this is Crap. I think they should fix issues with lion first and stop thinking of charging more money to people for minor updates, because all the ML features are missing things in lion.

jackc
Feb 16, 2012, 08:46 PM
Hoping for $9.99, probably $19.99, could be $29.99. Just my guess.

hotgrease
Feb 16, 2012, 09:00 PM
Seems like just a few integrated apps - it really should be free. Going to skip if it costs anything.

Mad Mac Maniac
Feb 16, 2012, 09:25 PM
Hoping for $9.99, probably $19.99, could be $29.99. Just my guess.

Yeah I think those are the main possibilities. And free.

Honestly I could see all 4 of those being equally likely

eagandale4114
Feb 16, 2012, 09:50 PM
It if if you buy a mac when the up to days program releases.

talmy
Feb 16, 2012, 10:05 PM
And yet no iPhones or iPads work remotely this way... Why should they be any different? At its heart, apple is a hardware company.

iOS upgrades have been free (with one exception) so there is no issue there. However any apps you buy for iOS are non-transferrable, just like the Mac Store apps (and the OS X upgrades are Mac Store apps). They are all tied to your Apple ID.

Companies don't have hearts. Selling intellectual property (apps, tunes, movies) is a major profit source for Apple. The "churn" keeps developers happy, too.

Freyqq
Feb 17, 2012, 01:33 AM
I expect it'll be free otherwise how would Internet Recovery know what you're entitled to? If they're moving to the iOS model, we'll see annual major releases and it'll deprecate hardware faster than before.

easy. Just issue a firmware update to have it download ML instead of L.

LastLine
Feb 17, 2012, 01:50 AM
I think from what we've seen thus far I'd be willing to go to $20ish. That said, I'm sure we've not seen all of the new stuff so far....

Tander
Feb 17, 2012, 04:00 AM
Agreed - ML has over 100 new feature. We have only seen 20 at most so far. I am sure more details will come out closer to launch date.

Secondly I would happily pay $29 for the upgrade. Because that's what it is - an upgrade. Not an update. Big difference between those two.

I have been running Lion since launch day and I am 110% happy with it. :cool:

daneoni
Feb 17, 2012, 04:18 AM
Free with any new Mac purchase. $29/£20 from the App Store otherwise.

saberahul
Feb 17, 2012, 08:02 AM
Recent indications (such as the Messages app resource finding) suggest that the mountain lion will not be free.

jclardy
Feb 17, 2012, 08:35 AM
I sure hope not. Apple's developers and the company itself deserve to get paid.

Enough with all this FREE Entitlement drivel.

I don't care what it costs, I care how it performs. Period.

Apple employees would get paid for the next 10 years even if they paid everyone to upgrade their mac.

Anyways, I was thinking of this as well. Apple has stated they are moving to a 1 year release cycle for OS X, similar to iOS.

It is advantageous to both Apple and third party developers to have everyone on the latest OS, and giving it away for free would cause that to happen a whole lot faster.

Looking at it content-wise, it is similar to the iOS4 -> iOS5 upgrade. Notification Center, iCloud, Reminders, updated Calendar, AirPlay Mirroring, iMessage...Pretty much the same new features.

My guess is that since Apple said nothing on pricing they are waiting to "wow" people with a $9.99 price point closer to release. This will get Mac users talking about it and people on Windows 7 resenting the fact that they will be paying $200 to upgrade later in the year, and maybe even consider a Mac instead.

Of course, $29 is still cheap, but it would create nowhere near the amount of hype that a lower price point would.

Ivan P
Feb 17, 2012, 08:40 AM
iOS upgrades have been free (with one exception) so there is no issue there.

Three exceptions actually. The 'summer upgrade' for iPod touch users just a few months after the 1st gens release (that added Mail, Stocks, Weather, Notes, etc), and the 2.0 and 3.0 updates for the touch also. 4.0 was the first that iPod touch users didn't have to pay for.

miraclehobo
Feb 17, 2012, 08:52 AM
I sure hope not. Apple's developers and the company itself deserve to get paid.



What a load of bollocks.

DaLurker
Feb 17, 2012, 09:07 AM
What a load of bollocks.

Why is it a lot of bollocks?

----------

I sure hope not. Apple's developers and the company itself deserve to get paid.

Enough with all this FREE Entitlement drivel.

I don't care what it costs, I care how it performs. Period.

Agreed.

Mister9
Feb 17, 2012, 09:54 AM
I think apple is making a bad decision with ML, they plan to release it jus a year after Lion, and they are concentrating their efforts in making a paid update, but there are still some known issues with wifi in Lion so now what we will have to pay to get another update when the last one doesn't even work correctly this is Crap. I think they should fix issues with lion first and stop thinking of charging more money to people for minor updates, because all the ML features are missing things in lion.

I agree 100%. Lion is crap and they haven't done anything to address it. It feels like I just spent $30 a few months ago, although I know its been closer to 6 or 7 since the downgrade but still it seems they're abandoning the unfortunates who trusted Apple enough not to fart out something like Lion without cleaning up after themselves.

yeah
Feb 17, 2012, 11:53 AM
$29 in the Mac App Store, good for all your Macs that it will run on.

It's ironic because Mountain Lion is just adding a few new apps and minor features to OSX Lion. Why couldn't Apple release an update to OSX Lion instead of [possibly] charging $30 for a minor OS upgrade?

CodeBreaker
Feb 17, 2012, 11:56 AM
None of these features make me wanna buy it. But if they put Siri in it, I will happily pay anything below $129.

scottsjack
Feb 17, 2012, 12:03 PM
When Microsoft dumped their Lion they still charged for Windows 7. Now that Apple is dumping their Vista they'll be charging for Mountain Lion. Not a big deal to me.

talmy
Feb 17, 2012, 12:24 PM
It's ironic because Mountain Lion is just adding a few new apps and minor features to OSX Lion. Why couldn't Apple release an update to OSX Lion instead of [possibly] charging $30 for a minor OS upgrade?

Don't just pass judgement based on the 10 features mentioned in the PR. Lion had considerable changes "under the hood", quite possibly the most revised OS X release ever. Mountain Lion might as well. It wouldn't work as a Lion update because some systems that run Lion won't run Mountain Lion -- it's now a pure 64 bit OS and also has no drivers for older Intel embedded graphics processors (I'd guess these were 32-bit based on their age).

Carl Sagan
Feb 17, 2012, 12:34 PM
It'd be one hell of a marketing tool to give it away free to all Lion users...

Frozzie
Feb 17, 2012, 04:17 PM
I believe ML should be free. Lion to Mountain Lion looks a lot like seeing iOS4 to iOS5 update. And iOS5 update was free and they added a lot of features. In fact there are so many similarities:
- Twitter integration
- notes, reminders application
- Safari enhancements
- iMessage integration
- Notification centre

We mac users paid much more for our hardware than iphone owners, and yet we arent getting all this fun for free.

Why? If this should be paid, iOS should be paid as well. Only reason i can think of is that iOS owners are so many that they will complain, and mac owners are loyal enough that apple knows we will pay for it anyway.

dugbug
Feb 17, 2012, 04:27 PM
I believe ML should be free. Lion to Mountain Lion looks a lot like seeing iOS4 to iOS5 update. And iOS5 update was free and they added a lot of features. In fact there are so many similarities:
- Twitter integration
- notes, reminders application
- Safari enhancements
- iMessage integration
- Notification centre

We mac users paid much more for our hardware than iphone owners, and yet we arent getting all this fun for free.

Why? If this should be paid, iOS should be paid as well. Only reason i can think of is that iOS owners are so many that they will complain, and mac owners are loyal enough that apple knows we will pay for it anyway.

well... apple gets a cut of your phone bill for one.

I wonder if apple has ever considered $29 in mac app store credit for the purchase of ML in order to help foster the app store adoption.

nuckinfutz
Feb 17, 2012, 04:34 PM
Guys and Gals don't be Freetards.

Pay for the things that are worth it to you. It's one of the first signs of maturity is an acceptance that good things cost money or labor. You pick.

maril1111
Feb 17, 2012, 04:40 PM
Anything around 30USD but below 129 is fine, because i have a feeling this update is going to be another big one, however if it were free it would be amazing.

Frozzie
Feb 17, 2012, 04:45 PM
well... apple gets a cut of your phone bill for one.

I wonder if apple has ever considered $29 in mac app store credit for the purchase of ML in order to help foster the app store adoption.

What about iPod Touches which don't get any bills at all?

Guys and Gals don't be Freetards.

Pay for the things that are worth it to you. It's one of the first signs of maturity is an acceptance that good things cost money or labor. You pick.

My logic is that if we have to pay, iOS5 update should not be free as well. Maybe they wanted to persuade more jail breakers to convert back to using App Store.

nuckinfutz
Feb 17, 2012, 04:50 PM
You have a point.

It was said previously that Sarbannes-Oxley made accounting for free software updates easier because of the cellular fees associated with the iPhone but then free iOS updates to the iPod Touch and iPad refute that.

At this point I think Apple knows that iOS has a curated store and that free software upgrades gets people upgrading to the new OS which enables new cool features in apps.

Giving free upgrades to Macs doesn't mean that Apple sees the same acceleration of app features or sales.

Spontida
Feb 17, 2012, 04:56 PM
I hope they give it to you free, if you buy a Mac.

dugbug
Feb 17, 2012, 05:06 PM
What about iPod Touches which don't get any bills at all?

used to be iPod touches DID pay for updates for this very reason.. Now perhaps they use app store royalties as the excuse, I dunno.

Lesser Evets
Feb 17, 2012, 06:35 PM
It sounds crazy I know, but I feel like OSX is getting to the point where ML may be a free upgrade from Lion. It seems like they are heading the route of iOS.

It will be free after you pay $29.99 to Apple for the courtesy of being able to tell them they are awesome.

adztaylor
Feb 18, 2012, 05:36 AM
I doubt it'll be free. However I really can't see it being anymore expensive than what Lion cost.

Krazy Bill
Feb 18, 2012, 11:05 AM
if you don't want it, then save your money. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade.Well, not by "force" meaning nobody is holding a gun to our heads. But force is there to be sure... just a bit more subtle. (e.g., no choice with new hardware). Also, if you want the ensuing benefits of iCloud and everything else then it's only a matter of time before we all just throw our hands up and go along with it. (Some kicking and screaming all the way :eek:).

And in the grand scheme of overall of OSX upgrades, I suspect 10.7 isn't being hailed as the 2nd coming Apple hoped for. So all this leads me to believe ML will indeed be free. Or $5.99 or some other ridiculous and "enticing" price which will no doubt generate enough publicity to pay for any losses and elevate Tim Cook to CEO sainthood. Especially in the wake of Windows 8 buzz.

Remember... I said "subtle".

cuestakid
Feb 18, 2012, 11:08 AM
Agreed - ML has over 100 new feature. We have only seen 20 at most so far. I am sure more details will come out closer to launch date.

Secondly I would happily pay $29 for the upgrade. Because that's what it is - an upgrade. Not an update. Big difference between those two.

I have been running Lion since launch day and I am 110% happy with it. :cool:

airplay mirroring is worth the price alone-that frankly is the only feature that I will really care about and use-all the others(announced and unannounced) are just gravy

Takuro
Feb 18, 2012, 11:49 AM
I think it'll cost the same as Lion at a price point of $29.99. I think it's this is a pretty fair target price, and I can't imagine them dropping it much lower. Although Snow Leopard to Lion might be perceivably a bigger upgrade than Lion to Mountain Lion from a consumer's standpoint (although technically, this might not be the case), I don't see them selling it for $10 either.

ixodes
Feb 18, 2012, 11:56 AM
So far, it doesn't feel like a "major" update, like the leap from Tiger to Leopard, or even Snow Leopard to Lion. I would bet an even cheaper price tag of $19.99.
A Brilliant idea!

At that price point it would qualify for the esteemed label: "As Seen On TV".

How appropriate :D

eagandale4114
Feb 18, 2012, 05:14 PM
What a load of bollocks.

I hope you were intending to use sarcasm there.

DeckMan
Feb 19, 2012, 04:56 PM
Companies don't have hearts. Selling intellectual property (apps, tunes, movies) is a major profit source for Apple. The "churn" keeps developers happy, too.

I wonder how major a profit source it really is in comparison to hardware sales, seeing as the last two OS updates where 29 $ each. Are they releasing any numbers on that?

Mr. Retrofire
Feb 19, 2012, 05:03 PM
Will OSX Mountain Lion be free?
The plans are: No.

However, perhaps support for certain third party motherboards (desktop; ASUS & GIGABYTE).

Ganesha
Feb 19, 2012, 09:04 PM
It will be free to a select group of users who bought their Macs after a certain date (The date the announce the release date, the date the announced ML, or some other date.)

Another interesting point is a statement Apple made in their 2011Q3 earning call.
First, when we deliver Mac OS X Lion to customers, we are now including the right to receive future unspecified minor software upgrades and features when and if they become available for both the Mac operating system and our suite of Mac OS allied applications. We will continue to charge for standalone sales of our periodic major OS upgrades, such as Lion, as well as major upgrades of iLife. Revenue from these standalone sales will now be fully deferred at the time of sale and recognized over a period of 3 years. In addition to this future software upgrade right, Mac customers will have access to iCloud services when they become available in the fall. We estimate that the combined value of the software upgrade right and iCloud services for Mac customers is $22. Therefore, as of June 6, we began deferring $22 of the revenue associated with each new Mac sold. And we will recognize these deferred amounts as revenue over a period of 4 years.

Markc1024
Feb 19, 2012, 09:19 PM
^100 billion in cash reserves is not considered payment.

It's called knowing how to run a business and making a profit.

pmz
Feb 19, 2012, 09:20 PM
$29 is not too much to ask for a new OS.

Mr. Retrofire
Feb 19, 2012, 11:08 PM
$29 is not too much to ask for a new OS.
Not a new OS, just Lion SP1 disguised as ML 10.8.

pdjudd
Feb 19, 2012, 11:12 PM
Not a new OS, just Lion SP1 disguised as ML 10.8.

Oh? So SL was just a service pack of Leopard even though SL offered almost no new user facing features? Of course not!!! ML is the exact same thing. It is a major change. 10.7.3 is a service pack (technically its not since service packs are usually a compilation of bug fixes already out but whoís paying attention?) A .0 release is a big thing. Anybody who know how OSX works and has seen the DP can tell you that calling it a ďservice packĒ is just plain erroneous. You cannot compare Appleís releases of itís OS updates to Microsoftís releases.

Mr. Retrofire
Feb 19, 2012, 11:26 PM
Oh? So SL was just a service pack of Leopard even though SL offered almost no new user facing features? Of course not!!! ML is the exact same thing. It is a major change.
No it is not.

Lion is buggy as hell. Leopard was a pretty stable OS (i use 10.5.8 on one of my Macs). Snow Leopard improved the performance of the OS and improved some APIs & other stuff. My Early-2011 17" MBP came with 10.6.7.

Lion is a mess, like MS Vista. You will recognize it, if you install ML. ML is much better than Lion. Why was it necessary to release Lion in summer 2011?

----------

You cannot compare Appleís releases of itís OS updates to Microsoftís releases.
Yes, i can!

spl456
Feb 20, 2012, 04:58 AM
Seems like just a few integrated apps - it really should be free. Going to skip if it costs anything.

+1
Will wait for a major upgrade, this seems trivial to pay for.
Lion works fine on my MBP.

KnightWRX
Feb 20, 2012, 05:34 AM
No it is not.

Lion is buggy as hell. Leopard was a pretty stable OS (i use 10.5.8 on one of my Macs). Snow Leopard improved the performance of the OS and improved some APIs & other stuff. My Early-2011 17" MBP came with 10.6.7.

Lion is a mess, like MS Vista. You will recognize it, if you install ML. ML is much better than Lion. Why was it necessary to release Lion in summer 2011?

Uh ? Lion is fine on my MBA. Snow Leopard and Leopard also took quite a few .x releases to stabilize. Lion is far from a mess. Some people don't like the UI candy it brought/changed, but frankly it's pretty much on par for OS X releases. Lion also improved some APIs & other stuff, so I don't get your comment.

Anyway, Microsoft never uses Service Packs to introduce the breadth of new features that Mountain Lion does, so I don't get why you're comparing ML to a Windows Service Pack, makes little sense. Of course, any comparison between how Apple does OS releases and how Microsoft does them is quite disingenuous to begin with as they both don't share the same philosophy on them.

Yes, i can!

Sure you can, just like I can go around comparing a Yaris to a Hummer. That doesn't mean I have credibility when doing so and that people won't think I have no grasp of the subject matter of cars.

But if you want to look uninformed, go right ahead and knock yourself out.

DeckMan
Feb 20, 2012, 06:50 AM
Anyway, Microsoft never uses Service Packs to introduce the breadth of new features that Mountain Lion does, so I don't get why you're comparing ML to a Windows Service Pack, makes little sense.

Actually, what are the broad new features that have been announced so far? I'm sincerely curious, because I was really excited when I heard about Mountain Lion at first, but now when I look at it with more distance, it really boils down to three features I'm looking forward to:

Notes. Though I've actually made an app that does the same thing (managing RTF notes) because I could find none I was happy with. But mine lacks the syncing to iOS, so I'm happy about Apple releasing it.
Notification Center, though this is basically the same thing as Growl plus a history.
Reminders, which is pretty much included in Lion, just inside iCal.


I know there's also AirPlay Mirroring and Gatekeeper, but unless there will be under the hood improvements or more exciting things they're still keeping secret, I would almost be surprised if we have to pay 29 $ for that, if I compare it to the features Lion introduced. Or am I missing something?

djrod
Feb 20, 2012, 07:02 AM
$29 is not too much to ask for a new OS.

Errr, Windows OS can cost up to 10 times that...

Anyway, I think paying 29 every single year it's too much, AI don't see people paying to keep their machines up to date with this price / yearly edition

KnightWRX
Feb 20, 2012, 07:14 AM
I know there's also AirPlay Mirroring and Gatekeeper, but unless there will be under the hood improvements or more exciting things they're still keeping secret, I would almost be surprised if we have to pay 29 $ for that, if I compare it to the features Lion introduced. Or am I missing something?

So you listed 5, there's 10 on the page and many more. Do you even know all the features Lion introduced ?

And frankly, you can't expect as many features as Lion had. Lion was a 2-3 year release cycle, Mountain Lion is a 1 year release cycle. It will have less features that's a given.

That's the advantage to moving to yearly cycles though. Less new features in each releases means less overall bugs, less users having to adjust to their workflows and less to adjust in said workflows, less whining.

It's still not comparable to Microsoft Service Packs, Apple doesn't do those.

----------

Errr, Windows OS can cost up to 10 times that...

Anyway, I think paying 29 every single year it's too much, AI don't see people paying to keep their machines up to date with this price / yearly edition

Then don't pay 29$ every year, upgrade every 2 or 3 years, whatever floats your boat.

DeckMan
Feb 20, 2012, 07:30 AM
So you listed 5, there's 10 on the page and many more. Do you even know all the features Lion introduced ?

I think I might know all by now, though it seems like I'm discovering new features every month, so chances are I don't ;)

I only listed those 5 features because the others seem like they're not such a big deal. iCloud? They're just finishing (or continuing) what Lion started. Messages? iChat rebranded with iMessage support. Share sheets? A lot of apps have them already. Twitter and Game Center count, I guess, but I'm not interested in those, that's why I didn't count them :rolleyes:

If there's many more, I'm happy about that - I think there's not even any doubt that I'm getting it either way. All I'm saying is that if there's a shorter release cycle for less new features, it seems fair to also lower the price. Of course Apple's free to decide not to lower the price, those who don't want to pay that every year can skip one or two releases in between, like you said.

DavoteK
Feb 20, 2012, 07:40 AM
If Apple make it free, its a bad move IMO. Make it free and people will expect every iteration to be free, so if they do a massive overhaul for say OS XI then it will be met with a lot of negativity due to them charging for it.

With regards to the cost, I look at it like this; I could have paid say $100+ for going from say Leopard or Snow Leopard to Mountain Lion (which I'm sure you'll agree is a large step in amount of features implemented and general updates), or pay a small fee for Lion and then another small fee for Mountain Lion.

I'd rather go the small incremental fees and get new features every year instead of paying a large fee say every 2 or 3 years.

For the record, I think it'll be the same cost as Lion.

pdjudd
Feb 20, 2012, 07:44 AM
I only listed those 5 features because the others seem like they're not such a big deal. iCloud? They're just finishing (or continuing) what Lion started. Messages? iChat rebranded with iMessage support. Share sheets? A lot of apps have them already. Twitter and Game Center count, I guess, but I'm not interested in those, that's why I didn't count them :rolleyes:
So we can base all OS update worthiness based on what you think is important and meaningful to you? And if it isn't useful to you it suddenly doesn't count? Sorry that's a terrible standard. We have to go by objective standards starting at the very basic what Apple has chosen to highlight (which is always a small sample of what's being changed). Weather or not you see utility in them is irrelevant. Somebody might and their opinion certainly matters. You can't just gloss over things like that - it's not fair to do that. At least acknowledge them fer crying out loud!

Also remember that OS updates are more than visual updates and that they tend to be pretty major changes in things behind the scenes. You can only expect big major groundbreaking things for so long - pretty soon your expect more than what is practical even on a 2-3 year release cycle. Not to mention that the more stuff they tack on, the harder it is to maintain such beasts - you add complexity to the OS and your stuck making sure they work for a long time which at that point you have technologies like Rosetta that you have to look at it's worth of maintaining versus it becoming an albatross around your neck. Sometimes pushing the pause button on big changes is a good thing every once in awhile. Doing so is not some sort of admission of failure or anything.

barredfreak
Feb 20, 2012, 07:54 AM
It's Apple.

You can bet your ass you're going to have to pay for Mountain Lion.

DeckMan
Feb 20, 2012, 07:58 AM
You can't just gloss over things like that - it's not fair to do that. At least acknowledge them fer crying out loud!

Haha, okay, fine. Great new features! :D
My only argument was that there's not as many new features as for Lion, and we're all agreeing on that, so there's nothing to discuss about here. I also agree that it would be ludicrous to expect that many new features once a year.

If they're charging 29$ once a year for less features, however, they're effectively going up in price to before. Again, they can do that, no problem - but can you agree that they might just charge less for Mountain Lion? That's all I'm asking. :)

----------

It's Apple.

You can bet your ass you're going to have to pay for Mountain Lion.

Keep in mind that it's also Apple releasing new iOS versions once a year.

KnightWRX
Feb 20, 2012, 08:01 AM
I think I might know all by now, though it seems like I'm discovering new features every month, so chances are I don't ;)

I'd bet you'd have a hard time if we dwelved into the obscure realm of APIs and frameworks. ;)

Just like Lion, Mountain Lion will be more than what is in the PR.

Also, what you consider "useful" or "new" has no bearing on the overall reality. A new feature is a new feature, whether you or I or anyone else that isn't Apple thinks it's worthy of being called such or not.

pdjudd
Feb 20, 2012, 08:02 AM
If they're charging 29$ once a year for less features, however, they're effectively going up in price to before. Again, they can do that, no problem - but can you agree that they might just charge less for Mountain Lion? That's all I'm asking. :)

It's not really upping the price though - that would only be the case if the OS is sold on a subscription basis (which it isn't). If you don't want to get ML you can wait until 10.9 unless upgrading to that requires 10.8 (which we won't know really). Sure it can cost less than $29 bucks but I think that they are trying to keep the costs the same to make up for all the costs to develop and distribute it.

DeckMan
Feb 20, 2012, 08:12 AM
Sure it can cost less than $29 bucks but I think that they are trying to keep the costs the same to make up for all the costs to develop and distribute it.

...which are less if there's less new features. :p okay, distribution costs are the same, but still.

I'd bet you'd have a hard time if we dwelved into the obscure realm of APIs and frameworks. ;)

Fair enough. So at the very least, there'll be more features for developers, which will be good for end users because it'll improve third party apps. Plus probably a lot of new features they're not advertising, or haven't started advertising yet. Thanks, now I'm more excited again. :D

Danindub
Feb 20, 2012, 08:35 AM
I expect it'll be free otherwise how would Internet Recovery know what you're entitled to? If they're moving to the iOS model, we'll see annual major releases and it'll deprecate hardware faster than before.

I've installed Lion on a pre-Lion macbook pro 2010. Recently they've released update for it so that it support Lion Recovery.

Now, I tried to use Recovery to install Lion, and I was asked for AppleID details of the account with valid Lion purchase on it. It didn't want to install otherwise.

So no problem checking entitlements...

east85
Feb 20, 2012, 08:39 AM
I really don't dig the idea of a yearly release of OS X. I think the incremental prices would be fine, but it's kind of a hassle to upgrade and the prospects of doing it on a yearly basis to keep current would probably bother me a bit. I'm only saying this though due to the issues people have had with Lion and whatnot. If Mountain Lion comes out clean and less bugs are experienced across the board I think the incremental releases might not be such a bad thing. It's just that feeling where you're bracing for something to go wrong over an upgraded OS, not good.

nicklad
Feb 20, 2012, 11:25 AM
I've installed Lion on a pre-Lion macbook pro 2010. Recently they've released update for it so that it support Lion Recovery.

Now, I tried to use Recovery to install Lion, and I was asked for AppleID details of the account with valid Lion purchase on it. It didn't want to install otherwise.

So no problem checking entitlements...

So how does that work for Macs that have been purchased with Lion preinstalled? There will be no Lion purchase. Serial number too then?

Bonte
Feb 20, 2012, 02:28 PM
Free is a possibility or at least dirt cheap, Apple seems to be rushing it a bit to announce it before W8 and a low low price will ridicule Microsoft if they hang on to there standard $1000 price point. Well it would feel like $1000 at this point. :rolleyes:

pdjudd
Feb 20, 2012, 02:36 PM
So how does that work for Macs that have been purchased with Lion preinstalled? There will be no Lion purchase. Serial number too then?
Apple probably authenticates via some other means..

spl456
Feb 20, 2012, 03:29 PM
Then don't pay 29$ every year, upgrade every 2 or 3 years, whatever floats your boat.

Upgrading once every 2 or 3 years floats my boat. Paying $29 a year for minor features, yeah right....

I see this as a SP1 upgrade and won't fork out $$$ for it, unless it's $5 or so.

KnightWRX
Feb 20, 2012, 06:52 PM
I see this as a SP1 upgrade and won't fork out $$$ for it, unless it's $5 or so.

I just wish Service Packs on Windows came with so many new features instead of just a bunch of bug fixes and security updates like what Microsoft actually ships. :rolleyes:

spl456
Feb 20, 2012, 07:11 PM
I just wish Service Packs on Windows came with so many new features instead of just a bunch of bug fixes and security updates like what Microsoft actually ships. :rolleyes:

LOL
From what l've read so far, iChat/message and a few other bits 'n' bobs, to me, isn't worth paying for an upgrade (as l said, maybe $5). Everyone values things differently, and l respect that. You just won't catch me paying apple, for what l consider minor tweaks.

throAU
Feb 20, 2012, 07:21 PM
^100 billion in cash reserves is not considered payment.

So apple are a charity now?


Companies make products and sell them. This is how business works. The fact that they have been successful doesn't mean they should give everything away.

I'd rather pay $100 for OS X than get it free and deal with the google-style invasion of privacy to pay for something "free".

spl456
Feb 20, 2012, 07:22 PM
When was the last time Apple paid a dividend to shareholders?

KnightWRX
Feb 20, 2012, 07:39 PM
LOL
From what l've read so far, iChat/message and a few other bits 'n' bobs, to me, isn't worth paying for an upgrade (as l said, maybe $5). Everyone values things differently, and l respect that. You just won't catch me paying apple, for what l consider minor tweaks.

Better than no tweaks at all if you ask me.

You can't compare Microsoft's release practices and Apple's. They just don't do OS release the same way.

talmy
Feb 20, 2012, 08:00 PM
When was the last time Apple paid a dividend to shareholders?

And this matters? I own Apple stock and have made more money on it than any other holding, even those paying dividends, in the past year. Enough to buy annual OS X upgrades no matter what the price they decide on. If the stock keeps rising, I don't care if they never pay a dividend!

pdjudd
Feb 20, 2012, 08:14 PM
You can't compare Microsoft's release practices and Apple's. They just don't do OS release the same way.

Thats why I never understood peopleís complaints about OS upgrades and comparing them to service packs. I remember people calling Snow Leopard a ďservice packĒ since it was just patches and nothing really major right off the bat. I was dumbfounded at the comment. You are correct though - Apple and Microsoft have different models that they use for their OS upgrade paths. MS tries to be as visual as possible simply because they need to convince people to buy it. Most Windows users never do pay for an upgrade since itís so pricy opting to get a new version of Windows when they get a new cheap Dell. Lets not forget that it takes MS at least 3 years to release a new OS version. Apple doesnít need to go that route - they release regular big upgrades that are more substance than they are style and they donít charge very much for them. Their control over the hardware makes it easier to get the advantages in development.

Most people donít even know what a MS service pack entails. At best itís a compilation of old bug fixes and some new ones. Outside of XP SP2, I donít ever recall there being a service pack that added new features or changed the way the OS functioned. It just doesnít happen. MS canít do that or people would never upgrade. Businesses wouldnít either.

iThinkergoiMac
Feb 20, 2012, 08:15 PM
Upgrading once every 2 or 3 years floats my boat. Paying $29 a year for minor features, yeah right...

Do your math! If you pay $29 every year for smaller updates, it's cheaper than paying $129 every 2 or 3 years for the big ones. Financially, this works out in your favor.

If you're willing to pay $129 every two years for a big update, I don't see why you're not willing to pay $68 every two years for two smaller updates that amount to the equivalent of a big update. If Lion and ML were released as a combined, single update, it would be considered a big update, no?

KnightWRX
Feb 20, 2012, 08:26 PM
Most people donít even know what a MS service pack entails. At best itís a compilation of old bug fixes and some new ones. Outside of XP SP2, I donít ever recall there being a service pack that added new features

Or XP SP1 which removed features, namely, PAE support on 32 bit platforms.

pdjudd
Feb 20, 2012, 08:27 PM
Or XP SP1 which removed features, namely, PAE support on 32 bit platforms.

I forgot about that - of course SP1 is really really old! But the point is still valid. You just cannot compare Apple with MS - not when their business models differ as much as they do.

Mr. Retrofire
Feb 20, 2012, 08:29 PM
Anyway, Microsoft never uses Service Packs to introduce the breadth of new features that Mountain Lion does, so I don't get why you're comparing ML to a Windows Service Pack, makes little sense.
Not true! I compare them, because it makes sense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP#Service_packs

It is not my fault, that you know nothing about Windows Service Packs. I used many newer features in Windows Service Packs, so i know which features they have.

KnightWRX
Feb 20, 2012, 08:31 PM
I forgot about that - of course SP1 is really really old!

Sure, but they never re-enabled PAE support for memory addressing, only for No Execute, which means to this day, XP 32 bit is limited to 4GB of RAM (seeing only around 3.2 GB too...). Linux gained PAE support back in the old 2.3 dev tree prior to 2.4 shipping...

Mr. Retrofire
Feb 20, 2012, 08:48 PM
Sure, but they never re-enabled PAE support for memory addressing, only for No Execute, which means to this day, XP 32 bit is limited to 4GB of RAM (seeing only around 3.2 GB too...). Linux gained PAE support back in the old 2.3 dev tree prior to 2.4 shipping...
Conclusion:
We should switch from (Mac) OS X ML and Windows 7 SP1 to Linux (Ubuntu). ;-)

pdjudd
Feb 20, 2012, 08:50 PM
Not true! I compare them, because it makes sense.

No it doesnít. Not one of those updates compares to the changes introduced in major releases. They just donít. Give it up since you do not know what you are talking about. You can call them service packs until the cows come home, but that doesnít make them true in any way shape or form.

MrAndy1369
Feb 20, 2012, 08:58 PM
Personally, I think ML should be free for Lion users, $19 for SL users, and $29 for Leopard/older users. A sliding scale in this case may make more sense.

Fourman
Feb 20, 2012, 09:38 PM
Does Mountain Lion require Lion? I was wondering if this is the same upgrade kind of like Snow Leopard was to Leopard. If it does require Lion then I would say it should be free.

pdjudd
Feb 20, 2012, 09:43 PM
Does Mountain Lion require Lion? I was wondering if this is the same upgrade kind of like Snow Leopard was to Leopard. If it does require Lion then I would say it should be free.

No - as of right now it just requires the last version of SL. However that is neither here nor there with pricing. Apple has only given one OS upgrade for free - and that was 10.1 (if memory serves). There is little precedence to do that - especially for an update like SL which licensing demanded that you had to have Leopard (this was not enforced technically) and was (like ML) been criticized for not having any real features and was basically a service pack.

OS get priced based on what Apple thinks they are worth. I am betting $29 bucks and thatís just based on recent history.

linuxcooldude
Feb 20, 2012, 09:44 PM
When was the last time Apple paid a dividend to shareholders?

You get your dividend when you sell your stock.

BŲhme417
Feb 20, 2012, 10:47 PM
Can I pay $5 extra to have all that Twitter crap removed?

...from my phone, too.

It would be nice to have the option in Settings and System Preferences to remove all traces of it from the phone and computer.

Thanks.

pdjudd
Feb 20, 2012, 10:48 PM
Or just donít use it. You donít see it if you donít use it.

JohnDoe98
Feb 20, 2012, 10:50 PM
So apple are a charity now?


Companies make products and sell them. This is how business works. The fact that they have been successful doesn't mean they should give everything away.

I'd rather pay $100 for OS X than get it free and deal with the google-style invasion of privacy to pay for something "free".

iOS updates are always given free, and no one thinks Apple is engaging in charity because they release those updates freely. Rather, it is just they employ a different strategy there. They figure new hardware sales generates the money needed to develop for the iOS platform, and so distributing the updates for free increases the customer satisfaction and thereby increases the chances that there will be more return customers down the road. Sure they could sell those iOS updates every year, but long term it isn't clear that would be a wise decision. I fail to see why it is radically different with OS X, other than the fact that the precedence with OS X is to charge for the updates/revisions to the OS.

I'd like to see Apple employ the same model as on iOS for OS X. Not because I hope to save 30$ come summer, but rather because I think the strategy they employ with iOS is a better one.

Not having to worry about paying for OS software when you buy hardware would be a huge advantage that the PC market simply couldn't adapt to. Microsoft is not in the hardware business, and the Hardware companies aren't going to pay Microsoft to provide you with free updates. Apple is in a unique position, I think they ought to take advantage of what their competition couldn't, in principle, accomplish.

thekev
Feb 20, 2012, 10:53 PM
Conclusion:
We should switch from (Mac) OS X ML and Windows 7 SP1 to Linux (Ubuntu). ;-)

Bleck there are only a few things that keep me away from Linux. It just lacks support for a few things I require, so it's between OSX and Windows. Each has significant advantages. If I wasn't on a Mac already with many things integrated for OSX, I'm not sure which one I'd pick if making the decision today.

KnightWRX
Feb 21, 2012, 04:18 AM
Conclusion:
We should switch from (Mac) OS X ML and Windows 7 SP1 to Linux (Ubuntu). ;-)

OS X supports PAE for memory addressing on 32 bit platforms just fine. :confused:

And since we're running 64 bit kernels nowadays, it's less of an issue. I was just pointing out things about service packs.

talmy
Feb 21, 2012, 10:21 AM
I propose a new model -- customers should be paid for upgrading to Mountain Lion.

My experience is that every new cat breaks enough software and causes enough disruption that this cost is far more than Apple charges for the upgrade. Going to annual upgrades, even at free, will cost me far more than the biannual $29 upgrades did. It's the same problem that Firefox has gotten into (how many people like its new short upgrade cycle that breaks all the plugins every time?) or the frequent upgrades of Linux distros.

Can't we have an upgrade that fixes bugs (there are plenty of Lion bugs still around), maybe adds features, but doesn't remove features or break existing applications?

Or would that just be a "service pack"?

0dev
Feb 21, 2012, 10:25 AM
It sounds crazy I know, but I feel like OSX is getting to the point where ML may be a free upgrade from Lion. It seems like they are heading the route of iOS.

It'll only cost £20, hardly breaking the bank.

That said, I got the developer preview for free ;)

talmy
Feb 21, 2012, 10:46 AM
It'll only cost £20, hardly breaking the bank.

That said, I got the developer preview for free ;)

Presumably you paid $99/year (or equivalent) for the privilege.

0dev
Feb 21, 2012, 11:23 AM
Presumably you paid $99/year (or equivalent) for the privilege.

You presume incorrectly :p

Yamcha
Feb 21, 2012, 12:10 PM
Although the updates are incremental I'm pretty sure It'll be $29 which isn't bad.. The performance boost alone is worth the upgrade even if you don't plan on using the new features..

Mad Mac Maniac
Feb 21, 2012, 02:26 PM
Honestly, the more I think about this, the more I think Apple should start releasing yearly FREE updates to OS X, same as iOS. Think about it. It's a winning strategy

Firstly, it promotes everyone to be on the current OS. This makes things easier for developers (increasing compatibility), makes it easier to push out updates to all your user base (through less support for legacy OS), and gives the Apple customer the advantage of having "the best of what Apple has to offer". I know that may seem a bit strange, but think about Microsoft and IE6. IE6 became such a joke. Slow, buggy, outdated, etc that Microsoft started heavily pushing the campaign to get people to update their browser. A software company wants to be able to put their best foot forward. Can you imagine if a Mac user was still using Mac OS X 10.1 (released a few months AFTER windows xp!!) then suddenly was shown Windows 7 by a Microsoft enthusiast. The Mac guy would probably be pretty blown away with its capability, speed, etc. Yes, I understand that Mac hardware from 2001 wouldn't be able to run the current OS, but it is still in the best interest of Apple to allow people to have the best software that their hardware is capable of running.

Secondly, it would promote faster hardware upgrade cycles. Any given Mac purchase is generally good for 2 or 3 upgrades, before it is no longer supported. That equates to about 5-6 years. With a major upgrade every year, I seriously doubt they could keep for that same length of upgrades. My guess is 4-5 years, hence more Mac purchases. Plus, it would promote a culture of yearly updates, so the casual user (who wouldn't be likely to update their OS or their hardware), by growing accustomed to having these improvements every year, might actually realize that it's time to get a new Mac so they can continue to get OS updates.

Additionally, it encourages user to jump to use all of Apples new features. (what ever they become) For example, ML provides a HUGE push for 100% adoption of iCloud. This is the future for Apple and I'm sure they want everyone to have it. Also, AirPlay Mirroring will be a huge selling point for the Apple TV (or possible iTV in the future). They want continued buy-in to their ecosystem so we will purchase their other products.

Lastly, Microsoft cannot compete with that. Microsoft could never make Windows updates free, because they are a software company. They live off that profit. Apple is in a unique situation to be able to make software cheap/free to make people buy their hardware (a winning strategy with the iPod). It would draw a lot more attention to the Mac and would sway a lot more potential buyers who like the idea of free yearly updates.

Now with 100% of purchases going through the MAS this is finally a possibility. I don't know if Apple will actually do this or not, but I think it has to be cheaper than the previous 2 upgrades ($29). They took 22 and 23 months to come out, and ML will only be 12-14 months. There would be some minor outrage (justly or unjustly) if it were the same price. So that leaves free, $10, or $20. I think Apple would love to "blow us away" with announcing ML to be FREE at WWDC. If they release it for $10 that would just seem mildly silly. Similar to how Apple made FaceTime cost $0.99. People were like, "Really? Come on... $0.99? Just make it free. This is just awkward." And it was.

disneyfire
Feb 22, 2012, 10:59 PM
I sure hope not. Apple's developers and the company itself deserve to get paid.

Enough with all this FREE Entitlement drivel.

I don't care what it costs, I care how it performs. Period.
Agreed

pdjudd
Feb 22, 2012, 11:26 PM
Lastly, Microsoft cannot compete with that.

Given how much MS charges for Windows, they cannot compete with the price of OSX now and they haven't for many, many, years.

dethmaShine
Feb 23, 2012, 02:18 AM
I would like to pay Apple for OS X now and even in the future.

But to be honest, they can easily make the software update/upgrade free of cost and it would make sense.

Apple is now driven by hardware. As I understand, they care A LOT about software but their main money stream is by selling hardware for their software.

$19/$29 for some million users is surely a lot of money. But I believe, making this free is going to be beneficial in the long run.

- Consumers don't care anything new about software upgrade/pricing, etc. They just know that an update is available. Just update/upgrade and be done with it. You only pay Apple once and that is the only transaction you have. Simple.

- It would be good for developers and Apple both if all the users upgrade.

- Competition will be blown away. I know Apple doesn't directly attack Microsoft Windows as its licensed for a particular fee and specifications, but inherently is a slap on Windows face for charging outrageous amounts for minimal upgrades (Vista to W7).

I personally want OS X updates to be free. But don't get me wrong, I've paid for all the versions till date and would be willing to do the same in the future.

JohnDoe98
Feb 23, 2012, 02:23 AM
Agreed

You in favor of iOS updates being paid-updates? What about all those Apps you have, should those be paid-updates too? If not, what's the difference?

Mad Mac Maniac
Mar 6, 2012, 09:12 PM
looks like I'm not the only one who thinks ML should be free

Analyst: Free Mountain Lion upgrade would be 'brilliant' Apple move (http://www.itworld.com/software/254210/analyst-free-mountain-lion-upgrade-would-be-brilliant-apple-move)

edit: Another one. A lot of similar points to mine above.

Six reasons why OS X 10.8 'Mountain Lion' should be a free upgrade (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/six-reasons-why-os-x-108-mountain-lion-should-be-a-free-upgrade/18551)

Bonte
Mar 7, 2012, 12:42 AM
Just to piss off Microsoft should be reason enough to sell ML at $5 or free, making Windows low-cost would decimate there profits. :D

talmy
Mar 7, 2012, 10:37 AM
Just to piss off Microsoft should be reason enough to sell ML at $5 or free, making Windows low-cost would decimate there profits. :D

Most Windows systems never get upgraded. Windows XP is still the most common Windows OS in use. Microsoft gets most of their sales from new systems. Microsoft maintains a large amount of backwards compatibility, decreasing the need to upgrade.

Apple doesn't really care about backwards compatibility, and most Apple users upgrade to the latest OS, if only because application support/availability on older OS versions is sketchy. So Apple would be throwing money away if they dropped the price, and it would affect Microsoft at all.

Bonte
Mar 7, 2012, 10:52 AM
Most Windows systems never get upgraded. Windows XP is still the most common Windows OS in use. Microsoft gets most of their sales from new systems. Microsoft maintains a large amount of backwards compatibility, decreasing the need to upgrade.

Apple doesn't really care about backwards compatibility, and most Apple users upgrade to the latest OS, if only because application support/availability on older OS versions is sketchy. So Apple would be throwing money away if they dropped the price, and it would affect Microsoft at all.

I can see that but PR would be bad because even OEM's pay $50 for Windows and Apple already lowered the price from $99 to $25 with iOS getting free upgrades, i think that getting users to the new OS is more important to Apple than the profit on the update.
Windows is so expensive that MS makes 300% profit on it, i wonder for how long.

Slag
Apr 18, 2012, 07:30 PM
Free updates make the most sense. The revenue stream from payed Lion upgrades is laughable from Apple's perspective.

The only logical business argument one could imagine against the free upgrade would be that it lowers the perceived value of OS X in the eyes of the consumer. If it's free, that means it's not very good + it means it will always be free. Apple will never again get revenue selling OS X. But if you realize that OS X is not the product in this case (after all Apple doesn't sell OS X, Apple sells Macs) - this argument is no longer valid.

To all of you saying that 29$ is an OK price. Think about it. A customer who bought a Mac in 2007 and upgraded his OS 2 times for 29$ was spending below 15$ a year average on system upgrades. Now that number would almost double. So if they won't go with the free iOS model, they still would need to adjust the price and go down at least to 15$, or maybe even 9.99$.


But there are still more advantages to keeping ML free. It's a brilliant PR move. It's great for new OS adoption. It would be also solve the problem of people upgrading from SL vs upgrading from Lion.

In theory Snow Leopard users shouldn't have to pay the same amount for Mountain Lion, as Lion users, who already payed for one upgrade along the way. But on the other hand they shouldn't be forced to purchase both, because the total upgrade cost to go from Snow Leopard to Mountain Lion would be almost 60$ (provided they stick to their current OS X pricing) which is a pain.

Last time with Snow Leopard, Apple solved the problem with a license that required Leopard, but a DVD that didn't - which I guess made everyone happy (Tiger users got a 29$ upgrade to SL, and Leopard users got the peace of mind, knowing they didn't break the license agreement). But this won't be the case with the new digital distribution - they will have to figure out a new way to keep Lion users happy, and still give SL users an incentive to upgrade to Mountain Lion.

If the OS is free, it's a non issue. They could just keep both ML and Lion in the App Store. OS X Lion - available for 29$ to all Snow Leopard users, with Mountain Lion available free to all Lion users.

After that, they wouldn't even have to keep the OS in the app store. After Mountain Lion, the OS upgrade could just be part of the system update. That way they would get even faster adoption rates than with a free OS on the App Store (some users won't feel the need to upgrade, but they will most likely install anything that is a recommended update).

SO that's basically why Apple *should do it. But there are also people who seem convinced that Apple already decided against it. I don't think that's the case.

There was one big argument - the one about Apple anticipating future revenues from Mac users. First off, assumptions can change. Second off, Apple can get the revenue they want from Mac users in multiple ways, not just payed OS upgrades. They can get it from App Store cuts, iLife upgrades, iWork etc. Also the Messages beta text that says something about purchasing Mountain Lion is no proof against free ML. The way the App Store works, even if you download a free app, it's still referred to as a "purchase".

In general I believe it's good for Apple, it's good for developers, good for users, great for the Mac. Apple makes money selling hardware, they won't see a drop in revenue in the long term. This is a new world, people don't get as excited about OS upgrades as they did back in the days. They have multiple computing devices (iPhones, iPads), the PC is no longer the center of our digital life, so people don't see that much value in upgrading its software. Such a move would reinforce the notion that Macs are better suited for the post-PC world than regular PCs. That they will be better companion devices for your smartphones and tablets, because they will change along with them and you won't have to worry about paying for upgrades, deciding on new operating systems etc. Everything is just going to work together.

Mad Mac Maniac
Apr 19, 2012, 08:30 AM
To all of you saying that 29$ is an OK price. Think about it. A customer who bought a Mac in 2007 and upgraded his OS 2 times for 29$ was spending below 15$ a year average on system upgrades. Now that number would almost double. So if they won't go with the free iOS model, they still would need to adjust the price and go down at least to 15$, or maybe even 9.99$.


Yup, I agree with everything you said, and I have made some of your points earlier in this thread. I really do believe Apple should release free updates. And I am one of those people who bought my (first) Mac in Late 2007 (after leopard was released) and in 4 and a half years have paid a total of $60 for OS upgrades. :)

But you also have to take into account that prior to SL upgrades cost $130 and were released every 1 and a half to 2 years. Meaning that people were paying over $65 a year for the OS. Sure you can argue that people have grown accustomed to the reduced rate over the past 5 years, but it isn't without precedent for Mac users to pay well over $30 a year for the OS.

cmChimera
Apr 19, 2012, 08:46 AM
It would be good idea PR wise. I'm not really sure if it's a wise business move as they won't receive any profits, but I imagine they could afford it. I would be pleasantly surprised if it was free. If the OS upgrades are going to be yearly and less substantial though, a price decrease at least probably would be wise.

TheMTtakeover
Apr 20, 2012, 01:44 AM
iOS updates are always given free, and no one thinks Apple is engaging in charity because they release those updates freely. Rather, it is just they employ a different strategy there. They figure new hardware sales generates the money needed to develop for the iOS platform, and so distributing the updates for free increases the customer satisfaction and thereby increases the chances that there will be more return customers down the road. Sure they could sell those iOS updates every year, but long term it isn't clear that would be a wise decision. I fail to see why it is radically different with OS X, other than the fact that the precedence with OS X is to charge for the updates/revisions to the OS.

I'd like to see Apple employ the same model as on iOS for OS X. Not because I hope to save 30$ come summer, but rather because I think the strategy they employ with iOS is a better one.

Not having to worry about paying for OS software when you buy hardware would be a huge advantage that the PC market simply couldn't adapt to. Microsoft is not in the hardware business, and the Hardware companies aren't going to pay Microsoft to provide you with free updates. Apple is in a unique position, I think they ought to take advantage of what their competition couldn't, in principle, accomplish.

I have a mac mini and a dell laptop. If Apple were to do what you said above (free). I would completely get rid of windows. I love apple products but I honestly believe they are over priced. But if it came with free OS upgrades for say even three cycles, then I would say it is well worth the money.

TheSuperSteve
Apr 20, 2012, 11:37 AM
I have a mac mini and a dell laptop. If Apple were to do what you said above (free). I would completely get rid of windows. I love apple products but I honestly believe they are over priced. But if it came with free OS upgrades for say even three cycles, then I would say it is well worth the money.

That's the wrong way to think about it. Macs aren't overpriced, its most Windows PCs that are underpriced. Look at one of the latest Ultrabooks and they cost as much or even more than an equally spec'ed Macbook Air.

Bear
Apr 20, 2012, 01:15 PM
That's the wrong way to think about it. Macs aren't overpriced, its most Windows PCs that are underpriced. Look at one of the latest Ultrabooks and they cost as much or even more than an equally spec'ed Macbook Air.To add to this, you ever wonder what the PC manufacturers get paid to install bloatware on their systems? That would help the manufacturer make a profit at low prices.

Confuzzzed
Apr 22, 2012, 04:23 AM
ok, so I will be accused of being lazy and not doing a search but I scanned other forums and can't find the answer quickly. Does anyone have a current running assumption on the general release date of Mountain Lion?

McKs
Apr 22, 2012, 05:54 AM
ok, so I will be accused of being lazy and not doing a search but I scanned other forums and can't find the answer quickly. Does anyone have a current running assumption on the general release date of Mountain Lion?

http://www.apple.com/mac/

According to Apple it will be released this summer...

Confuzzzed
Apr 22, 2012, 09:33 AM
http://www.apple.com/mac/

According to Apple it will be released this summer...

Have we not been able to be more specific with our estimates then? Is it June summer or August summer judging from seeds, etc?

McKs
Apr 22, 2012, 10:40 AM
Have we not been able to be more specific with our estimates then? Is it June summer or August summer judging from seeds, etc?

Summer in Apple speak usually means middle of September.

iThinkergoiMac
Apr 22, 2012, 01:09 PM
Lastly, Microsoft cannot compete with that. Microsoft could never make Windows updates free, because they are a software company. They live off that profit.

Microsoft DEFINITELY doesn't live off consumer sales of Windows. They make very little money there, and if they started offering Windows for free, it wouldn't affect them very much. Microsoft makes most of their money from business stuff. See this article (http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/why-microsoft-doesnt-need-your-money-business-brings-home-the-bacon/).

Confuzzzed
Apr 22, 2012, 01:47 PM
Summer in Apple speak usually means middle of September.

I wouldn't normally argue with this but some developers claim that Mountain Lion is further ahead in the developer versions released than Lion was hence greater likelihood of early July release. Which would coincidentally also match the start of the back to school campaign?

kaielement
Apr 22, 2012, 02:03 PM
I propose a new model -- customers should be paid for upgrading to Mountain Lion.

My experience is that every new cat breaks enough software and causes enough disruption that this cost is far more than Apple charges for the upgrade. Going to annual upgrades, even at free, will cost me far more than the biannual $29 upgrades did. It's the same problem that Firefox has gotten into (how many people like its new short upgrade cycle that breaks all the plugins every time?) or the frequent upgrades of Linux distros.

Can't we have an upgrade that fixes bugs (there are plenty of Lion bugs still around), maybe adds features, but doesn't remove features or break existing applications?

Or would that just be a "service pack"?

Never had any issues with any update and been using since 10.4 sorry if you had problems

Cougarcat
Apr 22, 2012, 02:40 PM
I wouldn't normally argue with this but some developers claim that Mountain Lion is further ahead in the developer versions released than Lion was hence greater likelihood of early July release. Which would coincidentally also match the start of the back to school campaign?

In the press release Apple said late summer.

PlaceofDis
Apr 22, 2012, 02:51 PM
In the press release Apple said late summer.

exactly, so i think its most likely to be released sometime in september, which would fit with what apple typically does.

The Economist
Apr 22, 2012, 08:27 PM
Microsoft DEFINITELY doesn't live off consumer sales of Windows. They make very little money there, and if they started offering Windows for free, it wouldn't affect them very much. Microsoft makes most of their money from business stuff. See this article (http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/why-microsoft-doesnt-need-your-money-business-brings-home-the-bacon/).

Windows is Microsoft's second biggest source of revenue, which are sold as licenses in every new computer. Unless you are talking about Windows copies found on shelves.

iThinkergoiMac
Apr 23, 2012, 03:36 PM
Windows is Microsoft's second biggest source of revenue, which are sold as licenses in every new computer. Unless you are talking about Windows copies found on shelves.

Don't know what I was thinking...

TheMTtakeover
Apr 24, 2012, 03:09 PM
To add to this, you ever wonder what the PC manufacturers get paid to install bloatware on their systems? That would help the manufacturer make a profit at low prices.

Haha. How dare they lower the price for you by putting in software that can easily be removed. #applestans.

bogatyr
Apr 25, 2012, 10:08 AM
Haha. How dare they lower the price for you by putting in software that can easily be removed. #applestans.

Apparently many people are happy to pay more to lose the software without doing it themselves. Best Buy sells a service to clean new computers of crapware like hotcakes.