PDA

View Full Version : Why must a new OS X come out every 15-16 months?


philipma1957
Jun 17, 2013, 07:10 PM
Cheetah----------- March 2001
Puma -------------September 2001
Jaguar-------------August 2002
Panther------------October 2003
Tiger---------------April 2005
Leopard------------October 2007
Snow leopard------August 2009
Lion ----------------July 2011
Mountain Lion------July 2012


9 os in 11 years and 4 months or 1 every 15.11 months.

How about every 20 or 24 months?

I just get used to an os and then it is time to toss it out. Just venting.

mrapplegate
Jun 17, 2013, 07:11 PM
You know you're not required to update. If you want to wait out an update do so.

KUguardgrl13
Jun 17, 2013, 07:40 PM
You don't have to update every time. I'm still running 10.6.8, and my MBP came with 10.5. I'll wait to see what happens with Mavericks.

Ddyracer
Jun 17, 2013, 07:42 PM
Every two years like Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard had would be nice. Certainly would keep things speedy. Well, at least they are taking their time with Mavericks, it will probably be out 15 months after ML.

53kyle
Jun 17, 2013, 07:44 PM
I personally think that the rapid change is good, especially since I have tons of iTunes money collected over the years.

Krazy Bill
Jun 17, 2013, 08:12 PM
Just venting.You need some real problems kid.

adcx64
Jun 17, 2013, 08:13 PM
In order to keep up, and not have critics say that apple "Cant innovate", they must produce new software often to keep the ecosystem fresh and launch with their model year of computer.

Mr. Retrofire
Jun 17, 2013, 08:15 PM
You need some real problems kid.
And what's your problem, crazy Bill?

McGiord
Jun 17, 2013, 08:17 PM
It is not how often...but how good it is...
That's what she said...

w0lf
Jun 17, 2013, 08:24 PM
I think rapid releases are fine. It's not like you actually have to learn much new things each release. I'm on Mavericks right now and I can barely tell the difference between the last OS.

Michael Goff
Jun 18, 2013, 10:06 AM
Cheetah----------- March 2001
Puma -------------September 2001
Jaguar-------------August 2002
Panther------------October 2003
Tiger---------------April 2005
Leopard------------October 2007
Snow leopard------August 2009
Lion ----------------July 2011
Mountain Lion------July 2012


9 os in 11 years and 4 months or 1 every 15.11 months.

How about every 20 or 24 months?

I just get used to an os and then it is time to toss it out. Just venting.

Just wait until they complete the transition to a 12-month upgrade cycle.

satcomer
Jun 18, 2013, 10:46 AM
Cheetah----------- March 2001
Puma -------------September 2001
Jaguar-------------August 2002
Panther------------October 2003
Tiger---------------April 2005
Leopard------------October 2007
Snow leopard------August 2009
Lion ----------------July 2011
Mountain Lion------July 2012


9 os in 11 years and 4 months or 1 every 15.11 months.

How about every 20 or 24 months?

I just get used to an os and then it is time to toss it out. Just venting.


You need to learn that lately that Apple seems to go now to a brand new Release (every other time)and then the next one clean it up and stream line the code, etc. I kind of like this way.

benwiggy
Jun 18, 2013, 10:56 AM
Why must a new OSX come out every 15-16 months?
New hardware requires new OS software to drive it. Whilst you're doing that, you might as well fix some bugs. And introduce some new features.

Sound214
Jun 18, 2013, 03:23 PM
I just get used to an os and then it is time to toss it out. Just venting.

It takes you a year to get used to a new iteration of OS X?

tywebb13
Jun 18, 2013, 04:05 PM
It's about functionality.

I have some classic apps that I still need. So I still run mac os 9. And I have some mac os x ppc apps so I run snow leopard server. And I have some windows apps so I run windows 8. And I have some hardware that never got updated drivers so I still run lion. And I need airplay mirroring so I got mountain lion but recently replaced it with mavericks because mavericks handles multiple displays better (at least for my purposes).

So I have a lot of systems because they serve different functions that I need. If you only have one system and are happy with the functions that your current system has then you don't need to upgrade.

MikhailT
Jun 18, 2013, 07:12 PM
Cheetah----------- March 2001
Puma -------------September 2001
Jaguar-------------August 2002
Panther------------October 2003
Tiger---------------April 2005
Leopard------------October 2007
Snow leopard------August 2009
Lion ----------------July 2011
Mountain Lion------July 2012


9 os in 11 years and 4 months or 1 every 15.11 months.

How about every 20 or 24 months?

I just get used to an os and then it is time to toss it out. Just venting.

Apple announced two years ago that they'll be switching over to 12-month release cycle. They're actually behind this year.

That's just progress of better development tools, faster machines, more engineers, and so on.

Microsoft is doing the same thing, they're already planning to release 8.1 in the next few months.

Instead of doing major big releases in the past like Leopard, they're just splitting them up into smaller OS updates with less features.

ML wasn't even that big of an upgrade from Lion, it was practically almost the same experience. So, if you've used Lion, switching to ML was a no-brainer.

kodeman53
Jun 19, 2013, 06:21 AM
Just venting.

Thanks SO much for starting a thread, venting and disappearing. :rolleyes:

If you don't like the new releases of OSX, don't upgrade. Problem solved. You'd think that'd be common sense.

philipma1957
Jun 19, 2013, 06:51 AM
"Vanish in the air you'll never find me" Sting .


But seriously I have and off day vent about it rest up a bit read what everyone has to say about my vent got some good info.

My conclusion is if it is like Lion to Mountain Lion I am cool with it. If it has a lot of change I won't be cool with it.

I have a lot of machines in my home.
A while back I was running Windows 7, Windows 8 ,Snow Leopard, Lion and Mountain lion. On 15 machines. Just a bit too many OS systems.

I am now at Windows 7, Windows 8 and Mountain Lion. Which is a bit easier to deal with.

Michaelgtrusa
Jun 19, 2013, 08:57 AM
Bigger profits.

MisterMe
Jun 19, 2013, 09:03 AM
.... On 15 machines. Just a bit too many OS systems.

I am now at Windows 7, Windows 8 and Mountain Lion. Which is a bit easier to deal with.You do understand that Apple has nothing to do with Window 7 or Windows 8, don't you?

mdgm
Jun 19, 2013, 09:31 AM
You do understand that Apple has nothing to do with Window 7 or Windows 8, don't you?
Of course he does. He's bought hundreds of Minis and given them HDD/SSD and/or RAM upgrades. Someone who spends as much time with computers as he does would know basic things like which company makes an OS.

Personally I often don't upgrade straight away when a new OS comes out (though I did on one machine when Mountain Lion came out, I think). I often wait for a few point releases or so at least on machines that I need to work with as few issues as possible. That gives plenty of time for any major bugs to be ironed out and apps to be upgraded to be compatible with the new OS.

For someone who upgrades new machines though I guess waiting a while before using a new OS wouldn't be a good option.


After getting my BlueBerry iBook which had a handle (Macs don't come with these any more) and ran Mac OS 9, I later got a Windows laptop, and then in 2007 I bought a White MacBook which came with Mac OS X Tiger. Whilst some things had changed it was in many ways still the same and I found it wasn't difficult to get used to.

philipma1957
Jun 19, 2013, 09:48 AM
You do understand that Apple has nothing to do with Window 7 or Windows 8, don't you?

parallels, vmware, bootcamp. they all were affected by apple's 10.6 to 10.7 to 10.8 osx up grades.

So for me a simple change from 10.7 to 10.8 meant I needed new vmware upgrades. As windows 7 works with vmware 4 and lion well but windows 7 works better with vmware 5 and 10.8. So a single upgrade may mean 4 to 5 software changes across a lot of machines for me..


@mdgm

yeah I sometimes just get a bit tired since I have my own thing going and the upgrade business going. I would prefer 2 year for mac osx and 4 year for windows os. It would cut back some work I do.

Have to say once in a while it does allow for a nice profit I sold 2009 imacs in 2011 at higher prices then I purchased them for. As they could run 10.6, 10.7 ,10.8 windows 7 windows 8 A few businesses had expensive software that needed that ability so they grabbed 2 or 3 from me at a small markup from oem even though they were 30 months old ( 6 months left under apple care). Saved them a few thousand bucks in software upgrades.

definitive
Jun 19, 2013, 11:13 AM
because apple wants us to pay for service packs. some of the features that they've implemented are so minor that i don't see how they could be charging for them.

robgendreau
Jun 19, 2013, 11:19 AM
Some things in the system probably need to be upgraded pronto, like bug fixes and security fixes.

Other stuff like interface changes, not so much.

I'd like to see Apple segment the upgrades, so that we'd have some more choice in what we upgrade. Not completely piecemeal, but say bugs/security, Finder changes, new technologies, etc. That way you could plug a security hole without say getting a new Mission Control or whatever.

Maybe if we went to a subscription model that would work; no more pressure to lump enough stuff together to attract upgrade purchases. The developer is free to push out needed fixes to subscribers immediately.

And Apple wouldn't have to spend time searching around for names....

Rob

Walter White
Jun 19, 2013, 12:24 PM
Cheetah----------- March 2001
Puma -------------September 2001
Jaguar-------------August 2002
Panther------------October 2003
Tiger---------------April 2005
Leopard------------October 2007
Snow leopard------August 2009
Lion ----------------July 2011
Mountain Lion------July 2012


9 os in 11 years and 4 months or 1 every 15.11 months.

How about every 20 or 24 months?

I just get used to an os and then it is time to toss it out. Just venting.

OS X doesn't change so much that you need to get used to it again and again.

----------

because apple wants us to pay for service packs. some of the features that they've implemented are so minor that i don't see how they could be charging for them.

Wait, i know this, this a broken record No. 7? Right?

MikhailT
Jun 19, 2013, 03:23 PM
parallels, vmware, bootcamp. they all were affected by apple's 10.6 to 10.7 to 10.8 osx up grades.

So for me a simple change from 10.7 to 10.8 meant I needed new vmware upgrades. As windows 7 works with vmware 4 and lion well but windows 7 works better with vmware 5 and 10.8. So a single upgrade may mean 4 to 5 software changes across a lot of machines for me..

I would prefer 2 year for mac osx and 4 year for windows os. It would cut back some work I do.

Those VM apps are integrated deeper into the OS with their custom kext extensions. They will be affected by any OS upgrades, regardless of length.

So, the easiest solution is to don't upgrade each year, just upgrade every 2-3 years if you use the virtual machines a lot and the rest of us will upgrade every year.

I don't understand the problem here, it's a very simple solution for you.

philipma1957
Jun 19, 2013, 06:32 PM
Those VM apps are integrated deeper into the OS with their custom kext extensions. They will be affected by any OS upgrades, regardless of length.

So, the easiest solution is to don't upgrade each year, just upgrade every 2-3 years if you use the virtual machines a lot and the rest of us will upgrade every year.

I don't understand the problem here, it's a very simple solution for you.

Not really. If I am modding new machines every year I have to have fully up to date software. I sell to small business a lot. All they want to know is it works. So I have to have 2 softwares the old and the new in windows and mac..

Why to help a customer with his upgrade and why do they come to me and not Apple price and support. I can beat apple on price very easy and I actually can do better support then apple can most of the time. The turnover of os is a two edged sword for me more work and sometimes more business.

I was a bit down in the dumps about my health, I more eye problems, and I posted this thread.

MikhailT
Jun 19, 2013, 07:18 PM
Not really. If I am modding new machines every year I have to have fully up to date software. I sell to small business a lot. All they want to know is it works. So I have to have 2 softwares the old and the new in windows and mac..

Why to help a customer with his upgrade and why do they come to me and not Apple price and support. I can beat apple on price very easy and I actually can do better support then apple can most of the time. The turnover of os is a two edged sword for me more work and sometimes more business.

I was a bit down in the dumps about my health, I more eye problems, and I posted this thread.

I see what you mean, I didn't realize you were running a CS business. In that case, yea, the length of the OS upgrades will factor into the problems. The same is true for some big developers and corps.

Meyvn
Jun 23, 2013, 08:35 AM
Cheetah----------- March 2001
Puma -------------September 2001
Jaguar-------------August 2002
Panther------------October 2003
Tiger---------------April 2005
Leopard------------October 2007
Snow leopard------August 2009
Lion ----------------July 2011
Mountain Lion------July 2012


9 os in 11 years and 4 months or 1 every 15.11 months.

How about every 20 or 24 months?

I just get used to an os and then it is time to toss it out. Just venting.

Averaging over the course of OS X's existence doesn't really make sense. Conditions have differed drastically throughout. Frankly when OS X launched it wasn't great. I would argue that Jaguar was the first truly usable version. Hence the hurry to refine it in the early years. Once they hit their stride with Panther, Apple shifted to a 2-year model. That was the plan for quite some time. Then, thanks to iOS's influence, last year they moved to a one-year model. Mavericks is a slight aberration due to the perceived need to greatly overhaul iOS's design language. Though it'll still arrive this year, obviously.

As far as why Apple's changed from 2 years to 1, I'd say it's from a desire to differentiate themselves from their competitors, and to keep the Mac fresh, and try to encourage more growth for the platform/stem the overall decline of the desktop PC marketplace. Being able to talk about year over year new features is a lot more engaging for users than just doing it once every two years.

McGiord
Jun 23, 2013, 10:15 AM
Averaging over the course of OS X's existence doesn't really make sense. Conditions have differed drastically throughout. Frankly when OS X launched it wasn't great. I would argue that Jaguar was the first truly usable version. Hence the hurry to refine it in the early years. Once they hit their stride with Panther, Apple shifted to a 2-year model. That was the plan for quite some time. Then, thanks to iOS's influence, last year they moved to a one-year model. Mavericks is a slight aberration due to the perceived need to greatly overhaul iOS's design language. Though it'll still arrive this year, obviously.

As far as why Apple's changed from 2 years to 1, I'd say it's from a desire to differentiate themselves from their competitors, and to keep the Mac fresh, and try to encourage more growth for the platform/stem the overall decline of the desktop PC marketplace. Being able to talk about year over year new features is a lot more engaging for users than just doing it once every two years.

The key difference has been in adding truly features to the OS over those releases, versus simply catching up.
I mean when OS X was really adding functionality, allowing new things to be done or in easier ways versus just supporting new hardware technologies; or just making it compatible with Intel processors; or just simply catching up or fixing annoying things that didn't work well the first time they were tried, like cloud services before they were even called that.
The competition for iOS was bleak at the beginning, and then some of them hit the market like a train at full steam; and this next iOS iteration seems to be a mix of what makes sense to catching up.
More hardware features will drive better OS, and real game changers in Software Apps will also help to make better OS.
The mouse became the trackpad, and the keyboard became...still the keyboard...some attempts to make it the touch screen or some dictation thing...but it isn't there yet...we are still faster making some keystrokes...imagine writing code in a different way...
If Apple pursues buying or implementing something better than Lytro cameras, it could drive some more things for the OS.
3D printing will be something else that can make a difference, the OS will evolve as features are added.
When specific apps or hardware gadgets become the natural way of doing something with a PC if when they make sense to become part of the OS, when they make sense to Apple...sadly not necessarily when they make sense to us (MacRumors enthusiasts).

itickings
Jun 23, 2013, 02:21 PM
9 os in 11 years and 4 months or 1 every 15.11 months.

How about every 20 or 24 months?

I just get used to an os and then it is time to toss it out. Just venting.

What you really should be calculating on is the time between releases, and not "x releases in y months". Using your math between Cheetah and Puma, there were two releases in six months or "one every three months". Not really making sense presenting it like that... Calculating that way would in fact make a fixed 20 month release cycle longer for every release. :p

The average time between releases of OS X so far is 17 months (or 518 days if we care about specific dates). Still less than your desired 20-24 months of course, but anyways.

ConfusedBatman
Jun 24, 2013, 12:51 AM
They release them so soon so they can clean up the code, really. Although they introduce a few new features, I'd rather them just fix bugs in the sub updates (10.x.x), save the new features, and release them in ground breaking versions every 2 or so years.

MattInOz
Jun 24, 2013, 02:00 AM
Accountants have pretty much forced all software onto a 12month cycle.

throAU
Jun 24, 2013, 02:34 AM
parallels, vmware, bootcamp. they all were affected by apple's 10.6 to 10.7 to 10.8 osx up grades.


I upgraded from 10.8 to 10.9 and VMware Fusion 5.x still works fine.

ValSalva
Jun 24, 2013, 04:51 AM
Bigger profits.

Apple charged $30 for Lion and $20 for Mountain Lion. I doubt they even came close to recouping their development costs. Unless you mean that new OS's spur sales of new hardware.

SeenJeen
Jun 24, 2013, 04:55 PM
Apple charged $30 for Lion and $20 for Mountain Lion. I doubt they even came close to recouping their development costs. Unless you mean that new OS's spur sales of new hardware.

Maybe Mavericks will be $10 and the next OS update is $5 and then Apple will start paying us for updates? :D

Meyvn
Jun 24, 2013, 05:56 PM
Apple charged $30 for Lion and $20 for Mountain Lion. I doubt they even came close to recouping their development costs. Unless you mean that new OS's spur sales of new hardware.

But money is fungible, and Apple's way in the black. Unless you think Apple would've made more money if they hadn't charged for Lion and ML, "profits," while an incredibly crude way of looking at the situation, does apply.

ValSalva
Jun 24, 2013, 07:34 PM
But money is fungible, and Apple's way in the black. Unless you think Apple would've made more money if they hadn't charged for Lion and ML, "profits," while an incredibly crude way of looking at the situation, does apply.

Profits apply on the whole with regards to being in the black. But there is no way Apple is making profits specifically from charging $20 for upgrades to ML. Of course Apple would have lost more had they not charged for it.

Meyvn
Jun 25, 2013, 07:23 AM
Of course Apple would have lost more had they not charged for it.

Right. So it's still, on a basic level, about profits. Apple believes that they make more when they charge for the update than when they don't. The black number is higher. That's what matters. You can't talk about the development of OS X in a vacuum, because OS X doesn't exist in a vacuum. Apple isn't an NPO that just makes OS X and sells it below cost. It's an extraordinarily profitable company that makes OS X as a method of selling products that do make them a profit. OS X is cheaper than it used to be, but that doesn't make it a charity. There's no need to pretend they don't make decisions based on profit motives. There are more interesting discussions to have than this.

ValSalva
Jun 25, 2013, 08:02 AM
Right. So it's still, on a basic level, about profits. Apple believes that they make more when they charge for the update than when they don't. The black number is higher. That's what matters. You can't talk about the development of OS X in a vacuum, because OS X doesn't exist in a vacuum. Apple isn't an NPO that just makes OS X and sells it below cost. It's an extraordinarily profitable company that makes OS X as a method of selling products that do make them a profit. OS X is cheaper than it used to be, but that doesn't make it a charity. There's no need to pretend they don't make decisions based on profit motives. There are more interesting discussions to have than this.

Of course Apple makes decisions based on profits and marketing. And companies do break down projects individually to see if they are making or losing money. That's my only point: that on it's own the development of OS X is not a profit generator. I know it's not that simple. Taken in the context of advancing the Mac platform and helping developers, charging less for OS X upgrades is win for Apple, and of course increases profits.

Jessica Lares
Jun 25, 2013, 08:19 AM
It keeps everyone busy - It keeps them from having to fragment themselves, keeps their customers in touch with their software, and it keeps developers updating their software.

SlCKB0Y
Jun 25, 2013, 08:21 AM
that on it's own the development of OS X is not a profit generator.

How could you, or anyone else know hat Apple's margins are on OS X?


Taken in the context of advancing the Mac platform and helping developers,

No, constantly adding new features to OS X each year and changing APIs (both of which have testing and debugging overheads) is generally not in the best interest of developers. It represents an almost constantly moving target for developers and this costs both time and money.

ValSalva
Jun 25, 2013, 08:42 AM
How could you, or anyone else know hat Apple's margins are on OS X?

They have charged only $20 for upgrades. It's not that hard to make an educated guess ;)

No, constantly adding new features to OS X each year and changing APIs (both of which have testing and debugging overheads) is generally not in the best interest of developers. It represents an almost constantly moving target for developers and this costs both time and money.

This is true but it's the price of progress. I'm saying the low price helps developers in that it moves more OS X users to the newest version, in theory. It doesn't work out that way but I'm pretty sure price is not the reason.

Kissaragi
Jun 25, 2013, 11:54 AM
I know right? How dare apple keep trying to improve things so often?!

throAU
Jun 25, 2013, 11:58 AM
Right. So it's still, on a basic level, about profits.

It's about recouping costs.

If you think that the development that goes into OS X would be in any way profitable at $20 a copy for the new versions.... well....



Go see what other operating systems you can buy for $20 with any level of support.

Hint: Redhat Enterprise (kinda equivalent, but not as polished) is $49 per machine per year, to be entitled to updates. That's the "self support" license. Which i guess means ZERO phone support.

SlCKB0Y
Jun 25, 2013, 01:31 PM
This is true but it's the price of progress. I'm saying the low price helps developers in that it moves more OS X users to the newest version, in theory.

Agreed. Apple has always been willing to risk alienating a small subset of developers, users or both in the name of progress (at least the Apple after Jobs' return).

lulla01
Jun 26, 2013, 11:49 AM
The recent updates since leopard really all work the same and honestly even if they charge 20.00 a year for software it's fully worth it. If not they don't force upgrades.

emptysoul
Jun 26, 2013, 06:44 PM
They have charged only $20 for upgrades. It's not that hard to make an educated guess ;)



This is true but it's the price of progress. I'm saying the low price helps developers in that it moves more OS X users to the newest version, in theory. It doesn't work out that way but I'm pretty sure price is not the reason.

The updates in more recent iterations of OS X have been so minor that they'd have a cheek to ask for any more than $20.

I would have zero interest in Mavericks if it wasn't for the ability to use an Apple TV as a second monitor. The rest just seems like performance tweaks and stealing ideas off 3rd party devs (finder tabs).

ValSalva
Jun 26, 2013, 06:58 PM
The updates in more recent iterations of OS X have been so minor that they'd have a cheek to ask for any more than $20.

I would have zero interest in Mavericks if it wasn't for the ability to use an Apple TV as a second monitor. The rest just seems like performance tweaks and stealing ideas off 3rd party devs (finder tabs).

But Mountain Lion had 200+ (http://www.apple.com/osx/whats-new/features.html) new features ;)

TheGdog
Jun 26, 2013, 07:18 PM
It takes you a year to get used to a new iteration of OS X?

Other than the Mission Control change, very few major UI changes have happened in the last few years. At least nothing that hurts day to day use.

I am used to a new version in a day or two.

blasto2236
Jun 28, 2013, 01:50 PM
I would think that releasing a new OS every 2 years would be more of a headache. On a one year cycle, new features (and thus, new software incompatibilities) are introduced gradually. If it was every 2 years, you'd be dealing with a more massive shift towards new technology, presumably making your job a lot harder.

Meyvn
Jun 29, 2013, 06:02 AM
That's my only point: that on it's own the development of OS X is not a profit generator.

And my point is that this is a ridiculous claim, because OS X is not a product. OS X is a feature of a product. The Mac is a profit center. Saying 'OS X is not a profit center' is like saying that the iMac's display is not a profit center. Apple charges their Mac customers for major software updates. The money they make on those charges to update is fungible, and it's part of a division (the Mac division) which is profitable.

It's about recouping costs.

If you think that the development that goes into OS X would be in any way profitable at $20 a copy for the new versions.... well....



Go see what other operating systems you can buy for $20 with any level of support.

Hint: Redhat Enterprise (kinda equivalent, but not as polished) is $49 per machine per year, to be entitled to updates. That's the "self support" license. Which i guess means ZERO phone support.

You guys seem to be intent on having some unspoken argument with me where you're trying to convince me that OS X is a bargain because you think that I'm saying it isn't. But that's just not a discussion that it's possible to have on the terms you're trying to have it. OS X is not a standalone operating system that Apple sells for the purposes of installing on any machine you like. It isn't even an operating system that Apple continues to develop for the purposes of selling it to previous Mac customers. It's developed primarily as a way to continue selling new machines to Mac customers.

Apple makes it available to previous Mac customers because they can, and because not doing so would make many previous customers very unhappy, and up to this point they've charged for it because they believed not doing so would be leaving money on the table. Redhat Enterprise is a product. OS X is a feature, a feature of a profitable product.

Jovian9
Jun 29, 2013, 10:20 AM
I prefer the way they do it now. Quick releases with some new features and "iron out" the previous OSX. $20-$30 per years is also much more enjoyable than +$100 every 2 years. IMO

roadbloc
Jun 29, 2013, 10:35 AM
Without rapid releases, Apple will never be able to achieve it's short support cycle.

ValSalva
Jun 29, 2013, 03:05 PM
And my point is that this is a ridiculous claim, because OS X is not a product. OS X is a feature of a product. The Mac is a profit center. Saying 'OS X is not a profit center' is like saying that the iMac's display is not a profit center. Apple charges their Mac customers for major software updates. The money they make on those charges to update is fungible, and it's part of a division (the Mac division) which is profitable.

Yes, I do see your point. Somewhere, many days ago I responded to a post about someone whom I thought was saying the only reason Apple was going to yearly upgrades was purely for software profit, like Microsoft might do. I didn't think that was true. In your reasoning above Apple does it to further the Mac platform which of course generates profits. The new OS drives new Mac sales. The upgrade price helps to advance Mac development. That's reasoning I do agree with.

Meyvn
Jun 30, 2013, 04:18 AM
Apropos of nothing, given that as of this month (http://thenextweb.com/apple/2013/06/10/apple-sells-28-million-copies-of-os-x-mountain-lion-says-35-of-mac-users-are-on-it/), Apple has sold 28 million copies of Mountain Lion, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that even just upgrade fees pay for its development. $560 million is quite a pretty penny. If the mean salary for an Apple software engineer is $100,000, that would pay for 5600 of them for a year's work.

Does anyone seriously think that Mountain Lion took anywhere near 5600 engineers to make? Or that the average salary of an Apple software engineer is that much higher than $100,000?

BL4zD
Jun 30, 2013, 06:42 AM
Apropos of nothing, given that as of this month (http://thenextweb.com/apple/2013/06/10/apple-sells-28-million-copies-of-os-x-mountain-lion-says-35-of-mac-users-are-on-it/), Apple has sold 28 million copies of Mountain Lion, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that even just upgrade fees pay for its development. $560 million is quite a pretty penny. If the mean salary for an Apple software engineer is $100,000, that would pay for 5600 of them for a year's work.

Does anyone seriously think that Mountain Lion took anywhere near 5600 engineers to make? Or that the average salary of an Apple software engineer is that much higher than $100,000?
It looks like the article and/or Apple is using the word "sold" liberally. Sold is a euphemism for "number of copies downloaded from App store." The article clarifies that not all of the 28 million copies were purchased because users an download more than one copy from their accounts and some qualified for free copies.

It doesn't seem to take into account new Mac purchasers (who wouldn't pay the $20) but we know the 28 million includes them as evidenced by the copies cited (28 million) accounting for the full 1/3rd (out of 75 million Mac customers total) Cook said were using Mountain Lion.

Based on those points we don't know the revenue earned from pure OS X sales.

HenryDJP
Jun 30, 2013, 12:01 PM
Apropos of nothing, given that as of this month (http://thenextweb.com/apple/2013/06/10/apple-sells-28-million-copies-of-os-x-mountain-lion-says-35-of-mac-users-are-on-it/), Apple has sold 28 million copies of Mountain Lion, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that even just upgrade fees pay for its development. $560 million is quite a pretty penny. If the mean salary for an Apple software engineer is $100,000, that would pay for 5600 of them for a year's work.

Does anyone seriously think that Mountain Lion took anywhere near 5600 engineers to make? Or that the average salary of an Apple software engineer is that much higher than $100,000?

Are you truly this shortsighted? Seriously? Do operating costs of running a company, R&D, paying other employees that generate zero revenue in the company such as office workers, training, advertising, paying 3rd party reseller commissions, building maintenance such as janitorial, paying for costly repairs when machines break down, Gas and Electric and Plumbing ever come to mind? Guess not. :cool:

Now in regards to the thread, my take is I am very happy for the 12 month cycle and if they charge $20-$30 for this upgrade to Mavericks I will happily pay it. A better system with features I need will help improve my computing productivity. Unlike some others here, I look at what the $20-$30 does for ME, not what it does for Apple.
Another thing is with more recent upgrades it helps to address issues that people are having much sooner. For years Apple had no Cut N Paste in Finder. They finally added it to Lion. But then people were annoyed with the lack of multiple monitor support in ML, 12 months later they are releasing that needed feature in Mavericks. Now, did I need any of those upgrades? NO. But other people needed that sooner than later. Back in the day Apple wouldn't release the new OS until 24-36 months later and the upgrades weren't worthy of waiting that long.

Meyvn
Jun 30, 2013, 01:02 PM
Are you truly this shortsighted? Seriously? Do operating costs of running a company, R&D, paying other employees that generate zero revenue in the company such as office workers, training, advertising, paying 3rd party reseller commissions, building maintenance such as janitorial, paying for costly repairs when machines break down, Gas and Electric and Plumbing ever come to mind? Guess not. :cool:


You missed, apparently, the rest of the discussion on 'breaking down' the development cost specifically of OS X. I didn't remotely forget about the rest of the company.

HenryDJP
Jun 30, 2013, 01:45 PM
You missed, apparently, the rest of the discussion on 'breaking down' the development cost specifically of OS X. I didn't remotely forget about the rest of the company.

Uh no, I didn't miss anything. I responded properly to YOUR post. In fact your other posts in regards to this discussion mention nothing but the same gibberish about Apple making profits. I shouldn't have to read the entire discussion on this thread just to respond to your post. Take some responsibility. ;)

Meyvn
Jun 30, 2013, 02:20 PM
Uh no, I didn't miss anything. I responded properly to YOUR post. In fact your other posts in regards to this discussion mention nothing but the same gibberish about Apple making profits. I shouldn't have to read the entire discussion on this thread just to respond to your post. Take some responsibility. ;)

If you choose not to read the rest for the sake of context, then fine; but don't expect me to "take responsibility" for things you assign to me when you can't even "take responsibility" for your own reading and reading comprehension.

My post was a tack-on to the rest of my previous long post, which was about the very fact that the Mac division ought to be seen holistically. Assuming from that, that I hadn't thought of the fact that Apple has other expenses besides hiring developers in my entire life, is pointlessly uncharitable.

Given Apple's tendency to keep mum about what they're going to keep mum about and share what they're going to share, of course exact estimates are impossible. But when talking specifically about the development costs only of OS X, pretending that the administrative costs just for keeping the OS X-specific software engineers employed is going to be on the hundreds-of-millions scale is unbelievably silly.

----------

It looks like the article and/or Apple is using the word "sold" liberally. Sold is a euphemism for "number of copies downloaded from App store." The article clarifies that not all of the 28 million copies were purchased because users an download more than one copy from their accounts and some qualified for free copies.

It doesn't seem to take into account new Mac purchasers (who wouldn't pay the $20) but we know the 28 million includes them as evidenced by the copies cited (28 million) accounting for the full 1/3rd (out of 75 million Mac customers total) Cook said were using Mountain Lion.

Based on those points we don't know the revenue earned from pure OS X sales.

Fair enough. Does complicate matters a lot. My point that I at least wouldn't rule out the possibility still stands, however.

benwiggy
Jun 30, 2013, 02:27 PM
But money is fungible, and Apple's way in the black.
Apple charges their Mac customers for major software updates. The money they make on those charges to update is fungible, and it's part of a division (the Mac division) which is profitable.
fungible |ˈfʌn(d)ʒɪb(ə)l| adjective Law
(of goods contracted for without an individual specimen being specified) replaceable by another identical item; mutually interchangeable.

I don't understand your use of this word. Money can be replaced with something else?

I can understand that the money they make on the OS goes towards some larger accounting item, which itself is in the black. Is that what you mean?

Meyvn
Jun 30, 2013, 02:37 PM
fungible |ˈfʌn(d)ʒɪb(ə)l| adjective Law
(of goods contracted for without an individual specimen being specified) replaceable by another identical item; mutually interchangeable.

I don't understand your use of this word. Money can be replaced with something else?

I can understand that the money they make on the OS goes towards some larger accounting item, which itself is in the black. Is that what you mean?

That's precisely what I mean. Sorry if my use of the term distracted from that overall point.

HenryDJP
Jun 30, 2013, 03:21 PM
fungible |ˈfʌn(d)ʒɪb(ə)l| adjective Law
(of goods contracted for without an individual specimen being specified) replaceable by another identical item; mutually interchangeable.

I don't understand your use of this word. Money can be replaced with something else?

I can understand that the money they make on the OS goes towards some larger accounting item, which itself is in the black. Is that what you mean?

Yeah, I looked up that word too and it didn't mean a lick of sense to how that poster Meyvn used it in his post. He'll probably expect you to go back through the entire thread of posts and figure it out for yourself so by the time you reach his post it all make sense....yeah, to him. :rolleyes:

DarwinOSX
Jul 2, 2013, 05:52 PM
First world problem.

Cheetah----------- March 2001
Puma -------------September 2001
Jaguar-------------August 2002
Panther------------October 2003
Tiger---------------April 2005
Leopard------------October 2007
Snow leopard------August 2009
Lion ----------------July 2011
Mountain Lion------July 2012


9 os in 11 years and 4 months or 1 every 15.11 months.

How about every 20 or 24 months?

I just get used to an os and then it is time to toss it out. Just venting.

Le Chiffre
Jul 3, 2013, 02:14 AM
First world problem.

This whole thread is dedicated to first world problems :rolleyes:

AlbertEinstein
Jul 3, 2013, 08:28 AM
Better nannied than neglected!

Yes, I'm looking at you Windows.

Scarrus
Jul 4, 2013, 08:13 AM
Cheetah----------- March 2001
Puma -------------September 2001
Jaguar-------------August 2002
Panther------------October 2003
Tiger---------------April 2005
Leopard------------October 2007
Snow leopard------August 2009
Lion ----------------July 2011
Mountain Lion------July 2012


9 os in 11 years and 4 months or 1 every 15.11 months.

How about every 20 or 24 months?

I just get used to an os and then it is time to toss it out. Just venting.


So they can get your money