Quality Doesn’t Always Have Sex Appeal: How Much Should Appl...

[MacBytes]

http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Quality Doesn’t Always Have Sex Appeal: How Much Should Apple Charge for Snow Leopard? (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20080616122329)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

[Rojo]

For a system that's claiming to be JUST an improvement of the current one, I feel like the answer should be "free." Why should users have to pay for what Apple didn't get right the first time around?

It doesn't seem right to not add ANY new features, and expect people to pay. Yeah, I know -- a better working OS is ultimately more important in the grand scheme of things. At least it's more important to ME. But it still feels like a "cheat" somehow, doesn't it? I don't know if Apple's going to be able to convince many people to pay to upgrade for JUST more speed or whatever. If they added at least one or two "cool" features along with the speed enhancements, it might be an easier pill to swallow.

Still, it looks like they probably won't add new features, and still charge something.
So what would I be willing to pay?

Sigh.... $129.

Oh... but I'm on a G5 PowerPC, so I guess I'm $#!+ out of luck anyway... :(

[Harpo]

If they offered a different price for upgrade, then they would have to sell two separate packages--an upgrade and one for clean install. That seems a bit wretched. Was 10.0 - 10.1 done through Software Update?

[craigverse]

They will be offering new features in snow leopard... it's just all behind the scenes. I'm sure they'll be putting just as much effort under the hood this time around as they put into the shiny stuff people like last time.

I'd be willing to pay $130 for an upgrade that was focused solely on performance. I don't think of it as something they should have already done I just think of it as a constant improvement over what they've already done right.

[BenRoethig]

It would be a very bad idea if they charged for this. No matter what internal upgrades it has, they're going to take a PR hit for charging what is going to be perceived as a service pack. For a company that is focused on trends like Apple is now, perception is everything.

[CrackedButter]

For a system that's claiming to be JUST an improvement of the current one, I feel like the answer should be "free." Why should users have to pay for what Apple didn't get right the first time around?

It doesn't seem right to not add ANY new features, and expect people to pay. Yeah, I know -- a better working OS is ultimately more important in the grand scheme of things. At least it's more important to ME. But it still feels like a "cheat" somehow, doesn't it? I don't know if Apple's going to be able to convince many people to pay to upgrade for JUST more speed or whatever. If they added at least one or two "cool" features along with the speed enhancements, it might be an easier pill to swallow.

Still, it looks like they probably won't add new features, and still charge something.
So what would I be willing to pay?

Sigh.... $129.

Oh... but I'm on a G5 PowerPC, so I guess I'm $#!+ out of luck anyway... :(

I posted this in a similar thread but..."If the things we value most in an OS are stability, performance and technical advancement, why are those the very things for which we are least willing to pay?" - archdetector

But my own take on this is; they are adding new features, just not shiny stuff. This 'polish' will enable more 'shiny' in 10.7 and so on. Also, nobody is forcing you to buy it and since you're not getting any 'new features' what do you feel you are missing out on? :)

I would also disagree and say it would seem right to not add any new features and this can be used as a marketing and advertising weapon against Microsoft who are known for their code bloat.

[pgifford]

For a system that's claiming to be JUST an improvement of the current one, I feel like the answer should be "free." Why should users have to pay for what Apple didn't get right the first time around?

It doesn't seem right to not add ANY new features, and expect people to pay. Yeah, I know -- a better working OS is ultimately more important in the grand scheme of things. At least it's more important to ME. But it still feels like a "cheat" somehow, doesn't it? I don't know if Apple's going to be able to convince many people to pay to upgrade for JUST more speed or whatever. If they added at least one or two "cool" features along with the speed enhancements, it might be an easier pill to swallow.

Still, it looks like they probably won't add new features, and still charge something.
So what would I be willing to pay?

Sigh.... $129.

Oh... but I'm on a G5 PowerPC, so I guess I'm $#!+ out of luck anyway... :(

I don't think it's a matter of Apple not getting it right the first time. If that were true, then they have been wrong since the first release of OSX. Nothing's actually wrong with the current version (of course there'll always be bugs of some sort). They're adding new architecture - Grand Central and OpenCL - ways to take full advantage of the newest multi-core chips and multi-threading. The benefit of this may not be appreciated by casual users, but anyone who realizes how big this is would gladly pay $129 for the upgrade. I don't always think new features = better OS. Apple is laying a foundation to a more efficient OS to build on. Hopefully people will look past the lack of new features and see a nicely polished and stable OS to work with moving forward.

That being said, I haven't already spent money on Leopard, so I'm not feeling burned in any way.

[dacreativeguy]

Look at how much Microsoft is charging for Vista and all they did was update the UI to match OS X, add more code bloat to slow down your computer, and add more security holes for the hackers to exploit.

Shouldn't Apple be entitled to charge for an update that actually improves your computing experience?

[deanoa]

The first question that begs to be answered is how many more bells and whistles do we need? Certainly the touch interface will grow over time and so will the use of spoken commands. For most of us, though, we want to use an operating system that is secure and efficient, ie one that helps us get things done, whether that be work or entertainment. The things Apple is working on for Snow Leopard might not seem like a big deal, but as we move into the world of multi-core 64 bit operating systems, it is necessary to build the infrastructure so that programmers can make cool software that uses the system. I remember what really wasn't all that long ago when we were moving from 16 to 32 bit operating systems. We had all that horsepower but no way to really use it. The same is true of 8-core Mac Pro workstations. We have lots of physical power but very little software that can actually take it to task outside of the graphics arena. What Apple is proposing to do with their next edition is to make that power accessible to a much broader group of developers, and to assist in taking programming to the next level for all of us.

The other thing they're doing is taking the opportunity to do some housekeeping. It's time for the OS not to support the latter generations of hardware. There are perfectly good editions of OS X out there that run on Power architecture, but it's time to realize that the people purchasing new computers are not going to be purchasing machines based on the Power platform. The code can be cleaned up, and further optimized when only the Intel platform is being supported. That means a that Apple can focus it's resources on a single smaller code base, and that resources can be allocated to the task of keeping OS X the most secure and reliable platform choice. As market share grows, security will become an increasingly difficult task, and one that is never really complete. I think this is a good direction, and the right time to be taking it.

[badcrumble]

The optimist in me hopes that they're finally purging the legacy code from QuickTime and iTunes (goodbye, SoundJam code from Mac OS 8.x/9.x) and finally making the Windows versions of those products as pleasant to use as the Mac OS X ones. Quicktime for Windows should be an advertisement for Mac OS X, not an obnoxious product that makes people think Apple software sucks.

I'll think about buying Snow Leopard, but I hope it's only $60 or so to upgrade. If it's the full $130, I might just wait things out until the next revision comes along. But there's plenty of time left to sex it up and make it an attractive purchase for me, instead of just something that sounds like a very nice and necessary upgrade for the operating system to move forward. Making it appealing is Apple's job, and I expect them to do the same at some event later this year.

[Rojo]

I don't think it's a matter of Apple not getting it right the first time. If that were true, then they have been wrong since the first release of OSX. Nothing's actually wrong with the current version (of course there'll always be bugs of some sort). They're adding new architecture - Grand Central and OpenCL - ways to take full advantage of the newest multi-core chips and multi-threading. The benefit of this may not be appreciated by casual users, but anyone who realizes how big this is would gladly pay $129 for the upgrade. I don't always think new features = better OS. Apple is laying a foundation to a more efficient OS to build on. Hopefully people will look past the lack of new features and see a nicely polished and stable OS to work with moving forward.

I actually agree with you.

I just don't think most average users will see it that way. They're going to think "what's so special about this upgrade, and what am I spending more money for exactly?"

So from a purely marketing standpoint, I think Apple might have trouble on their hands if they plan on pricing this at the normal $129. They MIGHT get away with it if they can throw in at least one or two flashy features on top of the stability enchancements. Or, if they charge a cheaper price (half?), that might do it too.

Maybe.

[Blue Velvet]

They should make it free — great publicity — but only installable on a system already running Leopard. ;)

[dashiel]

if it takes apple eighteen to twenty fourth months of development time that's worth money. put it another way i'm not sure where any of you work, but let's just say you're in an office environment. you just spent two months writing up a report on widget X. the report was well received, but now 6 months later there are areas you feel could be improved upon and there have been updates to widget X that need to be addressed in your report and you found some cool new aspects that will add significant value to the report. i'd bet dollars to donuts you're not going to tell your boss you'll do it free, why should we expect apple to do it for free. snow leopard looks like it might be the most important release of OS X since 10.0.

you know everyone on the windows side of the equation is bitching and moaning because vista is all sizzle no steak. so apple says - hey we're going to not do what vista did, we're actually going to really clean up the cruft and add some big under-the-hood features that are going to increase performance not for your existing computer, but also pave the road for massive performance gains in our apps and our developer apps.

if people feel "cheated" by that, then screw 'em. it's that type of "shiny object, i want it all and i want it now, entitled" attitude that is ruining more than just the software industry in this country. i will gladly fork over $129 for just the features and improvements they've already announced.

[zombitronic]

Read about ZFS (http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/whatis/), Grand Central, OpenCL and the other improvements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_v10.6#Changes_and_improvements). Keep in mind that the OS isn't due for another year and we're likely to see more improvements than what have been announced.

The feature enhancements may be few, but the performance enhancements seem big. Bigger than a point-point upgrade. My newest Mac is only a PPC, but if I had a multi-core machine, (and I hope to by next summer,) I'd be excited. I would bet that all this effort to perfect the OS is not only for desktops, but for a new generation of ultra-fast, portable, touch devices.

For the speed enhancements that I'm expecting, I'd be okay with the usual $129 upgrade. I wouldn't be too excited, however, paying $499 or $999 for the Server upgrade. If this is revealed to be true, I'll put off a Mac Pro with OS X Server until the release of Snow Leopard.

[CrackedButter]

if it takes apple eighteen to twenty fourth months of development time that's worth money. put it another way i'm not sure where any of you work, but let's just say you're in an office environment. you just spent two months writing up a report on widget X. the report was well received, but now 6 months later there are areas you feel could be improved upon and there have been updates to widget X that need to be addressed in your report and you found some cool new aspects that will add significant value to the report. i'd bet dollars to donuts you're not going to tell your boss you'll do it free, why should we expect apple to do it for free. snow leopard looks like it might be the most important release of OS X since 10.0.

you know everyone on the windows side of the equation is bitching and moaning because vista is all sizzle no steak. so apple says - hey we're going to not do what vista did, we're actually going to really clean up the cruft and add some big under-the-hood features that are going to increase performance not for your existing computer, but also pave the road for massive performance gains in our apps and our developer apps.

if people feel "cheated" by that, then screw 'em. it's that type of "shiny object, i want it all and i want it now, entitled" attitude that is ruining more than just the software industry in this country. i will gladly fork over $129 for just the features and improvements they've already announced.

Well put, I didn't say it better myself!

[Gasu E.]

It's in Apple's interest to encourage developers to program for Open CL and Grand Central. Making 10.6 a free upgrade from 10.5 supports that. Charging for 10.6 will restrict this upgrade mostly to people who understand its benefits. If 10.6 is free, most major software vendors will have no problem making it a pre-req for their applications running on Intel. If it's $129, vendors will have to make choices as to how to divide up their (limited) Mac resources. Fewer vendors would run "10.6-only" on Intel.

People who post on MacRumors are not typical of the general customer base. 10.6 is not going to be easy to sell to the average user. It will not provide super performance gains automatigically for existing applications. Software suppliers will have to recompile, recode and or even restructure their apps to take advantage of the most dramatic performance features. A lot of people will be ripped when they pay $129 for 10.6 and find that their favorite current app only runs 3% faster.

[Soba]

Was 10.0 - 10.1 done through Software Update?

It was not.

You could order the CD from Apple for $19.95, and it was also distributed in various other ways (e.g., with Macworld magazine, at Apple retail outlets, etc.) for free. It was one of those few cases where giving your disc to a friend was actually legal. :-)

Things have changed quite a lot since 2001, though. If this is a free update for Leopard owners, they could very well use Software Update (or an equivalent) this time around. On the other hand, Leopard has a ridiculously high level of penetration compared to 10.0 or even 10.1, so there would be quite a lot of demand.

I don't recall when Apple started installing OS X on their systems, but it was not the default booting OS until 10.1.2 (though all systems included both OS 9 and OS X). I bought my first Mac at 10.1.1 and thus missed the 10.0 era altogether, but much of the impetus behind my switching to the Mac was OS X, so from the very beginning, I did not use OS 9 except in rare cases. Coming from 10.1, Jaguar was one of the most significant OS upgrades I've ever seen for any computer system.

[superleccy]

They should make it free — great publicity — but only installable on a system already running Leopard. ;)

I agree.

But that would annoy the folks wanting to do a clean install of Snow Leopard.

For the clean install, the installation process would have to ask for a valid Leopard DVD - which would get a bit Microsoft-y. :eek:

SL

[NickolasSin]

In my opinion...

Snow Leopard... is a ridiculous name. (So I HOPE they change it)
Nevertheless,
For Previous Leopard owners: Free.
For Tiger Users: 99$

[nagromme]

Free with any Mac.

Free for people who can show they bought Leopard or a Mac 90 days before Snow Leopard's release.

$29 for anyone else who can show they own Leopard.

$129 for anyone else, who never had Leopard.

And here is the important thing: don't storm into people's homes and FORCE them to buy it, and then they surely will not whine if they don't want it ;)

Developers should follow suit: if they write new apps/versions that rely on the new Snow Leopard features, they should not storm into people's homes and FORCE them to buy the new apps :)

For Tiger Users: 99$

Don't hold your breath: they'd be getting MORE than Leopard, but paying LESS than Leopard in that case.

But do watch Amazon for discounts--you might be pleased!

[Blue Velvet]

For the clean install, the installation process would have to ask for a valid Leopard DVD - which would get a bit Microsoft-y. :eek:

That would be hilarious. Imagine the outcry here. Apple, please do it. :D

[aLoC]

I am prepared to pay full price, because I have an octo Mac, and Snow is all about cores. But if I was running dual core I might be tempted to just stick with Leo the first.

[Orng]

I don't know what the problem is, I can't find anything in any of the license agreements that says I have to buy every OS upgrade they release.

They should charge what its worth, and everyone should decide if they need it or if they would be just as happy holding out for the next one

I'll buy it though. I'm still using Tiger.

[chiphead]

For a system that's claiming to be JUST an improvement of the current one, I feel like the answer should be "free." Why should users have to pay for what Apple didn't get right the first time around?

It doesn't seem right to not add ANY new features, and expect people to pay. Yeah, I know -- a better working OS is ultimately more important in the grand scheme of things. At least it's more important to ME. But it still feels like a "cheat" somehow, doesn't it? I don't know if Apple's going to be able to convince many people to pay to upgrade for JUST more speed or whatever. If they added at least one or two "cool" features along with the speed enhancements, it might be an easier pill to swallow.

Still, it looks like they probably won't add new features, and still charge something.
So what would I be willing to pay?

Sigh.... $129.

Oh... but I'm on a G5 PowerPC, so I guess I'm $#!+ out of luck anyway... :(


They did get it right the first time. The hardware has outrun and is outrunning the software - as we can see by iPhone 2 - only thing "new" is high speed internet. My old iPhone isn't outdated yet, great. Snow Leopard will make my new iMac faster in a year. I'm willing to pay $129 for Snow Leopard to enhance my experience. (However they are giving away new iPhone software to current users) I'm sure there will be some new desktops and screensavers at least.... heh-heh.

[macFanDave]

Upgrade from Leopard - FREE.
Buy it off the shelf without Leopard - $129

Face it, Apple may drive one of the largest migrations of hardware in its history with Snow Leopard.

Leopard dropped support for G3 Macs, so this relegated my iBook to just doing basic work (which is does like a champ as it approaches it's 7th birthday!) My main machine is a 2003 PowerMac Dual 2GHz G5, and Leopard runs just fine on that.

If (big IF) Snow Leopard dramatically improves Leopard's performance, but only on Intel-based Macs, people like me are about to dig deep to buy a new Mac. I realize that slowly, but surely, my top-of-the-line Mac as fallen behind Apple's future offerings, but if Snow Leopard can make me think that I've fallen intolerably behind, I'm buying a new Mac.

Finally, Apple is going to save so much money by not having to move forward with PowerPC development that parallels the Intel effort (yes, I realize that a lot of the work at the application programmer level is simply a flip of a compiler switch, but to squeeze every bit of performance out of a system, lower-level coding requires intimate architecture knowledge), that the effort to make Snow Leopard will pay for itself.