Please give me some examples of a major consumer software product on three year release cycles from a company outside Redmond, Washington. When you are trying to establish a product, you increment quickly. I can't think of any application in my applications folder which has not had at least one update within three years. Most have had more. Many have been updated this year.
Most commercial PC games, main release games console software, cubase (prob closer to two years), Lotus Notes (although the gap between 7.0 and 8.0 is only a year).
See.
The people who don't pay for things which companies recognise shoud be freely provided.
Also, Apple too releases these patches and updates for free. They also have major releases as well. Patches and point updates do not add features. The major releases do.
So it is "Oh shiny!" then?
You miss the point.
It is precisely because it is non-commercial that it is a good example.
No, no it isn't because
you're not paying for it. See the difference?
The Ubuntu team are free to do the best thing in relation to the release cycle rather than being motivated by business and commerical constraints.
Great! When can we see Apple releasing OSX updates for free then?
And guess what? They choose increment quickly.
Then they wait for feedback to see if it worked or not. Something you don't get away with when releasing commercial products. Or maybe so if you look at Microsoft's semi-official habit of beta testin on the public or the fun and games with 'Leoptard'.
Um actually I think you underestimate the differences to be honest. If you gave OS 10.4 to someone running OS 10.2 and ask to compare they would find plenty of improvements.
As you would with XP original and XP SP3.
For developers the differences are even more pronounced.10.3 -> 10.4 saw huge changes at the Kernel level. Each version has added new frameworks all the bundled apps received updates and overhauls. We also got new bundled applications with each release as well.
Whereas MS did it all in one between Me and XP and charged once for it.
I've used all releases, I notice differences that I feel I am justified in paying for. Many others agree. If you don't then you can choose to skip the updates.
Fine. Your choice.
Your first told me that you only need a new OS for major changes in technology and now you are telling me you don't need a new OS for major changes in technology because Windows XP can handle them all. Doesn't sound right to me.
No, I said XP can handle
most things. Vista is better, there's just no need to upgrade at the moment unless you're a gamer.
Apple also don't sell support contracts and per seat licences. Microsoft do.
Nor does Apple sell reduced price OEM versions.
Both companies make their money in different ways, Apple is consumer focussed, Microsoft is business focussed. This comparison has little merit. Companies who sell Linux server solutions are selling the support contracts and not the software, because the software is free. They are different models.
I agree. Both companies understand their markets.
If Microsoft could get away with charging for service packs then believe me, they would. But they can't justify because service packs don't add significant new features. And even if they did, businesses wouldn't pay for them anyway.
Well they actually do include new features but you're right: No-one would pay for them.
No, this is where the “take it or leave it” bit comes in. Plenty of Mac users are still on Tiger. Some have upgraded or brought new machines with Leopard. Some are happy running old machines with Panther or Jaguar.
See, there are some sensible people in the world.
Assuming all Mac users are gullible and have no grasp of technology.
I would extend that to "the majority of all PC or Mac users".
Fact is we need to progress. Businesses don't like change in Software (for very good reasons) and like to stay conservative.
It's more stability and conformity than conservatism.
But in the consumer space people are open to good, new, innovative ideas and things that will make their lives easier.
Yup. Agree here.
Reading between the lines, all of the above seems like a lot of bluster to conceal two points:
LOLno. You actually make three points in any case.
[A] You don't see much value in good software.
Oh I do. I just don't believe in paying for minor bells and whistles every year.
You'd rather not pay at all, or at least not very often.
I think you'll find that true for most people.
[C] You can't distinguish between the requirements of the consumer space and the business space.
Really?
*Looks at computer OS profiles*
Nope, think you're wrong there because otherwise every PC user would be upgrading to Vista and they're not.
That's all weel and good, that's where most average people stand (most of my friends as well). But you should be upfront about it.
Right, except the stats show you're wrong. Please don't confuse "you and your friends" with most people, k?