Apple must stop updating OS X annually!!!

[anzio]

The problem is actually that there's still release versions at all. Even the bumbling monolith of microsoft has woken up to rolling release.

Drop the numbers and just provide regular updates. New features arrive as they're made. No more glitz and glamor.

That creates a developer hell. If they introduce new API's that developers want to take advantage of, it'd be an uphill battle trying to differentiate who can run your app or explain to users that they're not on version 1511 of the operating system.

I much prefer the macOS 10.12, etc. version separation. Makes targeting platforms much easier.

 

[MrNomNoms]

Personally I think the two bigger issues around about Apple is firstly focusing on a smaller area to develop with each release to avoid biting more than they can chew and secondly what they need is better testers who are technically capable to providing meaningful feedback so then developers at Apple can accurate know what needs to be fixed rather than the meaningless to and fro resulting in nothing being fixed. Putting those two points aside for a moment, when compared to Microsoft, I think Apple hasn't done do badly when you consider the fact that for 3-4 years they've been working on APFS which came as as a surprise so I think has time moves on we'll see improvements. There is one thing I'd love to see happen though which is better communication - if you screw something then be open and give a time line or better still have a blog and talk about technical decisions you make so then at least the tech enthusiasts and those interested understand why certain decisions are made rather than the constant complaints Macrumors about decisions that could be easily addressed via a blog post.

 

[randolorian]

I don't think the release frequency is the problem. Rather, it is how much they commit to change within each major release. The underwhelming feature list of Sierra suggests to me that they realize they tried to do too much in previous releases and quality suffered. Many of us here asked for them to slow down, and it appears they have. We should be happy about that.

 

[tywebb13]

If you don't like the yearly update can't you just skip one?

I had a computer on mavericks for quite a while but then sort of skipped yosemite to el capitan.

I didn't really skip it. What I did was install yosemite for a day, do 1 time machine backup - and then upgrade to el capitan - so that if for whatever reason I needed to downgrade to yosemite I could do so via that backup.

So if I keep this thing going I'd be on a 2 year cycle with effectively an intermediate system as a backup if needed, i.e., turn the whole thing around to my advantage whether I agree with the 1-yearly updates or not.

 

[KALLT]

If you don't like the yearly update can't you just skip one?

One problem is that you will be falling behind in security. Apple provides security updates, but they will only fix what can be fixed with an acceptable amount of work; they will not address everything. They frequently defer bug fixes to newer releases as well, sometimes leaving egregious bugs unfixed. Once a new release appears, the older release is effectively left to die.

The problem really is that Apple has no other choice if they intend to integrate OS X and iOS further. Both share a lot of code and Apple keeps up the pace to match the technologies and APIs. A slower release cycle means that OS X will be left out.

 

[n-evo]

[...] Bertrand Serlet was lead engineer for OS X 10.4-10.6 and delivered the most solid OS X builds to date. [...]

No offence but you remember the past way more positive than it actually was. Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger had major issues when it hit "GM" and was bordering on being still a beta. It wasn't until v10.4.3 where most major issues were fixed and made a huge fuss about its release by sticking a bright green "10.4.3" sticker on all retail packaging. It received a whopping 11 updates (v10.4.0-10.4.11) with v10.4.11 being released after Mac OS X Leopard hit GM.

Pretty much the same goes for Mac OS X Leopard and to a lesser degree Mac OS X Snow Leopard.

Every time I see a "Annual release cycle is bad m'kay!" thread I'm surprised the topic starter fails to recollect these things.

 

[32828870]

No offence but you remember the past way more positive than it actually was. Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger had major issues when it hit "GM" and was bordering on being still a beta. It wasn't until v10.4.3 where most major issues were fixed and made a huge fuss about its release by sticking a bright green "10.4.3" sticker on all retail packaging. It received a whopping 11 updates (v10.4.0-10.4.11) with v10.4.11 being released after Mac OS X Leopard hit GM.

Pretty much the same goes for Mac OS X Leopard and to a lesser degree Mac OS X Snow Leopard.

Every time I see a "Annual release cycle is bad m'kay!" thread I'm surprised the topic starter fails to recollect these things.

First, please be respectful. I'm amazed with how brazen some people can be when addressing people they don't know online. Your last sentence is condescending and unnecessary. We may have different experiences, and it seems yours has been vastly different from many others, yet it doesn't warrant treating others in such a manner.

Second, I never said those releases were "perfect". I stated, as well as others, that they were and are better than what came after 10.7. Don't twist our points to fit your narrative and don't be condescending to strangers, online or otherwise.

Lastly, that is your opinion, as mine may be as well. Everyone has varying experiences, discounting others because yours may be vastly different from the norm doesn't mean it's the only one that matters.

Thanks

 

[maflynn]

I think it may be less about the annual release, and perhaps more about the fact that it's free. There had to be some justification for the upgrade, and so Apple was motivated to add features that would make sense for us consumers to pay for the upgrade.

Maybe as the product matured, there was less to add, and it made sense to make it free, but I think we are seeing small improvements that make it hard to get very excited for the next version. Siri just doesn't do it for me, nor does Apple Pay on the Mac. I think the improvements to the messaging up, making it more snapchat is not something that I'd qualify as worthy of an OS upgrade. Its probably something that could have been updated on its own.

I'm not knocking the latest revision, but i am saying that like El Cap the changes seem to be less enthralling then in the past.

 

[John Mcgregor]

I think it may be less about the annual release, and perhaps more about the fact that it's free. There had to be some justification for the upgrade, and so Apple was motivated to add features that would make sense for us consumers to pay for the upgrade.

Maybe as the product matured, there was less to add, and it made sense to make it free, but I think we are seeing small improvements that make it hard to get very excited for the next version. Siri just doesn't do it for me, nor does Apple Pay on the Mac. I think the improvements to the messaging up, making it more snapchat is not something that I'd qualify as worthy of an OS upgrade. Its probably something that could have been updated on its own.

I'm not knocking the latest revision, but i am saying that like El Cap the changes seem to be less enthralling then in the past.

Snapchat? Are you insane?

 

[leman]

Maybe as the product matured, there was less to add, and it made sense to make it free, but I think we are seeing small improvements that make it hard to get very excited for the next version. Siri just doesn't do it for me, nor does Apple Pay on the Mac. I think the improvements to the messaging up, making it more snapchat is not something that I'd qualify as worthy of an OS upgrade. Its probably something that could have been updated on its own.

I have no idea how this can be even remotely true. You now get for free what you had to pay for previously. You might not be interested in Siri or Messages, but others were saying the same about Photo Booth and iChat (and Leopard upgrade was $129!).

 

[maflynn]

but others were saying the same about Photo Booth and iChat (and Leopard upgrade was $129!).

Perhaps, but Leopard had 300 features advertised - What's New-New in Mac OS X Leopard's 300+ Feature List

So while you reference a couple features in Leopard, (and I agree regarding photo booth and iChat), there were a lot more updates, features and changes in OS X 10.5 then what we're seeing in macOS 10.12. In fact that is my point, to a degree. Because the OS is no longer generating revenue, they've reduced the scale of the upgrade.

 

[dogslobber]

One reason that Microsoft makes Win10 free initially is to get as many users as possible to a common version. Free usually works as we equate free to be better and it's also more shiny. OS X has the same issue so you won't see regular users upgrade unless there's motivation to do it. That motivation is "it's free" just like Win10 but for differing reasons. The OS in general is mature with a lack of blockbustering features so the utility of an upgrade is less and less. It would be even smaller if you had to pay for it, so it makes sense for it to be free as it prevents the OS user base becoming fragmented.

 

[leman]

Perhaps, but Leopard had 300 features advertised - What's New-New in Mac OS X Leopard's 300+ Feature List

And each of 10.9, 10.10 and 10.11 is advertised with 200+ new features. Thats just marketing talk.

 

[Ethosik]

I think they are doing fine. I have WAY more issues with Windows 10 than I do with OS X. Really, counting up ALL my OS X issues from ALL versions does not even come close to the number of issues I have with Windows 10.

I only had about 5 bad things on all OS X. Most of them were from Snow Leopard.

 

[32828870]

Perhaps, but Leopard had 300 features advertised - What's New-New in Mac OS X Leopard's 300+ Feature List

So while you reference a couple features in Leopard, (and I agree regarding photo booth and iChat), there were a lot more updates, features and changes in OS X 10.5 then what we're seeing in macOS 10.12. In fact that is my point, to a degree. Because the OS is no longer generating revenue, they've reduced the scale of the upgrade.

Spot on. There were some great features during beta testing that didn't make it to the GM. We never knew why, perhaps either IP issues and licensing. FaceTime had the same fate as it was announced as a cross platform system but a South American company that claimed rights to a small part of its code won a five year ruling that kept FaceTime as an Apple only platform. Perhaps this is why rumors of FaceTime and Messages becoming cross platform are now surfacing.

Remember Leopard's iChat "Answering Machine" function that didn't make it to GM?

Leopard iChat Answering Machine

"The new iChat answering preference tab allows users to record a Video greeting to serve as an answering message when users are away from their desk. The caller may then leave a message. At this time, there only appears to be partial functionality implemented."

It was one of many new features proposed that had people excited. The idea of using iChat as an audio/video answering device was brilliant, especially for the deaf who could leave a video message. Many of us were bummed when it was removed and later hoped it would be incorporated with FaceTime.

Everyone has excellent points and the varying views and experiences regarding OS X is very interesting. I'm certainly not yelling that the sky is falling, but QoS has taken a noticeable dive in recent years. I realize it's human nature to complain rather than praise, yet the consistently dropping reviews on each OS X variant over the past decade is hard to disregard.

I'm lamenting the end of what was excellent hardware. Apple made some of the best displays in the industry in 2004, offering 20", 23", and 30" CCFL LCD IPS panels that were used by professionals and consumers. They sold very well; the 30" model is still being used by many. I remember being with a friend who worked with Annie Leibovitz. I visited him on set and was blown away as she had four PowerMac's with 2 30" displays each while doing a shoot for "Vogue" ~2006. Sadly, she's since moved on to Windows systems and primarily EIZO displays.

I often cringe when some state the "pro" market is too niche. The problem with that thinking is twofold:

- Professionals and studio's pay top dollar in large quantities for hardware and software updates on an annual cycle. Having worked in marketing in the industry in Los Angeles, it wasn't uncommon for 7-8 figure annual budgets on system updates. People are confusing market demographics as it's important to distinguish the gross amount versus the number of units sold.

- Dropping the professional market then claiming it's not selling after the fact is exactly what Apple has done. The pro market wants to buy Apple systems again but you cannot drop support for them and expect them to have faith that it will change. When Apple began dropping focus on the professional market, it was a red flag that resulted in many pulling away from Apple due to unreliable long term prospects. Hence why many switched to Avid, Adobe, etc. It became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[doublepost=1468963310][/doublepost]

And each of 10.9, 10.10 and 10.11 is advertised with 200+ new features. Thats just marketing talk.

It's important to distinguish those features. Recent updates have feature lists with social networking integration or a new Notification Center. Compare features pre-10.7 and you'll notice they're very different. A few examples are "Time Machine" and "Exposé and Spaces", one of many new features introduced well before 10.7 that have become core OS X elements. When "Mission Control" was announced in 10.7, many lamented as it was a terrible revision of a great system. Thankfully, a developer created "TotalSpaces" for those who wanted pre-10.7 "Exposé and Spaces" and it took off. So much so that BinaryAge, the developers of "TotalFinder", bought Stephen's "TotalSpaces" app and now he's a top developer with the company (I helped him when he first began development and he's a great guy, very helpful and cares deeply about his work).

Searching online will bring up a lot of complaints when "Spaces" was replaced by "Mission Control". Here's an interesting read/rant regarding the matter (yes, the author gets carried away but give it a read in addition to the comments for a better understanding):

https://medium.com/@ahainen/mission...é-spaces-had-it-right-6447b549b9af#.uvqe3segs

Many toss numbers and common talking points around without objectively examining the truth behind them. Just as the number of units sold in the professional market is a false representation of total dollars spent, so is listing features as justification that the system has improved. It's important to examine what those features are and how they benefit development and use longterm. With the exception of APFS in 10.12, many are considered "fluff" than essential. Apple has been working on a new FS for years. ZFS was considered and coded as HFS's replacement, yet never happened due to changes with Sun Microsystems and Oracle around 2006. ZFS' benefits in a combined file system and logical volume manager were some of the reasons Apple was interested in its possible longevity.

 

[leman]

S
It's important to distinguish those features. Recent updates have feature lists with social networking integration or a new Notification Center. Compare features pre-10.7 and you'll notice they're very different. A few examples are "Time Machine" and "Exposé and Spaces", one of many new features introduced well before 10.7 that have become core OS X elements

And Yosemite introduced a full GUI overhaul of the OS (on a scale that was so far unprecedented among OS X releases) as well as OS scriptability via JavaScript, El Capitan introduced the first shipping next-gen GPU API while Sierra introduces a zero-setup cloud backup/sync of user data . Not to forget many performance tweaks in Mavericks and later (like the move to SMB) and important new productivity features (file tags, notes, calendar, usable mail and browser). Casually disregarding those releases as 'social networking or a new notification center' is certainly not appropriate. I am not even talking about what has been happening in the background, with new software frameworks and developer tools.

BTW, since you spend some time taking about professional features and displays. Apple single-handedly redefined the display quality with the introduction of HiDPI displays. Just few years ago the idea of high-quality sub pixel rendering on consumer hardware was thought as something arcane and undoable. Now everyone and their grandma is doing that. And now Apple is about to single-handedly redefine the display quality YET AGAIN by making factory-calibrated wide-gamut displays a standard on a consumer hardware, that was stuck at SRGB or below for a decade now, if not longer. FYI, Sierra includes full support for wide-gamut displays and advanced color space features. If I am not mistaken, such support is so far unprecedented in the OS landscape.

 

[32828870]

And Yosemite introduced a full GUI overhaul of the OS (on a scale that was so far unprecedented among OS X releases)

Which was met with a lot of criticism in addition to the flat, minimalist iOS 7 revamp.

BTW, since you spend some time taking about professional features and displays. Apple single-handedly redefined the display quality with the introduction of HiDPI displays..

As a former and again current corp. employee, let me correct you. Apple replaced a full CCFL LCD line with then displays from their iMac LED lineup. In 2008, the 24" LED LCD's were the same panels used in the 24" iMac. The 27" displays were the same panels used in the 27" iMac's. The decision to cut the display line and use the same panels as iMac's was a cost cutting measure; the panels were already available and a modified chassis with USB 2.0 and inexpensive PSU's allowed for a hefty profit margin on a $999 display. LG supplied those panels which had numerous problems. We (Apple) acknowledged that the panels were repurposed LG panels that didn't meet the specs for the larger iMac's but were still tested under the same conditions as returned and refurbished products.

I personally went through dozens of 24" and 27" displays, having had two of my three 27" LED Cinema Display panels replaced just last month. The displays were an acknowledged mess, one of the reasons there will not be a replacement. This was a decision made by Cook as he took over operations well before it was officially announced. The transition was done slowly and methodically to temper concerns regarding Jobs' health and Apple's future, but make no mistake that Cook and Ive have been handling operations longer than the public was informed. Jobs remained as he wanted to give one last Keynote, the iPad, which was his project and what really sparked the iPhone as it was developed well before the mobile device was released. The transition to Apple under Cook's leadership was well underway before 2009.

 

[leman]

Well, and here I hoped that would be one of those constructive threads. No, I get it, you are not happy with Tim's leadership. You might also be unhappy with the recent OS X updates. What you seem to be particularly unhappy with (for whatever reason) is the fact that Apple decided to diminish its presense in the niche professional display market. Anyway, I see no point to discuss the topic with this kind of subjective bias. Looking at facts, the OS X releases after Leopard (which was when they cut the price significantly, so going completely free was just a matter of time) have introduces just as many fundamental features and changes as the $$$ releases before (mine or your opinion on whether these changes were required or welcome is completely irrelevant). Regarding issues will components, well, most Macs (in fact, most computers) are known to suffer from something, so you can't really pin this on Cook solely.

 

[MacGizmo]

For those complaining that Tim Cook is moving too fast with OS updates and Apple should "go back to the way it used to be" when Jobs was around:

OSX Releases:
10.0 = March 2001
10.1 = September 2001
10.2 = August 2002
10.3 = October 2003
10.4 = April 2005
10.5 = October 2007
10.6 = August 2009
10.7 = July 2011
10.8 = July 2012
10.9 = October 2013
10.10 = October 2014
10.11 = September 2015

So while there were a few years between 10.3 and 10.7 where there was more than 12 months between releases, for the most part OS X has been on a yearly release schedule all along. And those years where it wasn't, there were either large-scale changes between full point upgrades more so than previous and recent years—which warranted them sticking around a bit longer. Not to mention the release of an entire new platform (iOS).

Much like Apple's hardware, where the computers can only get so fast, and the dependency on RAM shrinks; you can only add so many features to the OS that appeals to the mass public.

I would love to see a ton of new features in the OS, but off-hand, I can't think of any that I would consider "hero" features in the same way that say iChat, Dashboard, GUI overhauls and iMovie were considered. I LIKE the fact that Apple adds lots of little features that the average user can understand and use.

The people visiting the forums here are not average users. So we talk about things that the vast majority of the public doesn't know or care about (like file systems, disk utility apps, etc.).

 

[32828870]

So while there were a few years between 10.3 and 10.7 where there was more than 12 months between releases, for the most part OS X has been on a yearly release schedule all along. And those years where it wasn't, there were either large-scale changes between full point upgrades more so than previous and recent years—which warranted them sticking around a bit longer. Not to mention the release of an entire new platform (iOS).

Good points. However, it's not just the release cycle we're discussing but the development process. Before 10.7, developers were required to download a new beta biweekly which required a clean install. Normally this was done by burning the ISO to disc and wiping the drive for a new installation. This is an essential point as OS X engineering didn't want third party applications, plug-in's, and beta releases over previous releases, etc to interfere with debugging. Jobs specifically placed Serlet in charge of the Intel transition years before his official promotion as SVP of Software Engineering, having replaced Avie Trevanian. OS X 10.4 - 10.6 were the longest and most tested releases to date. OS X 10.4 beta 1 was released to developers in May 2004 just before the June WWDC, and the official release was April 29th, 2005.

Jobs announced Snow Leopard at WWDC on June 9, 2008, and it was privately demonstrated to developers by SVP of Software Engineering Bertrand Serlet. On Monday, May 11, 2009, after build 10A354, Apple issued a code freeze on Snow Leopard's APIs. The first public demonstration was given at WWDC 2009 by Serlet and VP of Mac OS Engineering, Craig Federighi, who was being groomed to replace Serlet for 10.7. Many wrongly stated Serlet was involved in 10.7 Lion's development. Not at all. Serlet stepped down well before his departure with us was announced in 2009. He assisted Federighi's transition but did not design or code OS X 10.7.

Serlet was a perfectionist, he and Jobs got on very well and he refused to release a new system based on strict standards. Some have remarked that major OS X releases were far from perfect and I would agree with that assessment pre 10.4. However, for those of us who lived through 10.4 - 10.6, those were some of the most overhauled and solid and many still use "Snow Leopard" 10.6.8 from July 2011 as it has proven to be the most stable.

 

[grahamperrin]

Annual release cycle killing OS X?

I don't think so. More: https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/23165881

Do you prefer the current annual or pre-10.7 release cycles?

Pre-Lion, but it's not a strong preference.

Postscript

… developers were required to download a new beta biweekly which required a clean install. Normally this was done by burning the ISO to disc and wiping the drive for a new installation. This is an essential point as OS X engineering didn't want third party applications, plug-in's, and beta releases over previous releases, etc to interfere with debugging. …

Engineering … things were/are a little more complex. http://web.archive.org/web/20130729201652/https://appleseed.apple.com/sp/welcome (I began earlier, during the black label period) with an emphasis on real-world; whilst I was always prepared to perform a clean installation, requests to do so were extremely rare.

… beta's (DP's) installed over DP's. Debugging and proper testing became a nightmare …

How did you feel about reversioners? (Can you answer without breaking confidentiality?)

… Do you have a bug number, any bug number, that pertains to an "acknowledged and open bug(s) as far back as 10.7" …

Probably, although the question was not addressed to me. Moreover, some of the oldest bugs are relatively … negligible (I use that word with hesitation).

Generally

I ignored this topic for weeks because it's in the Sierra area. It deserves better attention … maybe later this week.

 

[mmomega]

This isn't really a new thing.
OS X was released in 2001 with the inital point zero release.
It's 2016 with release point twelve.

That's 13 releases in 15 years.
10.0 - 10.3 = 4 releases in 2 years (all releases on PowerPC only chips)
10.4 - 10.6 = 3 releases over 6 years ( releases were over 2 chiptypes , PowerPC and Intel)
10.7 - 10.12 = 6 releases over 7 years (all releases have been since moving primarily to intel)

The slowest release cycles line up with Apple support 2 different types of processors.

So looking back, personally I'd say no, not at all is releasing an update annually killing anything.

 

[grahamperrin]

… Apple Watch: Created specifically for Jobs as he was frustrated with the lack of direct health care, it was never intended to be brought to public. …

Given what Cook said after the launch event (along the lines of work not beginning until after the passing of Jobs), I'm doubtful. @Sill would you like to comment? Sorry for repetition.

 

[steve62388]

I realize it's human nature to complain rather than praise, yet the consistently dropping reviews on each OS X variant over the past decade is hard to disregard.

The web has created a massive feedback loop in all matters and in most cases it amplifies negativity.

But it's impossible to measure.

 

[maflynn]

OSX Releases:
10.0 = March 2001
10.1 = September 2001
10.2 = August 2002
10.3 = October 2003
10.4 = April 2005

Apple indeed was moving fast back in the early days of OS X, but they purposely stopped such a pattern as they couldn't maintain a quality product with an annual roll out. I forget the exact verbiage, but Jobs was talking about this during a MacWorld keynote (I believe it was MacWorld, its been so long ago now).