Apple Retail Stores Receive Golden Master Copies of OS X Lion

[seamer]

iHypocrisy. Physical media's still the best solution for some people is it Apple?

Edit: Negative voted post within a couple of minutes, not surprised. How about quoting and debating the issue instead people?

If every comment received a response, the discussion on -any- thread in any forum would grind to a halt. So we have the Negative tick instead.

 

[winston1236]

Lion! Lion! Lion!
woohoo!

 

[*LTD*]

iHypocrisy. Physical media's still the best solution for some people is it Apple?

Edit: Negative voted post within a couple of minutes, not surprised. How about quoting and debating the issue instead people?

There's nothing to debate.

Consumers aren't having hard drives with Lion delivered to them.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

He does make sense. What is the difference between bits sent over the wire and bits sent in a FedEx truck ?

The ultimate irony in this whole release.

I don't object with what he's saying, but I do with with repetitiveness.

Stop beating a dead horse, and fill out a feature complaint/request like everyone else.

Just my 2¢

 

[Stok3]

And what's the difference between having a .DMG on the store server that you've downloaded from Apple's servers - and having a .DMG on the store server that you've copied from a USB drive that the cute FedEx guy delivered to your Apple store?

Answer: *NONE*

Except that the former assumes that you trust the network as a delivery mechanism, and the latter assumes that you do not trust the network.

So, why wouldn't one assume that Apple doesn't believe in the network?

Its not about the reliability. Its about the customer experience. Not everyone knows you can burn/copy the installer from the App Store but for those who do, the option is still there. Its not like Apple is taking something away from you. LOL

It's a non issue and definitely not a failure. Perhaps its naive to bash a company just for trying something different, especially when they are accommodating customers for embracing the change.

This is a transition into new territory so obviously they will be prepared.

PS - virtually every company who markets software will eventually adopt similar digital distribution methods. Apple is building a new standard in tech -thats hardly a failure.

 

[derekamoss]

it is probably much easier, less time consuming in man hours and cheaper because of bandwidth to put it on the HD for every store. Its a cost cutting technique. All companies do it. The payment for lion makes up for bandwidth usage. They aren't going to charge the apple stores so it is more cost effective to ship it this way. I don't see why this is such a big issue.

And what's the difference between having a .DMG on the store server that you've downloaded from Apple's servers - and having a .DMG on the store server that you've copied from a USB drive that the cute FedEx guy delivered to your Apple store?

Answer: *NONE*

Except that the former assumes that you trust the network as a delivery mechanism, and the latter assumes that you do not trust the network.

So, why wouldn't one assume that Apple doesn't believe in the network?

 

[AidenShaw]

completely irrelevant

Reading is a good thing. Answer to your question in this post:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/12964942/

That post is irrelevant to the discussion. The statement is valid - you want the images built by a single experienced team, not at each store.

But that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about whether Apple sends those images over the network to the stores, or whether some hot guy in brown shorts delivers USB hard drives with the images to the stores.

In both cases, some .DMG files are on the store servers. In both cases, the store tools broadcast those .DMG files to the demo units.

Why does Apple think that its millions of customers can download files over the net, but it has to send brown-uniformed guys to each of its stores with USB drives?

 

[benthewraith]

He does make sense. What is the difference between bits sent over the wire and bits sent in a FedEx truck ?

The ultimate irony in this whole release.

Apple wants to use the App Store mechanism to boost its number of App Store subscribers. This is a move to make the shareholders happy.

It's a crappy distribution method, because certain countries have highly limited data caps.

 

[aquadisiac]

I'm peeing my pants right now....

 

[neko girl]

Why does Apple think that its millions of customers can download files over the net, but it has to send brown-uniformed guys to each of its stores with USB drives?

Why do you think App Store distribution for Lion prevents people from building and cloning drive images? Why do you think these two things are diametrically opposed?

 

[drewisanapple]

I'm peeing my pants right now....

Your urinary failure has no place in this forum.

 

[aquadisiac]

Your urinary failure has no place in this forum.

Ok Im gnashing my teeth right now

 

[AidenShaw]

are you reading?

Its not about the reliability. Its about the customer experience. Not everyone knows you can burn/copy the installer from the App Store but for those who do, the option is still there. Its not like Apple is taking something away from you. LOL

It's a non issue and definitely not a failure. Perhaps its naive to bash a company just for trying something different, especially when they are accommodating customers for embracing the change.

This is a transition into new territory so obviously they will be prepared.

That's not the discussion.

The question is why Apple is FedEx'ing hard drives to the stores, rather than downloading from Apple corporate servers to the store servers.

PS - virtually every company who markets software will eventually adopt similar digital distribution methods. Apple is building a new standard in tech -thats hardly a failure.

Sorry, but FedEx'ing hard drives isn't "digital distribution", it's "sneaker net".

Did you know that one of the highest bandwidth trans-atlantic channels is a Boeing 747 full of magnetic tapes?

Why do you think App Store distribution for Lion prevents people from building and cloning drive images? Why do you think these two things are diametrically opposed?

Jesus H. Christ riding a bicycle - what does that have to do with the discussion?

The topic is about Apple not trusting the network to deliver demo images to Apple stores, and instead FedEx'ing USB hard drives to the stores. It's not about the Apple App Store.

 

[chrono1081]

Criticizing aspects of Apple's products is not anti-apple smut, it's a sign of objective, critical and rational thinking. Nothing is perfect and criticism is sometimes warranted.

If everything ever posted here was always positive, it would make a very irrational forum.

The below quote is more what I am talking about

But you have to admit, there seems to be many unwarranted statements and silly bashes on things that are not even available. It's one thing to voice your opinion based on actual experience, it's another to bash on things for the sake of bashing.

It seems like the more Apple is successful the more anti apple people want to come here and be silly.

Agreed!

Ah yes... I'll have to ask my friend who is Mari's Project Manager at The Foundry. See if this means a green light for an OSX version. He said they had a build of sorts lying around for ages but were held back by the ancient OGL drivers. Here's to hoping.

Tell your friend I will love him/her FOREVER if they release Mari for Mac! According to a post by Jack Greasly they have a fully working version but it can't render due to OpenGL 3 not being available I hope the release one I'll buy it in a heartbeat (which is a big purchase for someone who just dabbles in 3D!)

Not really, since OpenGL 4.1 has been out for Windows for a year.

Actually Windows only supports OpenGL 1.4, its the graphics cards that can take it higher.

 

[aristobrat]

And what's the difference between having a .DMG on the store server that you've downloaded from Apple's servers - and having a .DMG on the store server that you've copied from a USB drive that the cute FedEx guy delivered to your Apple store?

Answer: *NONE*

Except that the former assumes that you trust the network as a delivery mechanism, and the latter assumes that you do not trust the network.

So, why wouldn't one assume that Apple doesn't believe in the network?

Apple doesn't deliver their private images across the public App Store. It's the public App Store, not the public App Store + Apple's CDN for Retail Store images Store.

Stored have pulled images over their private connection back to Cupertino for years. Images are typically available days before needed, and the 300 stores have plenty of time to download them. If Apple worked on the Lion images until the last minute, and stores didn't get a running start downloading them, then it's an obvious business decision to send the images out via FedEx. It'd be utterly stupid to size the store WAN network to accommodate 300 stores simultaneously downloading a 50GB+ image when that situation only happens on rare occasions.

 

[munkery]

Is it possible that all the existing models with user replaceable hard drives are receiving a spec bump with the release of Lion?

Could this be a possible reason for sending hard drives preinstalled with Lion?

The following article suggests that the hard drives are intended to be installed into the demos.

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...ion_arrive_on_hard_disks_at_apple_stores.html

 

[pmz]

Isn't this tantamount to admitting that the Icloud and the Apple Application Store is a failure?

Why would Apple insist that customers download 10.7 from the network, but send physical copies to their own stores?

The mind boggles at the duplicity.

Wow, what a ridiculously cheap attempt at criticizing Apple, while you know full well that there is no comparison and nothing similar between a user who downloads an OS upgrade once, and a store manager that has to flash dozens of machines in one night.

 

[JabbaII]

Isn't this tantamount to admitting that the Icloud and the Apple Application Store is a failure?

Why would Apple insist that customers download 10.7 from the network, but send physical copies to their own stores?

The mind boggles at the duplicity.

My guesses:

1. The stores may need to keep multiple images (Lion + applications) that may run into many gigabytes.

2. The stores apparently wipes (i.e. re-image) on a nightly basis for security and conformity reasons.

Therefore the second guess is that Apple store restores the image from physical media. Network is just not fast enough to restore images.

Apple is all about "skating where is puck is", if you don't have decent internet connection, you are probably on very high on Apple's priority list given the push for icloud, apple TV etc. which all require bandwidth.

App Store method may even motivate / force customers to upgrade their internet services which plays into Apple's hands

 

[KnightWRX]

Reading is a good thing. Answer to your question in this post:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/12964942/
... which sadly happens to be 4 posts above yours, and includes a more detailed post it is replying to.

I'm sure you'd rather make a big deal out of it, though.

That post doesn't answer my question at all. The bits coming in from the wire or FedEx truck has nothing to do with imaging the machines on site. The person responsible for that can do either from bits from the network or from the drive coming into the truck.

In the end, all of it is getting copied to an image server and the Macs will be getting imaged from this server on-site.

I don't object with what he's saying, but I do with with repetitiveness.

The repetitiveness only comes from the people saying he is wrong though. What he is saying makes plenty of sense, if people would simply agree and move on, he wouldn't have to repeat it ad nauseum as someone else tries to make an argument proving otherwise, utterly failing in their grasp of bits coming in vs machine imaging.

Actually Windows only supports OpenGL 1.4, its the graphics cards that can take it higher.

Microsoft's OpenGL implementation doesn't matter. It's unsupported and has been the same since the early days of Windows NT, when they first started shipping opengl32.dll. The point is, on Linux, Windows, Solaris or any other operating system the GPU vendors and implementators aren't stuck waiting for the OS vendor to support up-to-date versions of OpenGL. Apple too tightly controls OS X's implementation which would be fine if they could keep up-to-date. They don't.

Wow, what a ridiculously cheap attempt at criticizing Apple, while you know full well that there is no comparison and nothing similar between a user who downloads an OS upgrade once, and a store manager that has to flash dozens of machines in one night.

Store managers manage stores, they don't image machines. Machines will get imaged automatically through an imaging server on-site. Copying the proper software image to the image server will be a task for the system administrator. It is no more complicated to do this from bits transferred through the network than it is for bits transferred through a FedEx truck. He has a point, accept it and move on so we can be done with this ridiculous sub-thread.

Therefore the second guess is that Apple store restores the image from physical media. Network is just not fast enough to restore images.

NetBoot, NetInstall and NetRestore says you lie. Also, all my HP-UX boxes are installed and updated via the network. They are restored that way in case of failure too. I would like you to look up Ignite and SD-UX.

You seem to be living somewhere around 1981, prior to when all of this was common.

 

[jackrv]

Isn't this tantamount to admitting that the Icloud and the Apple Application Store is a failure?

Why would Apple insist that customers download 10.7 from the network, but send physical copies to their own stores?

The mind boggles at the duplicity.

Or, the HDDs contain store-specific configuratgion and demo apps.

 

[neko girl]

The topic is about Apple not trusting the network to deliver demo images to Apple stores, and instead FedEx'ing USB hard drives to the stores. It's not about the Apple App Store.

That post doesn't answer my question at all. The bits coming in from the wire or FedEx truck has nothing to do with imaging the machines on site. The person responsible for that can do either from bits from the network or from the drive coming into the truck.

(to both of you) I'm sorry, I was at a Mac/Apple oriented site discussing Apple stuff. I didn't realize you were nerding out on Fedex vs. CAT5.

My bad.

 

[MacNewsFix]

Isn't this tantamount to admitting that the Icloud and the Apple Application Store is a failure?

Why would Apple insist that customers download 10.7 from the network, but send physical copies to their own stores?

The mind boggles at the duplicity.

iHypocrisy. Physical media's still the best solution for some people is it Apple?

You know it is fine for the average user. But no-one is really 'average'. There are people with super-fast internet connections for whom it will be trivial to download even across multiple macs without resorting to futzing around with opening package contents to get an installer file, and then there are people with slow connections and family members' machines to look after for whom it's going to be a huge hassle and more difficult to do legitimately.

This IS hypocrisy, because Apple are forcing the users to download Lion whereas they are, reportedly, sending physical copies to their own stores. Different situations? Yes, exactly, just like not all users are in identical situations.

They cannot install Lion from the Mac App Store until the spigot is turned on for everybody.

Also, pay special attention to the part that reads, "The installations have come on hard drive and are meant for the Apple Retail demo computers on the store floor." My recollection is that Apple has never sold their OS separately on a hard drive (Only on a flash drive with the purchase of a MacBook Air.).

They have dozens of floor display computers all requiring specific, proprietary (store-only) installs with many HUGE third party applications. It is more than just installing Lion on each. You're not expecting them to install Lion and then stand there installing several GBs of professional apps on each all night? Though I'm sure they would love to just push a copy of Photoshop, Office, etc, via download. If only more companies were as enlightened.

As for those with multiple computers, fortunately, for $50 you'll be able to download Lion Server (a Netboot server). Install Lion on a machine, make a disk image of it and deploy it from the Netboot server. Then push out all your app installs as needed.

Then there is Enterprise, Education and Government. Let's face it. The rules are never the same for those guys (ex. deep pockets = large purchases = large discounts per seat). If the sales people cannot talk them into a Netboot deployment, odds are they'll probably get some form of portable disk image version or just make their own like in my next suggestion.

If you are taking care of other people's computers who suffer anemic Internet speeds and don't want to hassle with downloading Lion, no problem.

Who knows? Maybe if you ask really nice, they'll send you a copy on DVD for $29 + $5 in shipping and handling.

Good luck.

P.S. I'd be curious to know what is the reduction in environmental impact by deploying such a popular product digitally versus the traditional method. Perhaps that's what Steve Jobs is thinking when it comes to as an enduring legacy.

 

[AidenShaw]

Actually Windows only supports OpenGL 1.4, its the graphics cards that can take it higher.

I install Windows 7 x64. I click "software update". I reboot. I have OpenGL 4.1.

Your point? The fact that OpenGL 1.4 was on the DVD and I didn't get OpenGL 4.1 until I ran Windows software update?

Lame.

It'd be utterly stupid to size the store WAN network to accommodate 300 stores simultaneously downloading a 50GB+ image when that situation only happens on rare occasions.

Ummm - the WAN is per store. The idea of "size the store WAN network to accommodate 300 stores simultaneously downloading a 50GB+ image" is nonsensical.

 

[Stok3]

Wow, what a ridiculously cheap attempt at criticizing Apple, while you know full well that there is no comparison and nothing similar between a user who downloads an OS upgrade once, and a store manager that has to flash dozens of machines in one night.

my sentiments exactly.

 

[KnightWRX]

(to both of you) I'm sorry, I was at a Mac/Apple oriented site discussing Apple stuff. I didn't realize you were nerding out on Fedex vs. CAT5.

My bad.

Well, maybe you should have started reading this sub-thread when it started, which it did as a point saying that Apple relying on USB drives to ship out Lion to stores was hypocrisy when they expect every other user to get it from the MAS.

It isn't about nerding out, it's about the very obvious point that this sub-thread was about FedEx vs Cat5.