Early Snow Leopard Sales More Than Double Those of Leopard

[richard.mac]

^(last page) new developer technologies in service packs? yeah right! i agree Microsoft patches a lot more security and stability issues in service packs for free, but Apple still does release regular point upgrades and security updates thru Software Update.

 

[celtikmind]

Pricing Snow Leopard at @ $29 will make it harder to sell 10.7 at $129.

True, true.

But knowing Apple, they'll probably market it as having amazing new Apple-innovated technology for HD movies called Blueray!

 

[*LTD*]

Let's not exaggerate, we all know that Snow leopard and maybe even Leopard would be free service packs in the windows world.

Still at £25 I upgraded both my machines because it was so cheap. Lets hope the next incarceration of OS X is also cheap, although I doubt it.

Leopard a service pack?

 

[richard.mac]

Pricing Snow Leopard at @ $29 will make it harder to sell 10.7 at $129.

Apple has bought some time to develop some new 'features'. i can see ZFS making an appearance and maybe the disc format of teh now typed below.

True, true.

But knowing Apple, they'll probably market it as having amazing new Apple-innovated technology for HD movies called Blueray!

Blu-ray

 

[numbersyx]

Pricing Snow Leopard at @ $29 will make it harder to sell 10.7 at $129.

Not if Apple pile on the features and upgrade the UI (Marble - at last?) which is what I suspect they are working towards...

 

[celtikmind]

...you missed out 'prettier and possibly more reliable'

for my opinion - I paid £39 for the Family pack upgrade and yes - much much cheaper to re-OS several macs in the family than several Windows machines (and dont need to chase upgrades so often)

The sum to all things it's equal. Do it all at once or a piece at the time. It all depends on taste and more, what usage is required. Sometimes a Mac fits and sometimes it doesn't. But if one is happy playing in Apple's kindergarten there is really no reason not to be content with it.

As long as we have the option to choose either I'm happy.

 

[numbersyx]

Let's not exaggerate, we all know that Snow leopard and maybe even Leopard would be free service packs in the windows world.

Leopard would never have been a service pack in the Windows world.... And it would have been priced at over $200 if MS had released it.

 

[JimmyDreams]

I admit that I upgraded to SL not out of any knowledge of specific improvements, but rather the price.

It was a "new OS, it probably is better than the old one. It probably has new features I'll like. Heck, for THAT price, how can you go wrong?"

Victim of advertising? Guilty of having an extra few $$ to throw at SN? Probably yes on both.

 

[iGod 2.0]

Yes Yes

What did you expect? The World's Most Advance Operating System has done it again forever.

 

[celtikmind]

Leopard would never have been a service pack in the Windows world.... And it would have been priced at over $200 if MS had released it.

Microsoft is mostly a software company, they do not sell computer systems.

Apple makes money on both software and hardware and as such they have adopted a different business model.

And during your Mac's lifetime, how many times would change the OS before you're "required", or want to, exchange your Mac? Apple is expecting you to buy new hardware within a calculated timeframe.

So until OS X is a 'freely' available, as in not tied to one specific brand, there is little point in having a discussion in terms of pricing. And if Apple really had any balls they would start marketing OS X for other computer systems. In terms of either platform being largely cheaper, it's an illusion.

In terms of choice though - it's yours.

 

[DipDog3]

It's not wonder when you can upgrade for $30 instead of $130!

 

[3dollarbridge]

Its in the chips

Maybe its because the upgrade path to Leopard was hindered by the 867Mhz speed required. Now that there are so many new computers that meet the upgrade path requirements, it makes sense that coupled with a great price, that sales would increse

 

[KnightWRX]

Let's not exaggerate, we all know that Snow leopard and maybe even Leopard would be free service packs in the windows world.

You're the one exagerating. service packs don't tend to introduce new APIs and functionality on the level of Time Machine.

The fact is, you can't compare Windows release/Service Packs to OS X releases/point updates. There is no analogie that really stands.

 

[baruch]

That's funny. For me SL is the first update I have not purchased immediately. I guess I just got fed up with waiting for the rest of the OSX ecosystem to catch up. ie: I can't be bothered to again discover that various programs around my system suddenly don't work and I have to wait for updates.

Also I have a question (I know this probably isn't the correct place, sorry).
Will SL run my old PPC Apps? I still use MS office purchased in about 2002/2003 when i was using a powerbook. Does the lack of PPC support in SL mean no more Rosetta to run old apps?

SL is a barely noticeable update. What is noticeable is a tad snappier performance all around. My PPC apps are running just fine, which was a concern. I did a full startup-disk backup of Leopard on an external HD in case my PPC apps were going to fail under SL but so far so good.

 

[emulator]

Makes sense when the OS costs less than a fourth of the previous one.

it also worth 1/4 of the previous one.

 

[daneoni]

Well duh at $29 who wouldn't buy it

 

[Eric S.]

Low price is a factor but it's still surprising since SL's features don't differentiate it much from Leopard.

Pricing Snow Leopard at @ $29 will make it harder to sell 10.7 at $129.

That depends on what's in 10.7. 10.1 was a free upgrade to 10.0, but people still paid $129 for 10.2.

 

[guzhogi]

Maybe its because the upgrade path to Leopard was hindered by the 867Mhz speed required. Now that there are so many new computers that meet the upgrade path requirements, it makes sense that coupled with a great price, that sales would increse

I don't think the 867 MHz requirement in Leopard was as bad as the Intel-only requirement in Snow Leopard. Quite a few people still have only PPC Macs.

As for opening up the Mac OS to other brands, that has it's positives & negatives. Positives would be more choice, cheaper products, etc. Negatives would be Apple would have less control over the software since it'll have to work with all sorts of hardware. That's the good thing about doing both hardware & software: you know what the consumer has and you only have to optimize your software for specific things.

I'm glad Snow Leopard is doing well. Only thing better is if 3rd party apps would be updated so they work w/ Snow Leopard. While there's a lot of apps that do work, there's still enough apps that don't & that might make some people wait before updating. I wonder if that number is just the box sales or also includes Macs that came w/ Snow Leopard preinstalled.

 

[JGowan]

Amazing how many you can sell when you price the OS appropriately....

BS, buddy,... total BS. The only other product that we can look to see how OSs should be sold is Microsoft's and you know how they are. 20 versions and all WAY more costly than the $129.

I don't know about you, but I use the mac for the software. Hardware, yes it's nice and it's superior in every way to the PC, but the software is king. $129 is nothing compared to what you get. The only reason to not upgrade in my opinion is if I'm using software that is incompatible with the new OS... then I wouldn't upgrade. Certainly not the money.

 

[celtikmind]

Low price is a factor but it's still surprising since SL's features don't differentiate it much from Leopard.

It's new.
It's shiny.
It's by Apple.

For some that is enough as usual.

 

[jaw04005]

I'm over Snow Leopard. For the most part it was a "meh" release for me. It was $30, so I guess it was worth it. But I hope it doesn't start a trend of minor Mac OS X releases.

I predict 10.7 will be announced at WWDC '10 and released in the Spring of 2011.

 

[HLdan]

Given the nice low price, I would assume that a fair few copies are sold to people that are upgrading their Intel non-Macs with a nice retail disc too.

HUH! Hogwash! . Most of the hackintoshers are already breaking EULA's and are proud of it and have the audacity to have an excuse for doing it as if the excuse justifies it so if you think for one minute they are even willing to pay $30 when they can just torrent it you are giving them too much credit.

 

[BornAgainMac]

Microsoft is mostly a software company, they do not sell computer systems.

Apple makes money on both software and hardware and as such they have adopted a different business model.

And during your Mac's lifetime, how many times would change the OS before you're "required", or want to, exchange your Mac? Apple is expecting you to buy new hardware within a calculated timeframe.

So until OS X is a 'freely' available, as in not tied to one specific brand, there is little point in having a discussion in terms of pricing. And if Apple really had any balls they would start marketing OS X for other computer systems. In terms of either platform being largely cheaper, it's an illusion.

In terms of choice though - it's yours.

Good post. That makes sense.

 

[Eidorian]

The price is the only thing to talk about for Snow Leopard.

 

[seedster2]

The price is the only thing to talk about for Snow Leopard.

Agreed it's obvious cost is the major catalyst for the sales performance. It's cheaper than some of the iphone cases Apple pedals at their store. Apple had to do something to ensure widespread adoption. Im sure their next release will be back to regular price and sales will likely dip comparatively.

Thankful for friends with family packs. I upgraded my Mac Pro but I don't see the speed increases that others have experienced. There are some subtle UI updates that are cool, but nothing worth running out an upgrading. Ill keep my MBP at Leopard as I want all my peripherals to continue to work.