Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac OS X 10.6.3 Build 10D573 Seeded to Developers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They were quite glib why they dropped "Computer" from the corporate name. A larger part of their revenue was being generated by non-computer products (specifically the iPod since the iPhone had not been released at the time). The name change reflects an overall direction that was less computer-centric, since Apple was turning into a general consumer electronics company.
There are more than "a handful" of people working on OS X.
That said, it is clear that Apple is struggled to keep up with the schedule of releasing new hardware and software. New platform releases have been especially rough and really show how lean Apple runs.
If you are an AAPL shareholder, you'd likely know that computer sales still contributes a huge part of their revenue. They shipped 3.36 million Macs in Q1 2010, a 33-percent increase of the same period one year earlier.
It is highly unlikely that Apple would kill this major revenue stream. As a matter of fact, they probably couldn't. The shareholders would have the entire executive team removed. The Apple senior management team is tasked to increase shareholder value. They wouldn't be able to accomplish this by canceling OS X development or terminating the production of its various computer product lines.
The answer to this question is not free.
(This is a test to see how certain forum participants respond to this reply. Hint: it's a reading comprehension test.)
You make a lot of sound arguments. But I wonder if maybe they view the real growth potential in products like the ipad, complete with a fully-controled "walled garden" content delivery system (itunes / app store).
I wouldn't under-estimate the power and influence Steve Jobs yields at Apple. If Steve vision for the future is for products like the iphone / ipad, i think that's what the company will pursue.
EDIT: I also think that the PC market has been for the last few years a race to the bottom in terms of pricing. Perhaps Apple wants to more aggressively pursue markets where it can absolutely dominate...or create new ones all together.
There's a difference between releasing an update with over 200+ bugfixes and an update with 20+ bugfixes, something like MS's Service Pack and MS's tuesday patch day. Also the reason the first two updates were fast, they contained the most immediate bug fixes (the data loss bug for guest account for an example) and small size compared to this probably the first major update for the 10.6 series.
The problem with shipping an update with a massive bugfix list is that it takes longer to test each bugfix to make sure there's no regressive bugs. Which also means each successive bug fix in the same area has to be tested all over from the beginning.
This means that 10.6.3 could be the most stable release so far, kinda like what 10.5.5 was.
Considering all of the new OpenGL 3.x code in 10.6.3, it would be interesting to see if Apple is spending a lot of time with Valve on this build to ensure the Valve's major launch event with Stream/Source engine went off with no issues. Which suggests for sure 10.6.3 needs to be released before May.
Read above, people don't understand the difference between both versions from Apple and assumed this 10.6.3 was going to be a quick one like the first two.
Could be the reason that Apple hasn't released the new MBP yet, they need more time to test it with OS X 10.6.3/4 to ensure the drivers work well.
I think he was joking because of the long ass time it takes to release 10.6.3, it could release at same time with 10.7.
For sure there's a team that is working on 10.7, starting before the 10.6 was even released. I don't think there's another team working on 10.6.4, not a good idea since .4 team would have no idea what bugs will occur in .3.
The problem with shipping an update with a massive bugfix list is that it takes longer to test each bugfix to make sure there's no regressive bugs. Which also means each successive bug fix in the same area has to be tested all over from the beginning.
This means that 10.6.3 could be the most stable release so far, kinda like what 10.5.5 was.
Considering all of the new OpenGL 3.x code in 10.6.3, it would be interesting to see if Apple is spending a lot of time with Valve on this build to ensure the Valve's major launch event with Stream/Source engine went off with no issues. Which suggests for sure 10.6.3 needs to be released before May.
Read above, people don't understand the difference between both versions from Apple and assumed this 10.6.3 was going to be a quick one like the first two.
Could be the reason that Apple hasn't released the new MBP yet, they need more time to test it with OS X 10.6.3/4 to ensure the drivers work well.
I think he was joking because of the long ass time it takes to release 10.6.3, it could release at same time with 10.7
. For sure there's a team that is working on 10.7, starting before the 10.6 was even released. I don't think there's another team working on 10.6.4, not a good idea since .4 team would have no idea what bugs will occur in .3.
Like any company interested in growth, Apple will go where the money is. Like many other companies, Apple has cancelled product lines that they no longer felt were crucial to the overall business plan.
Steve is integral to Apple's current success (although Tim Cook did a superb stint filling in for his boss for six months). Steve is a visionary, and I doubt that few at Apple would refute that.
That said, the board of directors acting on the shareholders' behalf would not let the executive team cancel a highly profitable computer business.
I advise you to look at Apple's financial earnings statements and then report back about the realworld feasibility of Apple deep-sixing their computer division at this time. Why you would surmise that 10.6.3 is the last version of OS X is mystifying to me.
Apple is a $50 billion company (annual revenue). If you took away their computer business, you could slash that in half. Would you call that a smart decision, especially based on what margins they are commanding?
Interesting use of "bleeding edge" and "early access", since Best Buy shows
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olstemp...ice+skuid&usc=abcat0500000#storeInventoryLink
- 10 Core i7 laptops - 6 of them shipping next day or 2-5 days
- 21 Core i5 laptops - 7 of them shipping next day or 2-5 days
- 29 Core i3 laptops - 26 of them shipping next day or 2-5 days
This confirms my point. Here is a major retailer with access to each and every Core Ix vendor, has a few right now and several a week from now. I wonder which particular vendor is the 1st in line? I say it was Toshiba.
Let's at least agree Apple is a trailing edge SHIPPER of leading edge chips. They have processes that consume time. Probably 3 layers of fancy packaging "Designed in California". It is kinda cool, and not much net cost. Thank goodness we have Chinese people who are oragami experts to assemble it, eh?
Japanese? Oh, forget it!
Rocketman
I remember a couple years ago anxiously awaiting the x.3 update for Leopard as there were several things broken which directly impacted my work, not the least of which was the Active Directory integration. (The AD bugs in the Leopard update was one of the worst eff-ups Apple has ever committed in a major upgrade, IMO, and they took their sweet time addressing them.)
But this time around, Snow Leopard x.2 is pretty solid. If there are problems, I'm not encountering them. I have to say it's nice not to be at this early a stage with a major upgrade and not anxiously awaiting the next update.
But this time around, Snow Leopard x.2 is pretty solid. If there are problems, I'm not encountering them. I have to say it's nice not to be at this early a stage with a major upgrade and not anxiously awaiting the next update.
Based on additional comments from this person (RT2020), I see no reason but to presume that RT2020 was serious.
Why would LLVM 2.7 be a showstopper for OS X 10.6.3? Is there something in this unreleased LLVM that 10.6.3 requires for basic functionality?
Is LLVM 2.6 even installed on current Macs (10.6.2 and earlier)?
I am highly suspicious of this claim.
I am not familiar with why Apple would wait for this, why does it matter? If it's for developers, Apple would just package it with XCode and have it released separately.
I remember a couple years ago anxiously awaiting the x.3 update for Leopard as there were several things broken which directly impacted my work, not the least of which was the Active Directory integration. (The AD bugs in the Leopard update was one of the worst eff-ups Apple has ever committed in a major upgrade, IMO, and they took their sweet time addressing them.)
But this time around, Snow Leopard x.2 is pretty solid. If there are problems, I'm not encountering them. I have to say it's nice not to be at this early a stage with a major upgrade and not anxiously awaiting the next update.
That said, the last stable OS was 10.4 which went to .11.
I would really like to see Snow Leopard have legs to .11+ despite any 10.7 release, so for once, we have real crossover between a stable release (10.6.8+) to (10.7.0+) so grandma has an option, at the SAME TIME as Johnnie pre-release bleeding edge base jumper.
Steve, can you hear me now?
Mere Rocketman
I just sense that Apple diverting resources into other areas. How could they let their hardware offerings become so stale? How has my OSX experience changed since 2007?
I don't think it is a smart decision at all. While there may be plenty of clueless buyers paying exuberant prices for old hardware, I think apple is at risk of tarnishing their computer brand.
This is a very closed and secretive company with a 'cult of personality' CEO. Im sure if Steve Jobs thought the future of apple was in producing door jambs, their fans and shareholders would eat it up. The same reasons why apple has been so successful (laser focus, do a very small number of things, very well) could also be to apple's detriment.
Hubris is a dangerous thing.
Okay, I see that you are highly suspicious of Apple's secret motives and clandestine behavior and I agree that hubris is a dangerous thing (it took out several of my former companies).
However, you yourself point out that Apple's successful attributes (laser focus) could end up being its detriment. Yes, if Apple fails to execute on their business strategy. Their track record over the past five years has been nearly flawless. We're talking about the company with the fourth largest market capitalization in the United States.
I think the iPad was a larger distraction, but Apple has always run very lean on resources. They recently announced the formation of a new platform bring-up group and started hiring; this seems to imply that the number of engineering resources diverted to the iPad launch was more than Apple felt comfortable with.
Concerning the delay in new Mac shipments, that's a more complicated situation. The Nvidia-Intel chipset legal scuffle has put a cloud over the future of graphics integration and performance optimization, plus Apple has often been the late adopter of high-end CPUs. They have clearly been waiting for 32nm technology (which have only recently arrived to the market in quantities, especially for the high-end parts).
In any case, Apple is allegedly on pace for another record quarter, despite the fact that they are shipping Macs with "old" technology. That won't please the fanboys here much, but for shareholders like me, I'm perfectly fine with another record quarter.
OpenCL, OpenGL, QuartzExtreme, etc., are all compiled with LLVM and with the massive improvements to Clang, they are now in phase two testing w/ no new additions to trunk while they test out.
LLVM 2.6: http://llvm.org/Users.html
Did you look at the link?
A "few right now"? Did you follow the link?
There are 32 systems shipping next day or within a couple of days. A "few" ?????
It's much more likely that the turtlenecked overlord is throwing a massive hissy-fit about his mistake in stiffing Intel and going with Nvidia chipsets (e.g. 9400M) and now the engineers are struggling to redo every motherboard without changing the holy unibody chassis.
[Aiden slaps self.]
I mean, next Tuesday for sure.
A "few right now"? Did you follow the link?
There are 32 systems shipping next day or within a couple of days. A "few" ?????
It's much more likely that the turtlenecked overlord is throwing a massive hissy-fit about his mistake in stiffing Intel and going with Nvidia chipsets (e.g. 9400M) and now the engineers are struggling to redo every motherboard without changing the holy unibody chassis.
[Aiden slaps self.]
I mean, next Tuesday for sure.
Fair enough. I'm unfortunately not an apple shareholder, I just love their computers. If they could make even more impressive profits by producing the latest and greatest gadgets, but focusing less on their computers, that would be terrible news for me.
I wonder who green lit redesigning the cases and logic boards to only fit a two chip system with nVidia as the only viable solution for IGP and I/O.