I don't think that is their area of focus given their recent moves in this area. Apple has never been really focused on accommodating these groups.
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.
One Year release cycle
- Thread starter vmachiel
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why would they drop to two ? Next year, hardware that is 2 years old today is going to be 3 years old.
IT infrastructure back end stuff I'd agree, I should have been more clear. But I'm not so sure about front end, terminals on desks in public places. And I'd have to argue the point with education given Apple's pushing of iBooks and the whole electronic textbook thing.
Then again, maybe you're right.....Perhaps Apple see Macs and iDevices purely as home devices to entertain and distract.
Note that iBooks is an iPad program though - Sure the iBooks author program is Mac only but people who are designing books and such are pretty much using Mac's already (I know that Adobe's market-share is about 50 50 PC and Mac). I don't see this as much of a problem. Most of these folks don't upgrade very rapidly anyway.
I think it needs to be emphasized though is that Apple is not forcing people to upgrade - Apple doesn't even require Lion to get ML. Companies can wait.
For me the problem with updating more often is more in the form of the "hidden" costs because 3rd party software needs a paid update in order to support the new system and runs without bugs. I just got more or less all my software to be compatible with Lion. I will pass on the Mountain Lion.
That's largely something on a case by case basis - most software I have dealt with on Mac OX generally required a basic free update unless it was already really old. The big exception was the major major transitions (OS9 to OSX and PPC to intel) but the changes there were much more fundamental.
I don't think there's too much of that for OSX. Sure utilities need to be updated, but most apps won't need any update. Vmware provided an update to Fusion, but they also provided an upgrade to take advantage of Lion's features. You still could use version 3 if you wanted too. To that end, I don't think the issue is that bad today.
Yes, but I hear this update drops some Carbon API ? I still use Final Cut Studio 2 for example.
You buy the Mac for the software it has now. Not what it might or might not receive in the future. It will still work as good as the day you bought it, just not have the latest OS. So if Apple decides to drop support for older Macs more often it's their choice. They haven't conned you or given you any guarantees.
Gee..thanks for stating the obvious.
----------
That will only be this generation the switch. From then on it's two if they elect to cull the HW.
Sorry but this misses a huge point. I have a late 2006 iMac 20" which cost me £999 when new. I have upgraded it to the maximum memory and it currently runs Lion perfectly well. When I pay as much for a Mac as I do I neither expect nor can afford to replace it after only 2 years. I'd accept 3 years as a minimum, but to say that you should buy a machine with no thought to how long it would be able to run current software/OS is wrong in my opinion.
I think you've somewhat combined 2 different issues. But it all depends on how one reads what is written.
In terms of hardware, I expect my computers to last 3 to 6 years. This depends on type of systme. This is in terms of hardware reliability. If my usage changes, that is a different issue.
Software wise, I expect to be able to get OS updates and upgrades for at least 3 years after buying a system and preferably closer to 5. And that software updates from the various companies would still work even if I couldn't use some new features.
Now since you said you have a 2006 system, that makes it over 5 years old. A decent lifespan for a computer.
Heck, my 2007 era Blackbook came with Tiger and I basically got 3 OS upgrades out of it - each of those being at least 2 years apart. When I finally had to retire it, I realized that I had the thing for almost 5 years and considering all that, I got a lot of use and life out of it. I at first didn't want to upgrade, but I finally realized that I Had to do it and was happy I did. Even though it was expensive to do it. Upgrading can be expensive. But that's life I suppose.
Excellent Point. I expect around four to five years of use out of my personal computer and three-ish years of OS support works for me.
Wouldn't it only hamper apple's creativity to increase support timeframes considering how often they update mac hardware?
I guess I'd want to ask what kind of support we are talking about. If dropping support means that no more security updates will be forthcoming, then sure the system might not "stop working", but it may well stop working securely, since new vulnerabilities will emerge. So, in effect, if people want keep their systems safe, they would be forced to upgrade to the latest and greatest.
If support just means dropping development of new features and patching bugs, then that is something I can accept. But people who pay oodles of money for their, so I think, are entitled to expect a certain degree of support for many years, not just current year +1.
I cannot accept this type of behavior from Apple if it comes from pure greed instead of actual technical requirments.
I buy it now expecting that security patches for my software will be forthcoming for any newly discovered vulnerabilities. I don't expect that level of support to go on forever, but I do expect it for a reasonable time frame.
Which they do... There's a difference between security patches and a brand new OS with new features.
So you are saying SL might continue to get security patches in software update? Somehow I don't think we will ever see a 10.6.9 or a 10.6.8.1, even if a major vulnerability is discovered in 10.6.8. I think Apple would say, we told you 10.6.8 was the last! And even if there is one more when ML is released, that will certainly be the last. If they release on a yearly cycle now, in the summer of 2013 Lion may well get its last. Two years seems pretty short for people who bought a new spiffy Mac for a couple of grand with Lion.
Last edited:
I agree, my point was that I'm not upset that after 5+ years it can no longer run the latest OS, and I feel thoroughly justified in spending the extra on my first real Mac rather than the usual run of constant upgrades I used to go through to keep my Windows machines running up to date. I'd just be upset if I'd got less than 3 years so my point was that as long as no machines under 3 years can't run the latest OS I'm happy with the 12 to 18 month updates to OS X.
I would think that Apple tries it's dardest to make sure of that too. We do need to make sure we clarify what we mean by age. A person can have a brand new mac purchased right before new models came out. That mac though is still new in their eyes but in fact it's a year old model. I think that we have to make sure that we specify 3 years from manufacture, not 3 years from purchase - otherwise we start having to include used macs and so on.
We also have to acknowledged extreme examples such as SL cutting off all PPC computers including the Mac Pro line which was notorious for being the last hold out in the platform transition. People complained that those models were under 3 years old when they bought them.
Does it? I heard that they just marked Carbon as deprecated, which is more like a warning to developers that they should stop using it and move on to Cocoa in the near future (some time after Mountain Lion is released). But I never developed anything in Carbon and don't have the Mountain Lion DP, so I wouldn't know if it still works - maybe some registered developer with Carbon apps can test this and shed light on the issue?
They kind of are if you want to author something in iBooks, since it only runs in Lion unless you hack it.....Demonstrating that it's a superficial constraint.
For me, there's also a broader argument connected with built in obsolescence. It seems counter intuitive to design hardware as well as Apple does, only to reduce its effectiveness artificially through software limitations.
If we are to believe that Apple is sincere in its environmental concerns, why isn't it supporting its products for as long as they are reasonably viable? The answer can only be profit driven, which I do understand. But the principles of being environmentally responsible and planned obsolescence are contradictory and any company trying to play the two against each other should be called out on it..
For the environment, but not at the cost of technological progress is their motto. Trim the fat! Chop out all antiquated HW and legacy code!
You are right though, they is something disturbing in this.