I would think that releasing a new OS every 2 years would be more of a headache. On a one year cycle, new features (and thus, new software incompatibilities) are introduced gradually. If it was every 2 years, you'd be dealing with a more massive shift towards new technology, presumably making your job a lot harder.
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.
Why must a new OS X come out every 15-16 months?
- Thread starter philipma1957
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ValSalva said:
And my point is that this is a ridiculous claim, because OS X is not a product. OS X is a feature of a product. The Mac is a profit center. Saying 'OS X is not a profit center' is like saying that the iMac's display is not a profit center. Apple charges their Mac customers for major software updates. The money they make on those charges to update is fungible, and it's part of a division (the Mac division) which is profitable.
You guys seem to be intent on having some unspoken argument with me where you're trying to convince me that OS X is a bargain because you think that I'm saying it isn't. But that's just not a discussion that it's possible to have on the terms you're trying to have it. OS X is not a standalone operating system that Apple sells for the purposes of installing on any machine you like. It isn't even an operating system that Apple continues to develop for the purposes of selling it to previous Mac customers. It's developed primarily as a way to continue selling new machines to Mac customers.
Apple makes it available to previous Mac customers because they can, and because not doing so would make many previous customers very unhappy, and up to this point they've charged for it because they believed not doing so would be leaving money on the table. Redhat Enterprise is a product. OS X is a feature, a feature of a profitable product.
Last edited:
I prefer the way they do it now. Quick releases with some new features and "iron out" the previous OSX. $20-$30 per years is also much more enjoyable than +$100 every 2 years. IMO
Yes, I do see your point. Somewhere, many days ago I responded to a post about someone whom I thought was saying the only reason Apple was going to yearly upgrades was purely for software profit, like Microsoft might do. I didn't think that was true. In your reasoning above Apple does it to further the Mac platform which of course generates profits. The new OS drives new Mac sales. The upgrade price helps to advance Mac development. That's reasoning I do agree with.
Apropos of nothing, given that as of this month, Apple has sold 28 million copies of Mountain Lion, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that even just upgrade fees pay for its development. $560 million is quite a pretty penny. If the mean salary for an Apple software engineer is $100,000, that would pay for 5600 of them for a year's work.
Does anyone seriously think that Mountain Lion took anywhere near 5600 engineers to make? Or that the average salary of an Apple software engineer is that much higher than $100,000?
Does anyone seriously think that Mountain Lion took anywhere near 5600 engineers to make? Or that the average salary of an Apple software engineer is that much higher than $100,000?
It looks like the article and/or Apple is using the word "sold" liberally. Sold is a euphemism for "number of copies downloaded from App store." The article clarifies that not all of the 28 million copies were purchased because users an download more than one copy from their accounts and some qualified for free copies.
It doesn't seem to take into account new Mac purchasers (who wouldn't pay the $20) but we know the 28 million includes them as evidenced by the copies cited (28 million) accounting for the full 1/3rd (out of 75 million Mac customers total) Cook said were using Mountain Lion.
Based on those points we don't know the revenue earned from pure OS X sales.
Are you truly this shortsighted? Seriously? Do operating costs of running a company, R&D, paying other employees that generate zero revenue in the company such as office workers, training, advertising, paying 3rd party reseller commissions, building maintenance such as janitorial, paying for costly repairs when machines break down, Gas and Electric and Plumbing ever come to mind? Guess not.
Now in regards to the thread, my take is I am very happy for the 12 month cycle and if they charge $20-$30 for this upgrade to Mavericks I will happily pay it. A better system with features I need will help improve my computing productivity. Unlike some others here, I look at what the $20-$30 does for ME, not what it does for Apple.
Another thing is with more recent upgrades it helps to address issues that people are having much sooner. For years Apple had no Cut N Paste in Finder. They finally added it to Lion. But then people were annoyed with the lack of multiple monitor support in ML, 12 months later they are releasing that needed feature in Mavericks. Now, did I need any of those upgrades? NO. But other people needed that sooner than later. Back in the day Apple wouldn't release the new OS until 24-36 months later and the upgrades weren't worthy of waiting that long.
Last edited:
Are you truly this shortsighted? Seriously? Do operating costs of running a company, R&D, paying other employees that generate zero revenue in the company such as office workers, training, advertising, paying 3rd party reseller commissions, building maintenance such as janitorial, paying for costly repairs when machines break down, Gas and Electric and Plumbing ever come to mind? Guess not.
You missed, apparently, the rest of the discussion on 'breaking down' the development cost specifically of OS X. I didn't remotely forget about the rest of the company.
Uh no, I didn't miss anything. I responded properly to YOUR post. In fact your other posts in regards to this discussion mention nothing but the same gibberish about Apple making profits. I shouldn't have to read the entire discussion on this thread just to respond to your post. Take some responsibility.
Uh no, I didn't miss anything. I responded properly to YOUR post. In fact your other posts in regards to this discussion mention nothing but the same gibberish about Apple making profits. I shouldn't have to read the entire discussion on this thread just to respond to your post. Take some responsibility.
If you choose not to read the rest for the sake of context, then fine; but don't expect me to "take responsibility" for things you assign to me when you can't even "take responsibility" for your own reading and reading comprehension.
My post was a tack-on to the rest of my previous long post, which was about the very fact that the Mac division ought to be seen holistically. Assuming from that, that I hadn't thought of the fact that Apple has other expenses besides hiring developers in my entire life, is pointlessly uncharitable.
Given Apple's tendency to keep mum about what they're going to keep mum about and share what they're going to share, of course exact estimates are impossible. But when talking specifically about the development costs only of OS X, pretending that the administrative costs just for keeping the OS X-specific software engineers employed is going to be on the hundreds-of-millions scale is unbelievably silly.
----------
Fair enough. Does complicate matters a lot. My point that I at least wouldn't rule out the possibility still stands, however.
fungible |ˈfʌn(d)ʒɪb(ə)l| adjective Law
(of goods contracted for without an individual specimen being specified) replaceable by another identical item; mutually interchangeable.
I don't understand your use of this word. Money can be replaced with something else?
I can understand that the money they make on the OS goes towards some larger accounting item, which itself is in the black. Is that what you mean?
That's precisely what I mean. Sorry if my use of the term distracted from that overall point.
Yeah, I looked up that word too and it didn't mean a lick of sense to how that poster Meyvn used it in his post. He'll probably expect you to go back through the entire thread of posts and figure it out for yourself so by the time you reach his post it all make sense....yeah, to him.
