Will OSX Mountain Lion be free?

[cuestakid]

Agreed - ML has over 100 new feature. We have only seen 20 at most so far. I am sure more details will come out closer to launch date.

Secondly I would happily pay $29 for the upgrade. Because that's what it is - an upgrade. Not an update. Big difference between those two.

I have been running Lion since launch day and I am 110% happy with it.

airplay mirroring is worth the price alone-that frankly is the only feature that I will really care about and use-all the others(announced and unannounced) are just gravy

 

[Takuro]

I think it'll cost the same as Lion at a price point of $29.99. I think it's this is a pretty fair target price, and I can't imagine them dropping it much lower. Although Snow Leopard to Lion might be perceivably a bigger upgrade than Lion to Mountain Lion from a consumer's standpoint (although technically, this might not be the case), I don't see them selling it for $10 either.

 

[ixodes]

So far, it doesn't feel like a "major" update, like the leap from Tiger to Leopard, or even Snow Leopard to Lion. I would bet an even cheaper price tag of $19.99.

A Brilliant idea!

At that price point it would qualify for the esteemed label: "As Seen On TV".

How appropriate

 

[eagandale4114]

What a load of bollocks.

I hope you were intending to use sarcasm there.

 

[DeckMan]

Companies don't have hearts. Selling intellectual property (apps, tunes, movies) is a major profit source for Apple. The "churn" keeps developers happy, too.

I wonder how major a profit source it really is in comparison to hardware sales, seeing as the last two OS updates where 29 $ each. Are they releasing any numbers on that?

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

Will OSX Mountain Lion be free?

The plans are: No.

However, perhaps support for certain third party motherboards (desktop; ASUS & GIGABYTE).

 

[Ganesha]

It will be free to a select group of users who bought their Macs after a certain date (The date the announce the release date, the date the announced ML, or some other date.)

Another interesting point is a statement Apple made in their 2011Q3 earning call.

First, when we deliver Mac OS X Lion to customers, we are now including the right to receive future unspecified minor software upgrades and features when and if they become available for both the Mac operating system and our suite of Mac OS allied applications. We will continue to charge for standalone sales of our periodic major OS upgrades, such as Lion, as well as major upgrades of iLife. Revenue from these standalone sales will now be fully deferred at the time of sale and recognized over a period of 3 years. In addition to this future software upgrade right, Mac customers will have access to iCloud services when they become available in the fall. We estimate that the combined value of the software upgrade right and iCloud services for Mac customers is $22. Therefore, as of June 6, we began deferring $22 of the revenue associated with each new Mac sold. And we will recognize these deferred amounts as revenue over a period of 4 years.

 

[Markc1024]

^100 billion in cash reserves is not considered payment.

It's called knowing how to run a business and making a profit.

 

[pmz]

$29 is not too much to ask for a new OS.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

$29 is not too much to ask for a new OS.

Not a new OS, just Lion SP1 disguised as ML 10.8.

 

[pdjudd]

Not a new OS, just Lion SP1 disguised as ML 10.8.

Oh? So SL was just a service pack of Leopard even though SL offered almost no new user facing features? Of course not!!! ML is the exact same thing. It is a major change. 10.7.3 is a service pack (technically its not since service packs are usually a compilation of bug fixes already out but who’s paying attention?) A .0 release is a big thing. Anybody who know how OSX works and has seen the DP can tell you that calling it a “service pack” is just plain erroneous. You cannot compare Apple’s releases of it’s OS updates to Microsoft’s releases.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

Oh? So SL was just a service pack of Leopard even though SL offered almost no new user facing features? Of course not!!! ML is the exact same thing. It is a major change.

No it is not.

Lion is buggy as hell. Leopard was a pretty stable OS (i use 10.5.8 on one of my Macs). Snow Leopard improved the performance of the OS and improved some APIs & other stuff. My Early-2011 17" MBP came with 10.6.7.

Lion is a mess, like MS Vista. You will recognize it, if you install ML. ML is much better than Lion. Why was it necessary to release Lion in summer 2011?

----------

You cannot compare Apple’s releases of it’s OS updates to Microsoft’s releases.

Yes, i can!

 

[spl456]

Seems like just a few integrated apps - it really should be free. Going to skip if it costs anything.

+1
Will wait for a major upgrade, this seems trivial to pay for.
Lion works fine on my MBP.

 

[KnightWRX]

No it is not.

Lion is buggy as hell. Leopard was a pretty stable OS (i use 10.5.8 on one of my Macs). Snow Leopard improved the performance of the OS and improved some APIs & other stuff. My Early-2011 17" MBP came with 10.6.7.

Lion is a mess, like MS Vista. You will recognize it, if you install ML. ML is much better than Lion. Why was it necessary to release Lion in summer 2011?

Uh ? Lion is fine on my MBA. Snow Leopard and Leopard also took quite a few .x releases to stabilize. Lion is far from a mess. Some people don't like the UI candy it brought/changed, but frankly it's pretty much on par for OS X releases. Lion also improved some APIs & other stuff, so I don't get your comment.

Anyway, Microsoft never uses Service Packs to introduce the breadth of new features that Mountain Lion does, so I don't get why you're comparing ML to a Windows Service Pack, makes little sense. Of course, any comparison between how Apple does OS releases and how Microsoft does them is quite disingenuous to begin with as they both don't share the same philosophy on them.

Yes, i can!

Sure you can, just like I can go around comparing a Yaris to a Hummer. That doesn't mean I have credibility when doing so and that people won't think I have no grasp of the subject matter of cars.

But if you want to look uninformed, go right ahead and knock yourself out.

 

[DeckMan]

Anyway, Microsoft never uses Service Packs to introduce the breadth of new features that Mountain Lion does, so I don't get why you're comparing ML to a Windows Service Pack, makes little sense.

Actually, what are the broad new features that have been announced so far? I'm sincerely curious, because I was really excited when I heard about Mountain Lion at first, but now when I look at it with more distance, it really boils down to three features I'm looking forward to:

• Notes. Though I've actually made an app that does the same thing (managing RTF notes) because I could find none I was happy with. But mine lacks the syncing to iOS, so I'm happy about Apple releasing it.
• Notification Center, though this is basically the same thing as Growl plus a history.
• Reminders, which is pretty much included in Lion, just inside iCal.

I know there's also AirPlay Mirroring and Gatekeeper, but unless there will be under the hood improvements or more exciting things they're still keeping secret, I would almost be surprised if we have to pay 29 $ for that, if I compare it to the features Lion introduced. Or am I missing something?

 

[djrod]

$29 is not too much to ask for a new OS.

Errr, Windows OS can cost up to 10 times that...

Anyway, I think paying 29 every single year it's too much, AI don't see people paying to keep their machines up to date with this price / yearly edition

 

[KnightWRX]

I know there's also AirPlay Mirroring and Gatekeeper, but unless there will be under the hood improvements or more exciting things they're still keeping secret, I would almost be surprised if we have to pay 29 $ for that, if I compare it to the features Lion introduced. Or am I missing something?

So you listed 5, there's 10 on the page and many more. Do you even know all the features Lion introduced ?

And frankly, you can't expect as many features as Lion had. Lion was a 2-3 year release cycle, Mountain Lion is a 1 year release cycle. It will have less features that's a given.

That's the advantage to moving to yearly cycles though. Less new features in each releases means less overall bugs, less users having to adjust to their workflows and less to adjust in said workflows, less whining.

It's still not comparable to Microsoft Service Packs, Apple doesn't do those.

----------

Errr, Windows OS can cost up to 10 times that...

Anyway, I think paying 29 every single year it's too much, AI don't see people paying to keep their machines up to date with this price / yearly edition

Then don't pay 29$ every year, upgrade every 2 or 3 years, whatever floats your boat.

 

[DeckMan]

So you listed 5, there's 10 on the page and many more. Do you even know all the features Lion introduced ?

I think I might know all by now, though it seems like I'm discovering new features every month, so chances are I don't

I only listed those 5 features because the others seem like they're not such a big deal. iCloud? They're just finishing (or continuing) what Lion started. Messages? iChat rebranded with iMessage support. Share sheets? A lot of apps have them already. Twitter and Game Center count, I guess, but I'm not interested in those, that's why I didn't count them

If there's many more, I'm happy about that - I think there's not even any doubt that I'm getting it either way. All I'm saying is that if there's a shorter release cycle for less new features, it seems fair to also lower the price. Of course Apple's free to decide not to lower the price, those who don't want to pay that every year can skip one or two releases in between, like you said.

 

[DavoteK]

If Apple make it free, its a bad move IMO. Make it free and people will expect every iteration to be free, so if they do a massive overhaul for say OS XI then it will be met with a lot of negativity due to them charging for it.

With regards to the cost, I look at it like this; I could have paid say $100+ for going from say Leopard or Snow Leopard to Mountain Lion (which I'm sure you'll agree is a large step in amount of features implemented and general updates), or pay a small fee for Lion and then another small fee for Mountain Lion.

I'd rather go the small incremental fees and get new features every year instead of paying a large fee say every 2 or 3 years.

For the record, I think it'll be the same cost as Lion.

 

[pdjudd]

I only listed those 5 features because the others seem like they're not such a big deal. iCloud? They're just finishing (or continuing) what Lion started. Messages? iChat rebranded with iMessage support. Share sheets? A lot of apps have them already. Twitter and Game Center count, I guess, but I'm not interested in those, that's why I didn't count them

So we can base all OS update worthiness based on what you think is important and meaningful to you? And if it isn't useful to you it suddenly doesn't count? Sorry that's a terrible standard. We have to go by objective standards starting at the very basic what Apple has chosen to highlight (which is always a small sample of what's being changed). Weather or not you see utility in them is irrelevant. Somebody might and their opinion certainly matters. You can't just gloss over things like that - it's not fair to do that. At least acknowledge them fer crying out loud!

Also remember that OS updates are more than visual updates and that they tend to be pretty major changes in things behind the scenes. You can only expect big major groundbreaking things for so long - pretty soon your expect more than what is practical even on a 2-3 year release cycle. Not to mention that the more stuff they tack on, the harder it is to maintain such beasts - you add complexity to the OS and your stuck making sure they work for a long time which at that point you have technologies like Rosetta that you have to look at it's worth of maintaining versus it becoming an albatross around your neck. Sometimes pushing the pause button on big changes is a good thing every once in awhile. Doing so is not some sort of admission of failure or anything.

 

[barredfreak]

It's Apple.

You can bet your ass you're going to have to pay for Mountain Lion.

 

[DeckMan]

You can't just gloss over things like that - it's not fair to do that. At least acknowledge them fer crying out loud!

Haha, okay, fine. Great new features!
My only argument was that there's not as many new features as for Lion, and we're all agreeing on that, so there's nothing to discuss about here. I also agree that it would be ludicrous to expect that many new features once a year.

If they're charging 29$ once a year for less features, however, they're effectively going up in price to before. Again, they can do that, no problem - but can you agree that they might just charge less for Mountain Lion? That's all I'm asking.

----------

It's Apple.

You can bet your ass you're going to have to pay for Mountain Lion.

Keep in mind that it's also Apple releasing new iOS versions once a year.

 

[KnightWRX]

I think I might know all by now, though it seems like I'm discovering new features every month, so chances are I don't

I'd bet you'd have a hard time if we dwelved into the obscure realm of APIs and frameworks.

Just like Lion, Mountain Lion will be more than what is in the PR.

Also, what you consider "useful" or "new" has no bearing on the overall reality. A new feature is a new feature, whether you or I or anyone else that isn't Apple thinks it's worthy of being called such or not.

 

[pdjudd]

If they're charging 29$ once a year for less features, however, they're effectively going up in price to before. Again, they can do that, no problem - but can you agree that they might just charge less for Mountain Lion? That's all I'm asking.

It's not really upping the price though - that would only be the case if the OS is sold on a subscription basis (which it isn't). If you don't want to get ML you can wait until 10.9 unless upgrading to that requires 10.8 (which we won't know really). Sure it can cost less than $29 bucks but I think that they are trying to keep the costs the same to make up for all the costs to develop and distribute it.

 

[DeckMan]

Sure it can cost less than $29 bucks but I think that they are trying to keep the costs the same to make up for all the costs to develop and distribute it.

...which are less if there's less new features. okay, distribution costs are the same, but still.

I'd bet you'd have a hard time if we dwelved into the obscure realm of APIs and frameworks.

Fair enough. So at the very least, there'll be more features for developers, which will be good for end users because it'll improve third party apps. Plus probably a lot of new features they're not advertising, or haven't started advertising yet. Thanks, now I'm more excited again.