Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Will OSX Mountain Lion be free?

nicklad said:
I expect it'll be free otherwise how would Internet Recovery know what you're entitled to? If they're moving to the iOS model, we'll see annual major releases and it'll deprecate hardware faster than before.
Click to expand...

I've installed Lion on a pre-Lion macbook pro 2010. Recently they've released update for it so that it support Lion Recovery.

Now, I tried to use Recovery to install Lion, and I was asked for AppleID details of the account with valid Lion purchase on it. It didn't want to install otherwise.

So no problem checking entitlements...
 
I really don't dig the idea of a yearly release of OS X. I think the incremental prices would be fine, but it's kind of a hassle to upgrade and the prospects of doing it on a yearly basis to keep current would probably bother me a bit. I'm only saying this though due to the issues people have had with Lion and whatnot. If Mountain Lion comes out clean and less bugs are experienced across the board I think the incremental releases might not be such a bad thing. It's just that feeling where you're bracing for something to go wrong over an upgraded OS, not good.
 
Danindub said:
I've installed Lion on a pre-Lion macbook pro 2010. Recently they've released update for it so that it support Lion Recovery.

Now, I tried to use Recovery to install Lion, and I was asked for AppleID details of the account with valid Lion purchase on it. It didn't want to install otherwise.

So no problem checking entitlements...
Click to expand...

So how does that work for Macs that have been purchased with Lion preinstalled? There will be no Lion purchase. Serial number too then?
 
Free is a possibility or at least dirt cheap, Apple seems to be rushing it a bit to announce it before W8 and a low low price will ridicule Microsoft if they hang on to there standard $1000 price point. Well it would feel like $1000 at this point. :rolleyes:
 
KnightWRX said:
Then don't pay 29$ every year, upgrade every 2 or 3 years, whatever floats your boat.
Click to expand...

Upgrading once every 2 or 3 years floats my boat. Paying $29 a year for minor features, yeah right....

I see this as a SP1 upgrade and won't fork out $$$ for it, unless it's $5 or so.
 
KnightWRX said:
I just wish Service Packs on Windows came with so many new features instead of just a bunch of bug fixes and security updates like what Microsoft actually ships. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

LOL
From what l've read so far, iChat/message and a few other bits 'n' bobs, to me, isn't worth paying for an upgrade (as l said, maybe $5). Everyone values things differently, and l respect that. You just won't catch me paying apple, for what l consider minor tweaks.
 
lulla01 said:
^100 billion in cash reserves is not considered payment.
Click to expand...

So apple are a charity now?


Companies make products and sell them. This is how business works. The fact that they have been successful doesn't mean they should give everything away.

I'd rather pay $100 for OS X than get it free and deal with the google-style invasion of privacy to pay for something "free".
 
spl456 said:
LOL
From what l've read so far, iChat/message and a few other bits 'n' bobs, to me, isn't worth paying for an upgrade (as l said, maybe $5). Everyone values things differently, and l respect that. You just won't catch me paying apple, for what l consider minor tweaks.
Click to expand...

Better than no tweaks at all if you ask me.

You can't compare Microsoft's release practices and Apple's. They just don't do OS release the same way.
 
spl456 said:
When was the last time Apple paid a dividend to shareholders?
Click to expand...

And this matters? I own Apple stock and have made more money on it than any other holding, even those paying dividends, in the past year. Enough to buy annual OS X upgrades no matter what the price they decide on. If the stock keeps rising, I don't care if they never pay a dividend!
 
KnightWRX said:
You can't compare Microsoft's release practices and Apple's. They just don't do OS release the same way.
Click to expand...

Thats why I never understood people’s complaints about OS upgrades and comparing them to service packs. I remember people calling Snow Leopard a “service pack” since it was just patches and nothing really major right off the bat. I was dumbfounded at the comment. You are correct though - Apple and Microsoft have different models that they use for their OS upgrade paths. MS tries to be as visual as possible simply because they need to convince people to buy it. Most Windows users never do pay for an upgrade since it’s so pricy opting to get a new version of Windows when they get a new cheap Dell. Lets not forget that it takes MS at least 3 years to release a new OS version. Apple doesn’t need to go that route - they release regular big upgrades that are more substance than they are style and they don’t charge very much for them. Their control over the hardware makes it easier to get the advantages in development.

Most people don’t even know what a MS service pack entails. At best it’s a compilation of old bug fixes and some new ones. Outside of XP SP2, I don’t ever recall there being a service pack that added new features or changed the way the OS functioned. It just doesn’t happen. MS can’t do that or people would never upgrade. Businesses wouldn’t either.
 
spl456 said:
Upgrading once every 2 or 3 years floats my boat. Paying $29 a year for minor features, yeah right...
Click to expand...

Do your math! If you pay $29 every year for smaller updates, it's cheaper than paying $129 every 2 or 3 years for the big ones. Financially, this works out in your favor.

If you're willing to pay $129 every two years for a big update, I don't see why you're not willing to pay $68 every two years for two smaller updates that amount to the equivalent of a big update. If Lion and ML were released as a combined, single update, it would be considered a big update, no?
 
pdjudd said:
Most people don’t even know what a MS service pack entails. At best it’s a compilation of old bug fixes and some new ones. Outside of XP SP2, I don’t ever recall there being a service pack that added new features
Click to expand...

Or XP SP1 which removed features, namely, PAE support on 32 bit platforms.
 
KnightWRX said:
Or XP SP1 which removed features, namely, PAE support on 32 bit platforms.
Click to expand...

I forgot about that - of course SP1 is really really old! But the point is still valid. You just cannot compare Apple with MS - not when their business models differ as much as they do.
 
KnightWRX said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not true! I compare them, because it makes sense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP#Service_packs

It is not my fault, that you know nothing about Windows Service Packs. I used many newer features in Windows Service Packs, so i know which features they have.
 
pdjudd said:
I forgot about that - of course SP1 is really really old!
Click to expand...

Sure, but they never re-enabled PAE support for memory addressing, only for No Execute, which means to this day, XP 32 bit is limited to 4GB of RAM (seeing only around 3.2 GB too...). Linux gained PAE support back in the old 2.3 dev tree prior to 2.4 shipping...
 
KnightWRX said:
Sure, but they never re-enabled PAE support for memory addressing, only for No Execute, which means to this day, XP 32 bit is limited to 4GB of RAM (seeing only around 3.2 GB too...). Linux gained PAE support back in the old 2.3 dev tree prior to 2.4 shipping...
Click to expand...
Conclusion:
We should switch from (Mac) OS X ML and Windows 7 SP1 to Linux (Ubuntu). ;-)
 
Mr. Retrofire said:
Not true! I compare them, because it makes sense.
Click to expand...

No it doesn’t. Not one of those updates compares to the changes introduced in major releases. They just don’t. Give it up since you do not know what you are talking about. You can call them service packs until the cows come home, but that doesn’t make them true in any way shape or form.
 
Personally, I think ML should be free for Lion users, $19 for SL users, and $29 for Leopard/older users. A sliding scale in this case may make more sense.
 
Does Mountain Lion require Lion? I was wondering if this is the same upgrade kind of like Snow Leopard was to Leopard. If it does require Lion then I would say it should be free.
 
Fourman said:
Does Mountain Lion require Lion? I was wondering if this is the same upgrade kind of like Snow Leopard was to Leopard. If it does require Lion then I would say it should be free.
Click to expand...

No - as of right now it just requires the last version of SL. However that is neither here nor there with pricing. Apple has only given one OS upgrade for free - and that was 10.1 (if memory serves). There is little precedence to do that - especially for an update like SL which licensing demanded that you had to have Leopard (this was not enforced technically) and was (like ML) been criticized for not having any real features and was basically a service pack.

OS get priced based on what Apple thinks they are worth. I am betting $29 bucks and that’s just based on recent history.
 
Can I pay $5 extra to have all that Twitter crap removed?

...from my phone, too.

It would be nice to have the option in Settings and System Preferences to remove all traces of it from the phone and computer.

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back