Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Will OSX Mountain Lion be free?
- Thread starter BizRunner
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
iOS updates are always given free, and no one thinks Apple is engaging in charity because they release those updates freely. Rather, it is just they employ a different strategy there. They figure new hardware sales generates the money needed to develop for the iOS platform, and so distributing the updates for free increases the customer satisfaction and thereby increases the chances that there will be more return customers down the road. Sure they could sell those iOS updates every year, but long term it isn't clear that would be a wise decision. I fail to see why it is radically different with OS X, other than the fact that the precedence with OS X is to charge for the updates/revisions to the OS.
I'd like to see Apple employ the same model as on iOS for OS X. Not because I hope to save 30$ come summer, but rather because I think the strategy they employ with iOS is a better one.
Not having to worry about paying for OS software when you buy hardware would be a huge advantage that the PC market simply couldn't adapt to. Microsoft is not in the hardware business, and the Hardware companies aren't going to pay Microsoft to provide you with free updates. Apple is in a unique position, I think they ought to take advantage of what their competition couldn't, in principle, accomplish.
Bleck there are only a few things that keep me away from Linux. It just lacks support for a few things I require, so it's between OSX and Windows. Each has significant advantages. If I wasn't on a Mac already with many things integrated for OSX, I'm not sure which one I'd pick if making the decision today.
OS X supports PAE for memory addressing on 32 bit platforms just fine.
And since we're running 64 bit kernels nowadays, it's less of an issue. I was just pointing out things about service packs.
I propose a new model -- customers should be paid for upgrading to Mountain Lion.
My experience is that every new cat breaks enough software and causes enough disruption that this cost is far more than Apple charges for the upgrade. Going to annual upgrades, even at free, will cost me far more than the biannual $29 upgrades did. It's the same problem that Firefox has gotten into (how many people like its new short upgrade cycle that breaks all the plugins every time?) or the frequent upgrades of Linux distros.
Can't we have an upgrade that fixes bugs (there are plenty of Lion bugs still around), maybe adds features, but doesn't remove features or break existing applications?
Or would that just be a "service pack"?
My experience is that every new cat breaks enough software and causes enough disruption that this cost is far more than Apple charges for the upgrade. Going to annual upgrades, even at free, will cost me far more than the biannual $29 upgrades did. It's the same problem that Firefox has gotten into (how many people like its new short upgrade cycle that breaks all the plugins every time?) or the frequent upgrades of Linux distros.
Can't we have an upgrade that fixes bugs (there are plenty of Lion bugs still around), maybe adds features, but doesn't remove features or break existing applications?
Or would that just be a "service pack"?
It'll only cost £20, hardly breaking the bank.
That said, I got the developer preview for free
It'll only cost £20, hardly breaking the bank.
That said, I got the developer preview for free
Presumably you paid $99/year (or equivalent) for the privilege.
Mad Mac Maniac
macrumors 601
Honestly, the more I think about this, the more I think Apple should start releasing yearly FREE updates to OS X, same as iOS. Think about it. It's a winning strategy
Firstly, it promotes everyone to be on the current OS. This makes things easier for developers (increasing compatibility), makes it easier to push out updates to all your user base (through less support for legacy OS), and gives the Apple customer the advantage of having "the best of what Apple has to offer". I know that may seem a bit strange, but think about Microsoft and IE6. IE6 became such a joke. Slow, buggy, outdated, etc that Microsoft started heavily pushing the campaign to get people to update their browser. A software company wants to be able to put their best foot forward. Can you imagine if a Mac user was still using Mac OS X 10.1 (released a few months AFTER windows xp!!) then suddenly was shown Windows 7 by a Microsoft enthusiast. The Mac guy would probably be pretty blown away with its capability, speed, etc. Yes, I understand that Mac hardware from 2001 wouldn't be able to run the current OS, but it is still in the best interest of Apple to allow people to have the best software that their hardware is capable of running.
Secondly, it would promote faster hardware upgrade cycles. Any given Mac purchase is generally good for 2 or 3 upgrades, before it is no longer supported. That equates to about 5-6 years. With a major upgrade every year, I seriously doubt they could keep for that same length of upgrades. My guess is 4-5 years, hence more Mac purchases. Plus, it would promote a culture of yearly updates, so the casual user (who wouldn't be likely to update their OS or their hardware), by growing accustomed to having these improvements every year, might actually realize that it's time to get a new Mac so they can continue to get OS updates.
Additionally, it encourages user to jump to use all of Apples new features. (what ever they become) For example, ML provides a HUGE push for 100% adoption of iCloud. This is the future for Apple and I'm sure they want everyone to have it. Also, AirPlay Mirroring will be a huge selling point for the Apple TV (or possible iTV in the future). They want continued buy-in to their ecosystem so we will purchase their other products.
Lastly, Microsoft cannot compete with that. Microsoft could never make Windows updates free, because they are a software company. They live off that profit. Apple is in a unique situation to be able to make software cheap/free to make people buy their hardware (a winning strategy with the iPod). It would draw a lot more attention to the Mac and would sway a lot more potential buyers who like the idea of free yearly updates.
Now with 100% of purchases going through the MAS this is finally a possibility. I don't know if Apple will actually do this or not, but I think it has to be cheaper than the previous 2 upgrades ($29). They took 22 and 23 months to come out, and ML will only be 12-14 months. There would be some minor outrage (justly or unjustly) if it were the same price. So that leaves free, $10, or $20. I think Apple would love to "blow us away" with announcing ML to be FREE at WWDC. If they release it for $10 that would just seem mildly silly. Similar to how Apple made FaceTime cost $0.99. People were like, "Really? Come on... $0.99? Just make it free. This is just awkward." And it was.
Firstly, it promotes everyone to be on the current OS. This makes things easier for developers (increasing compatibility), makes it easier to push out updates to all your user base (through less support for legacy OS), and gives the Apple customer the advantage of having "the best of what Apple has to offer". I know that may seem a bit strange, but think about Microsoft and IE6. IE6 became such a joke. Slow, buggy, outdated, etc that Microsoft started heavily pushing the campaign to get people to update their browser. A software company wants to be able to put their best foot forward. Can you imagine if a Mac user was still using Mac OS X 10.1 (released a few months AFTER windows xp!!) then suddenly was shown Windows 7 by a Microsoft enthusiast. The Mac guy would probably be pretty blown away with its capability, speed, etc. Yes, I understand that Mac hardware from 2001 wouldn't be able to run the current OS, but it is still in the best interest of Apple to allow people to have the best software that their hardware is capable of running.
Secondly, it would promote faster hardware upgrade cycles. Any given Mac purchase is generally good for 2 or 3 upgrades, before it is no longer supported. That equates to about 5-6 years. With a major upgrade every year, I seriously doubt they could keep for that same length of upgrades. My guess is 4-5 years, hence more Mac purchases. Plus, it would promote a culture of yearly updates, so the casual user (who wouldn't be likely to update their OS or their hardware), by growing accustomed to having these improvements every year, might actually realize that it's time to get a new Mac so they can continue to get OS updates.
Additionally, it encourages user to jump to use all of Apples new features. (what ever they become) For example, ML provides a HUGE push for 100% adoption of iCloud. This is the future for Apple and I'm sure they want everyone to have it. Also, AirPlay Mirroring will be a huge selling point for the Apple TV (or possible iTV in the future). They want continued buy-in to their ecosystem so we will purchase their other products.
Lastly, Microsoft cannot compete with that. Microsoft could never make Windows updates free, because they are a software company. They live off that profit. Apple is in a unique situation to be able to make software cheap/free to make people buy their hardware (a winning strategy with the iPod). It would draw a lot more attention to the Mac and would sway a lot more potential buyers who like the idea of free yearly updates.
Now with 100% of purchases going through the MAS this is finally a possibility. I don't know if Apple will actually do this or not, but I think it has to be cheaper than the previous 2 upgrades ($29). They took 22 and 23 months to come out, and ML will only be 12-14 months. There would be some minor outrage (justly or unjustly) if it were the same price. So that leaves free, $10, or $20. I think Apple would love to "blow us away" with announcing ML to be FREE at WWDC. If they release it for $10 that would just seem mildly silly. Similar to how Apple made FaceTime cost $0.99. People were like, "Really? Come on... $0.99? Just make it free. This is just awkward." And it was.
Given how much MS charges for Windows, they cannot compete with the price of OSX now and they haven't for many, many, years.
I would like to pay Apple for OS X now and even in the future.
But to be honest, they can easily make the software update/upgrade free of cost and it would make sense.
Apple is now driven by hardware. As I understand, they care A LOT about software but their main money stream is by selling hardware for their software.
$19/$29 for some million users is surely a lot of money. But I believe, making this free is going to be beneficial in the long run.
- Consumers don't care anything new about software upgrade/pricing, etc. They just know that an update is available. Just update/upgrade and be done with it. You only pay Apple once and that is the only transaction you have. Simple.
- It would be good for developers and Apple both if all the users upgrade.
- Competition will be blown away. I know Apple doesn't directly attack Microsoft Windows as its licensed for a particular fee and specifications, but inherently is a slap on Windows face for charging outrageous amounts for minimal upgrades (Vista to W7).
I personally want OS X updates to be free. But don't get me wrong, I've paid for all the versions till date and would be willing to do the same in the future.
But to be honest, they can easily make the software update/upgrade free of cost and it would make sense.
Apple is now driven by hardware. As I understand, they care A LOT about software but their main money stream is by selling hardware for their software.
$19/$29 for some million users is surely a lot of money. But I believe, making this free is going to be beneficial in the long run.
- Consumers don't care anything new about software upgrade/pricing, etc. They just know that an update is available. Just update/upgrade and be done with it. You only pay Apple once and that is the only transaction you have. Simple.
- It would be good for developers and Apple both if all the users upgrade.
- Competition will be blown away. I know Apple doesn't directly attack Microsoft Windows as its licensed for a particular fee and specifications, but inherently is a slap on Windows face for charging outrageous amounts for minimal upgrades (Vista to W7).
I personally want OS X updates to be free. But don't get me wrong, I've paid for all the versions till date and would be willing to do the same in the future.
You in favor of iOS updates being paid-updates? What about all those Apps you have, should those be paid-updates too? If not, what's the difference?
Mad Mac Maniac
macrumors 601
looks like I'm not the only one who thinks ML should be free
Analyst: Free Mountain Lion upgrade would be 'brilliant' Apple move
edit: Another one. A lot of similar points to mine above.
Six reasons why OS X 10.8 'Mountain Lion' should be a free upgrade
Analyst: Free Mountain Lion upgrade would be 'brilliant' Apple move
edit: Another one. A lot of similar points to mine above.
Six reasons why OS X 10.8 'Mountain Lion' should be a free upgrade
Just to piss off Microsoft should be reason enough to sell ML at $5 or free, making Windows low-cost would decimate there profits.
Just to piss off Microsoft should be reason enough to sell ML at $5 or free, making Windows low-cost would decimate there profits.
Most Windows systems never get upgraded. Windows XP is still the most common Windows OS in use. Microsoft gets most of their sales from new systems. Microsoft maintains a large amount of backwards compatibility, decreasing the need to upgrade.
Apple doesn't really care about backwards compatibility, and most Apple users upgrade to the latest OS, if only because application support/availability on older OS versions is sketchy. So Apple would be throwing money away if they dropped the price, and it would affect Microsoft at all.
I can see that but PR would be bad because even OEM's pay $50 for Windows and Apple already lowered the price from $99 to $25 with iOS getting free upgrades, i think that getting users to the new OS is more important to Apple than the profit on the update.
Windows is so expensive that MS makes 300% profit on it, i wonder for how long.
Free updates make the most sense. The revenue stream from payed Lion upgrades is laughable from Apple's perspective.
The only logical business argument one could imagine against the free upgrade would be that it lowers the perceived value of OS X in the eyes of the consumer. If it's free, that means it's not very good + it means it will always be free. Apple will never again get revenue selling OS X. But if you realize that OS X is not the product in this case (after all Apple doesn't sell OS X, Apple sells Macs) - this argument is no longer valid.
To all of you saying that 29$ is an OK price. Think about it. A customer who bought a Mac in 2007 and upgraded his OS 2 times for 29$ was spending below 15$ a year average on system upgrades. Now that number would almost double. So if they won't go with the free iOS model, they still would need to adjust the price and go down at least to 15$, or maybe even 9.99$.
But there are still more advantages to keeping ML free. It's a brilliant PR move. It's great for new OS adoption. It would be also solve the problem of people upgrading from SL vs upgrading from Lion.
In theory Snow Leopard users shouldn't have to pay the same amount for Mountain Lion, as Lion users, who already payed for one upgrade along the way. But on the other hand they shouldn't be forced to purchase both, because the total upgrade cost to go from Snow Leopard to Mountain Lion would be almost 60$ (provided they stick to their current OS X pricing) which is a pain.
Last time with Snow Leopard, Apple solved the problem with a license that required Leopard, but a DVD that didn't - which I guess made everyone happy (Tiger users got a 29$ upgrade to SL, and Leopard users got the peace of mind, knowing they didn't break the license agreement). But this won't be the case with the new digital distribution - they will have to figure out a new way to keep Lion users happy, and still give SL users an incentive to upgrade to Mountain Lion.
If the OS is free, it's a non issue. They could just keep both ML and Lion in the App Store. OS X Lion - available for 29$ to all Snow Leopard users, with Mountain Lion available free to all Lion users.
After that, they wouldn't even have to keep the OS in the app store. After Mountain Lion, the OS upgrade could just be part of the system update. That way they would get even faster adoption rates than with a free OS on the App Store (some users won't feel the need to upgrade, but they will most likely install anything that is a recommended update).
SO that's basically why Apple *should do it. But there are also people who seem convinced that Apple already decided against it. I don't think that's the case.
There was one big argument - the one about Apple anticipating future revenues from Mac users. First off, assumptions can change. Second off, Apple can get the revenue they want from Mac users in multiple ways, not just payed OS upgrades. They can get it from App Store cuts, iLife upgrades, iWork etc. Also the Messages beta text that says something about purchasing Mountain Lion is no proof against free ML. The way the App Store works, even if you download a free app, it's still referred to as a "purchase".
In general I believe it's good for Apple, it's good for developers, good for users, great for the Mac. Apple makes money selling hardware, they won't see a drop in revenue in the long term. This is a new world, people don't get as excited about OS upgrades as they did back in the days. They have multiple computing devices (iPhones, iPads), the PC is no longer the center of our digital life, so people don't see that much value in upgrading its software. Such a move would reinforce the notion that Macs are better suited for the post-PC world than regular PCs. That they will be better companion devices for your smartphones and tablets, because they will change along with them and you won't have to worry about paying for upgrades, deciding on new operating systems etc. Everything is just going to work together.
The only logical business argument one could imagine against the free upgrade would be that it lowers the perceived value of OS X in the eyes of the consumer. If it's free, that means it's not very good + it means it will always be free. Apple will never again get revenue selling OS X. But if you realize that OS X is not the product in this case (after all Apple doesn't sell OS X, Apple sells Macs) - this argument is no longer valid.
To all of you saying that 29$ is an OK price. Think about it. A customer who bought a Mac in 2007 and upgraded his OS 2 times for 29$ was spending below 15$ a year average on system upgrades. Now that number would almost double. So if they won't go with the free iOS model, they still would need to adjust the price and go down at least to 15$, or maybe even 9.99$.
But there are still more advantages to keeping ML free. It's a brilliant PR move. It's great for new OS adoption. It would be also solve the problem of people upgrading from SL vs upgrading from Lion.
In theory Snow Leopard users shouldn't have to pay the same amount for Mountain Lion, as Lion users, who already payed for one upgrade along the way. But on the other hand they shouldn't be forced to purchase both, because the total upgrade cost to go from Snow Leopard to Mountain Lion would be almost 60$ (provided they stick to their current OS X pricing) which is a pain.
Last time with Snow Leopard, Apple solved the problem with a license that required Leopard, but a DVD that didn't - which I guess made everyone happy (Tiger users got a 29$ upgrade to SL, and Leopard users got the peace of mind, knowing they didn't break the license agreement). But this won't be the case with the new digital distribution - they will have to figure out a new way to keep Lion users happy, and still give SL users an incentive to upgrade to Mountain Lion.
If the OS is free, it's a non issue. They could just keep both ML and Lion in the App Store. OS X Lion - available for 29$ to all Snow Leopard users, with Mountain Lion available free to all Lion users.
After that, they wouldn't even have to keep the OS in the app store. After Mountain Lion, the OS upgrade could just be part of the system update. That way they would get even faster adoption rates than with a free OS on the App Store (some users won't feel the need to upgrade, but they will most likely install anything that is a recommended update).
SO that's basically why Apple *should do it. But there are also people who seem convinced that Apple already decided against it. I don't think that's the case.
There was one big argument - the one about Apple anticipating future revenues from Mac users. First off, assumptions can change. Second off, Apple can get the revenue they want from Mac users in multiple ways, not just payed OS upgrades. They can get it from App Store cuts, iLife upgrades, iWork etc. Also the Messages beta text that says something about purchasing Mountain Lion is no proof against free ML. The way the App Store works, even if you download a free app, it's still referred to as a "purchase".
In general I believe it's good for Apple, it's good for developers, good for users, great for the Mac. Apple makes money selling hardware, they won't see a drop in revenue in the long term. This is a new world, people don't get as excited about OS upgrades as they did back in the days. They have multiple computing devices (iPhones, iPads), the PC is no longer the center of our digital life, so people don't see that much value in upgrading its software. Such a move would reinforce the notion that Macs are better suited for the post-PC world than regular PCs. That they will be better companion devices for your smartphones and tablets, because they will change along with them and you won't have to worry about paying for upgrades, deciding on new operating systems etc. Everything is just going to work together.
Mad Mac Maniac
macrumors 601
Yup, I agree with everything you said, and I have made some of your points earlier in this thread. I really do believe Apple should release free updates. And I am one of those people who bought my (first) Mac in Late 2007 (after leopard was released) and in 4 and a half years have paid a total of $60 for OS upgrades.
But you also have to take into account that prior to SL upgrades cost $130 and were released every 1 and a half to 2 years. Meaning that people were paying over $65 a year for the OS. Sure you can argue that people have grown accustomed to the reduced rate over the past 5 years, but it isn't without precedent for Mac users to pay well over $30 a year for the OS.
It would be good idea PR wise. I'm not really sure if it's a wise business move as they won't receive any profits, but I imagine they could afford it. I would be pleasantly surprised if it was free. If the OS upgrades are going to be yearly and less substantial though, a price decrease at least probably would be wise.
I have a mac mini and a dell laptop. If Apple were to do what you said above (free). I would completely get rid of windows. I love apple products but I honestly believe they are over priced. But if it came with free OS upgrades for say even three cycles, then I would say it is well worth the money.
That's the wrong way to think about it. Macs aren't overpriced, its most Windows PCs that are underpriced. Look at one of the latest Ultrabooks and they cost as much or even more than an equally spec'ed Macbook Air.
To add to this, you ever wonder what the PC manufacturers get paid to install bloatware on their systems? That would help the manufacturer make a profit at low prices.
ok, so I will be accused of being lazy and not doing a search but I scanned other forums and can't find the answer quickly. Does anyone have a current running assumption on the general release date of Mountain Lion?