Posted by
Hemos
on from the moving-along-at-a-respectable-pace dept.
Warlock7 writes "CNET has an article that discusses the 'early' release of Mac OS X 10.2, codename Jaguar. The article says that Jaguar should be ready for release in August, more than a month earlier than the analysts expected."
Clueless Analysts
by
EvlG
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This is from the article:
But IDC analyst Roger Kay was unenthusiastic about the Jaguar release, contending that Apple's OS updates come too frequently. The company launched Mac OS X 10.0 in March 2001, followed by version 10.1 in September.
Since when is it bad to keep your products up to date, adding compelling new features all the time? This is something that I think Apple has executed very well, and few other companies have really mastered. Microsoft in particular doesn't seem to get it.
"OS X 10.1 didn't get its full shot at maturity before the release of the new system," Kay said. "From a tactical point of view, they're truncating one revenue stream to bring on another one. They didn't even fully extract the revenue from the first product."
Excuse me? AFAIK, 10.1 wasn't about being a new product, it was about letting the system mature. Some have called OS X 10.0 something akin to Final Public Beta, and in many respects they are right. It wasn't until 10.1 that the system was really usable for end users, and included enough enhancements for ISVs. But releasing 10.1 was all about delivering on the promise of a stable, next-generation computing platform - something that *is* driving revenue.
Kay also questioned how many Mac OS X 10.1 users would move to Jaguar, although he did see a good market for those on the older system, Mac OS 9.
Sorry but I think this is unfounded also. Apple has EOL'd OS 9, and this past quarter saw some of the most important apps make the switch (namely Photoshop). There is no going back folks. OS X is the way of the future, Apple has said so, ISVs agree, and users are coming along as their favorite apps migrate.
The switch won't happen overnight, true; however, for Apple, it doesn't have to. The important thing is, all new Apple machines ship with OS X, and have for some time. This means all those interested in upgrades will make the switch. Other users will come along as their favorite apps are migrated.
OS X is a fine product, and Apple should be commended for keeping it up to date and fresh. These analysts don't have a clue, IMO.
Re:Clueless Analysts
by
tbmaddux
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
AFAIK, 10.1 wasn't about being a new product, it was about letting the system mature... OS X is a fine product, and Apple should be commended for keeping it up to date and fresh.
Agreed. Furthermore, MacOS X 10.1 was a free update for anyone who had MacOS X 10.0. That means 10.1 wasn't a new revenue stream/product at all and it didn't "truncate" 10.0 in any sense from a financial standpoint.
IMHO Apple must keep innovating in both hardware and software to stay afloat. If they stop, then the rest of the industry catches up with cheap knock-offs and they drown. The analysts don't understand this.
-- Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
Re:Analysis Paralysis
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
This really highlights the MAIN difference between Windows OS and Mac OS:
Windows is treated by Microsoft as a product with a certain market viability and a lifespan. The next real update is not released until the previous generation has more or less outlived its usefulness, i.e. sales are running down (or in danger of running down). The product, by definition, can't suck as long as it sells. This, of course, keeps advancement artificially slow, but maximizes profits and optimizes shareholder value.
Apple brings out updates to its Mac OS when it can. New versions are released because they are better than the old one, not necessarily because the marketing machinery is winding down. This is good for customers, but (due in part to imbeciles like those quoted above) not necessarily for shareholders.
Of course, both companies attempt to dress up their strategy somewhat so as not to disgruntle customers/shareholders, respectively, too much, but this seems to me to be the heart of the matter.
-spheric*
Re:Analysis Paralysis
by
EvlG
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I'd argue it is considerably more than a service pack.
It's got the new Rendezvous features built in. It has Quartz Extreme. It has major redesign in the internals to make everything load faster, etc...
I agree its not like win95->win98. But that is the point I was trying to make. Apple's mentality is fundamentally different from Microsoft's plan for Windows.
Sure MS releases Service Packs, but those don't include such sweeping new funationality. Instead, MS waits for the yearly Windows redux to bring that in, changing it all at once.
Apple seems to favor a more gradual update system, a strategy seen in the development of OS patches, to the 'point releases' like 10.1.x, to the more major updates like Jaguar.
Apples and oranges.
nickels and dimes
by
Laplace
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
But IDC analyst Roger Kay was unenthusiastic about the Jaguar release, contending that Apple's OS updates come too frequently. The company launched Mac OS X 10.0 in March 2001, followed by version 10.1 in September.
"OS X 10.1 didn't get its full shot at maturity before the release of the new system," Kay said. "From a tactical point of view, they're truncating one revenue stream to bring on another one. They didn't even fully extract the revenue from the first product."
Well holy fuck, Roger. Apple actually gives a shit about releasing performance enhancing and bug fix updates without regard to squeezing their consumers for every last penny. Maybe your tiny analyst brain doens't recognize that treating customers with class might help to make them loyal to the Apple product line.
You are also probably the same kind of shithead who wonders why Apple doesn't charge hundreds of dollars for their exceptional developer tools.
Slashdot Mirror
This is from the article:
But IDC analyst Roger Kay was unenthusiastic about the Jaguar release, contending that Apple's OS updates come too frequently. The company launched Mac OS X 10.0 in March 2001, followed by version 10.1 in September.
Since when is it bad to keep your products up to date, adding compelling new features all the time? This is something that I think Apple has executed very well, and few other companies have really mastered. Microsoft in particular doesn't seem to get it.
"OS X 10.1 didn't get its full shot at maturity before the release of the new system," Kay said. "From a tactical point of view, they're truncating one revenue stream to bring on another one. They didn't even fully extract the revenue from the first product."
Excuse me? AFAIK, 10.1 wasn't about being a new product, it was about letting the system mature. Some have called OS X 10.0 something akin to Final Public Beta, and in many respects they are right. It wasn't until 10.1 that the system was really usable for end users, and included enough enhancements for ISVs. But releasing 10.1 was all about delivering on the promise of a stable, next-generation computing platform - something that *is* driving revenue.
Kay also questioned how many Mac OS X 10.1 users would move to Jaguar, although he did see a good market for those on the older system, Mac OS 9.
Sorry but I think this is unfounded also. Apple has EOL'd OS 9, and this past quarter saw some of the most important apps make the switch (namely Photoshop). There is no going back folks. OS X is the way of the future, Apple has said so, ISVs agree, and users are coming along as their favorite apps migrate.
The switch won't happen overnight, true; however, for Apple, it doesn't have to. The important thing is, all new Apple machines ship with OS X, and have for some time. This means all those interested in upgrades will make the switch. Other users will come along as their favorite apps are migrated.
OS X is a fine product, and Apple should be commended for keeping it up to date and fresh. These analysts don't have a clue, IMO.
This really highlights the MAIN difference between Windows OS and Mac OS:
Windows is treated by Microsoft as a product with a certain market viability and a lifespan. The next real update is not released until the previous generation has more or less outlived its usefulness, i.e. sales are running down (or in danger of running down). The product, by definition, can't suck as long as it sells. This, of course, keeps advancement artificially slow, but maximizes profits and optimizes shareholder value.
Apple brings out updates to its Mac OS when it can. New versions are released because they are better than the old one, not necessarily because the marketing machinery is winding down. This is good for customers, but (due in part to imbeciles like those quoted above) not necessarily for shareholders.
Of course, both companies attempt to dress up their strategy somewhat so as not to disgruntle customers/shareholders, respectively, too much, but this seems to me to be the heart of the matter.
-spheric*
I'd argue it is considerably more than a service pack.
It's got the new Rendezvous features built in. It has Quartz Extreme. It has major redesign in the internals to make everything load faster, etc...
I agree its not like win95->win98. But that is the point I was trying to make. Apple's mentality is fundamentally different from Microsoft's plan for Windows.
Sure MS releases Service Packs, but those don't include such sweeping new funationality. Instead, MS waits for the yearly Windows redux to bring that in, changing it all at once.
Apple seems to favor a more gradual update system, a strategy seen in the development of OS patches, to the 'point releases' like 10.1.x, to the more major updates like Jaguar.
Apples and oranges.
But IDC analyst Roger Kay was unenthusiastic about the Jaguar release, contending that Apple's OS updates come too frequently. The company launched Mac OS X 10.0 in March 2001, followed by version 10.1 in September.
"OS X 10.1 didn't get its full shot at maturity before the release of the new system," Kay said. "From a tactical point of view, they're truncating one revenue stream to bring on another one. They didn't even fully extract the revenue from the first product."
Well holy fuck, Roger. Apple actually gives a shit about releasing performance enhancing and bug fix updates without regard to squeezing their consumers for every last penny. Maybe your tiny analyst brain doens't recognize that treating customers with class might help to make them loyal to the Apple product line.
You are also probably the same kind of shithead who wonders why Apple doesn't charge hundreds of dollars for their exceptional developer tools.
The middle mind speaks!