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."
and in the great unix namespace...
by
ubiquitin
·
· Score: 3, Funny
X11 is already taken and refers to the XFree86 protocol. So what will the next major release be named? "But it goes all the way to eleven." (insert Spinal Tap joke here) Which makes me wonder whether Apple will go back to the tradition of calling things "plus" or "II" like the MacPlus or MacII in days of old. MacOSXPlus and MacOSXII sounds bad, but MacOSXIIx would be even worse.
-- http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
Analysis Paralysis
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
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.
"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."
What absolute rubbish! This is why I despise analysts and MBAs with no revenue responsibility. This person would delay 10.2 because it would cannibalize 10.1 sales?
OSX 10.0, 10.1 and 10.2 are not different products each with unique life cycles. It's all THE Apple OS, their unique competitive differentiator in the market place.
Well done Apple. The only way to survive is to put your best effort in front of the customer all the time.
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
jaysones
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Furthermore, 10.1 was a free upgrade for 10.0 owners! So they're cannabalizing the chance to give away more free cds?
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.
Re:Analysis Paralysis
by
ivan256
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Of course, both companies attempt to dress up their strategy somewhat so as not to disgruntle customers/shareholders, respectively, too much
Anybody who finds themselves thinking like this, or similarly, should be forced to repeat the following ten times before work every morning:
"The customers are the customers, the shareholders are not the customers"
The customers are more important then the shareholders. Whithout customers, what good is a company? Maximize shareholder value after you've done everything necissary to keep the customers happy.
happy \Hap"py\, a. 1: satisfaction resulting in the willingness to spend more money
Re:Analysis Paralysis
by
JHromadka
·
· Score: 3, Informative
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.
"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."
Even worse, 10.1 was free. Apple maybe made a few bucks off the $20 shipping cost, but anyone could go to CompUSA or Microcenter (like I did) and get the upgrade CD for free.
And anyone that thinks that people are going to stick with 10.1 instead of paying to upgrade to 10.2 is crazy. I know that I will be first in line.
-- "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
Re:Analysis Paralysis
by
Sentry21
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
OSX 10.0, 10.1 and 10.2 are not different products each with unique life cycles. It's all THE Apple OS, their unique competitive differentiator in the market place.
One thing you forgot to mention. The Mac OS isn't a money-maker. The only reason Apple charges for 10.2 is to pay for documentation/packaging/distribution/media, and to cover some of the costs of developing (and because they can). With all the latest updates being free, OS X has all but disappeared off the shelves, since no one needs to buy it. It comes with the computer at no charge. Updates are free. Fixes are likewise free. Most things that get added are downloadable anyway.
I predict 10.2 will be a purchase-upgrade, but also that it will be inexpensive by 'modern OS' (Windows) standards, and that people will buy it because it rocks, and because it's worth the moderate price. I also predict that people will 'pirate' it and that Apple won't really care because it's not a cash cow anyway.
Their money is hardware that their OS runs on, and software that runs on their OS (Final Cut Pro anyone?). The OS itself is just a way to show off the shiny hardware and the kickass applications. The sooner they can get that shiny middleware out to the public, the sooner people can ooh and aah. Simple as that.
--Dan
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:Clueless Analysts
by
Surlyboi
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
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.
They can't understand it and probably never will, they've all been through too many year of Windows product rollouts to know any better. Apple's OS model isn't based on the same principles as Microsoft. It's not about milking the customer, they've already done that with the hardware. =D (beat the trolls to the punch.) It's about providing the best experience they possibly can and continually striving to improve that experience.
I think That's the real reason most of us Mac users are such fanatics, we don't feel like total cash cows. (Or at least, I don't.)
-- Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
Re:Clueless Analysts
by
realgone
·
· Score: 3, Informative
MacOS X 10.1 was a free update for anyone who had MacOS X 10.0
Not entirely. Unless you were fortunate enough to live near an Apple retail store, you needed to shell out $20 (plux tax!) to have the update CD mailed to you; 10.1 wasn't a downloadable patch. Seeing as this is substantially more than the cost of burning + shipping/handling, I'd say that Apple clearly intended to generate some revenue from the deal.
It's not hard to imagine the 10.2 update being handled in a similar manner...
This used to be true, but one can look to several recent releases that were made independent of Expo's iPod, XServe, eMac, and I think the redesigned iBook. Apple has moved away from the release at an Expo model for releasing software and hardware. If they really can make the August date, expect an announcement at Expo, and a relatively quiet rollout (no event, announcement on website) in August.
-- My other sig is extremely clever...
and in the mac historical context...
by
laodamas
·
· Score: 4, Funny
And for the budget market:
MacOSX.lcII
MacOSX.lcIII
MacOSX.lcIIIplus
Now lets go retro!
MaxOSX.IIe
MaxOSX.IIgs
Or they can use the great X naming scheme:
MacOSX2, and eventually MacOSX11R6:P
"Officially" 10.2?
by
Soulfader
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The new version, code-named Jaguar and officially known as Mac OS X 10.2, is now expected to ship in early August...
A quick perusal of Apple's Jaguar site fails to unearth an official designation of any kind. Same for the news headlines section.
I could have missed it, of course, but it sure doesn't look like there's an official version number determined; witness the "OSXI" jokes posted above.
It's a small thing, but it undermines the article's credibility just a wee bit.
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.
-- The middle mind speaks!
Re:nickels and dimes
by
mikeloader
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
"Well holy fuck, Roger. Apple actually gives a shit..."
Roger's unenthusiasm for the Jaguar schedule means only that he thinks the majority of customers who have upgraded to OS X have done so too recently to want to pay for another upgrade so soon, not that he thinks Apple should delay the release of Jaguar. From a financial point of view, he's correct. Since 10.1 was the first mainstream 10.x release and therefore when normal people started upgrading, it is too soon to charge for an upgrade given the time between 10.1 and Jaguar.
On the other hand, Roger is one cold-hearted analyst.
I hope Apple gives Jaguar free to a lot of recent upgraders and only charges those of us who've been using 10.x for a while.
Why do reporters no longer research?
by
gbooker
·
· Score: 4, Informative
But the new rendering engine, called Quartz Extreme, could tax some systems running older graphics cards. For optimum performance, the new engine requires at minimum an Nvidia GeForce2MX or greater graphics card or any 32MB ATI Radeon graphics card. The hefty graphics requirements could present problems for some Apple notebooks or older desktops.
Jobs clearly stated in his keynote that the new Quartz Extreme will run the same on the older hardware as the current Quartz. Only those with the required graphics hardware will see any change and it will be an improvement. Also, the 32MB of VRAM is not required, just recomended.
Kay also questioned how many Mac OS X 10.1 users would move to Jaguar
Simple: Almost all of them. I know I will!
Already, Apple is the first computer maker to offer wireless networking on all its systems.
Nice to see that they have gotten over Dell's lies.
Adding Bluetooth to Mac OS X would put Apple ahead of Microsoft, which has yet to incorporate support for the technology into Windows XP.
A sign of things to come. With OS X, Apple has the easiest development platform out there. Once it start to get fully ramped up (still getting there), development on OS X should take off without any end in sight.
-- You see? It's like I've always said. You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than you can with just a kind word.
Shareholder results
by
BitGeek
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
This is good for customers, but (due in part to imbeciles like those quoted above) not necessarily for shareholders.
I'd like to disagree with you on that one. Analysts can move a stock in the short term, but the long term results that shareholders get are determined solely by the performance of the company.
Apple's regular release schedule is probably good for this-- each time they do it they add significant value to the Mac platform. I don't think the $19 or $29 they get for a new OS is significant (for instance, all us Developers get it sent to us for free) revenue compared to the fact that EVERY MAC SHIPPING just got better.
The new features increaste the hardware value and support hardware sales.
And the way things are going, it probably won't be long before the percieved value of a Mac is as far ahead of Windows as it used to be.
Apple doesn't trade at the multiple of Microsoft because Apple's financials are not as good, and not as consistent as Microsoft.
Stock is, actually, one of the most fair evaluators-- Apple''s been performing well, but they need consistent results for a couple more years before their multiple will expand.
Microsoft, because they are in a more attractive segment (Software has a much higher gross profit margine than hardware) are going to continue to trade at a higher multiple than Apple.
But that said, it may mean that Apple is the better stock because Microsoft's value is fully realized in its current price, while Apple is discounted because of its spotty history and (short term) anaysts opinions.
As warren buffet has said "IF you're going to be buying steak do you want the price to be high or low?" When buying stock, you want a low price....
-- Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
Slashdot Mirror
X11 is already taken and refers to the XFree86 protocol. So what will the next major release be named? "But it goes all the way to eleven." (insert Spinal Tap joke here) Which makes me wonder whether Apple will go back to the tradition of calling things "plus" or "II" like the MacPlus or MacII in days of old. MacOSXPlus and MacOSXII sounds bad, but MacOSXIIx would be even worse.
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
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.
"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."
What absolute rubbish! This is why I despise analysts and MBAs with no revenue responsibility. This person would delay 10.2 because it would cannibalize 10.1 sales?
OSX 10.0, 10.1 and 10.2 are not different products each with unique life cycles. It's all THE Apple OS, their unique competitive differentiator in the market place.
Well done Apple. The only way to survive is to put your best effort in front of the customer all the time.
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 used to be true, but one can look to several recent releases that were made independent of Expo's iPod, XServe, eMac, and I think the redesigned iBook. Apple has moved away from the release at an Expo model for releasing software and hardware. If they really can make the August date, expect an announcement at Expo, and a relatively quiet rollout (no event, announcement on website) in August.
My other sig is extremely clever...
The new MacOSX release Schedule:
:P
MacOSX.II
MacOSX.IIci
MacOSX.IIcx
MacOSX.IIfx
MacOSX.IIsi
MacOSX.IIvi
MacOSX.IIvx
MacOSX.IIx
Then, of course:
MacOSX.colorclassicII
And for the budget market:
MacOSX.lcII
MacOSX.lcIII
MacOSX.lcIIIplus
Now lets go retro!
MaxOSX.IIe
MaxOSX.IIgs
Or they can use the great X naming scheme:
MacOSX2, and eventually MacOSX11R6
I could have missed it, of course, but it sure doesn't look like there's an official version number determined; witness the "OSXI" jokes posted above.
It's a small thing, but it undermines the article's credibility just a wee bit.
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!
But the new rendering engine, called Quartz Extreme, could tax some systems running older graphics cards. For optimum performance, the new engine requires at minimum an Nvidia GeForce2MX or greater graphics card or any 32MB ATI Radeon graphics card. The hefty graphics requirements could present problems for some Apple notebooks or older desktops.
Jobs clearly stated in his keynote that the new Quartz Extreme will run the same on the older hardware as the current Quartz. Only those with the required graphics hardware will see any change and it will be an improvement. Also, the 32MB of VRAM is not required, just recomended.
Kay also questioned how many Mac OS X 10.1 users would move to Jaguar
Simple: Almost all of them. I know I will!
Already, Apple is the first computer maker to offer wireless networking on all its systems.
Nice to see that they have gotten over Dell's lies.
Adding Bluetooth to Mac OS X would put Apple ahead of Microsoft, which has yet to incorporate support for the technology into Windows XP.
A sign of things to come. With OS X, Apple has the easiest development platform out there. Once it start to get fully ramped up (still getting there), development on OS X should take off without any end in sight.
You see? It's like I've always said. You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than you can with just a kind word.
This is good for customers, but (due in part to imbeciles like those quoted above) not necessarily for shareholders.
I'd like to disagree with you on that one. Analysts can move a stock in the short term, but the long term results that shareholders get are determined solely by the performance of the company.
Apple's regular release schedule is probably good for this-- each time they do it they add significant value to the Mac platform. I don't think the $19 or $29 they get for a new OS is significant (for instance, all us Developers get it sent to us for free) revenue compared to the fact that EVERY MAC SHIPPING just got better.
The new features increaste the hardware value and support hardware sales.
And the way things are going, it probably won't be long before the percieved value of a Mac is as far ahead of Windows as it used to be.
Apple doesn't trade at the multiple of Microsoft because Apple's financials are not as good, and not as consistent as Microsoft.
Stock is, actually, one of the most fair evaluators-- Apple''s been performing well, but they need consistent results for a couple more years before their multiple will expand.
Microsoft, because they are in a more attractive segment (Software has a much higher gross profit margine than hardware) are going to continue to trade at a higher multiple than Apple.
But that said, it may mean that Apple is the better stock because Microsoft's value is fully realized in its current price, while Apple is discounted because of its spotty history and (short term) anaysts opinions.
As warren buffet has said "IF you're going to be buying steak do you want the price to be high or low?" When buying stock, you want a low price....
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23