Apple Offers Solution to IT Roadmap Complaints

daria42 writes "Apple has admitted that enterprise IT users complain a lot about not being able to find out what its product roadmap is ahead of time. The Apple answer to this problem? Sign a non-disclosure agreement and go to Apple's annual worldwide developer conference, to be held in August this year in San Francisco. IT users can apparently get plans of Apple's roadmap up to 18 months ahead."

Comments

Vagueness

[FuturePastNow]

Despite the NDA I imagine this will be very, very skimpy on details. Something like, "In six months, we'll be using the 3Ghz dual-core processors, in twelve months we'll be using the 3.5Ghz quad-core processors." Hell, Intel's roadmaps already give us most of the details of Apple's future products (everything except size and shape).

It'll leak anyway.

Re:Vagueness

[IntlHarvester]

(everything except size and shape).

And Price.

You can bet there will be no juicy information such as "We plan to have a expandible minitower on the market for $800 in 2007. So don't buy a PowerMac unless you *really* need it!!". Instead you'll get the standard Intel roadmap which anyone can read on the Inqurier.

I think this is really to molify institutional concerns about the Intel switchover -- It happened so fast, I imagine that quite a few shops that couldn't manage budgets/planning quickly enough. One day they were selling iMac G5s and the next day they weren't, and too bad if you were using Photoshop or something.

Re:Vagueness

[dushkin]

Apple always keeps its products uber-secret no matter what, Palm likes to do similar things. Gotta love this fruit company :P Things DO leak, but when they leak it's generally two weeks before the thing is released.. And usually you can't even tell what it is, like this "Ultra-Portable" device Apple allegedly wants to make. It could be a new iPod, or it could be a new MacBook [Pro]. So unless you signed an agreement with them, chances are you won't exactly know what Apple is trying to do. And when you do know, you're gonna have to keep it secret or else the Apple Police will follow you home and kill your dog.

Re:Vagueness

[saurabhdutta]

FTFA, Its software roadmap they are primarily talking about. "Those attending the conference get a clear roadmap of Apple's software development plans up to 18 months ahead"

Re:Vagueness

[hey!]

I imagine that most IT guys aren't interested in hardware speed. They're more interested in software and interoperability. You don't want to roll out software and training programs to find out they've been dropped/updated/replaced. You don't want to buy hardware or software add ons for Apples if Apple is going to make them obsolete.

Re:Vagueness

[ronanbear]

1) Leopard

2) Lion

new iWork and iLife every January. Easy!!

This is the only way... and still won't work.

[ZxCv]

Obviously, with as many rabid fans as Apple has, releasing a roadmap without an NDA would most certainly not work.

And yet, even with the NDA, like the only other post so far said, it will get leaked.

Apple just can't win here.

Re:This is the only way... and still won't work.

[saurabhdutta]

True.. they have no choice. they cant piss off it managers who invest thousands deploying apple hardware. might make it a lil bit difficult for the info to seep out. uh... nevermind. that wont happen. Apple cant even fart without the fansites going nuts over it.

On the other hand

[ronanbear]

Microsoft announced Vista years ago and all its features. Sometimes not knowing what's gonna happen is better than relying on incorrect information.

Apple are deliberately quiet about future products both from a marketing perspective and because it makes them a leaner, more responsive company. They can suddenly release software like Aperture and Bootcamp out of the blue when its ready and the time is right for them.

Re:On the other hand

[TheGreek]

Considering Apple's move to the Wintel platform also caused them to close their (Darwin) source

Only one Darwin component closed: the intel port of xnu (the kernel).

It only closed because it was being primarily used to enable people to use stolen software on hardware for which it wasn't licensed.

It only takes a few idiots shitting in the pool to make the lifeguard kick everybody out.

Re:On the other hand

[squiggleslash]

XNU was one of the few components of Darwin that wasn't already open source - that is, most of the rest of Darwin is actually directly ported from the BSDs, GNU, Apache foundation, and other open source/Free Software systems. So its closing is a big deal.

We don't know why XNU was closed. Apple has said nothing on the subject, except to hint they may reverse the decision (something their shills have consistantly claimed means it's still open source, kind of like Windows is open source because it might be released under the GPL one day. This is why I have a massive dislike for Apple's shills.) There are various proposed reasons, from technologies that affect XNU they want to announce at a later date, to the anti-piracy stuff you comment upon. Until Apple makes a real, public, statement one way or another, it's not really justified to say anything other than "As of now, XNU for Intel is proprietary." It's not absolutely certain it's the pirates that "caused" this.

Re:On the other hand

[TheGreek]

There are various proposed reasons, from technologies that affect XNU they want to announce at a later date, to the anti-piracy stuff you comment upon. Until Apple makes a real, public, statement one way or another, it's not really justified to say anything other than "As of now, XNU for Intel is proprietary." It's not absolutely certain it's the pirates that "caused" this.

It's not absolutely certain, no.

Here's what is certain, though:

1) xnu was, at one point, open for both Intel and PPC.
2) Downloading it was listed as a step in some guides for getting Mac OS X to work on non-Apple Intel hardware.
3) Intel xnu is no longer open, PPC xnu is.

You don't have to be Kreskin to figure this one out.

Re:On the other hand

[daveschroeder]

To reiterate, or, indeed, repeat, something I've told you before:

The source code for Windows has never been open[1]; the argument is not the same.

The source for xnu has been open, continues to be open on PowerPC, and is available in an earlier incarnation for x86 (parity with Mac OS X 10.4.0). Therefore, saying that a final decision might not have been made on current iterations of xnu on x86 is perfectly reasonable.

Further, if anything, MORE source is now released than previously: x86 sources for all non-kernel components are released with parity with Mac OS X releases for PowerPC and x86; previously, x86 sources, including the kernel, were only available with major releases, e.g., 10.x.0.

The bottom line is, while Intel xnu is closed *right now* (and I have never disputed that fact), it's also accurate, given all of the information we know and can infer[2] right now, that the decision isn't final, and indeed may only be temporary.

Further, it's disingenuous of Yager (and anyone else) to paint this as a bigger issue, given that the majority of utility many enterprise customers have gotten from "Darwin" has been from other the many other open source projects and components that continue to be open. That is an indisputable fact, not opinion. Does this mean that no one benefited from and/or used the kernel source? No, of course not. It means exactly what I said: that the MAJORITY of the utility of Darwin has come from the other projects. Not from the kernel source, nor from the ability to build Darwin as a bootable OS. This does not diminish anyone's need or desire for the x86 kernel source; it's simply stating a fact.

For the record, I completely agree that Apple should have made some specific statement. But I think it's pretty clear from what we know that they simply haven't decided yet. While I would have loved a statement, what would they have said? "We are temporarily closing xnu on Intel, and it may or may not be permanent"? "We think we might want to close xnu, but want to test the waters first"? "We are closing xnu on x86 temporarily because of some licensing issues that need to be resolved for some components of xnu on x86"? The fact is, we really don't know why xnu source on x86 is currently unavailable, as you state.

[1] Ridiculous academic source agreements aside.

[2] Since two separate development trees are being maintained for Mac OS X 10.4.x, and since we won't have any news on Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5x) until WWDC, it might do well to give Apple the benefit of the doubt on this topic at least until WWDC. Because Apple has publicly stated that Mac OS X 10.5 will be unified across PowerPC and Intel, it would stand to reason that Apple's intentions for xnu will become clear once a unified OS (Leopard) is released.

Re:On the other hand

[Phat_Tony]

"They can suddenly release software like Aperture and Bootcamp out of the blue when its ready"

Then why didn't they wait until Aperture was ready?

I've been to WWDC

[nebbian]

I went to a WWDC a couple of years ago, when Steve released a beta of Jagwyre to all attendees. It leaked out a couple of weeks after that, but still it's one thing to download it, it's another to have the 'official' copy.

WWDC isn't about product announcements though, it's a chance for normal everyday developers to talk to the Apple guys in charge about the decisions they're making in the future. Stuff like "When are you going to put InputSprockets on OS X?". This is where the juicy stuff is, in the tutorials, not when Steve walks out onto the stage.

It's also a heck of a lot of fun :-)

Re:I've been to WWDC

[Anonymous Freak]

I think the point is this is new this year. IT users will get a roadmap under NDA. Probably not a "we will release the iHDTV on June 1, 2007, and iPhone on August 3rd," type roadmap, but more of a "we will release a desktop using the Intel Core 2 Duo 3.4 GHz within a month of it shipping in December, at the $1000 price point, that is expandable."

Re:I've been to WWDC

[MojoStan]

more of a "we will release a desktop using the Intel Core 2 Duo 3.4 GHz within a month of it shipping in December, at the $1000 price point, that is expandable."

I bet that's a product IT people (and many others) have wanted since the introduction of the iMac and the "blue and white" PowerMac G3. A simple desktop without a freakin' integrated monitor and maybe 2-3 expansion slots. A simple desktop that's NOT a $2000+ workstation. Not an underpowered, non-expandable mini with notebook parts. Not an overpriced cube. Without monitor, priced about the same or less than an iMac.

I bet such a desktop would have outsold the iMac by a very large margin. Instead, Mac desktop buyers have been mostly limited to (1) a non-expandable, all-in-one desktop with limited upgrade options and (2) a big expensive workstation that's overkill for most buyers. Recently Mac buyers have been given the option to buy a mini that's as unpowerful and non-expandable as a low-end notebook.

One example that would outsell the iMac: Small (not mini) desktop or microtower with G965 chipset, Core 2 Duo or Conroe-based Celeron, 2-3 PCIe/PCI slots, next-gen Intel integrated graphics with DVI/HDMI, PCIe x16 graphics slot, standard 5.25" optical drive bay. Over the next five years, a desktop like that can be upgraded to Blu-Ray/HD-DVD, LED-backlit LCD with HDCP, AirPort nTense (802.11n), or 2TB hard drive WITHOUT having a bunch of peripherals and power supplies scattered around the computer.

Jeez...

[__aajqwr7439]

In addition, he said, Apple's previous operating system, Mac OS 9, had a reputation for instability that was still around, despite the newer Mac OS X's strong stability record.

They're almost as bad as the people who still can't stop talking about how bad Windows ME was. And did we mention that we're holding off on Vista because Microsoft Bob had a reputation for being CPU-intensive?

If you're going to hold a grudge, why not go back a decade when you're already halfway there?

DN

Re:Jeez...

[gsfprez]

i often bag on how bac Windows 3.11 is to Mac bashers who's last Mac experience was a Mac Classic back in high school.

I mean, if their understanding of the Mac platform is "it uses all proprietary hardware, you have to buy special ethernet cables for it, and you can't just hook it into a Windows network", then why can't i go back and talk about their OS in a similar timeframe of obsolesence?

Darwin not closed - just sleeping

[maggard]

Apple's own MacOS X Product Manager has pointed out that they've only not released the Intel xnu code yet.

This follows Apple's pattern of getting the code working, then packaging it up when they get a chance.

There has been no official closing of anything, just one overheated journalist's rumor-mongering.

For a great rebuttel to Yager's blathering I recommend reading The 'Mac OS X Closed by Pirates' Myth.

In the meantime don't repeat rumor and assumption as fact.

Re:Darwin not closed - just sleeping

[squiggleslash]

Virtualization.

Suppose Apple wants to release a virtualization system for Mac OS X. The changes would be CPU specific, and would almost certainly only be released for Intel, as that's the only place anyone wants the changes. If Mac OS X is to run under the virtualization system, that is, as a client under a hosted system similar to Xen, then it would need changes throughout the XNU kernel.

Because it's a new feature, Apple would want to keep development of the project secret until its announced, however it's probable it would want kernel changes now so it can test the system internally and ensure out of the box compatibility when the product's released.

We know that Apple's interested in virtualization technologies. We know they want to make running Windows on a Mac a viable and pleasant (well, as pleasant as running Windows can be) experience. We know such a technology will be X86 specific. And we know that it will require many kernel changes, including changes to the core. So here's "one other plausible explanation", other than piracy.

I'm not saying it isn't piracy, I suspect the real reason why Apple's engineers are being vague about the possibility of a future release of the source code is that there's a battle within Apple over whether to withhold source code to combat "piracy" or whether that causes more harm than good. But it's not the only possibility, other, plausable, explanations exist.

Apple doesn't get the enterprise

[caseih]

Having used Apple's enterprise hardware and software (OS X Server and XServe) for three years, I can tell you that Apple just doesn't get the enterprise. They are either unwilling or unable to treat enterprise customers any differently than their average consumer customer. Only recently has Apple even set up a special support mechanism for their enterprise customers. Previous to this point, when you called up apple with a server problem you would never get anyone on the phone that understood servers. One time I called up to get a drive replaced on warranty. The drive (in a RAID-5 array) had not failed, but the yellow warning light had come on, indicating that a failure was likely. After describing the situation to the support rep, he asked me if I had put the disk back in to see if it would go back to a green light. I was flabbergasted. I gently told him that no, I could not do that. This was a mission-critical server and that once the disk had even so much as blinked, it had to be replaced (I had already inserted the spare at that point). I was unable to get the service rep to budge, so I had to escalate the issue through our local education rep and finally got the warranty replacement.

Other major issues we have had stem from the fact that Apple wants us to reboot our computer every couple of weeks. Uptime longer than a month or so is impossible with Apple. We've told our Apple reps that this is unacceptable but they've said we just have to live with the fact that Apple focuses on consumers mainly and for them a reboot is acceptable for almost every update. If you though Microsoft Windows was bad about reboots in the past, Apple is worse.

Finally, despite Apple using Open Source as a marketing point, and despite the fact that Apple bundles a lot of OSS with their OS, Apple is not an Open Source company in any form. Their bundles of OSS are done in way that makes it impossible to recompile or replace components yourself. For example, although they ship OpenLDAP, it is deeply integrated into other Apple components and you cannot fix bugs yourself or upgrade the OpenLDAP component (much of the source is there, but it is not buildable). We ran into some very nasty bugs in Panther server with the hacks they did to OpenLDAP. Bugs that would completely deadlock the server every week and require a hard reset. It took us a year of fighting with Apple to get them to acknowledge that there was a bug. And this was only after another customer spend weeks building a script that would hammer the server and illustrate the bug. Apple finally released a fix for this in 10.3.6 or 7 I think, after it had been reported back at 10.3.3, about a year earlier. And of course by this time, Apple's engineers were hard at work on Tiger, so they didn't really even want to go back and touch panther again. Right about the time Apple released Tiger Server, I complained about some chronic NFS file locking problems in Panther Server (10.3.9) to Apple and they said simply, just upgrade to Tiger. I told them that wasn't possible as it was a production server and I couldn't upgrade it midstream like that, but in Apple's eyes, I'm out of luck. Running OS X server is a bit like trying to run Fedora Core on a server. Apple just doesn't want to support any OS version longer than a year or two. I'm finally getting ready to roll out a Tiger server box (my 3 year cycle on the panther server is about up) as it fixes numerous issues I've been having, but it is not a trivial migration. Plus I've heard a lot of reports that Samba just doesn't work under load on Tiger Server. So that really leaves me in a bit of a bind.

Fortunately we're about to replace the main file server and we're taking bids from other vendors. Right now we're looking at some new Apple RAID arrays, because the price is right, but we're not going to be running OS X server at all. It will definitely be linux on a Dell or HP server. Also Sun is pricing out some hardware that is a whole grade above Apple's RAID at a price that nearly matches Apple's

This article is marketing BS

[daveschroeder]

Apple has not, and still does not, get the enterprise.

While Apple has been *extremely slowly* working to provide enterprise services (Apple's enterprise-specific phone support options are extremely improved, particularly the Preferred and Alliance levels), there are other areas that are still sorely lacking. Currently, we use AppleCare Enterprise Help Desk support, and have been fairly satisfied.

Apple does now offer 24x7 and 4 hour on-site service and support plans, and matches fairly well, most of the time, with our other vendors (primarily Dell, Sun, and IBM).

Where we get killed is on any kind of roadmap or planning information.

At Macworld San Francisco 2004, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which used to be the largest Mac site in the world, talked about what they learned integrating Macs in their enterprise. I've made the presentation available here. I recommend people take a look at it, as it covers other issues as well. Like many organizations, Apple suffered during the late 90s, when it wasn't clear what Apple's direction was, and when Apple's future seemed uncertain. This meant that LLNL went from having 14000 Macs in 1997 to having about half that in 2003. In the meantime, the Windows installed base increased commensurately. (I believe that since then, we've gone to being one of the largest Mac sites outside of Apple, with well over 10000 institutionally-owned Macs, and many Apple server and storage products both deployed centrally and around the campus. Some examples.)

What is one of LLNL's top recommendations for Apple?

Develop a working balance between Apple's needed "confidentiality" and Corporate IT's need of "roadmap" information

This balance, or lack thereof, is also listed as one of their top "difficulties" when working with Apple. And I couldn't agree more.

You touched on some other issues related to software development, integration of OSS components into the OS, acknowledgment of and tracking of bugs, bug fixes being pushed out to next major releases of the operating system (e.g., 10.3.x -> 10.4), and so on. One small victory has been that Apple does now provide semi-detailed information about security updates, and does provide security updates for the previous major version of the OS.

However, the list of deficiencies is much longer. At WWDC, pretty much the only information we get is with regard to software development (and to be fair, that's all the original article actually refers to). We get virtually no information on hardware futures. We don't need to see pictures or know exactly what speed something will be. We want to know where Apple's headed. What form will the Intel servers take? We don't want to find out the DAY they ship. Will they use multiple cores? How many? Which architectures? Will they finally have redundant power supplies? How many drive bays will they have? How many expansion slots, and what kind of expansion? Will the Xserve RAID transition to SATA? Will Apple provide onboard video on the Xserve? Will there be an expansion beyond light-duty servers? How will they integrate into our existing management infrastructure? Will Mac OS X Server make provisions for virtualization of multiple instances of Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server? Where is Apple going with Darwin? What is the EOL schedule for Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server? (Apple still makes NO INFORMATION available about official end-of-life or end-of-support for any versions of Mac OS X or Mac OS X Server. We just have to guess that the previous major version of Mac OS X is what's supported.) How long will PowerPC be supported? This list goes on and on and on and on.

Yes, you can glean and infer some of this stuff unofficially from things happening in th

Re:Apple doesn't get the enterprise

[CODiNE]

I agree that their enterprise support needs some serious improvements, but in the meantime I'll give you this advice.

Get a developer account and use bugreporter. It really does work. I have a free account and I can't even program anymore since I switched jobs, but the bug reports DO get looked at and they do fix them. I started reporting them a while back, every little thing that bugs me, simple stuff or anything I could think of. Surprisingly I'd get replies from an engineer very quickly asking for more information or clarification on reproducing it. Then next thing you know the bug is marked Closed and the next OS update fixes it.

Just follow the reporting guidelines, be as clear as possible, explain how it SHOULD work and how it currently does or doesn't work and you will get a geek interested somewhere on the inside. The phone lines are keeping the unwashed masses from flooding their engineers with stupid questions, but bugreporter and other developer forums get you talking to the guy responsible.