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

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: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"

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

[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.