Slashdot Mirror
Why Apple Delayed Leopard for the iPhone
Ernest DeFarge writes "Apple recently announced that they've pulled several key programmers from the OS X 10.5 "Leopard" and assigned them to the iPhone in order to get it done on time. In doing so, they delayed Leopard for 4 months. Does that mean that the iPhone is more important to Apple than Mac OS? Or is it just capitalizing on the current state of Apple's fanbase?"
I guess brand new massively hyped iPhone is more important to Apple than the difference between OS X 10.4 and 10.5 during the limited time period of the summer of 2007.
Don't be crazy anymore!
That Apple wasnt delaying to for the iPhone more than they are delaying it for some secret additions to the codebase and the testing involved for it that we will get a hint of come WWDC.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
I don't know what Leopard is. I know what an iPhone is. You know why?
Because the iPhone is on the news, tv, radio; everyone is talking about it. It is absolutely more important than OSX at the moment. The iPhone could potentially be Apple's new iPod.
Sigs are for Terrorists.
Does that mean that the iPhone is more important to Apple than Mac OS?
Did nobody else notice that when Jobs announced the iPhone, he also renamed the company to take the word "Computer" out of it?
That sounds kind of, well, I dunno, strategic to me.
Its been delayed only 4 months, I don't know what all the drama is for. In fact, this extra development time is going to be very beneficial, because they are going to release a full beta at WWDC for developers.
Pulling QA and Software Engineers off the Leopard project onto iPhone?? I don't care if its the "same" OS, i.e. iPhone using the mobile version of OSX. Adding developers and QA towards the end of a project lifecycle usually means disaster. I'm curious to see if they pull it off.
What's up with these binary comparisons? Just because OS X 10.5 was delayed a few months for the iPhone doesn't mean anything to do with OS X being unimportant. The iPhone runs OS X; it must be important.
Most users are happy with 10.4 and 10.5 is more of a luxury than a necessity. All this means is that 10.4 is sufficient that the general Apple buyer isn't screaming for OS improvements, but that the market may indeed be screaming for a decent mobile phone, like they were screaming for a decent MP3 player around when the iPod gained in popularity.
Anyway, a lot of the funds and improvements from the potential success from the iPhone will probably be funneled back into OS X and the Mac hardware. Haven't some of the improvements in 10.5, like Core Animation, been brought about due to the iPhone already?
You can't conclude from a press release what the real reason for the delay is. Leopard may be delayed because of the iPhone, or it may be delayed because it's still buggy, or maybe Apple is still trying to file some last minute patents, or maybe it's something completely different.
..it's a matter of which one they can't afford to fail with. I saw a *lot* of mainstream press on the AppleTV, simply because it was Apple. The reviews weren't that great though, and they really can't afford the iPhone to be a flop - they'll go from being the iPod king to so-so producer of stylish consumer electronics. That is far more important to them than missing an OS upgrade (how long was Vista delayed again? Debian etch? It's not like Apple is the bad apple here.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It's the iTunes company.
AppleTV, iPod, iPhone, Airport, etc.... all complements to iTunes.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
I think Apple has no need to aim lower. 10.4 is already better than Vista. There's no pressure on them to rush anything.
Apple makes more money on hardware sales than it does with software. Thus, it makes sense that the iPhone is a priority (if that is actually the case). Apple got a big hardware sales boost with switching to Intel. However many Mac users, such as myself, haven't upgraded to Intel machines because of the delay with Adobe CS3.
Leopard is icing on the cake, and I'm sure it's going to be great, but CS3 is going to sell many more new Macs than Leopard.
Unixes, in general, are very flexible OSs.
If a Motorola phone can run Linux, most certainly an iPhone can run Darwin.
Even if it doesn't - and Apple goes a different route with the kernel - they still have the BSD layer and most of their userland stuff remains relatively portable as soon as you port the *Kit stuff.
As for the eye candy, it's easy to do decent 2D acceleration even on a low-power device.
I say they are still looking good on the iPhone front.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Have you been in a cave on the dark side of the moon since 2000?
During the last five years, Apple released major versions of OS X about every 1-1.5 years while all Microsoft had was XP. Third party developers were actually complaining because of the rapid pace of change of OS X. Before Tiger was released, Apple announced they would be slowing down the pace of their OS X releases.
I'm disappointed that I have to wait longer than expected for Leopard, but I'd rather they ship it when it's ready-- besides, it's not like they had to scrap it midstream and start over, and then chop all the compelling features to make an already embarassingly late ship date.
It does make sense to focus on the iPhone right now, because the mobile phone market is much larger than the personal computer market. If Apple gets a nice foothold in it, it will mean more money for them to pour into expanding their presence in the computer market.
~Philly
Given the Apple emphasis on support for open standards (such as a standards-compliant web browser and email client) and the UNIX base of Mac OS X, I'd say Apple users are relatively much less locked in than Windows users.
Apple users are certainly no more locked in than users of any other platform. The average useful life of a general purpose personal computer has been two to four years, depending largely on individual use case. If you don't like being locked in to Windows, buy a Mac the next time you need a new system. Same works in reverse.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Well, this announcement illustrates the difference between Apple fans and Mac fans. Apple fans like the decision because they feel that the iPhone would be a great product. The Apple fans are the ones saying that the delay of the OS is fine; OS X 10.4 is good enough for them. Apple fans like the idea of Apple becoming a consumer electronics company. Mac fans, on the other hand, don't really care about the iPhone. They feel that this decision is a slap in the face to Apple's loyal Mac customers, who want to prioritize a new phone over their long-standing product with millions of users. They'd rather see better Macs and improvements to OS X than to see a phone. Mac fans are worried that the Mac would be marginalized as Apple chases profits from MP3 players, phones, media center boxes, and other consumer electronics.
I fall in the Mac fan category. Personally, I'm starting to get worried about Apple's change from Apple Computer, Inc. to just Apple, Inc. At MacWorld 2007, not a single Mac product was announced. The only hardware update that we've received in five months was the updated Mac Pros that came out recently. Now OS X is delayed to work on a phone. I, and many other Mac users who have switched away from Linux, BSD, and other Unices, are not interested in Apple because of their phones, media centers, or MP3 players. We're interested in Apple because of their easy to use Unix with commercial software support and easy to use GUI applications. I hope the Mac doesn't become marginalized, but I already feel that it has by Apple's actions this year.
I'll just have to wait and see. But for now, although I like my MacBook, I'll be very careful to not be locked-in. Just as I switched to the Mac last summer from Windows XP and FreeBSD, I will switch back if I discover that Apple doesn't care about us.
When apple releases an upgrade there is no need to buy it. I know a lot of mac users who are running 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 right now. Now if they upgrade then they'll be treated to better performance (new iterations of the operating system tent to speed up older systems instead of bog them down) but I know people whose older macs are working "just fine" and who haven't upgraded, except for security patches, since 2001.
Sure you can, if you want to throw money down the toilet. The only reason for paying the premium for an Apple box is an OS. If you don't want OSX, you'd have to be an idiot to buy an Apple, quite honestly. That's like buying a Porsche, and putting a Toyota 4 cylinder engine in it.
I don't respond to AC's.
Interesting that most Apple software continues to work for years. I don't recall anyone having to upgrade to 10.4 or 10.3. You might have wanted to, since the OS got leaner and faster and offered some serious new benies, quite unlike, say, the XP -> Vista "upgrade".
However, unlike Mac upgrades, the Vista/Office upgrade is designed to force an upgrade cycle, by that wonderful "incompatible" format structure. What do you get for your upgrade dollar? A more unstable system with a new UI to learn and ever adoring love from everyone you exchange files with who now have to upgrade to read them.
Lastly, about lock in: You've never run an apple. You're anything but locked in. Apple is hardware with some software provided. It's damn good hardware, and if you really want, you can even run MS software on it, along with various other flavors of *nix, and even OS/2 if you're really into convoluted configurations.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Win2k SP1, WinXP, Win2k SP2, WinXP sp1, Win2k SP3, Win2k3, WinXP SP2, Win2k3 sp1, Win2k SP3, win2k3 sp2, WinVista etc.
Every year, I've definitely played with new 'intermediate' Windows OS versions.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
You can not install the update and deal with new apps not working with your Mac, or you can install Windows or Linux on your Mac, wasting the premium you paid for the box.
You're making the usual Apples v. Oranges mistake. Just as nobody would compare a $500 Windows machine with a $2,000 Windows machine, it is foolish to compare bargain basement PCs with Macs. If you want to compare quality hardware with quality hardware, compare $2,000 machines. You spend $2,000 each on three different laptops. Here are the three scenarios:
On your Mac, if you can not install the update and deal with new apps not working with your Mac, you CAN install Windows or you CAN install Linux on your Mac.
On your Windows machine, Microsoft comes out with an upgrade. You cannot install the update and deal with new apps not working with your Windows computer. You CAN install Linux on your machine. You CANNOT install Macintosh on your machine.
On your Linux machine, the latest and greatest Linux distro arrives. You cannot install the update and deal with new apps working sluggishly or not working at all on your computer because of processor speed, graphics card limitations, or limited disk space. You CAN install Windows on your machine. You CANNOT install Macintosh on your machine.
So the Macintosh hardware gives you three OS choices. The other two only give you two OS choices each. I fail to see how the Apple hardware locks you in more than PC hardware.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Does it not occur to you that both the AppleTV and the iPhone are computers?
Albeit smaller, more usable, and more affordable than the traditional Mac?
GPL Deconstructed
No, it's like buying a Buick and not bringing it every weekend to the carwash.
All the 'Apple' automobile analogies are ridiculous. The only way that I can agree with them is that arrogant effete assholes *do* buy BMWs.
There's not a lack of choices for the consumer. I can run any of a number of Fedora Core, Ubuntu, Solaris x86, FreeBSD, Windows XP, Windows 2000, DOS, Debian, and dozens upon dozens of other operating systems on my machine. The fact that I can't run one in particular doesn't indicate to me that I have a lack of choices. It means one provider of operating systems chooses not to target me as a potential customer. It happens all the time.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
You aren't Apple's customer. Apple is a HARDWARE company that sells integrated solutions.
Get over it. You want OS X, buy a Mac. Otherwise stick with Windows, *Nix, or write your own OS.
If Apple tried the business model of selling people like you copies of OS X, they would go out of business. Their hardware sales subsidize software development. No hardware revenue, no development expense. If they priced it to actually recover the "hardwareless" cost, you wouldn't be willing to pay and lots of your unwashed buddies would simply pirate OS X.
Let me repeat for emphasis- YOU ARE NOT APPLE'S CUSTOMER. Buy a Mac, then you can bitch about wanting something different. Hell, write a letter to Steve Jobs complaining that Apple doesn't make the right box for your needs. At least then you've done something constructive about your problem.
This is not an example of "giving the customer what they want".
No, it's an example of you're not the customer. You haven't purchased a computer from them, so you're not a customer. Period. Whine and gripe about it all you want, but if you want Mac OS X, you must become Apple's customer, and that pretty much requires a hardware purchase.
Try thinking of it like this: Apple sells computers. Mac OS X is a pack-in (and really, it's optional, you can install Linux or Windows if you want). You don't get the "free" copy of Mac OS X and a fully supported installation without buying hardware. You could just buy the boxed version of Mac OS X (well, once 10.5 is out, anyway) and install it on your existing hardware, but it's unsupported. And don't bother with the tired "it's not allowed by the EULA" argument, since that hasn't ever stopped anyone before and it probably isn't even legally enforceable, much less enforceable in a practical sense.
So don't use Apple computers. It is, as you stated, your choice. But know that by not using them, you aren't a customer, and aren't entitled to be treated like one.
If users wanted to continue getting security updates and support for OS X, then they had to upgrade to OS X 10.3 (released October 2003) if they were using 10.1 (sold September 2001 to July 2002). They had to upgrade to 10.4 (released April 2005) if they were using 10.2 (sold August 2002 to September 2003). Those are relatively short lifecycles for an operating system.
In comparison, Windows XP (released October 2001) will continue to get security updates and (paid) support until at least April 2014. Windows 2000 (released February 2000) gets updates and support until July 2010. Ubuntu 6.06 LTS (released June 2006) will be supported until June 2009 (desktop version) or June 2011 (server version).
You might have wanted to, since the OS got leaner and faster and offered some serious new benies, quite unlike, say, the XP -> Vista "upgrade". No operating system (including Mac OS or Vista) gets "leaner and faster" when they first implement their compositing window manager (Quartz, Aero). Remember how awfully slow OS X 10.0/10.1 were? OS X got faster because they had time to optimize a new, slow, buggy window manager. Vista is implementing a compositing window manager (Aero) that's more advanced than OS X 10.4's. Quartz 2D Extreme should catch up (or surpass) Aero when it's finally enabled in 10.5. However, unlike Mac upgrades, the Vista/Office upgrade is designed to force an upgrade cycle, by that wonderful "incompatible" format structure. What do you get for your upgrade dollar? A more unstable system with a new UI to learn and ever adoring love from everyone you exchange files with who now have to upgrade to read them. What file formats will be "incomatible" with Windows XP and Office 2003? Microsoft always released Office Compatability Packs that allow previous versions of Office to use (not just read) the newest Office formats. The Compatability Pack for Office 2007 allows users of Office XP and Office 2003 to "open, edit, save, and create files using the Open XML Formats new to the 2007 Microsoft Office system." Heck, it even allows Office/Windows 2000 users to convert Office 2007 files. It's damn good hardware, and if you really want, you can even run MS software on it, along with various other flavors of *nix You can thank Microsoft for allowing Windows to be run on Apple hardware. You can blame Apple for disallowing OS X to be run on non-Apple hardware.> I've got a great new Core 2 duo machine, and I've spent a lot of time and money creating a quiet cooling system
... Vista is version 6.0. You don't have a choice not to use it. You have to change to another computing platform to avoid Vista.
> for it because I use the computer for music production.
> I'd like Apple to sell me a version of OSX that I could run on this new machine, too, but they've decided that I can't use
> their OS unless I pay a premium for their hardware (which is basically either the same or inferior to what I've got).
You spent a lot of time and money creating a quiet and cool machine for music production, yet you are not willing to pay Apple any kind of premium to make you a quiet and cool machine for music production? Apple has specifically made "quiet" a feature since the 1980's. They put time and effort into that whereas others don't and then you have to.
In addition to making your machine quiet and cool, Apple will also include a complete multichannel digital audio subsystem with plug-in format and 32-bit 192 kHz support, it is a whole digital mixer in there. It takes me about 20 minutes to install MOTU drivers on a Mac and hook up through USB and FireWire and in no time I'm running Logic Pro and Ableton Live side-by-side and it all just works. It would be worth paying a premium for, but you don't because it is all the same Intel hardware. The software is essentially free.
> This is not an example of "giving the customer what they want".
In this you are 100% correct because you are not one of their customers. You bought a Windows PC.
> Free markets are supposed to be about choices. It's the lack of choices that has kept me from switching to Vista. After careful
> consideration, and despite the fact that I admire much about OSX, I choose not to use Macs because I don't want to be limited
> in such a way.
You bought a Windows PC with version 5.1 of the OS
Complaining that you would rather run the PS3 operating system or the Mac operating system or the iPod operating system on your Windows computer is pointless.
Earlier you blamed Apple for "deciding" that in order to use their OS you have to buy their PC. It is you who decided to buy a commodity PC. It is you who is to blame for the fact that your operating system choices are limited to commodity operating systems. Apple is not the only company to build specific OS for specific hardware, in fact, this is the typical method. The only company that does it the OTHER way is PART of Microsoft. It is not even all of Microsoft, because with XBox and Zune they are using the typical method same as Apple and Sony.
> I'm less certain of the long-term viability of the Macintosh platform now than I've been at any time since 1998.
Apple is selling more Macs now than ever. You buy a really good computer and it comes with tons of world-class software, and if you have other uses for it you can run Windows or Unix on it or do as you please. It's hard to argue with that compared to other name brands.
However if you are doing music and you're not using a Mac I truly think you are a mad man. CoreAudio is worth buying a Mac just to use it. It takes me 20 minutes to turn a stock Mac into a digital audio workstation using a couple of MOTU boxes and a handful of software installers and then it just works. It is easy to swap a Mac out for a new one and get more CPU because the IT overhead is almost zero, even in a music studio.