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?"

Comments

So Ignorant.

[commisaro]

I wouldn't expect the common person to understand this, but it's something you learn in business school: You put your key programmers on the project that's LEAST important. Trust me. It all makes sense.

Not locked in, locked OUT

[PopeRatzo]

I'd say Apple users are relatively much less locked in than Windows users.

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 for it because I use the computer for music production. I've made a great effort choosing the very best components including 10k hard drives. I can run Windows XP Pro SP2 (which I do) or Vista Home, Premium or Business or Ubuntu Studio (which I will).

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). This is not an example of "giving the customer what they want".

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.

Maybe putting its resources into its consumer products is a good choice for Apple's shareholders. It's not in my best interest, though, nor is it in the best interest of the many loyal users of Apple computers. I'm less certain of the long-term viability of the Macintosh platform now than I've been at any time since 1998.

Re:Not locked in, locked OUT

[jmpeax]

by not using them, you aren't a customer, and aren't entitled to be treated like one.

This isn't the issue. The argument is about consumer choice. Optimal economic policy is about ensuring the best for the consumer. That means lots of competition to drive down prices and offer plenty of consumer choice. By not allowing their hardware or software to be truly independent from one another, Apple can be said to stifle consumer choice and inhibit fair competition, much in the same way that Microsoft can be said to do the same by bundling Windows Media Player with Windows.