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

Unfair comparison

[catxk]

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.

Re:Unfair comparison

[AKAImBatman]

Pretty much. This isn't "Apple Vista" we're talking about here. 10.4 is a good OS and there's no rush to upgrade. I think we'll all survive waiting for 10.5 if it means that the iPhone (something which is completely unavailable to the market) gets here faster.

From a business perspective, Apple doesn't want their major announcements overlapping. So delaying the OS by a few months means that they can provide a steady stream of announcements.

Re:Unfair comparison

[Divebus]

Since Vista has proven to be absolutely no competition to even the current OS X, what's the rush for Leopard? Get the iPhone right and they'll have a HUGE winner on their hands. A million people have already queried AT&T about the iPhone through the notification list at Cingular, so who's your daddy?

Re:Unfair comparison

[HAKdragon]

Pretty much. This isn't "Apple Vista" we're talking about here. 10.4 is a good OS and there's no rush to upgrade.

There doesn't seem to be much of a rush to upgrade to Vista either.

Re:Unfair comparison

[Divebus]

What do you mean? There are probably at least 10 times as many new computers sold with Vista, as with OS X

That's down from 20 times a few years ago. Two-thirds of the people in my office drop kicked their PCs and bought Macs in the last couple of years. That's a trend I'm watching first hand. Those who still want/need a new PC are trying to figure out where to get one with XP. They don't even WANT Vista but that's what's shipping now, like it or not. I've shown a few PC users XP under Parallels and they all had that "aha" moment. More switchers, albeit AC/DC.

Re:Unfair comparison

[SuperMog2002]

Because the release of Vista hasn't really made a dent in Mac sales. Sure, Vista's sold many more copies than Mac OS X has, which everyone should have expected given the market four months ago (i.e. MS dominates and almost all new computers ship with Windows). The key is that, year over year, Apple's sales are still increasing, even though last year they didn't have to compete with Vista and this year they do. Sure, when the iPod first came out 5 years ago, maybe MP3 players were all that was keeping Apple alive. However, today Mac sales are self sustaining and rising.

In my mind, there was never much of a doubt that Vista would do well. Microsoft just had too much momentum for it to flop. What's up the air right now, especially if it takes 5 years to come out, is Windows 7. MS's momentum is decreasing, and if they don't reverse the trend, then they eventually won't have enough to get another free pass like Vista. The fact that Vista didn't slow Mac sales is bad for them. Very bad.

Re:Unfair comparison

[bgfay]

http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html

Paul Graham's article "Microsoft is Dead" may be applicable here. For me, I'm no longer worried about buying another Windows machine (yes, I'm on XP right now) because I no longer use apps that are tied to Windows. In fact, as things go, I use fewer and fewer apps that aren't web based. I just don't need them any more. Beyond that, most of the apps I use have free alternatives and I use them.

The one proprietary application I still use is iTunes with my iPod. So a Mac machine might work for me next time around. I want one because they are so well designed, unlike this HP piece of junk whose battery doesn't make it an hour, and because friends and family have all had very good experiences.

Then again, I might just throw the whole lot out and buy something cheap and put Ubuntu on it.

Whatever the case, there's more to the equation than Bill Gates's relative worth.

Re:Unfair comparison

[juiceCake]

Pretty much. This isn't "Apple Vista" we're talking about here.

Quite right. Copland/Rhapsody was Apple's Vista.

What can wait?

[Scrameustache]

Cell phone buyers, or releasing the preview to Microsoft's next OS features?

...and you know the end product never lives up to the previews ;-)

Re:What can wait?

[Rakshasa Taisab]

I don't know about you, but Windows Vista certainly lived up to my expectations. It might even have surpassed them by a little.

BTW, don't take this to mean I'd ever be willing to come within 5km of a computer running it though.

They're playing the hype

[oskard]

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.

Yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I Think Their Excuse is Lame

[Black-Man]

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.

Re:I Think Their Excuse is Lame

[ZachPruckowski]

How do you know it happened just now. It could have happened 3 months ago, and they're just telling us now. For all we know, those programmers could have been reassigned last year (in like Oct) and are now heading back to Leopard (which is why we now have a time estimate on release)

Indeed...

[someone300]

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?

Re:Indeed...

[Scudsucker]

Taco? Is that you? How much space do you have left on that Nomad these days?

don't be so gullible

[nanosquid]

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.

They've BEEN doing that!

[phillymjs]

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

Captivated market

[Gary W. Longsine]

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.

Re:This piece doesn't make much sense....

[linguae]

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.

Watch out for the iphone

[loftling]

My personal theory is that Apple is hiding a big iphone feature. They announced it in January because they had to for FCC filings, they showed us a bunch of the features to get people excited, but there's going to be something more that justifies the price and their entry into the market.

Re:Captive market

[gEvil (beta)]

Either way, everybody using a Mac has to buy it and will buy it.

Yeah, I know they've FORCED me to buy the upgrades several times now. Damn I wish I still had freewill...

Who is being held captive?

[Infonaut]

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.

Re:Not locked in, locked OUT

[bberens]

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.

Re:Not locked in, locked OUT

[Mattintosh]

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.

Re:Not locked in, locked OUT

[gig]

> 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'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 ... 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.

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.