Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Missed Opportunity With Leopard Delay
An anonymous reader writes "According to an article on OSWeekly.com, Apple missed a big opportunity by not releasing Leopard soon. They could've taken advantage of Vista's losing streak and one upped Microsoft, the author suggests. 'It's not uncommon for Windows users and technology consumers in general to say that Microsoft missed out on making the most of Vista both before and after its launch. Longtime fans of Windows have changed their tone due to Vista's inadequacies, and regular users are in many cases stuck with trying to figure out why they still can't get certain things to work within the operating system. Granted, it's not a completely horrific OS, but is that even a compliment worth accepting?'"
Windows users will stick with XP, there's no evidence to say that they would give up on Windows and get a Mac. Firstly they would need to buy new hardware, the obvious choice is to go to Linux since you can keep your hardware.
I'm not sure how you can say they missed an opportunity until after some initial sales figures and responses come out. It took a while before the non-desire for Vista became apparent. It will take some time before people have a chance to respond (with their wallets) to Leopard.
The should have released it 'on time' regardless if that made it feature-poor and buggy.
These comentators don't understand Apple customers. Apple customers value quality. You try to sell them crap and they will eat you alive.
Apple's prime value is in the intangible goodwill of it's customers. Destroying that by releasing buggy crap wouldn't be a good idea.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Apple had a choice, release the new OS X later, and the iPhone when they did, or, delay the iPhone.
I think it should be obvious with the hype that still surrounds that device that Apple made the right choice. Yes, they could have gained some more marketshare, but probably not by much. After all, OS X is already here, just not the latest version.
Apple is entering a market (handhelds) that is likely to be a much larger market than laptops/desktops over the next few years. The iPhone stands a good chance of becoming the market leader in a particular segment. OS X will still be (mostly) a niche player. I hope to see adoption of mac's increase - after all, I own one.
But given the choice, I would opt for the iPhone over OS X just like they did.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
According to an article on OSWeekly.com, Apple missed a big opportunity by not releasing Leopard soon.
Apple is releasing Leopard soon, unless six days now qualifies as a long wait. Perhaps the author of the summary meant "earlier."
But it wasn't Vista who won, it was Ubuntu. While I was waiting for Leopard to come out to make my first Mac purchase in 10 years, I tried Ubuntu and stuck with it. Ubuntu somehow became a buzzword at exactly the right time.
However, I did get my wife a Macbook this summer and honestly Tiger is still a big upgrade from XP. It works great! I'm going to upgrade to Leopard just to see the new goodies, even though she might not even notice I did it.
The lesson from Vista is that releasing a broken and incomplete OS so you can fix it in the field is no longer acceptable. Ignoring your testers complaints on usability and performance issues will no longer get it done. I suspect that the disaster that was Vista's release is one of the things that caused Apple to reassess their Leopard release date.
With that said, it's obvious that the Vista release cycle was a death march from the get go. There's little chance you can jettison that many major features during the development cycle and still end up with a quality release in the end. Killing cool features also kills developer morale and poor morale causes poor quality.
Well, the one half will complain about delays when a new version is about to be released and the other half will complain afterwards if it was to soon... business as usual.
"With all things considered, did Apple make a serious mistake by delaying Leopard's release until October? I don't think so."
This seems mostly a case of a poorly punctuated column headline. Given the author himself concludes Apple made the right choice in the face of limited resources, a more clear headline would have been "Leopard's Release Date a Serious Mistake?"
IF Apple could have gotten Leopard out six months sooner it would have been a coup, but it's better that they miss that target than they release the system in the state that beta-testers were reporting it would likely be in if they released on time.
The author poses a hypothetical question that he knows will get the fanboys riled up: "Did make a mistake?". And the disputes his own question saying "No they didn't". This whole "article" is a troll and should be ignored.
...which has been re-written ad nauseum for the past six months.
The average mac enthusiast doesn't give a rat's ass about strategic timing of OS releases. If OS 10.5 wasn't ready until now, that's certainly good enough for me.
sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
If anything, Apple scored a coup with the delay, since the amount of pissed-off discouraged Vista users has hit a critical mass.
Lindsay Blanton
RadioReference.com
One of the main reasons Vista has been so maligned is because it was ridiculously late and Microsoft was desperate to save face... so they started stripping out promised features and shipped it before it was truly ready. The bad reviews were legion. Word of mouth has spread. Even non-technical people have heard of Vista's bad reputation... I've lost count of the posts I've seen on here where someone mentions their surprise that their mom or whoever remarked something on the order of, "Vista? Isn't that the bad one?"
By holding Leopard back until they were sure it was ready, Apple has laid the groundwork for an even bigger opportunity. There are a lot of people out there who flat out don't like or don't want Vista. Delayed or not, if Leopard gets good reviews in the media and the word of mouth is positive, that's going to give a nice boost to Mac sales.
~Philly
I have a Mac Mini and several PCs. The current Mac OS is better than Vista so I'm not sure why this opinion piece is notable.
Apple is in the hardware business. If a new version of the operating system is going to move boxes it will do so regardless of the software's actual release date.
Regards, Lex
If anything, Apple has decided that 5% of the computer market is all it will have, and little it does will displace the PC from corporate, the only way it can get much more than 10%. However, with good consumer toys, it can be the home electronics supplier for those with disposable incomes.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Macs are not replacing Windows PCs, they have become Windows PCs. Buyers no longer have to choose Mac OS X or Windows, they can have both. That is the catalyst that is driving the increased sales.
There is little point in running Linux on the Mac. Mac OS X is a capable *nix box, most FOSS software is not Linux specific and targets Mac OS X as well. Plus Mac OS X has a superior user interface. If someone is running Parallels they are doing so to use Windows XP. Exceptions are rarities such as a developer who needs to do compatibility testing under Linux.
First of all, it's impossible for Apple to time their releases to coincide with Microsoft's release, since MS was stuck in a cycle of delays that ran about six years. Secondly, Tiger is already more than a match for Vista, and finally, just by sheer luck, Leopard arrives on the scene as people are realizing just how utterly mediocre Vista really is.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Well of course Apple did the right thing when they decided to release Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard when it was good and ready, and not in beta form as that other software house which will not be mentioned sometimes do with its operating systems.
I don't see why Apple should act in any other way but to keep pumping out super-solid software and hardware. (The iPhone was a particularly impressive release, but most Apple products nowadays are very carefully tested. A notable exception being the very first generation MacBook Pros some years ago which were very buggy, and in many cases treated as DOAs and promptly replaced by Apple.)
A thorougly scatterbrained and rambling article in other words.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
Sounds like a fanboy was pissed he couldn't get Leopard back in July. Apple made the right decision by delaying the release of Leopard. Several people on boards I frequent were beta testers and were very vocal in letting everyone know that Leopard was not a "finished" product back then. They would've released something incomplete just like M$; not a good idea. I would say that the only thing Apple lost out on was orders for the new imac/macbooks since many of us were waiting until we were sure that we'd either get Leopard installed or qualify for the updater at a reduced price. I'm definitely happy I bought my new imac at the beginning of October. And yes, it really is that much better than Windows..
then early. That alone one ups Vista.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
I agree completely, at least with the last part of your comment. Right now Apple has a product for every part of the market *except* the market that most home consumers are in. Consider that Dell sells a number of machines aimed at a home market that run for between $400 and $1000 for a complete system. Apple has absolutely nothing in that price rance except the Mac Mini, which is hardly a capable machine with its slow hard drive. Apple badly needs a small tour unit that can come to between $800 and $1000 with a monitor! Until then they are missing out on a huge market that thinks the iMac is too expensive for them, and the Mac Mini isn't enough computer. And actually the Mac Mini is really expensive too, for what it is. No keybard, no mouse, no monitor, all for about $500-$600. I'm the first to say that when you compare laptops, or even iMacs to business workstations, Apple is the same price or cheaper. But not so for the home market, one dominated by cheap whitebox PCs and Dells. I'm not going to suggest that Apple sell OS X for non-Apple harware. Just that Apple needs to start addressing the needs of this market in terms of hardware. I know of half a dozen close friends and relatives who would have bought Apple had Apple actually had something available.
The should have released it 'on time' regardless if that made it feature-poor and buggy. These comentators don't understand Apple customers. Apple customers value quality. You try to sell them crap and they will eat you alive.
I'll join in with the chorus of "Bullshit" as to the position on Apple Customers. Apple Customers value Shiny, and will continue to swarm accordingly. Steve Jobs would have to release at least two and probably three gold-plated turds in a row before this would change noticably.
On the other hand, I'll agree with your assessment that Apple made the right call to keep to their development timetable. In the long run, I believe the continued evolutionary approach Apple is using, where users can be confident that the new features will still be bolted to solid and reliable underpinnings, will net them more customers. Reliability issues don't affect short term sales as much as long-term. If your OS is unreliable, unstable, buggy, and riddled with usability and security nuisances, it is more likely to get a reputation that way and users are more likely to look at something without such a reputation.
The discussion on the local Mac mailing list isn't about whether to switch from Mac to PC, but whether users of X.4 really want to pay for X.5, or see what comes out in X.6. A minority of starving budget-strained starving students with X.3 are waiting for X.6 also, but remaining users of X.2 through X.3 versions seem to be generally for upgrading. In contrast, if even half of current Windows 2000 users had switched to Vista when it came out, Vista would have almost double its present market share.
It's not that Apple makes such wonderful products; it's that the dominant alternative is so bad, it's market position is threatened by a collective of hobbyists. All Apple needs to do to win is try and continue making sure their products contain as little obvious SUCK as possible. Solid, certain, evolutionary baby steps. Even when making the giant leap from OS 9 to OS X, Steve sold dual-boot systems for about three years. If Bill required every Vista system include a license to dual boot to XP, he'd have much happier users. (Not happy, perhaps, but not rioting.)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
...are not like you and me. They'll never try out an OS just to "check it out" like we might when there's a new distro that's supposedly better. The very last thing that Apple wants are Windows users that are finally convinced to switch, then find out that this sucks and has almost as many issues as Windows, only to move back. Not only have you probably lost them for the next 5-10 years, you'll probably get a lot of anti-marketing "Yeah, I tried a Mac a few years ago, it was all overhyped so don't believe them" that'll mean others won't bother at all.
IT geeks haven't got as much marketing power as we think. Oh, I can go on about the advantages of Linux all day but most of them people will think "sure, for him it might work". Vanity works much better, like "Hey Bill could do it, and I'm at *least* as good with computers as him". Same goes the other way around, if you hear someone "like you" giving something a bad review, you'll pay attention. That's just the way it works in all markets, and makes plain old sense. If you want to do print work, you don't read a webdesigner's review of GIMP you read a print worker's review. And with that perspective it makes perfect sense for Apple to wait until it's ready.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
According to an article on OSWeekly.com, Apple missed a big opportunity by not releasing Leopard soon. They could've taken advantage of Vista's losing streak and one upped Microsoft, the author suggests.
OSWeekly sounds as if Leopard is the first OS Apple is about to release. Tiger is for most practical purposes just as good OS as Leopard. Leopard is a gradual improvement.
Plus it only is starting to become obvious in the recent 2-3 months how many problems Vista (still) has. The announcement of XP SP3, the oddly early Vista SP1 in Q1 2008, the extended OEM XP support period, the Vista-to-XP downgrade new policy.
And Leopard is here right for the holidays. I'd say, timing is as good as it could be. Perfect-storm-like good.
OSWeekly is just trolling for visits, and we're suckers for it.
The Mac mini is capable enough for Granny or Aunt Ethel or Junior and Missy, which is the market that it is largely pitched to. It's intended as a "second computer" for the kids or as a first computer for "seasoned citizens."
As it turns out, the MacBook is the Mac most people are buying. It is a competitive laptop to all but the bargain-basement craptops that Dell, Lenovo and HP sell. Get beyond the loss-leader "hacked by Chinese" craptops and you will find that MacBook is pretty damn competitive with the competition's lappies.
And also, Mac OS X Tiger tends to run better on less RAM than Vista. So people go to, say, Fried Electronics, mess with a midrange lappie or desktop hobbled by Vista, then go check out the MacBook and feel the difference. If the track record is any indication, Leopard will be faster than Tiger on new and 1-2 year old hardware. It might suck on G4s but that's the outside realm of the machines that can run Leopard.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
That's exactly what happened to Copeland back in the nineties. Apple delayed and delayed Copeland, the developers were arguing with each other, and no work was getting done. When Copeland came out as a Beta, it was almost as bad as Windows Me. The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that, instead of being satisfied with Copeland Beta or trying to save face after the delay (like Microsoft with Me and Vista), they began to search for a way to salvage the OS. They did so by buying NeXT and bringing back Steve Jobs. The end result was, of course, OS X.
"I'm glad I'm going to die because, when I do, the world's gonna go to the dogs." -Me on aging and the next generation.
This will not happen until MS's monopoly market share is seriously weakened or broken completely. Look, MS has monopoly influence for desktop OS's. Trying to compete with them means expending more resources than they do, for the same amount of gain. It's just bad business. Every company that has tried has failed. MS's monopoly allows them to introduce artificial problems with their competitor's products. It is simply a losing proposition.
Apple has taken the classic route of dealing with the monopoly by bypassing it with a complete, vertical supply chain. By bundling OS X (their real innovative product) with their hardware, they put themselves in competition with Dell, Gateway, Lenovo, and Toshiba, none of whom have a monopoly that can be leveraged against them. While MS can arbitrarily break compatibility with OS X, Dell has no such ability. Sure they can make up nonstandard connectors for hardware, but unless they can get Gateway, Lenovo, and Toshiba on board as well it won't hurt Apple as much as Dell.
Apple would be stupid to un-bundle OS X and their hardware at this point. Slowly eating away small bit of market share and hoping others will do the same is their only viable business model. Maybe if they ever get to 30% share or thereabouts the situation will change. I know everyone wishes Apple would do this because they want to be able to buy the OS separately, but the likely cost is Apple going out of business or canceling their OS entirely. If you truly want to buy OS X for generic x86, the best bet is to hope the courts will actually break up MS's monopoly at which point the market will force Apple to unbundle to remain competitive. Otherwise, be prepared or a very long wait for this, if it ever happens.
First, Apple doesn't need to release Leopard to stay ahead of Microsoft or one-up them. OS X 10.2 was already better than Vista, and was better than Windows XP for that matter.
Second, until Apple starts selling OS X for generic x86 hardware, they're not competing directly with microsoft; they're selling a competing platform. That OS X now runs on Intel isn't relevant; it's still locked down to run only on approved, official Apple-branded Intel hardware. They're not competing with Microsoft for a share of the desktop/notebook *OS* market; they're competing with Dell, HP, Asus, eMachines, etc. for the desktop/notebook *platform* market.
Apple sells complete solutions, not operating systems. The day Apple decides to go toe-to-toe against Microsoft and releases an OS X that you can install on any OEM or homebuilt x86 box, then we'll see how they compete against Microsoft. My guess is, provided they have the driver support, they'll beat Microsoft silly, no contest. The driver support is, however, a major issue, and a non-trivial one.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
And it turned out to be essentially XP SP3.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
When you title your article "Leopard's Release Date a Serious Mistake" it's a bit weak to say in the last paragraph of the article:
"With all things considered, did Apple make a serious mistake by delaying Leopard's release until October? I don't think so."
This isn't even an opinion, it's just a sensationalist, uninformed headline we've already read, with nothing backing it up, not even the author. What a waste of time.
-
The Great Google gPhone Myth - Pundits have seized upon rumors of a new mobile phone product from Google as their golden ticket for bashing the iPhone. The "gPhone" is the perfect foil for fear-based rumormongers because it's a secret Google han't said much about publicly. That lets the wags blow it out of proportion and stretch it into an iPhone Killer. They're wrong, here's why.
You could see the pace of Leopard seeds and the progress you saw in those seeds really slow down while the iPhone was in development and then see the pace pick up as the iPhone was getting ready to hit the shelves.
Mmmm.. Donuts
But that Mac mini has something the Dell doesn't: an easy to use, largely exploit-free operating system. (note I didn't say completely exploit-free: there are holes in the default install of Mac OS X, and there no doubt will still be some in X.5) Compare that to Vista, which although improved is still a security nightmare. Consider also that chances are that Dell will not have enough RAM to run Vista properly, so it will be a usability nightmare.
Seriously. The Dell can't compete with a Mac.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
The hardware is flaky but pretty, and very expensive.
Good design, good quality at a price point which gives good value for money for those who appreciate that.
The real question is, if Apple got all of these people to start running a desktop UNIX, what can Linux do to follow that lead?
Here are a couple of issues that are important to me:
Microsoft has more software engineers than Apple has employees. Apple is not the problem here. Leopard is not the disappointment.
Tiger is already much better than Vista, nobody who is running Tiger is suffering. People who bought a new Mac after Tiger shipped and have been running it since were never bothered by Vista, their productivity and satisfaction are high. Mac sales are already up on the strength of the hardware, Tiger, and Intel-compatibility which gives a switcher a way to back out of Mac OS X if they want to return to Windows or Linux on the same hardware. If you have a Mac you are not switching to Vista. If you have Windows, Leopard is not preventing you from switching.
The only part this theory gets right is that Leopard will be huge. It has improvements for everyone in the community. It has more graphical sophistication, it's a better Unix, it has built-in automatic backup and versioning, it's fully 32/64-bit compatible and inherently multiprocessor. It's one DVD for the whole world that installs and runs full-featured on all Apple computers with a 1 GHz or faster processor and 512 MB or better of RAM, so it will be easy to upgrade from a previous Mac OS X and a lot of people will do that. It will be the only OS available on new Macs right away and many people will take that as a good opportunity to get either their first Mac or their first Intel Mac. Leopard also has a matching pocket version which starts at $299 and comes on a touchscreen iPod instead of a DVD. It's going to be popular.
Compare the $399 Vista Ultimate DVD with the $399 iPod touch 16GB for both technical merit and consumer excitement. Which of these should a Windows XP user spend their money on? Which will they get more value from. It's laugh out loud.
Apple already has a Mac and iPod version of OS X, what if they made a generic PC version of OS X and licensed it to Intel and it shipped with every compatible 64-bit Intel EFI motherboard for $50 extra? Then PC manufacturers would get the boom in sales that they wanted from Vista, and people would finally have a good reason to buy a new Sony or HP computer, to go instantly into next-generation processor, firmware, core OS, Web and audio/video standards, 3D interface, and enjoy the real Photoshop finally. What if Apple licensed it to Google? What if they offered it for sale to people who already have a PC? These are the opportunities for Leopard, not beating Vista to market.
Finally I have to say that delaying a PC operating system by a few months because you shipped the pocket version is about the best excuse ever. Hard to see the cloud for the silver lining with that one. This article was trying, though.
This site has nothign but google ads and keyword laden reviews. I'd take the opinion of a homeless bum more seriously than this article.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org