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."
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.
"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?"
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
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."
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.
...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.
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!