They could try. They might succeed with the phone vendors, but I don't think the big mobile carriers would go for it anyway, which makes it pointless. You are right about becoming victims of their own success. The open model that lead to widespread Android adoption hamstrings them here.
Really? What would be the Carriers' alternative? Stop selling all future Android devices? Start developing their own version of Android? Both are theoretically possible; but, from a practical standpoint, I think not.
It is obvious to the most casual observer that Google never thought the whole "Android" project through, and so now (and actually for some time) has let themselves get caught in the unenviable position (along with their user-base) of being in a "Tail-wagging-the-dog" situation with the hardware vendors and carriers.
And regardless of what the Fandroids say about "Cyan-o-Mod" this, and "Root-ness" that, 99% of the Android user-base will never even attempt such a thing, nor should they ever have to, just to have a secure version of the OS.
I wish I'd realize they were phasing out the iPod Classic, because since it wasn't running iOS it didn't need to worry about an OS upgrade making it useless. I'd have bought another one.
Now that there are 128 GB iPod Touches, there is less need for the iPod Classic (yes, I know it is (or rather was) 160 GB).
And you must not have looked too hard for an iPod Classic; they are still in the Distribution Chain, and will likely be available as "refurbs" for some time to come.
Google should not have given up total control over the OS when negotiating with hardware vendors and carriers, however, it's also possible Android would not have been a success if they'd been as tight-fisted as Apple.
The point is, they could regain that control at this point, and not one hardware vendor nor carrier would walk away.
But they won't. Partly because they simply don't care (otherwise why would Android's Security Model remain so broken, iteration after iteration?); and partly because then they would have to "qualify" Android for each and every hardware platform and carrier, a daunting task for even a behemoth such as Google...
So, in some ways, they are becoming victims of their own success.
So, Google should update the older software, and then the users phones still wouldn't get patched because it actually has to be done by the manufacturers, and then approved by the service provider, neither of which want you to still be using your old phone.
As to Apple, well, they just make sure that all your devices have the newest version of iOS, which will always run like crap on the older phones, driving those upgrades to the new phones that come out a month after the upgrade...
Want your older version of iOS patched? Well all you have to do is upgrade to the latest version and kill your phone's performance. Don't want to do that, then Apple will gladly tell you that they don't support the older software anymore.
As I have said in another post to this article, Google could easily change their distribution model for Android to re-capture sole control over its Distribution, like Apple. But they won't; because they simply don't care; nor do they want to be bothered with testing a zillion different platforms.
And contrary to your tired, Fandroid meme, Apple does not "push" iOS updates to anyone; let alone do so for the purpose of "obsoleting" older models. First off, at this point, regardless of the hardware or software platform, anyone with a piece of equipment that is one the bottom-end of the "Upgrade-able" list who then jumps on an OS Update the very first day, sort of deserves what they get; and second, Apple occasionally releases an OS update that inadvertently degrades the performance of older hardware; but they also have a good track record, like with the recent iOS 8.1.1 update, of releasing further patches specifically designed to address those performance issues.
So no, the two situations are in no way equivalent..
No, I think you're just trying desperately to paint Apple as better when in reality they're not. Call me stoned if you wish, but the reality is that Apple decides when to stop supporting devices, and when they want to push people onto more modern ones, they simply push an update that renders the old devices virtually unusable, because that lets them claim "support" while ignoring all the problems people run into post-update and just telling them to buy a new device. Google is no better, but with both companies the message is the same: upgrade your device, or fuck off. We don't care about the old ones anymore.
Sorry, but your Fandroid-ism is showing...
Occasionally, like once or twice, Apple has included devices in an Update that were possibly questionable. However, like with recent iOS 8.1.1 Update, which was created specifically to address iOS 8 performance and memory issues in older devices such as the iPhone 4s and iPad 2, efforts are made to ameliorate the bad-effects of the original 8.0 Upgrade on those devices. How successful those efforts were is another story; however, the point is, in utter derogation of your original theory, when Apple screws up, they do at least try to "make it right".
No one is going to push out a 4.3 OS update even if Google provides one.
You realize, of course, that with the stroke of a key, Google could change their deployment terms and take full control over Android's deployment to end-users, just like Apple does with iOS.
If the Android user-base is as large as the Fandroids say (or even close to that), then not one hardware vendor nor carrier would dare to kiss-off Android if Google changed its terms regarding deployment to something similar to what Apple does.
Fact is, Google simply doesn't care about anything but ad impressions. Anything else is as the buzzing of flies. That's why it will never change Android to a more "consumer-friendly" distribution model.
Google isn't being evil - talk to your hardware provider as they are the ones being evil by restricting you from getting the updates.
RTFS, dumbass.
In this particular case, it is Google who is being "evil", not the "hardware providers".
Yep, one of the smartest pieces of negotiating Jobs ever did was retaining full control over iOS development and distribution, and not let the carriers have anything to do with those processes...
iOS isn't really any better when it comes to patching old devices. Once the poor, poor, tech company responsible for deploying the OS in the first place decides to stop supporting it, you're SOL.
Are you stoned, or just stupid?
In stark contrast to the carrier-controlled paridigm of Android software deployment, Apple maintains sole control over the updating and deployment of iOS (and OS X), and although they do eventually draw the line somewhere, it is always at a point that affects single-digit percentages of the User Base, not the majority of Users as is the case here.
Apple would be positively pilloried in these pages if they tried something even remotely as irresponsible and high-handed as Google is doing (or rather not doing) in this case.
"Hi-res" does not imply that it has not been DRCed or that it was properly mastered. A recent Bowie CD, for example, that was brickwalled also had hi-res audio that suffered the same issue. "Hi-res" is mostly audiophile marketing fluff.
I noticed that too, like on the recent CD "The Next Day". And that's amazing from Bowie; since he seems to care quite a bit about sound quality. His early RCA vinyl recordings (esp. during the Ziggy Stardust days) were really quite well recorded and mastered.
Doesn't the dam-ned text get re-flowed by the devi-ce or so-mething? That be-ing said, this is ridi-culous, all my prin-ted books have a few hy-phens, and I've ne-ver had any dif-ficulty rea-ding them. Maybe Ama-zon should just add "don't hyphenate" setting on their reading device and end it once and for all?
The real question is, did he "hard-hyphen" the words, such that they wouldn't re-flow correctly; or did he just have lots of compound-adjectives, etc. that would actually call for hyphenation?
Hyphens are just another example of how we treat punctuation marks as though they were boogers, something to be expunged and discarded, kept away from ourselves and others. But without them, we cannot distinguish a panda bear who eats shoots and leaves from a mob hit-man who eats, shoots and leaves.
This.
I cannot count how many times I have been excoriated in these very pages for my "excessive" use of quotation-marks.
I then feel compelled to "defend" myself, citing the grammatical rules that show all the alternate uses of same.
The long term plan is to run iOS on laptops and desktops, or have you not been paying attention? This is why Apple has stopped caring about POSIX, and has put all of its efforts into the iOS runtime environment--UI, toolchain, etc. OS X is a second-class citizen.
Now, let's see the comparable list for Windows 7 to 8.1, which covers MORE time (by far!) (2009 to 2014) than the time-period between OS X 10.8 to 10.10 (2012 to 2014).
So, keep on hating, hater. Meanwhile, Apple continues happily along, walking AND chewing-gum at the same time (significantly improving both OS X and iOS simultaneously).
You could almost legitimately count the 16 -> 32 bit transition of the 68k MacOS as nearly equivalent to a "Platform Change". They essentially had to do a complete rewrite on the Macintosh Toolbox, on QuickDraw, on QuickTime, and the OS itself, not to mention all the developers that had to re-do their applications to be "32 bit Clean" (remember that?).
Shoot, MS is STILL trying to sort out 32 vs 64 bit for Windows; and their "solution" is about as fugly as fugly gets!
You forgot the ARM port of significant portions of OS X (specifically the XNU/Darwin portions?).
So that makes THREE, no FOUR "Ports".
Actually, it is three; but still pretty cool.
I remember SJ standing up at a WWDC keynote right after the (essentially flawless) Intel transition of OS X,saying "Our engineers have worked long an hard to turn THIS (shows an OS X Desktop (ostensibly running on PPC)) to THIS (Ripple-Transition to an identical OS X Desktop (ostensibly running on Intel)). Crowd goes wild. Very effective demonstration. and it was true: The transition from PPC to Intel was virtually seamless, as was the transition from 32 to 64 bit. None of that horseshit like with Windows, with its TWO "Program Files" directory-trees, and its 32/64 bit drivers (there was a LITTLE bit of that with a FEW drivers; but not NEARLY to the extent that Windows users had (and still have) to suffer).
I personally would have like to have seen them carry Rosetta along a little longer; but they saw how long it took to rid everything of 68k code when they did the 68k -> PPC transition, and was anxious to keep OS X as architecturally "Clean" as possible; so it makes sense.
That's probably not what he means. It's been hypothesized and rumored that Apple will eventually move all their laptops and desktops away from Intel and use ARM as the CPU. Intel has been behind schedule delivering next-generation chips, which leads to the conclusion that Apple would want to control its own destiny with its own CPUs.
They won't do that until Windows runs full-blown Windows (NOT RT) on ARM (and has some sort of JIT), which it does NOT seem that MS is particularly interested in making happen. RT was designed from the get-go to be a stepchild, at best, of "real Windows", and it looks like that's what it is going to stay.
Apple sells not an insignificant number of desktop and laptop machines because of being able to dual-boot (and do VM) for other OSes (primarily Windows and Linux), and to be frank, that requires Intel (and more importantly, x86) compatibility. And you can bet your bottom-dollar that Apple is VERY aware of that market-segment.
You can be sure that Apple would love to move to ARM, if only for its insanely-good performance/Watt (and to have a tool to pry-down Intel's stupidly-high prices. And people talk about the "Apple Tax"... Sheesh!). But, unless and until Windows either becomes insignificant (which may very well happen in about 10 years) or they develop "RT" into a non-joke OS, don't look for Apple to give up Intel anytime soon.
While I'm not sure I'd welcome that on anything smaller than the iPhone 6 Plus, it WOULD be wonderful to be able to download a version of OS X that was designed with a slightly different UI layer that was targeted for certain classes of iOS devices (e.g. Tablets).
But I understand why that gets to be "a bit much" for a company; because not only do they have to develop it (which is kind of trivial for them, due to the way that iOS and OS X are built); but more importantly, they would have to test and SUPPORT the "chimera" iOS X. And THAT is (understandably) too much of a drain for the amount of return.
But you can bet that, in some Apple engineer's basement, there lives an iPad running OS X. After all, that's how OS X for Intel came to be...
That way they will always have a ready market of users waiting to upgrade. They did the same thing with the big phones. The demand was there for years but they carried on selling small form phones till the market for small form phones is going to fall. Then when they release the big phones, boom!! the pent-up demand guarantee increased sale.
Not hardly.
"Big phones" was a private "thing" with the then-CEO. I think his last name was "Jobs".
Considering the timing of SJ's demise, relative to the introduction of the iPhone 5, then 6 and 6 Plus, I would venture to say that Apple approved the iPhone 5 (the first "big" iPhone) as a sort of "marketing test" on the very day that Steve J. stopped breathing.
Remember, it takes TIME to approve new case designs, displays, etc; not to mention new SoCs to drive the extra pixels. It isn't like you just put the old phones in the Incredible Blow-Up Machine and voila!
Then, when the market acceptance of the iPhone 5 was encouraging, they started market research and engineering R&D on the (bigger still) iPhone 6 and 6 Plus.
But if you want to talk about Planned Obsolescence by continually releasing "The Next Big Thing" that is simply the "The Previous Big Thing" with a slightly different/better "Gotta Have It" geegaw or case design, look no further than Samsung; with their FIFTY NINE new models of Smartphones released in 2014 alone.
So stop your ridiculous Apple Hating. They are actually a pretty "restrained" tech-driven Company.
The judge in this case made the right call - there's already been effort, time and money expended to get the case this far. Dismissing it and saying "bring another suit when you have new plaintiffs" would waste resources, not the least of which being the court's.
Actually, that's done ALL the time; it's called a "Dismissal Without Prejudice". Usually, the "Journey's Account"-type statute in the Jurisdiction saves the suit from the effects of the running of the statute of limitations (assuming the original suit was filed "in time"). Journey's Account is an old legal doctrine (that still exists in some form in many U.S. Jurisdictions) that allows the filing of a New Case for a few years (usually 2 to 5) that "Relates Back" to the Original Case, and is treated "Nunc pro Tunc" (as if it was filed back then). It is usually used to get past a Statue of Limitations problem when a suit is filed in the wrong Court; but can be used when a suit fails for almost ANY reason.
Class Action Suits are kind of odd; but I would bet they follow Journey's Account doctrine.
What I can't figure out is why they can even file a Personal Damages suit EIGHT years after the original purchase.
On the mac while "classic" mode is gone "carbon" is still there and was explicitly intended to allow porting of code from classic macos. I'd be surprised if there wasn't some code that had been written for classic macos still in there somewhere.
Similarly win32 was designed as a 32-bit variant of win16 and i'd be very surprised if there wasn't still some old code hanging arround somewhere.
It's a shame, because it was a brilliant piece of work (but also not without its problems); but the writing was clearly on the wall when it wasn't ported to 64-bit in 2007.
Maybe I phrased it wrong. What I mean is: Apple is not really relying on best specs, best technology anymore.
Just like Gucci doesn't have to come with totally new bag all the time. And that makes sense as they won't be able to be the best all the time.
Just as long as they are perceived to be the best by their loyal fanbase, they will do well. That's also why a smart watch (very much a fashion item) is so important to the lineup. Or white headbuds. It's all to build brand. It doesn't have to be the best, just perceived to be.
First off, thank you for your considered response; that's getting pretty rare around here...;-)
Actually, Apple is almost never the "first" to employ a new technology or adopt a new standard. They actually shy away a bit from the "bleeding edge" (while still maintaining a cachet of "innovative" and "ahead of the curve").
What they are masters at is waiting until a technology/standard/product niche is getting popular (e.g., WiFi, Music Players, Small-form-factor Desktops, Netbooks, Smartphones) and then "re-imagining it" with a distinctive flair and usability-level that is consistently far above the pack.
Often, these improvements come with a "fit and finish" factor that is often mistaken for "Fashion for Fashion's sake" (Apple Watch notwithstanding. They freely admit to it being a "fashion accessory"); but actually just looks that way because the competition so often ignores the aesthetic appeal of good industrial design (how many creaky brittle plastic laptops have we all suffered?), or which have some bizarro Asian idea of "fashionable"? (Not picking on Asian product design; but it is just "different" from what most "Westerners" think looks "classy")...
But make no mistake: Along with the "classy" industrial design is real, solid product engineering, both hardware and software. And that is what seems to escape so many in the Slashdot crowd, who seem to almost universally seem to place price over value (and who seem to, at the same time, incredibly value the cost of their time at zero).
I get my "tinkering"-Jones satisfied by being an embedded developer; my computer is a tool, like my oscilloscope, various meters and my Zircon-encrusted tweezers, and I want my tools to "just work".
And in my nearly four decades as a professional embedded developer (software and hardware), Apple products deliver on that promise far more consistently (nothing's perfect!), both in and out of the lab, than what my non-Apple-oriented friends and colleagues seem to experience (which looks a lot like "suffering" to me).
And that, my friend, is the very height of "geek-chic"; at least to me.
Slashdot Mirror
They could try. They might succeed with the phone vendors, but I don't think the big mobile carriers would go for it anyway, which makes it pointless. You are right about becoming victims of their own success. The open model that lead to widespread Android adoption hamstrings them here.
Really? What would be the Carriers' alternative? Stop selling all future Android devices? Start developing their own version of Android? Both are theoretically possible; but, from a practical standpoint, I think not.
It is obvious to the most casual observer that Google never thought the whole "Android" project through, and so now (and actually for some time) has let themselves get caught in the unenviable position (along with their user-base) of being in a "Tail-wagging-the-dog" situation with the hardware vendors and carriers.
And regardless of what the Fandroids say about "Cyan-o-Mod" this, and "Root-ness" that, 99% of the Android user-base will never even attempt such a thing, nor should they ever have to, just to have a secure version of the OS.
I wish I'd realize they were phasing out the iPod Classic, because since it wasn't running iOS it didn't need to worry about an OS upgrade making it useless. I'd have bought another one.
Now that there are 128 GB iPod Touches, there is less need for the iPod Classic (yes, I know it is (or rather was) 160 GB).
And you must not have looked too hard for an iPod Classic; they are still in the Distribution Chain, and will likely be available as "refurbs" for some time to come.
Here's one on Amazon
And another on Amazon
And Fry's
Google should not have given up total control over the OS when negotiating with hardware vendors and carriers, however, it's also possible Android would not have been a success if they'd been as tight-fisted as Apple.
The point is, they could regain that control at this point, and not one hardware vendor nor carrier would walk away.
But they won't. Partly because they simply don't care (otherwise why would Android's Security Model remain so broken, iteration after iteration?); and partly because then they would have to "qualify" Android for each and every hardware platform and carrier, a daunting task for even a behemoth such as Google...
So, in some ways, they are becoming victims of their own success.
So, Google should update the older software, and then the users phones still wouldn't get patched because it actually has to be done by the manufacturers, and then approved by the service provider, neither of which want you to still be using your old phone.
As to Apple, well, they just make sure that all your devices have the newest version of iOS, which will always run like crap on the older phones, driving those upgrades to the new phones that come out a month after the upgrade...
Want your older version of iOS patched? Well all you have to do is upgrade to the latest version and kill your phone's performance. Don't want to do that, then Apple will gladly tell you that they don't support the older software anymore.
As I have said in another post to this article, Google could easily change their distribution model for Android to re-capture sole control over its Distribution, like Apple. But they won't; because they simply don't care; nor do they want to be bothered with testing a zillion different platforms.
And contrary to your tired, Fandroid meme, Apple does not "push" iOS updates to anyone; let alone do so for the purpose of "obsoleting" older models. First off, at this point, regardless of the hardware or software platform, anyone with a piece of equipment that is one the bottom-end of the "Upgrade-able" list who then jumps on an OS Update the very first day, sort of deserves what they get; and second, Apple occasionally releases an OS update that inadvertently degrades the performance of older hardware; but they also have a good track record, like with the recent iOS 8.1.1 update, of releasing further patches specifically designed to address those performance issues.
So no, the two situations are in no way equivalent..
No, I think you're just trying desperately to paint Apple as better when in reality they're not. Call me stoned if you wish, but the reality is that Apple decides when to stop supporting devices, and when they want to push people onto more modern ones, they simply push an update that renders the old devices virtually unusable, because that lets them claim "support" while ignoring all the problems people run into post-update and just telling them to buy a new device. Google is no better, but with both companies the message is the same: upgrade your device, or fuck off. We don't care about the old ones anymore.
Sorry, but your Fandroid-ism is showing...
Occasionally, like once or twice, Apple has included devices in an Update that were possibly questionable. However, like with recent iOS 8.1.1 Update, which was created specifically to address iOS 8 performance and memory issues in older devices such as the iPhone 4s and iPad 2, efforts are made to ameliorate the bad-effects of the original 8.0 Upgrade on those devices. How successful those efforts were is another story; however, the point is, in utter derogation of your original theory, when Apple screws up, they do at least try to "make it right".
No one is going to push out a 4.3 OS update even if Google provides one.
You realize, of course, that with the stroke of a key, Google could change their deployment terms and take full control over Android's deployment to end-users, just like Apple does with iOS.
If the Android user-base is as large as the Fandroids say (or even close to that), then not one hardware vendor nor carrier would dare to kiss-off Android if Google changed its terms regarding deployment to something similar to what Apple does.
Fact is, Google simply doesn't care about anything but ad impressions. Anything else is as the buzzing of flies. That's why it will never change Android to a more "consumer-friendly" distribution model.
Never.
Google isn't being evil - talk to your hardware provider as they are the ones being evil by restricting you from getting the updates.
RTFS, dumbass.
In this particular case, it is Google who is being "evil", not the "hardware providers".
Yep, one of the smartest pieces of negotiating Jobs ever did was retaining full control over iOS development and distribution, and not let the carriers have anything to do with those processes...
iOS isn't really any better when it comes to patching old devices. Once the poor, poor, tech company responsible for deploying the OS in the first place decides to stop supporting it, you're SOL.
Are you stoned, or just stupid?
In stark contrast to the carrier-controlled paridigm of Android software deployment, Apple maintains sole control over the updating and deployment of iOS (and OS X), and although they do eventually draw the line somewhere, it is always at a point that affects single-digit percentages of the User Base, not the majority of Users as is the case here.
Apple would be positively pilloried in these pages if they tried something even remotely as irresponsible and high-handed as Google is doing (or rather not doing) in this case.
"Hi-res" does not imply that it has not been DRCed or that it was properly mastered. A recent Bowie CD, for example, that was brickwalled also had hi-res audio that suffered the same issue. "Hi-res" is mostly audiophile marketing fluff.
I noticed that too, like on the recent CD "The Next Day". And that's amazing from Bowie; since he seems to care quite a bit about sound quality. His early RCA vinyl recordings (esp. during the Ziggy Stardust days) were really quite well recorded and mastered.
Doesn't the dam-ned text get re-flowed by the devi-ce or so-mething? That be-ing said, this is ridi-culous, all my prin-ted books have a few hy-phens, and I've ne-ver had any dif-ficulty rea-ding them. Maybe Ama-zon should just add "don't hyphenate" setting on their reading device and end it once and for all?
The real question is, did he "hard-hyphen" the words, such that they wouldn't re-flow correctly; or did he just have lots of compound-adjectives, etc. that would actually call for hyphenation?
I imagine #they'd totally $freak at a @book about &perl.
Or even better, APL.
Hyphens are just another example of how we treat punctuation marks as though they were boogers, something to be expunged and discarded, kept away from ourselves and others. But without them, we cannot distinguish a panda bear who eats shoots and leaves from a mob hit-man who eats, shoots and leaves.
This.
I cannot count how many times I have been excoriated in these very pages for my "excessive" use of quotation-marks.
I then feel compelled to "defend" myself, citing the grammatical rules that show all the alternate uses of same.
Fortunately, that usually shuts up those people.
I-know-it's-their-imprint-and-all-;-but-sheesh!-Talk-about-your-grammar-nazis...
The long term plan is to run iOS on laptops and desktops, or have you not been paying attention? This is why Apple has stopped caring about POSIX, and has put all of its efforts into the iOS runtime environment--UI, toolchain, etc. OS X is a second-class citizen.
Riiiight.
...And the list for Mountain Lion, only a year or so before Mavericks.
Apple isn't paying any attention to poor-old OS X. Neglected, it is... NOT!
And here's the list for Mavericks, released only a year earlier.
Now, let's see the comparable list for Windows 7 to 8.1, which covers MORE time (by far!) (2009 to 2014) than the time-period between OS X 10.8 to 10.10 (2012 to 2014).
So, keep on hating, hater. Meanwhile, Apple continues happily along, walking AND chewing-gum at the same time (significantly improving both OS X and iOS simultaneously).
That's only two switches. Count the arrows!
Well, it depends.
You could almost legitimately count the 16 -> 32 bit transition of the 68k MacOS as nearly equivalent to a "Platform Change". They essentially had to do a complete rewrite on the Macintosh Toolbox, on QuickDraw, on QuickTime, and the OS itself, not to mention all the developers that had to re-do their applications to be "32 bit Clean" (remember that?).
Shoot, MS is STILL trying to sort out 32 vs 64 bit for Windows; and their "solution" is about as fugly as fugly gets!
They went 680x0 -> PowerPC 6xx -> x86.
You forgot the ARM port of significant portions of OS X (specifically the XNU/Darwin portions?).
So that makes THREE, no FOUR "Ports".
Actually, it is three; but still pretty cool.
I remember SJ standing up at a WWDC keynote right after the (essentially flawless) Intel transition of OS X,saying "Our engineers have worked long an hard to turn THIS (shows an OS X Desktop (ostensibly running on PPC)) to THIS (Ripple-Transition to an identical OS X Desktop (ostensibly running on Intel)). Crowd goes wild. Very effective demonstration. and it was true: The transition from PPC to Intel was virtually seamless, as was the transition from 32 to 64 bit. None of that horseshit like with Windows, with its TWO "Program Files" directory-trees, and its 32/64 bit drivers (there was a LITTLE bit of that with a FEW drivers; but not NEARLY to the extent that Windows users had (and still have) to suffer).
I personally would have like to have seen them carry Rosetta along a little longer; but they saw how long it took to rid everything of 68k code when they did the 68k -> PPC transition, and was anxious to keep OS X as architecturally "Clean" as possible; so it makes sense.
That's probably not what he means. It's been hypothesized and rumored that Apple will eventually move all their laptops and desktops away from Intel and use ARM as the CPU. Intel has been behind schedule delivering next-generation chips, which leads to the conclusion that Apple would want to control its own destiny with its own CPUs.
They won't do that until Windows runs full-blown Windows (NOT RT) on ARM (and has some sort of JIT), which it does NOT seem that MS is particularly interested in making happen. RT was designed from the get-go to be a stepchild, at best, of "real Windows", and it looks like that's what it is going to stay.
Apple sells not an insignificant number of desktop and laptop machines because of being able to dual-boot (and do VM) for other OSes (primarily Windows and Linux), and to be frank, that requires Intel (and more importantly, x86) compatibility. And you can bet your bottom-dollar that Apple is VERY aware of that market-segment.
You can be sure that Apple would love to move to ARM, if only for its insanely-good performance/Watt (and to have a tool to pry-down Intel's stupidly-high prices. And people talk about the "Apple Tax"... Sheesh!). But, unless and until Windows either becomes insignificant (which may very well happen in about 10 years) or they develop "RT" into a non-joke OS, don't look for Apple to give up Intel anytime soon.
The long term plan is to run OS X on it.
While I'm not sure I'd welcome that on anything smaller than the iPhone 6 Plus, it WOULD be wonderful to be able to download a version of OS X that was designed with a slightly different UI layer that was targeted for certain classes of iOS devices (e.g. Tablets).
But I understand why that gets to be "a bit much" for a company; because not only do they have to develop it (which is kind of trivial for them, due to the way that iOS and OS X are built); but more importantly, they would have to test and SUPPORT the "chimera" iOS X. And THAT is (understandably) too much of a drain for the amount of return.
But you can bet that, in some Apple engineer's basement, there lives an iPad running OS X. After all, that's how OS X for Intel came to be...
That way they will always have a ready market of users waiting to upgrade. They did the same thing with the big phones. The demand was there for years but they carried on selling small form phones till the market for small form phones is going to fall. Then when they release the big phones, boom!! the pent-up demand guarantee increased sale.
Not hardly.
"Big phones" was a private "thing" with the then-CEO. I think his last name was "Jobs".
Considering the timing of SJ's demise, relative to the introduction of the iPhone 5, then 6 and 6 Plus, I would venture to say that Apple approved the iPhone 5 (the first "big" iPhone) as a sort of "marketing test" on the very day that Steve J. stopped breathing.
Remember, it takes TIME to approve new case designs, displays, etc; not to mention new SoCs to drive the extra pixels. It isn't like you just put the old phones in the Incredible Blow-Up Machine and voila!
Then, when the market acceptance of the iPhone 5 was encouraging, they started market research and engineering R&D on the (bigger still) iPhone 6 and 6 Plus.
But if you want to talk about Planned Obsolescence by continually releasing "The Next Big Thing" that is simply the "The Previous Big Thing" with a slightly different/better "Gotta Have It" geegaw or case design, look no further than Samsung; with their FIFTY NINE new models of Smartphones released in 2014 alone.
So stop your ridiculous Apple Hating. They are actually a pretty "restrained" tech-driven Company.
The judge in this case made the right call - there's already been effort, time and money expended to get the case this far. Dismissing it and saying "bring another suit when you have new plaintiffs" would waste resources, not the least of which being the court's.
Actually, that's done ALL the time; it's called a "Dismissal Without Prejudice". Usually, the "Journey's Account"-type statute in the Jurisdiction saves the suit from the effects of the running of the statute of limitations (assuming the original suit was filed "in time"). Journey's Account is an old legal doctrine (that still exists in some form in many U.S. Jurisdictions) that allows the filing of a New Case for a few years (usually 2 to 5) that "Relates Back" to the Original Case, and is treated "Nunc pro Tunc" (as if it was filed back then). It is usually used to get past a Statue of Limitations problem when a suit is filed in the wrong Court; but can be used when a suit fails for almost ANY reason.
Class Action Suits are kind of odd; but I would bet they follow Journey's Account doctrine.
What I can't figure out is why they can even file a Personal Damages suit EIGHT years after the original purchase.
Heck even the images from the "Grab" program in the recent versions of OSX have the original Grab icon from NeXTSTEP [osxdaily.com]
But now, it's just nostalgia. Like Clarus the DogCow.
new code, old code, it makes no difference. It ALL has flaws.
open code, closed code, it makes no difference. It ALL has flaws.
Just as true.
I wouldn't be so sure about that.
On the mac while "classic" mode is gone "carbon" is still there and was explicitly intended to allow porting of code from classic macos. I'd be surprised if there wasn't some code that had been written for classic macos still in there somewhere.
Similarly win32 was designed as a 32-bit variant of win16 and i'd be very surprised if there wasn't still some old code hanging arround somewhere.
While technically still there, the Carbon API has been officially Deprecated since 2012, and as of OS X 10.8 (Mountain Lion), is clearly on its way out.
It's a shame, because it was a brilliant piece of work (but also not without its problems); but the writing was clearly on the wall when it wasn't ported to 64-bit in 2007.
This reminds me of a cautionary tale in the form of an SF novel titled Mutant 59: The Plastic Eaters.
I read it back in 1972, while in high school, but remembered the "lesson" it taught about cultivating and developing "Scavenger" bacteria.
Before you applaud this discovery, you might give that book a read...
Jus' Sayin'...
Maybe I phrased it wrong. What I mean is: Apple is not really relying on best specs, best technology anymore. Just like Gucci doesn't have to come with totally new bag all the time. And that makes sense as they won't be able to be the best all the time.
Just as long as they are perceived to be the best by their loyal fanbase, they will do well. That's also why a smart watch (very much a fashion item) is so important to the lineup. Or white headbuds. It's all to build brand. It doesn't have to be the best, just perceived to be.
First off, thank you for your considered response; that's getting pretty rare around here... ;-)
Actually, Apple is almost never the "first" to employ a new technology or adopt a new standard. They actually shy away a bit from the "bleeding edge" (while still maintaining a cachet of "innovative" and "ahead of the curve").
What they are masters at is waiting until a technology/standard/product niche is getting popular (e.g., WiFi, Music Players, Small-form-factor Desktops, Netbooks, Smartphones) and then "re-imagining it" with a distinctive flair and usability-level that is consistently far above the pack.
Often, these improvements come with a "fit and finish" factor that is often mistaken for "Fashion for Fashion's sake" (Apple Watch notwithstanding. They freely admit to it being a "fashion accessory"); but actually just looks that way because the competition so often ignores the aesthetic appeal of good industrial design (how many creaky brittle plastic laptops have we all suffered?), or which have some bizarro Asian idea of "fashionable"? (Not picking on Asian product design; but it is just "different" from what most "Westerners" think looks "classy")...
But make no mistake: Along with the "classy" industrial design is real, solid product engineering, both hardware and software. And that is what seems to escape so many in the Slashdot crowd, who seem to almost universally seem to place price over value (and who seem to, at the same time, incredibly value the cost of their time at zero).
I get my "tinkering"-Jones satisfied by being an embedded developer; my computer is a tool, like my oscilloscope, various meters and my Zircon-encrusted tweezers, and I want my tools to "just work".
And in my nearly four decades as a professional embedded developer (software and hardware), Apple products deliver on that promise far more consistently (nothing's perfect!), both in and out of the lab, than what my non-Apple-oriented friends and colleagues seem to experience (which looks a lot like "suffering" to me).
And that, my friend, is the very height of "geek-chic"; at least to me.