*Apple lifecycle/priorities rant*

[prvt.donut]

If Apple has all this money in the bank, are they so willing to blow it on lawyers or give it to protect for a trademark they bought already when there are lots of hard working professionals bending over backwards to get the new graphics cards to work in their "Pro line of super upgradable Computers"in order to not have to give in and just but a PC or build Hackintoshs.

People complain endlessly about how bad MS is, but they go out of their way to make stuff compatible, trying to make sure that legacy software is supported in their new OS.

Apple goes out of their way to cut back on software functionality just of the sake of forcing obsolescence in computers they sold 3-4 years ago. For no good technical reasons, just out of spite and making customers think it is time to but something new for the new features.

All this business of getting GPU's to work in the Mac Pro's, it's a sham. Coming from a background of building gaming PC's, and building servers for enterprise, of course there are some compatibility issues to be had, but the fact that Apple makes almost zero attempt to support their customers, and the fact that the 5770 and 5780 aren't supported by Apple on the Mac Pro 1,1 or 2,1! What a joke, it's insane!

I hope staff at Apple understand this, and realize that they have to work harder to get hardware support, that they have to expect hardware to used beyond the 3 year Applecare period. Shame on you Apple, Shame on you.






I do really like the OS and the hardware though. It's just that they could be doing a lot more to support the loyal Apple users who have stuck with them for all these years, and not go whoring themselves to iOS (which is a Cisco OS, BTW)

 

[linuxcooldude]

I think its just the way certain platforms are designed.

Take Microsoft for instance. Its designed to work and be backward compatible with much older hardware. Then again over time its so bloated with old code for hardware most people hardly ever use again, it tends to make it slow.

Apple on the other hand does not see the need to continue support on 10 year old hardware. Most people tend to already buy newer systems. Maybe hardware/software challenges on continuing support that would not be feasible on older systems.

Its all in the direction a tech company is striving for...

 

[TableSyrup]

I really really liked the days when their machines were supported 'FOREVER'.
When you could run a G4 (or G3?) on 10.5.8 - That's stellar

For lots of professionals, if their system works, they leave it alone and make money with it until technology in hardware and software advances enough that it is worth upgrading, and even then, their old systems usually stay around as additional rigs, or rooms/workstations. To me, that makes the price of the Mac line well worth it.

For instance... just last year I finally sold off my G4MDD Panther ProTools6.4 64 Input/Output rig.... thing made me a lot of money for a LONG time..... I know some MAJOR audio facilities in CA who still have some old OS9 ProTools5 rigs up and running in their own rooms.... 1, because in their day they cost 10's of 1000's of dollars, 2, because they still work for their purpose - and it was only a couple years ago that a MAJOR facility in MN finally sold off their G4 Panther ProTools6 rig due to upgrading that room as well. Of course, they/we have more modern rigs too, but really only because the benefits of new versions of software we use and their requirements for the new machines, were worth making the move.

I wish the 1,1's were supported like that, but oh well.... mine will serve me up to 4 years probably if I want it to.

It just makes me put serious thought into buying a newer MP, especially the 2013 when it comes, because I'll be wondering how long it will support their new software..... until the jump to Intel, and now the move to ML, I have not had to worry about this.....

 

[deconstruct60]

The profit margin on the Mac Pro's is high enough that Apple should not have been caught with their pants down without a viable solution to sell for the next 7+ months. Apple did screw this up with lousy R&D resource allocations. However....

If Apple has all this money in the bank, are they so willing to blow it on lawyers or give it to protect for a trademark

The facts are:

1. Those lawsuits aren't about Mac products.

2. The vast majority of that cash horde was not generated by Mac Products. Let alone by the Mac Pro.

The Mac Pro hardware didn't put even a double digit percentage of that money there. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't even a single digit percentage. So pointing at the pile of money and saying the Mac Pro should be blah blah is a huge disconnect.


If anything that huge pile of money is likely contributing to why it won't be canceled in the short term. Apple can afford to limp along another year with declining Mac Pro sales to get to a point where can attempt a turn-around.
If that attempt fails then those other Macs that are huge cash generators mean the Mac Pro would be terminated.

People complain endlessly about how bad MS is, but they go out of their way to make stuff compatible, trying to make sure that legacy software is supported in their new OS.

Not really. They make it appear that way. But older hardware has bigger problems running the bleeding edge versions of Windows. That is one reason why the Vista release was so craptastic. It was expanding the scope of hardware targeted that helped screw up that release.

Apple already has 100% of the new Mac Hardware market. It is Microsoft that has to expand the hardware scope to get 100% of their much larger portion of the market.

Microsoft also charges alot more at this point too. Apple is shrinking the OS upgrade price yet again this round. Microsoft, not so much. That make users pay for 6-7 years of support largely up front and then incrementally pay more for support if want to stretch things out for 7-10 years. Apple just doesn't offer the option. You don't have to pay more upfront for what they aren't going to do.

I hope staff at Apple understand this, and realize that they have to work harder to get hardware support, that they have to expect hardware to used beyond the 3 year Applecare period. Shame on you Apple, Shame on you.

They do expect hardware to be used.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1752

Vintage/Obsolete doesn't kick in until more than five years after discontinuation. Applecare ending just means the customer assumes the risk; not that support ends.

 

[tamvly]

Oh, please ...

 

[deconstruct60]

Take Microsoft for instance. Its designed to work and be backward compatible with much older hardware.

Windows apps from 5 years ago run on Windows RT ARM based offerings? Nope.

A very significant aspect to "backward compatible" Windows/DOS has been sticking to a single major CPU architecture. Microsoft may be dabbled in non x86 Windows solutions but none of them every stuck nor where they particularly transparent.

Maybe hardware/software challenges on continuing support that would not be feasible on older systems.

It is feasible. The issue is costs. Most folks want Apple to provide it for free. Apple doesn't want to provide it for free. Apple isn't inclined to make support a major revenue source. They'd rather go with the "free" genius appointments on relatively recent customers than getting paid to chase down gremlins in 8-10 year products that have a decent likelihood they can't be fixed anyway.

 

[G4DP]

This complete horse hockey of MS charging more? Apple have charged far more for OS X over the years than Microsoft.

We've had 3 revisions of Windows with another in the works. Whilst on Mac OSX we've had 9 versions and another on the way - including the public beta and the free crapgrade to 10.0.

Upgrading to every version of Mac OSX would have cost in the region of $700 if a single computer was able to do so. Not the case so at some point you had to buy another piece of Apple hardware.

I have been able to upgrade Windows for $120 a time, so thats, $360 at most. So on software alone it has been significantly cheaper to go down the windows route. Yes I have had to buy a new PC but it didn't cost me more than a $1000 all in. Unlike the Apple side which at a minimum would have been over $1300.

 

[linuxcooldude]

Windows apps from 5 years ago run on Windows RT ARM based offerings? Nope.

Within the same platform such as x86. I don't think no one will expect 100% backward compatibility in that situation. We did have Rosetta for that for Macs, but it was designed to be a transitional, rather then a permanent long term solution.

Expecting backward compatibility between two different platforms is really not comparable.

Upgrading to every version of Mac OSX would have cost in the region of $700 if a single computer was able to do so. Not the case so at some point you had to buy another piece of Apple hardware.

I have been able to upgrade Windows for $120 a time, so thats, $360 at most. So on software alone it has been significantly cheaper to go down the windows route. Yes I have had to buy a new PC but it didn't cost me more than a $1000 all in. Unlike the Apple side which at a minimum would have been over $1300.

Thats taking account for only the home version, not anyone who has multiple computers or pro or ultimate versions.

Apple allows to upgrade multiple Mac computers for one price ( As well as for most applications in the App Store ), something that Microsoft cannot do.

Me having 4 Mac computers the cost of installing Windows on all 4 would be $800.00 vice $30.00 ( Now $20.00 for ML )

 

[ActionableMango]

MS goes out of the way to make their stuff compatible? AAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!

Remember Microsoft "Plays for Sure" and the MSN Music Store? It was their version of iTunes music DRM matched with licensed decoding on hardware players. 4 short years later it was retired when Zune came out. Microsoft "Plays for Sure" music doesn't play on the Microsoft Zune (for sure!). Can you imagine if your entire iTunes music library wouldn't work on new iPods after 4 years? Microsoft simultaneously screwed over all of its music customers AND all of its music hardware partners.

You know all those people buying Windows 7 phones right now? They won't be able to upgrade to Windows 8. From PDAs of yesteryear to brand new phones you can buy today, the fractured sometimes-you-can but often-you-can't upgrade fiascos have been a common theme in MS mobile OSes.

MS told us that DirectX 10 games could only possibly ever work with Vista, so we'd all have to upgrade from XP to their crapware of an OS. Some slight hacks proved that it wasn't true. I remember a DirectX10-only game billed to only work on Vista was made to work on XP in DX9 with some simple hacks and finding hidden files in the game itself that proved it was in fact intended to be DX9 compatible. Meanwhile MS is telling us the entire driver model is different and there was NO WAY it could be made to be backward compatible with XP.

As a heavy Office user who uses the most sophisticated functions, I can assure you there are many fundamental bugs where the fix was never patched and Microsoft's answer was to buy the next version. Even basic features such as bullets and autonumbering in Word had fundamental bugs that were "fixed" not by patches but by buying the next version. Forced obsolescence by refusal to fix bugs.

Note I'm not defending Apple, I'm merely pointing out "they all do that" and MS is just as guilty as anyone else.

 

[derbothaus]

I just had a fun .xlr file issue. MS Works to Excel. Outlook Express to Outlook. Visio and Project to ANYTHING. Publisher to ANYTHING. Yep. Real compatibility. They try real hard even within their own eco-system. PITA. "Here is our cheapo line of SW. Now don't think you can do anything with your data after we convince you to upgrade"