One Year release cycle

[KnightWRX]

That will only be this generation the switch. From then on it's two if they elect to cull the HW.

How so ? They've just cut the Core 2 Duos in 2 with this, those using Intel chipsets/integrated GPUs and those using nVidia GPUs.

Next they could simply drop 9400m equipped Macs with 10.9, keeping the 3 year barrier alive. Nothing says they have to cut accross generational boundaries using only the CPU, that's what you think they need to do.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

So, it seems like Apple is moving towards a one year release cycle for OS X. Why are they doing this? Do they want to integrate os x and ios faster? That's my guess at least, can anyone come up with another reason?

Some reasons:
- Better security (security updates for a current OS cannot solve fundamental security flaws)
- Higher optimization for current hardware (Sandy Bridge & Ivy Bridge @ the moment)
- Better system-wide availability of new standards (Web, Desktop, Developers, iDevices and so on)
- ...

 

[Gomff]

For the environment, but not at the cost of technological progress is their motto. Trim the fat! Chop out all antiquated HW and legacy code!

You are right though, they is something disturbing in this.

From a traditional business perspective I understand it. But the broader question is whether traditional business principles of maximum profitability above everything else are ethical and sustainable. It works fine on a Monopoly board but in reality plenty of economies are suffering and manufacturing in the West has declined at least partly because of it.

I think a company's vision is compromised when it starts to make decisions based on keeping shareholders happy. Reminds me of the line from Tron Legacy when the CEO of Encom is asked what improvements have been made to Encom OS 12 and he replies "This year we put a 12 on the box". I'm not saying that Mountain Lion is as trivial as that, but shareholders like regular upgrade cycles, it gives them a sense that their investment is developing according to a predictable schedule.

 

[throAU]

They better price it really low or we would have a real fragmentation issue here, a lot of people is not going to pay 29 bucks every year

Here in aussie land, thats about as expensive as 6 cups of coffee...



I'm sure plenty can spare that amount of cash, PER YEAR....

----------

Sorry but this misses a huge point. I have a late 2006 iMac 20" which cost me £999 when new. I have upgraded it to the maximum memory and it currently runs Lion perfectly well. When I pay as much for a Mac as I do I neither expect nor can afford to replace it after only 2 years. I'd accept 3 years as a minimum, but to say that you should buy a machine with no thought to how long it would be able to run current software/OS is wrong in my opinion.

Did your iMac somehow stop working? You can keep running Lion "perfectly well".

They won't kill machines after 2 years, because that's less than how long a lot of companies depreciate them over (3-5 yrs), how long various tax laws in plenty of countries allow you to claim a machine on your tax return for (1 new machine every 3 yrs), and how long they offer applecare for (3 yrs).

 

[thundersteele]

Here in aussie land, thats about as expensive as 6 cups of coffee...



I'm sure plenty can spare that amount of cash, PER YEAR....

If that means I would have to go without my morning coffee for 6 days... I'd rather not!

But thats besides the point. Apple says that fragmentation is bad... it's one of their big arguments against the Android platform. If the annual update costs $29, many people will not upgrade. Not because they can't afford it, but because they don't care. Then suddenly you have your user base spread out over 4-5 OSX versions, which is bad for developers.

A longer release cycle naturally lowers fragmentation, because the majority of laptops is replaced within 5 years.

An option would be to provide a free update from the previous version, i.e. Lion to ML, and only charge for a two or more version jump.

 

[marc11]

I think some of you are missing the point. It is not about the cost of the upgrade, even if it is free. And it is not about your pc which works fine today and will not stop working because a new os is out.

The issue to be concerned about, and one we have seen with ios devices, is when Apple puts in a plist or kext file a restriction of a certain hardware type to prevent that hardware from running the new os, which is later proven to be a false barrier put in place along side new highly desirable os features which in turn entice people to upgrade hardware. That is planned obsolescence.

This is disturbingly true when people repeatedly prove the excluded hardware is more than capable of running the new os and new features. Or even worse when the market proves this and then Apple back tracks and makes it available later, ala gestures on the iPad one.

That is what, IMHO, worries me most about this new release cycle.

 

[pdjudd]

But thats besides the point. Apple says that fragmentation is bad... .

They are talking about a different type of fragmentation - where you have different skinned versions of Android running on different hardware configurations of hardware made by different companies. Heck, MS has it easier with dealing with Windows upgrades in that instance!

Having different levels of software upgrades is just part of the game that you get into when you release software. Apple has dealt with this from day one. Right now the best solution that they have is to make upgrading cheap and easy. They didn’t have a problem when it was costing users 130 bucks a pop every year or two.

The only way this becomes an issue is if they rapidly obsolete old hardware which I believe that Apple tries not to do. There is no reason to do that. Apple knows that people don’t buy hardware that often. The costs don’t make it possible. If people don’t upgrade their software that is not Apple’s fault or problem. Apple can nor nor do they force upgrades. They can encourage adoption (and it works - people do upgrade in large numbers) but I don’t see the problems that you talk about. I just don’t.

 

[BrotherBeagle]

If Apple want to get a foothold in large company IT infrastructure & education...

They don't. Not the way you, I nor enterprise expects them to. The Prom Queen doesn't need to court, son. She gets courted.

Apple's filled its warchest to the brim on consumer devices -- just because Enterprise has people that want to bring Apple to the table isn't necessarily indicative of Apple's interest in being there.

 

[pdjudd]

That’s what I was saying earlier. Apple isn’t going into a market that they never played well in the past and operates by rules fundamentally different than what Apple does. Apple doesn’t have to - they play by their own rules and rarely do they play by others unless it doesn’t impact their business.

 

[pmz]

Mountain Lion brings a lot of iOS 5 to OS X. This is sorely needed. The closer the relationship of Apps and important data, the better. I'm not surprised they're rolling this out quickly.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Why i love it: No long waits for new features.
Why i hate it: We'll never see another Tiger to Leopard type of huge update.

 

[pdjudd]

Why i hate it: We'll never see another Tiger to Leopard type of huge update.

Really? There is nothing in Apples release schedule that says that they cannot do a major upgrade down the line - Apple works on multiple projects at once.

 

[ixodes]

It's an annual fee to keep Apple happy. A mere pittance.

That makes it a screaming bargain, compared to the country club dues

 

[cocky jeremy]

Really? There is nothing in Apples release schedule that says that they cannot do a major upgrade down the line - Apple works on multiple projects at once.

If they plan on releasing a new OS every year, a Tiger to Leopard type of upgrade will be difficult, at best. I doubt they'd work on two OS's at once, too. Who knows though. We'll see.

 

[MikhailT]

I think you've somewhat combined 2 different issues. But it all depends on how one reads what is written.

In terms of hardware, I expect my computers to last 3 to 6 years. This depends on type of systme. This is in terms of hardware reliability. If my usage changes, that is a different issue.

Software wise, I expect to be able to get OS updates and upgrades for at least 3 years after buying a system and preferably closer to 5. And that software updates from the various companies would still work even if I couldn't use some new features.

Now since you said you have a 2006 system, that makes it over 5 years old. A decent lifespan for a computer.

That is a reasonable expectation half a decade ago. A current reasonable expectation is less than 2 years nowadays for majority of people. Your computer doesn't stop working after 2-3 years, you just can't expect new OS features after 2 years for Macs. This is already being strengthen by the iOS devices.

If they plan on releasing a new OS every year, a Tiger to Leopard type of upgrade will be difficult, at best. I doubt they'd work on two OS's at once, too. Who knows though. We'll see.

Think about Intel's Tick-tock model for their CPU, which is already a major success for Intel. That's what Apple will probably do, they'll alternate between two different type of updates. One that changes a lot of things under the hood and one that optimizes the changes and improve it with more features. Snow Leopard is the major change update but it didn't bring in a lot of new features over Leopard. Leopard is the feature-packed update over Tiger.

So Mountain Lion is the feature-packed update based on Lion, which improve a lot of things about Lion and add more features. Chances are that 10.9 will be the major under the hood update like Snow Leopard and 10.10 will alternate back to a major feature-packed update based on 10.9. So, they can actually have two-year development leads between updates.

Apple is fully capable of doing two OS tracks, they've done it for the Intel/PPC OSX project.

 

[JohnDoe98]

The issue to be concerned about, and one we have seen with ios devices, is when Apple puts in a plist or kext file a restriction of a certain hardware type to prevent that hardware from running the new os, which is later proven to be a false barrier put in place along side new highly desirable os features which in turn entice people to upgrade hardware. That is planned obsolescence.

This is disturbingly true when people repeatedly prove the excluded hardware is more than capable of running the new os and new features. Or even worse when the market proves this and then Apple back tracks and makes it available later, ala gestures on the iPad one.

Care to give specific examples? Because the issue is not simply, "can the old HW run the new OS and features?", but more importantly, how well can the old HW run the new OS and its features? Apple sets the bar very high in terms of its expectations on performance and user experience, perhaps too high you might argue. But to make a fair assessment as to whether they are simply doing this to push more HW sales, I'd like to consider the examples.

Take Airplay mirroring coming in ML. It seems well motivated to chop out the systems that they are chopping out. And trust me, I'd love to have mirroring on my computer, but that simply won't happen. The implementation would be pretty shoddy, like when I run third-party apps that try to do it.

 

[Bear]

That is a reasonable expectation half a decade ago. A current reasonable expectation is less than 2 years nowadays for majority of people. Your computer doesn't stop working after 2-3 years, you just can't expect new OS features after 2 years for Macs. This is already being strengthen by the iOS devices.
...

I think it's still going to be a minimum of 4 to 5 years for OS updates for most Macs. And 3 to 6 years is still a reasonable expectation for a computer to last for most people as long as they don't buy the bottom of the line Dell system.

 

[KnightWRX]

I think it's still going to be a minimum of 4 to 5 years for OS updates for most Macs. And 3 to 6 years is still a reasonable expectation for a computer to last for most people as long as they don't buy the bottom of the line Dell system.

Computers can last decades and more. I still have a UltraSparc 5 in working order.

A vendor ending support for hardware does not mean it suddenly stops working or being useful. minimum 4/5 years ? We'll see, I doubt Apple will sustain their line-up for that long.

ML is already a little under the 4 year barrier by cutting out stuff that was sold new in box in September 2008.

 

[Bear]

...
ML is already a little under the 4 year barrier by cutting out stuff that was sold new in box in September 2008.

Which is getting a bit short in my opinion. However, based on past experience (which I know is subject to change) Lion will get at least one or 2 more updates after Mountain Lion is released and then get at least several months (if not more) of security updates.

 

[heisenberg123]

for $29 price tag dont be surprised to see a new one every year

 

[marc11]

Care to give specific examples? Because the issue is not simply, "can the old HW run the new OS and features?", but more importantly, how well can the old HW run the new OS and its features? Apple sets the bar very high in terms of its expectations on performance and user experience, perhaps too high you might argue. But to make a fair assessment as to whether they are simply doing this to push more HW sales, I'd like to consider the examples.

Take Airplay mirroring coming in ML. It seems well motivated to chop out the systems that they are chopping out. And trust me, I'd love to have mirroring on my computer, but that simply won't happen. The implementation would be pretty shoddy, like when I run third-party apps that try to do it.

Gestures on iPad 1.
AirPlay mirror on iPhone 4
Siri on iPhone 4
AirPlay on first gen core i7 machines.
iCloud on Snow Leopard. Maybe bad example.
iBooks on SL.

But AirPlay on gen 1 i7 gets me most since intel itself says it is supported.

There are more but These jump to mind.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Gestures on iPad 1.

This is enabled in iOS 5, so non-issue.

AirPlay mirror on iPhone 4

Do you have any evidence that it would work properly on the iPhone 4? So far as I know, no one has managed to implement it yet through a Cydia tweak, so there is no evidence that it works properly.

Siri on iPhone 4

There was an article a while ago on Macrumors that explained why the iPhone 4, though capable of Siri, would not be capable of doing it at the same caliber as the iPhone 4S can do it. Apparently the chip used in the 4S is better for decoding voice. So it probably is more an issue pertaining to performance as simply brute capabilities, which again explains saying they could do it is to oversimplify things.

AirPlay on first gen core i7 machines.

The DP1 ML release notes clearly say the feature hasn't been fully rolled out yet, so it is far too premature to be complaining about this right now. Those devices may well get it.

iCloud on Snow Leopard. Maybe bad example.

Yes, bad example.

iBooks on SL.

??? There is no iBooks on OS X.

 

[marc11]

I do not feel like going back and forth on what was available when, why or how well it could or could not work. By iBooks I meant the publisher component that was forced to be lion only but works fine on sl or how many machines were noted as not lion compatible but with a tweak run it fine.

Apple is a hardware company, the incentive is to sell more hardware this year than last. If you think the iOS and osx upgrades which target specific hardware classes and restrict others has nothing to do with incenting new hardware sales; that Apple doesn't track hardware sales to existing customers just prior to and just after major is upgraded; that those upgrades are only about your positive user experiencing, I disagree, your rose colored glasses must have an Apple logo on them, mine do not.

 

[Draeconis]

If we are to believe that Apple is sincere in its environmental concerns, why isn't it supporting its products for as long as they are reasonably viable? The answer can only be profit driven, which I do understand. But the principles of being environmentally responsible and planned obsolescence are contradictory and any company trying to play the two against each other should be called out on it..

..which is why all of their more recent products from 2008 onwards are highly recyclable

 

[newagemac]

Gestures on iPad 1.
AirPlay mirror on iPhone 4
Siri on iPhone 4
AirPlay on first gen core i7 machines.
iCloud on Snow Leopard. Maybe bad example.
iBooks on SL.

But AirPlay on gen 1 i7 gets me most since intel itself says it is supported.

There are more but These jump to mind.

This reminds me of people who say the Apple TV 2 "can do" 1080p and Apple is just holding it back for "no reason". Well when you jailbreak the device and actually attempt to play a 1080p file, yeah it "works" technically if you want to call it that. But the performance is very subpar with so many freezes and pauses to make it not worth doing and it is also dependent on the actual bitrate of the movie. Action movies in 1080p were just terrible during the high bit rate action scenes. Like a slide show almost. Whereas with 720p, everything just works.

Also comes to mind is when Apple allowed the iPhone 3G (which had the same processor, graphics chip, and RAM of the original iPhone) to run iOS 4. This was a bad decision in my opinion. Yes it worked, but the experience itself was dismal. I don't think Apple wants to do that again. Each version has significant hardware upgrades now though.

So the point is, just because someone hacks something to make it "work" on older hardware does not mean Apple should have made it available on that hardware. Apple and its customers have higher standards than that. The difference between something working somewhat and something working very well is quite large and is the main difference between Apple and it's competitors.