One Year release cycle

[djrod]

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.

Gestures on iPad 1. - Only pinch to home screen works well in the iPad 1, application switch with 4 finger is slowwwww. But apple backed their decision and gestures are now available for the iPad 1

AirPlay mirror on iPhone 4 - probably the CPU is not strong enought to do that without compromising battery life/ performance

Siri on iPhone 4 - same as before but regarding the silent noise chip the iPhone 4s has

AirPlay on first gen core i7 machines. - you don't want your 4(8) cores at full throttle to encode the video that goes to AirPlay Mirror.

iCloud on Snow Leopard. Maybe bad example. - You are right, this was a greedy/ lazy move

iBooks on SL. - Apple probably thinks that a computer is no good for reading books, I also think that.


There is an explanation for almost everything

 

[JohnDoe98]

iCloud on Snow Leopard. Maybe bad example. - You are right, this was a greedy/ lazy move

iBooks on SL. - Apple probably thinks that a computer is no good for reading books, I also think that.

And don't forget, these aren't hardware constraints but software ones. I must say though, new features typically come with new OSs, to expect the new features/programs to be released on OSs that are no longer being developed for strikes me as a little bizarre and people asking for handouts.

 

[djrod]

And don't forget, these aren't hardware constraints but software ones. I must say though, new features typically come with new OSs, to expect the new features/programs to be released on OSs that are no longer being developed for strikes me as a little bizarre and people asking for handouts.

But that is because Apple have spoiled us,back in the day when you bought a phone , that thing had 0 updates with new features along it's life.

People are now used to free software updates and bitch and moan if updates to get new software features have a cost.

Just wait till summer when everybody go mad when Apple kills the iMessages for Lion.

 

[Tinyluph]

It really shouldn't matter whether iBooks is lousy on a desktop. It should still be available there.

 

[djrod]

It really shouldn't matter whether iBooks is lousy on a desktop. It should still be available there.

There is actually almost no ePub app for the Mac, at least not a good one,no?

 

[Partron22]

There is actually almost no ePub app for the Mac, at least not a good one,no?

You cannot read books from the iTunes store on a Mac. The ePub DRM prevents it.

 

[katewes]

From my experience of Leopard and Snow Leopard - which both started really buggy (I spent 4 hours waiting on Apple's HelpLine on Leopard launch delay, so I know), it took 2 years for each to get absolutely granite solid - searching for words that are more emphatic than rock solid. So I'd bypass the early beta testing versions of 10.x.1 to 10.x.6, and update late in the cycle and really enjoy total peace of mind. By this stage, in a 2 year cycle, Apple would be developing the next OS, and I'd be enjoying a perfected OS, while the fanboys would be suffering angst beta testing the next OS.

Now, this 1 year cycle messes my approach up. I certainly hope that Apple are going to keep updating the former OS - even with this 1 year cycle.

i.e. even if 10.8 comes out, I hope Apple keeps going with Lion until, say, 10.7.8 - because that's probably how long it'll take for Apple to get Lion granite solid.

 

[KnightWRX]

Now, this 1 year cycle messes my approach up.

Again for those just tuning in :

- Shorter release cycles means less new features/changes per release
- Less new features/changes means less debugging and testing required to get it granite

Your experience thus does not reflect the new reality. Let's wait and see how it goes before going into "panic" mode.

 

[617660]

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.

Even if what you said is true, that can still be part of "planned obsolescence" strategy. All they need to do is to NOT optimize the new OS for old hardware. Customer then feel the need to upgrade and Apple can come out and say "told you so".

Letting a company making this type of decision (what's obsolete or not), and you can be sure they will always have their own interest on top of the list.

 

[newagemac]

Even if what you said is true, that can still be part of "planned obsolescence" strategy. All they need to do is to NOT optimize the new OS for old hardware. Customer then feel the need to upgrade and Apple can come out and say "told you so".

Letting a company making this type of decision (what's obsolete or not), and you can be sure they will always have their own interest on top of the list.

But you see this is what allows Apple to make such great software. If you have ever been involved in software development or heck even if you have coded a website you would understand that backwards compatibility is a huge drain on what you can do and how well and how fast you can implement it. It's not a trivial thing at all.

Microsoft does have top notch programmers but they have made a strategic business decision to support enterprise first and foremost which means they have to be backwards compatible with old systems and software far more so than Apple.

And this is one of the major reasons why they seem to be so far behind Apple with Windows and why it takes them so long to put out stuff. Backwards compatibility comes at a price to both development as well as the end user who is up-to-date.

 

[617660]

But you see this is what allows Apple to make such great software. If you have ever been involved in software development or heck even if you have coded a website you would understand that backwards compatibility is a huge drain on what you can do and how well and how fast you can implement it. It's not a trivial thing at all.

Microsoft does have top notch programmers but they have made a strategic business decision to support enterprise first and foremost which means they have to be backwards compatible with old systems and software far more so than Apple.

And this is one of the major reasons why they seem to be so far behind Apple with Windows and why it takes them so long to put out stuff. Backwards compatibility comes at a price to both development as well as the end user who is up-to-date.

Perhaps.

The thing is that Apple controls the hardware too. Unlike MSFT, they don't have hundreds of laptops/desktops to support. I can easily put in an argument that if MSFT could do what they do with backward compatibility, Apple should have no problem exceeding MSFT...just look at how simple their lineup is.

As a customer, there are some choices I like to make for myself. If my machine is running too slow and Apple did an honest job not crippling old hardware, then I will have a choice to make. However, letting a company make the decision just seems very arbitrary, if not a bit dubious.

 

[atMac]

If Apple want to get a foothold in large company IT infrastructure & education, they will struggle if their hardware and software become incompatible with each other over a relatively short period of time.

They are already struggling by killing the XSAN and XServe, they will be struggling more if they kill the Mac Pro like it is rumored.

They don't want a foot hold in those markets as they have as of late been KILLING the products for those markets.

 

[DeckMan]

That is a reasonable expectation half a decade ago. A current reasonable expectation is less than 2 years nowadays for majority of people.

Really? Most of the people I know expect to keep using their computer for *more* than 5 years, not less. When I told one friend that I wanted to keep mine for 5 years, she was like "I thought you could use Macs for longer than PCs"

There is actually almost no ePub app for the Mac, at least not a good one,no?

Yeah, the best one I found was actually an addon for Firefox. But it's definitely not as fun as using an iPad.

 

[Liquinn]

Really? Most of the people I know expect to keep using their computer for *more* than 5 years, not less. When I told one friend that I wanted to keep mine for 5 years, she was like "I thought you could use Macs for longer than PCs"



Yeah, the best one I found was actually an addon for Firefox. But it's definitely not as fun as using an iPad.

I'm a bit concerned by a one year release cycle as I've only switched to OSX. So perhaps it is worth me waiting for Ivy Bridge if the Sandy Bridge processors will become obsolete faster. But then again a new operating system doesn't mean better I guess.

 

[Carl Sagan]

Faster updates make sense, the world is a faster place these days. Google Chrome updates every six weeks, people have a new phone every 18-24 months, even TVs are replaced every 3-4 years compared to 5-15 years like they used too...

 

[MikhailT]

Really? Most of the people I know expect to keep using their computer for *more* than 5 years, not less. When I told one friend that I wanted to keep mine for 5 years, she was like "I thought you could use Macs for longer than PCs"

That's fine as long as they expect to use the same OS and apps with the same hardware. Most people do not have needs for newer versions.

PCs and Macs are two different cultures to when it comes with OS and hardware. There are a lot of flexibility in PCs than there are in Macs.

I know more people that are still running XP than people with W7. Those people have no needs to upgrade and they have 5-10 years old computers. Those people will expect the same for the next computer that they buy, that their computers will last 10 years with whatever Windows OS that comes with it.

That's reasonable but again, not everybody is the same. Gamers/Power Users have a much shorter expectation but they extend their timeframe by constantly upgrade their parts to catch up. Not something you can do with any Macs.

What Mac users shouldn't expect is that the new OS that comes out in 5 years would be supporting their Mac hardware. Just like how Lion came out 3-4 years later and no longer supports any PPC Macs and Mountain Lion coming out with no support for any 32-bit CPUs sold 3 years ago and some specific Macs with GPUs.

Those are the reasonable timeframes we're talking about. Computers can last decades, not a problem as long as you take good care of it but the newer Mac OSs aren't expected to have 10 years worth of backward compatibility with hardware.

Windows are expected to do that, Macs aren't.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

That's fine as long as they expect to use the same OS and apps with the same hardware. Most people do not have needs for newer versions.

PCs and Macs are two different cultures to when it comes with OS and hardware. There are a lot of flexibility in PCs than there are in Macs.

I know more people that are still running XP than people with W7. Those people have no needs to upgrade and they have 5-10 years old computers. Those people will expect the same for the next computer that they buy, that their computers will last 10 years with whatever Windows OS that comes with it.

That's reasonable but again, not everybody is the same. Gamers/Power Users have a much shorter expectation but they extend their timeframe by constantly upgrade their parts to catch up. Not something you can do with any Macs.

What Mac users shouldn't expect is that the new OS that comes out in 5 years would be supporting their Mac hardware. Just like how Lion came out 3-4 years later and no longer supports any PPC Macs and Mountain Lion coming out with no support for any 32-bit CPUs sold 3 years ago and some specific Macs with GPUs.

Those are the reasonable timeframes we're talking about. Computers can last decades, not a problem as long as you take good care of it but the newer Mac OSs aren't expected to have 10 years worth of backward compatibility with hardware.

Windows are expected to do that, Macs aren't.

That's only true if the hardware makers actually make drivers for the older OSes. This is a problem that prevents most installations of older OS X versions on newer hardware. True, on Windows this doesn't crop up as much. That doesn't mean it's nonexistent, though - just look at Windows XP. It cannot take full advantage of machines with 5 or more logical (or physical) CPUs.

 

[MikhailT]

That's only true if the hardware makers actually make drivers for the older OSes. This is a problem that prevents most installations of older OS X versions on newer hardware. True, on Windows this doesn't crop up as much. That doesn't mean it's nonexistent, though - just look at Windows XP. It cannot take full advantage of machines with 5 or more logical (or physical) CPUs.

I'm not sure that I understand your point. We're talking about forward compatibilities at the time when you buy a new computer. Who buys a new computer and install an earlier OS on it?

Apple's the only company working on hardware drivers for their OS or at least validate drivers that may be coming from their partners. They're the one who chooses to remove the drivers (even if it works perfectly) in the newer OSes.

At the time XP came out, there were no consumer CPUs with more than one core. So, it makes sense that there are restrictions to CPU and memory.

 

[pdjudd]

Who buys a new computer and install an earlier OS on it?

Business did as well as many consumers did simply because of Vista. Heck, our company still downgrades computers with Windows XP due to compatibility.

 

[DeckMan]

What Mac users shouldn't expect is that the new OS that comes out in 5 years would be supporting their Mac hardware.

But was that any different with Windows in the past? I think I remember Vista and Windows 7 upping the system requirements compared to XP, though I don't remember how old your PC had to be in order to not be supported by Vista.

Of course, most (if not all) Windows software is still compatible to XP - Mac developers might be less like to support many older OS versions, especially if there's a new one every year. (Didn't XP come out at the same time as, like, Puma? I have a friend with an iBook running Panther who has trouble finding compatible software. Though I'm pretty sure it's still way easier with Tiger.)

 

[617660]

What Mac users shouldn't expect is that the new OS that comes out in 5 years would be supporting their Mac hardware.

I wonder why mac users "shouldn't" expect their machine be supported in 5 years time? Because Apple hasn't been doing that and you just cave in? Remember, we paid top dollar for a premium product. If the cheap window-based PC can be supported well beyond their avg. lifespan, shouldn't my mac be supported for 5 useful life years? It's only fair to ask Apple to do more with backward compatibility.

 

[KnightWRX]

I wonder why mac users "shouldn't" expect their machine be supported in 5 years time? Because Apple hasn't been doing that and you just cave in? Remember, we paid top dollar for a premium product. If the cheap window-based PC can be supported well beyond their avg. lifespan, shouldn't my mac be supported for 5 useful life years? It's only fair to ask Apple to do more with backward compatibility.

You can ask, but they don't have to provide it at all. If you want assured long term support, by from a vendor that can put it down for you in writing.

Apple isn't such a vendor. Only people with too much free time would want to waste it trying to "fight the big bad Apple". HP, Dell, Lenovo are ready to accept your money and provide the LTS you need.

By what fits your needs rather than buying your little wants.

 

[617660]

You can ask, but they don't have to provide it at all. If you want assured long term support, by from a vendor that can put it down for you in writing.

Apple isn't such a vendor. Only people with too much free time would want to waste it trying to "fight the big bad Apple". HP, Dell, Lenovo are ready to accept your money and provide the LTS you need.

By what fits your needs rather than buying your little wants.

I understand Apple is free to do whatever it wants to. But instead of leaving it for some other brands, which I will if I don't see Apple taking action, I make a request on a mac forum and hope Apple can come to its sense.

 

[50voltphantom]

I think people will pay the 29 per year..

But the fragmentation argument is very valid..

They also can't continue to drop support for older macs every year.

Totally agree on the $29/year, makes me wonder if Microsoft is still going to charge $100+ for Windows 8? That's a huge gap.

----------

I don't think the yearly release cycle is actually going to be a re-engineered OS with every release. Regardless of what 10.X it is called. I have a feeling they will operate more like "Service Packs".

 

[TheGdog]

Totally agree on the $29/year, makes me wonder if Microsoft is still going to charge $100+ for Windows 8? That's a huge gap.

----------

I don't think the yearly release cycle is actually going to be a re-engineered OS with every release. Regardless of what 10.X it is called. I have a feeling they will operate more like "Service Packs".

I am not understanding why everyone thinks apple is dropping support for macs every year?. Trying to keep support for machines that are X years old is hard to do. Its more about what the hardware needs to be to run the new OS well. Age doesn't matter, clearly a Mac mini is going to lose new OS support before a Mac pro does, regardless of age. Its not about age, its about what is needed to have a solid user experience.

I can completely see why apple is not supporting macs with GMA graphics and core duo processors. They are slow and can't keep up with the new features. Heck I have a core duo macbook at work, and it can barely run SL smoothly. Your computer will not just stop working if you don't get the newest OS. There is still quite a bit of software thats runs on tiger for that matter. Most Devs keep support a few versions back. Also keep in mind the MAS is available to SL users, so SL will stay supported on the store for a while.