The "11" version number is disrespect to Steve Jobs

[ThomasJL]

The change of macOS 10's major version number to "11" is a major disrespect to Steve Jobs. It shows a lack of gratitude and a lack of appreciation for Jobs. When Jobs changed the major version number of Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X, it was because Mac OS X 10.0 was a radical departure from Mac OS 9.

The kernel type of Mac OS 9 is a nanokernel, and the kernel type of Mac OS X 10.0 is a Hybrid (XNU). There is no change of the kernel type from macOS 10.15 to macOS "11" since the kernel type for both is the same type as Mac OS X 10.0.

macOS "11" is, in reality, a continuation of the macOS 10 series, and should have been appropriately titled macOS 10.16.

It is ignorant to say that the major version number should be changed to "11" because now it supports a new processor architecture (ARM). That's because under Jobs's leadership, when Apple transitioned from PowerPC processors to Intel processors during Mac OS 10.4.4, the major version number stayed as 10 for the current and future releases up until macOS 10.15.

Sure, there is a justified time in the future for changing the macOS 10's major version number to 11. But that time is only when the change from macOS 10.x to what proceeds it is as major of a change and departure as Mac OS X 10.0 was to Mac OS 9.

I am sick of Tim Cook destroying the software culture that Jobs put in place. And it isn't just with macOS 10's major version number. Under Jobs's innovative leadership, Apple created and popularized much of the intuitive and user-friendly skeuomorphic design used by Macs since the very first Macintosh System Software 1.0 released in 1984 all the way up until Mac OS X 10.9 Mavericks released in 2013 (and last updated with 10.9.5 in 2016). Apple created and popularized skeuomorphic design and Microsoft copied Apple, as did most companies in the software industry. Under the "leadership" of that MBA suit Cook, Apple copied Microsoft by implementing non-intuitive and non-user-friendly flat design.

I'm sure Cook doesn't care. Cook mostly cares about making as much money as possible and pleasing shareholders. While Jobs also cared about money and shareholders, it was to a much lesser extent, because Jobs didn't compromise culture and user-friendliness just to make more money and to please the shareholders more.

 

[Apple_Robert]

I don’t think Tim is showing disrespect to Steve. Steve did a lot of good things for Apple. The positive things he did should be remembered and where practical, continued on in the company. When it comes to OS name, I think that is really trivial. The main aspect should be quality, usability and integration of the OS.


I think you are spending way too much time digging Tim up and trying to be a voice for him over a meaningless issue in the grand scheme of things.

 

[ArPe]

Don’t overthink.

It should have changed to macOS 11 when they dropped the Mac OS X branding with Yosemite.

The interface is just as intuitive as it has always been. There’s no loss of function or paradigm change. Functionally and superficially macOS and Windows 10 are no different from user perspective as they were in 2001. They just have newer skins and frameworks.

You only need to complain if an app developer ruins their apps in a major way.

 

[chrfr]

Apple should have been updating the major version number of macOS already. This is a long overdue change and it has nothing to do with Steve Jobs. Jobs has been dead for over 9 years.

 

[martint235]

Is it really that important? Steve Jobs ran a company, he wasn’t the messiah.

 

[ian87w]

I thought the reason Big Sur is macOS 11 is Apple Silicon.

Anyway, in the end it's not important, other than for developers.

 

[Stephen.R]

macOS "11" is, in reality, a continuation of the macOS 10 series, and should have been appropriately titled macOS 16.

Wut?

Im not sure how you count but when I count, the next number after 10 (ie the continuation) is 11, not 16.

 

[wlisik]

The interface is just as intuitive as it has always been

And let it stay this way.....

You only need to complain if an app developer ruins their apps in a major way.

Exactly this. No need to complain otherwise....

 

[chrfr]

Wut?

Im not sure how you count but when I count, the next number after 10 (ie the continuation) is 11, not 16.

iOS and macOS have followed different versioning models for no good reason. Arguably, the iOS model makes more sense. The implication is that each major upgrade should get a new major version. This might also head off the “Supplemental Update 1,” “Supplemental Update 2” nonsense we have now with macOS.

 

[martint235]

iOS and macOS have followed different versioning models for no good reason. Arguably, the iOS model makes more sense. The implication is that each major upgrade should get a new major version. This might also head off the “Supplemental Update 1,” “Supplemental Update 2” nonsense we have now with macOS.

Precisely. Long before Jobs came along and still going in the rest of the IT world (except ServiceNow but they are weird anyway) there was a convention that major releases are whole number steps, minor releases are decimal numbers and small fixes/patches are .0.1

 

[Stephen.R]

iOS and macOS have followed different versioning models for no good reason. Arguably, the iOS model makes more sense. The implication is that each major upgrade should get a new major version. This might also head off the “Supplemental Update 1,” “Supplemental Update 2” nonsense we have now with macOS.

I'm aware of the differences, and I agree that what Apple releases as "major" versions, would make more sense if macOS used the versioning scheme iOS/etc use.

My post was questioning how jumping from 10 to 16 makes any sense, in any versioning scheme.

there was a convention that major releases are whole number steps, minor releases are decimal numbers and small fixes/patches are .0.1

Small nitpick - version numbers aren’t decimals. Eg 1.10 as a decimal is the same as 1.1 but it’s a distinct version. The dots separate individual version numbers (or sometimes non numeric identifiers) , they’re not decimal places.

In software dev, a common standard for libraries to use is SemVer, which defines when the specific parts get bumped. Eg a backwards compatible new feature vs a breaking change vs a bug fix that doesn’t add new functionality.

 

[martint235]

I'm aware of the differences, and I agree that what Apple releases as "major" versions, would make more sense if macOS used the versioning scheme iOS/etc use.

My post was questioning how jumping from 10 to 16 makes any sense, in any versioning scheme.



Small nitpick - version numbers aren’t decimals. Eg 1.10 as a decimal is the same as 1.1 but it’s a distinct version. The dots separate individual version numbers (or sometimes non numeric identifiers) , they’re not decimal places.

In software dev, a common standard for libraries to use is SemVer, which defines when the specific parts get bumped. Eg a backwards compatible new feature vs a breaking change vs a bug fix that doesn’t add new functionality.

Fair point. I was being lazy and as they appear as decimal it was easier if strictly incorrect to describe them that way

 

[KoolAid-Drink]

Wut?

Im not sure how you count but when I count, the next number after 10 (ie the continuation) is 11, not 16.

I think he meant 10.16, but forgot to add the 10. before the 16.

 

[martint235]

I think he meant 10.16, but forgot to add the 10. before the 16.

Strangely he hasn’t been back to elaborate though

 

[Madhatter32]

This is more likely a marketing decision then anything intended to be disrespectful. Apple is clearly a very marketing driven company and this is probably just another manifestation of that fact.

 

[JeepGC]

I mean, they had to change it eventually. Shocked it took them this long. But I get where you're coming from. It kind of made me sad when they did as I had many fond memories of Mac OS X.

 

[pmiles]

Makes perfect sense to use 11... ARM Macs are a huge shift in architecture... it also marks the end of an era, the death of the INTEL Macs.

Calling it 10.16 only lies to the consumer base... 11 makes it clear that one road has ended and another has begun.

 

[bluecoast]

We’ll know what the new Apple Silicon Macs are like soon enough.

I have a feeling that they’ll be exactly the sort of Mac that Jobs always wanted to build.

So in a way you could argue that bumping the version number up is a way of honouring him - the Mac gets a big leap forward in both hardware and software this year.

And Jobs didn’t like stagnation and nostalgia.

 

[ThomasJL]

Wut?

Im not sure how you count but when I count, the next number after 10 (ie the continuation) is 11, not 16.

It was a typo. I meant to write “macOS 10.16”. Thanks for pointing that out. I’ve edited the original post to make that correction.

 

[ThomasJL]

I think he meant 10.16, but forgot to add the 10. before the 16.

Yes, that’s exactly what I meant: “macOS 10.16”. Thank you for mentioning that. 😊

 

[Bending Pixels]

 

[Stephen.R]

It was a typo. I meant to write “macOS 10.16”. Thanks for pointing that out. I’ve edited the original post to make that correction.

I see. Ok so you're essentially saying "it's still essentially macOS 10, it should be a minor version bump, not a major version bump". I have two issues with your argument:

I still disagree that it's "disrespectful" to Steve Jobs. In 2005 when announcing the Intel switch he started out talking about previous "transitions", 68K to PPC, and then OS9 to OS X. He went on to say say "OS X has set Apple up for the next 20 years". That was 15 years ago, and to be honest, given that he was comparing that with the previous CPU transition (to PPC) in the mid 90s' "the PowerPC set Apple up for the next decade", I think he was talking in terms of technology, rather than specifically calling it "OS X". Given how flexible the core has proven as a "base" (powering everything from a watch up to a pro workstation) I think he was selling it short on the "20 years" part.


But in terms of the general logic of "its still macOS 10", I believe the trend for the last ~18 years with 10.x numbering is what's "wrong", for two reasons:

In broad strokes, macOS 10.14 and 10.15 and 11.0 are indeed very similar - each is an incremental progression from the previous, while macOS 9 and 10 are very different. But 9 wasn't that different than 8.x or 7.x. Yes it had new features, but it was still the same basic OS. They didn't get to system 7 and say "nope, no new major numbers for the next two decades".

Purely from a logical point of view (i.e. ignoring the history of macOS naming pre/post 10.0), I also don't see how it makes much sense.

I think it's pretty likely that what we know as modern macOS - a POSIX compatible UNIX using the XNU kernel and some combination of BSD and GNU user land (collectively, Darwin) with Apple's proprietary UI and Application Frameworks on top - is here to stay for at least the next 20 years as well.

So if it were to be "macOS 10.something" for say ~40 years total, the "10" part becomes meaningless in terms of version numbers. macOS 10.36 "Halibut" and macOS 10.0 "Cheetah" would bare so little resemblance above the Darwin layer, you'd essentially be making the '10' just mean "a mac-oriented operating system that has a Darwin base".

 

[lupinglade]

I wouldn't say its disrespectful to Jobs, but the major version bump is unjustified. Big Sur hardly has anything new, just UI hacks mostly.

 

[KoolAid-Drink]

Well, my perspective is that while it's probably not disrespectful, or intended to be that way, it might have been a better idea for Apple to move to macOS 11 in 2014, when Yosemite was released, especially with a new UI. The argument that macOS was pushed up to version 11 because of the forthcoming AS processors replacing Intel processors in the Macintosh might be sound, but when PPC was replaced with Intel in 2006, it happened during a midpoint version of 10.4 Tiger (I want to say 10.4.4), which was certainly not replaced with a new version number during/after the transition.

I do hope Apple will keep moving the macOS version yearly now; ie, 11.0 soon, minor supplemental updates 11.0.1, minor updates with features 11.1; then in 2021, release macOS 12, and so on. That'd put it in sync a bit more with iOS, and eventually when both iOS and macOS reach a much higher number, and Intel support is completely phased out on the Mac, Apple can then just move to appleOS 1.0 for everything (from the Watch up to the Mac Pro) as a starting point with unified hardware and no "legacy" support. That'd be a sensible move, IMHO.

Theoretical roadmap (not rooted in reality, just my theory):
2020: macOS 11, iOS/iPadOS 14, watchOS 7
2021: macOS 12, iOS/iPadOS 15, watchOS 8
2022: macOS 13, iOS/iPadOS 16, watchOS 9
2023: macOS 14, iOS/iPadOS 17, watchOS 10
2024: macOS 15, iOS/iPadOS 18, watchOS 11
2025: macOS 16, iOS/iPadOS 19, watchOS 12
2026: macOS 17, iOS/iPadOS 20, watchOS 13
2027: appleOS 1.0 (for the Watch, TV, iPhone, iPad, and Mac, plus any other devices then)
2027: appleOS 2.0
and so on

Give and take 1-2 years, that'd make sense, as by 2025-2027, all Intel Macs would have moved into the 5-7 year range of support, and macOS for those "legacy" computers would then be discontinued. As iOS would be at 20, and macOS not far off, it'd make sense at that point, especially with all the hardware supposedly being unified, to just move to one operating system to rule them all, with no legacy support.

 

[Stephen.R]

Apple can then just move to appleOS 1.0 for everything

They literally *just* split out iPadOS and tvOS, and they've repeatedly and consistently made it clear that while the underpinnings are shared, each platform is distinct enough that it is a separate thing.