The "11" version number is disrespect to Steve Jobs

[KoolAid-Drink]

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.

Well, in 2011, Apple removed the "Mac" in OS X, then in 2016, changed "OS X" to "macOS". So, a change 5-7 years down the road to their operating system software is not out of the realm of possibility. There's plenty of opportunity for changes to happen between now and 2025-2027. Those years are a long way away, and we all know how Apple doesn't remain static for long.

The software in the theoretical appleOS will be intended to support all hardware platforms, but each platform would still preserve their own unique support and OS respect...ie, Watch would keep their UI compact like now, while the Mac would run appleOS like a traditional Macintosh operating system, with the menu bar, mouse pointer, etc. (assuming no major UI changes are made in a future version of macOS). appleOS would/should be scaleable to "fit" each platform, while maintaining a single OS.

IMHO, we're seeing the signs of integration slowly but surely, with AS for all devices, Catalyst applications, the UI of all OSes slowly becoming coherent, as well as the system language (just look at how similar Big Sur's Setup Assistant is to the iOS Setup Assistant; they even share similar wording). Now, look at SL and iOS in 2011; they were completely different, with very different UI's and language/naming conventions. Mac OS X 10.6.8 bore almost no resemblance to iOS 4 at the time. They were completely different OSes on the surface level; only sharing the core kernel and other similarities.

Apple will continue the slow march towards unification as the years come, IMHO, on the Mac and mobile platforms.

 

[Stephen.R]

Well, in 2011, Apple removed the "Mac" in OS X, then in 2016, changed "OS X" to "macOS". So, a change 5-7 years down the road to their operating system software is not out of the realm of possibility.

I agree in theory that anything is possible, but I don't see it happening, and I don't really believe changing the specific stylistic treatment used for the Mac operating system name is indicative.

I believe a more appropriate parallel is how the portable OS' have grown and split out.

It was "iPhone OS" for the first 3 major versions, and very briefly ran the first iPad, until iOS4 came out a few months later.

For a little while it was all branded as "iOS" - iPhones (+iPod touch), iPads, AppleTV's... until 2015

In April we got Apple Watch, running an iOS derivative called watchOS.
In September we got the 4th generation AppleTV, running yet another iOS derivative called tvOS.

Last year iPads joined the "distinct naming" party with iPadOS.

Apple essentially had what you're describing (multiple, device-specific OS', built from a common platform, but marketed under a single name) just 5 years ago, and they very deliberately moved away from that, and have continued that shift.


Since the first iPhone, people have been speculating that the two OS would "become one" in some kind of Microsoft-esque "<Apple OS> everywhere" (because that concept worked so well for Windows 😂) while Apple has reiterated that they're distinct, but complementary platforms - having the naming suggest that they're the same thing, when they're not at all, is (a) dickish, (b) a pain to provide support for and (c) likely a legal nightmare w.r.t misleading advertising.

 

[mikecwest]

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.

I think they should have changed to 11, when the dropped the cat names....and went for the California locations as names.

 

[ThomasJL]

I think they should have changed to 11, when the dropped the cat names....and went for the California locations as names.

While I respectfully disagree that they should have changed the name to "11", I think you bring up an interesting point about Apple using California locations as names. I didn't think about that, but since you now mention it, it brings me to a different and additional point in why I am against the ''11" name:

If Apple is still continuing with the California names that they started under Mac OS X 10.9 Mavericks and continued up to macOS 10.15 Catalina, then the following macOS should have been called macOS 10.16 Big Sur. It's illogical to continue with the California names yet change the major version number to "11".

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

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.

Aren't you forgetting that Mac OS 9 shared the same nanokernel as Mac OS 8?

So, by your logic, Steve Jobs was disrespecting himself.

 

[mikecwest]

While I respectfully disagree that they should have changed the name to "11", I think you bring up an interesting point about Apple using California locations as names. I didn't think about that, but since you now mention it, it brings me to a different and additional point in why I am against the ''11" name:

If Apple is still continuing with the California names that they started under Mac OS X 10.9 Mavericks and continued up to macOS 10.15 Catalina, then the following macOS should have been called macOS 10.16 Big Sur. It's illogical to continue with the California names yet change the major version number to "11".

I agree, but still think a change to 11 would have made more sense than it does now...Not sure how long California names will continue.

 

[JohnnyWalker]

I have no idea why they moved to 11 actually. It seems purely like a marketing gimmick. But no customers really care, so I don't know quite why. Maybe to try and sell Big Sur, the ugly lowest common denominator design that it is, to people?

I mean it wasn't even known as OS X anymore. It's been macOS for years, so why bother? Who knows. It's bizarre. I don't know how disrespectful to Jobs it is, though. He was always a good showman.

I mean skipping the iPhone 9 is probably more crazy than this.

 

[fisherking]

I have no idea why they moved to 11 actually. It seems purely like a marketing gimmick. But no customers really care, so I don't know quite why. Maybe to try and sell Big Sur, the ugly lowest common denominator design that it is, to people?

I mean it wasn't even known as OS X anymore. It's been macOS for years, so why bother? Who knows. It's bizarre. I don't know how disrespectful to Jobs it is, though. He was always a good showman.

I mean skipping the iPhone 9 is probably more crazy than this.

why are any of these things important? why can't apple, like any other business, name it's products as it sees fit? & why would someone think they speak for jobs?

how is this thread still going? (oh, wait; i'm adding to the madness)... 🙄

 

[blindpcguy]

The change seems to me to just b the new regime wanting to tie the version numbers with apple silicon. they want it to go hand in hand. This isn't Jobs apple. Its Tims Apple. so there's defiantly differences

 

[Tommy Hewitt]

Do people really care about this? They could've named it babbleOS 13.666 Minion and i wouldn't care as long as the released version is stable and smooth. Jobs has been dead for 9 years now. Nobody knows what he would have done if he were still alive. Apple had to move on and I'm pretty ok with most of the changes they've made.

 

[BaggieBoy]

macOS 11 supports the new Apple Silicon architecture, seems like a perfect time to increment the version number.

 

[antony34]

You are using “MacOS” but not the “Versioning”......

even it call MacOS 99, you are also using Apple Developed OS.

 

[haralds]

I think sticking with the major release number for all these years was a little silly. The version had become part of the brand. Having a major yearly delineation like iOS 11, 12, 13, 14 makes things a lot easier - especially for people supporting these devices! The writing was on the wall with rebranding the emphasis to macOS, iOS, iPadOS and watchOS.
Actually I think they should consider bringing the numbering in line across all product lines. They all share the core microkernel now and are likely off the same source tree. macOS has most of the components and frameworks already in iOS to support iPad apps on Apple Silicon. Not having the same versioning is confusing.

 

[KoolAid-Drink]

I think sticking with the major release number for all these years was a little silly. The version had become part of the brand. Having a major yearly delineation like iOS 11, 12, 13, 14 makes things a lot easier - especially for people supporting these devices! The writing was on the wall with rebranding the emphasis to macOS, iOS, iPadOS and watchOS.
Actually I think they should consider bringing the numbering in line across all product lines. They all share the core microkernel now and are likely off the same source tree. macOS has most of the components and frameworks already in iOS to support iPad apps on Apple Silicon. Not having the same versioning is confusing.

Exactly. Like stated earlier in this thread, I do predict once Apple does away with Intel software support ~5-7 years down the road, they'll start afresh with appleOS 1.0 (or whatever they name it) that will be scaleable across all platforms. Intel is the last "leg" holding them back.

 

[TitanTiger]

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.

You're way overthinking this.

 

[827538]

I disagree, it seems like a logical and consistent step to have macOS fall inline with every other related OS Apple is developing. The 10 is totally redundant.

I say this as someone who is not a fan of Tim Cook, this isn't disrespectful, it's logical.

 

[tmoerel]

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.

Thank you for your opinion. And your opinion is all this is. It won't change the world!

 

[MacGizmo]

The change of macOS 10's major version number to "11" is a major disrespect to Steve Jobs....

You lost me after the first sentence. When are people going to leave him be? Every time I hear or see someone mention Jobs in the context you have, it makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit. He wasn't God, he was just a great visionary and marketer. That's it. And even at that, he was also responsible for a LOT of Apple's failures... the guy wasn't perfect.

 

[canyonblue737]

Steve's been gone 9 years... he would be proud to see Apple continue to move on.

 

[fisherking]

turns out the number '11' in general is a disrespect to jobs, as are the numbers 14, 31, and 45. so, apple should do the right thing and remove any use of those numbers (onscreen, in underlying code, in the calculator, ip addresses etc) in the mac os.

problem solved!

 

[NewUsername]

I would have preferred macOS 2020.