4 ms·

One of the biggest challenges modern OS developers face (Apple and Microsoft namely) is how to make the new version of the OS appealing enough for users to move

One of the biggest challenges modern OS developers face (Apple and Microsoft namely) is how to make the new version of the OS appealing enough for users to move to. There are carrots like a fancy new feature, or sticks like “we’re not supporting this anymore, so if you want your computer to be secure you need to upgrade.” A lot of people don’t care about the carrots though. Their computer does everything they need it to and does so reliably. In a lot of ways the OS is a solved problem, but the companies who make them still need to pay the bills for all the security work that will always need to be done. It makes me wonder if Apple (for example) put macOS into a no-new-features mode and just improved security from here-on-out what the long term effects would be for users and the industry.

noqc 3y ago
>need to pay the bills for all the security work that will always need to be done This is in no way the business incentive of a major OS, and you've painted an extraordiarily rosy picture of OS development.
- Lazonedo 3y ago
  Yes. Microsoft has already reached the user peak of their market, there cannot be anymore growth just from the OS alone, so the point of the OS isn't to be a good OS anymore, but to be a platform to sell you other things: AI (copilot integration), cloud services (onedrive integration, xbox game pass etc), advertisement (bundled crapware like candy crush that Windows 10 used to automatically install) and so on. Of course this approach can be the one a company starts with depending on their incentives. That's what Google did with Android, they didn't start with a monopoly and won't have one in the mobile market but their entire purpose in making an OS is to lead people into depending on their services. Android's entire life purpose is for you to have Maps, Gmail, Drive and Chrome preinstalled.
smolder 3y ago
Security work for an otherwise solved problem is finite. It's only infinite if they make it that way by continuing to pile on new (likely unwanted) features. Otherwise the frequency of needing patches will trend towards 0 and eventually there will be none.
1over137 3y ago
For Apple at least, why should it care if its users upgrade their OS? They don't even charge money for the OS (anymore).
- CharlesW 3y ago
  They seem to care, with official macOS Sonoma support extending to devices sold in 2018. I suspect that high on the list of reasons is "services". According to https://www.statista.com/statistics/1101212/services-revenue-as-share-of-apples-total-revenue/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1101212/services-revenue..., Q4'23 services revenue accounted for almost 25 percent of the total.
  - 1over137 3y ago
    "extending" to devices sold in 2018? That's not impressive, it's pathetic. It's an environmental crime really.
    - CharlesW 3y ago
      To clarify, that’s just for the newest macOS. Apple does security updates for older versions for several more years beyond that. I personally have a couple decade+ old Macs that continue to work fine. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201222 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201222
      - 1over137 3y ago
        To clarify, those security updates are only partial: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-security-update-policy-only-the-latest-oses-are-fully-patched/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-secu...
        CharlesW 3y ago
        Yes, critical security updates only. Alternatively, you can do what many “antique Mac” users do and use OpenCore Legacy Patcher. https://dortania.github.io/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/ https://dortania.github.io/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/
spinningslate 3y ago
> One of the biggest challenges modern OS developers face (Apple and Microsoft namely) is how to make the new version of the OS appealing enough for users to move to. More fundamentally, how do they convince users to continue spending money? > A lot of people don’t care about the carrots though. Their computer does everything they need it to and does so reliably. In a lot of ways the OS is a solved problem, but the companies who make them still need to pay the bills for all the security work that will always need to be done. Exactly. Consumer desktop/laptop operating systems (Linux/MacOS/Windows) have been largely stagnant for years, at least in terms of offering meaningfully better ways to get things done[1]. That's a problem for the commercial offerings: why would anyone buy the new version if it doesn't do anything new/better than its predecessor? Microsoft's path is pretty clear: the OS is evolving into an internet terminal. Consumers don't pay for the OS: they pay a subscription to do anything, with features increasingly delivered online and, crucially, all their data "managed" (aka controlled by) by Microsoft too. Device sales don't matter first order in that model: it's a dumb terminal. But Microsoft has to keep the device manufacturers sweet: it's imperative consumers use Microsoft's dumb terminal, because it's connected to Microsoft's services. It would be a disaster if HP, Dell et al decided to use some other front end. Microsoft will do whatever it takes to remain the dominant desktop. Apple has more of a dilemma. It's always been about the integrated experience, and hardware sales are a first-order driver of revenue and profitability. So it needs to keep consumers buying hardware as well as trying to up its rental offerings (iCloud etc). Moving to its own silicon has powered that for the last few years (more supply chain control, better performance, and good marketing on why it's better). >It makes me wonder if Apple (for example) put macOS into a no-new-features mode and just improved security from here-on-out what the long term effects would be for users and the industry. That's arguably what MacOS has been for the last few years: security updates plus support for their own silicon. Beyond the hype, LLMs possibly offer an opportunity for a notable change in desktop interaction (note 'change' not necessarily 'better' - I'm withholding judgement on that). An OS that could respond to users' queries/instructions directly could be better than having to click about semi-randomly to find the right menu option. [1] which doesn't detract from e.g. security upgrades, different peripheral connection standards, hardware improvements, etc.
akira2501 3y ago
> make the new version of the OS appealing enough The OS does not have "appeal." It either works and facilitates my use of my own hardware or it does not. The only reason to think this way is because you want to turn your paying customers PCs into advertising machines that violate their privacy and turn their hardware against them. There's not amount of "appeal" you can cram into your product that will get me to work against my own interests.

noqc 3y ago

>need to pay the bills for all the security work that will always need to be done This is in no way the business incentive of a major OS, and you've painted an extraordiarily rosy picture of OS development.

Lazonedo 3y ago
Yes. Microsoft has already reached the user peak of their market, there cannot be anymore growth just from the OS alone, so the point of the OS isn't to be a good OS anymore, but to be a platform to sell you other things: AI (copilot integration), cloud services (onedrive integration, xbox game pass etc), advertisement (bundled crapware like candy crush that Windows 10 used to automatically install) and so on. Of course this approach can be the one a company starts with depending on their incentives. That's what Google did with Android, they didn't start with a monopoly and won't have one in the mobile market but their entire purpose in making an OS is to lead people into depending on their services. Android's entire life purpose is for you to have Maps, Gmail, Drive and Chrome preinstalled.

smolder 3y ago

Security work for an otherwise solved problem is finite. It's only infinite if they make it that way by continuing to pile on new (likely unwanted) features. Otherwise the frequency of needing patches will trend towards 0 and eventually there will be none.

1over137 3y ago

For Apple at least, why should it care if its users upgrade their OS? They don't even charge money for the OS (anymore).

CharlesW 3y ago
They seem to care, with official macOS Sonoma support extending to devices sold in 2018. I suspect that high on the list of reasons is "services". According to https://www.statista.com/statistics/1101212/services-revenue-as-share-of-apples-total-revenue/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1101212/services-revenue..., Q4'23 services revenue accounted for almost 25 percent of the total.
- 1over137 3y ago
  "extending" to devices sold in 2018? That's not impressive, it's pathetic. It's an environmental crime really.
  - CharlesW 3y ago
    To clarify, that’s just for the newest macOS. Apple does security updates for older versions for several more years beyond that. I personally have a couple decade+ old Macs that continue to work fine. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201222 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201222
    - 1over137 3y ago
      To clarify, those security updates are only partial: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-security-update-policy-only-the-latest-oses-are-fully-patched/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-secu...
      - CharlesW 3y ago
        Yes, critical security updates only. Alternatively, you can do what many “antique Mac” users do and use OpenCore Legacy Patcher. https://dortania.github.io/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/ https://dortania.github.io/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/

spinningslate 3y ago

> One of the biggest challenges modern OS developers face (Apple and Microsoft namely) is how to make the new version of the OS appealing enough for users to move to. More fundamentally, how do they convince users to continue spending money? > A lot of people don’t care about the carrots though. Their computer does everything they need it to and does so reliably. In a lot of ways the OS is a solved problem, but the companies who make them still need to pay the bills for all the security work that will always need to be done. Exactly. Consumer desktop/laptop operating systems (Linux/MacOS/Windows) have been largely stagnant for years, at least in terms of offering meaningfully better ways to get things done[1]. That's a problem for the commercial offerings: why would anyone buy the new version if it doesn't do anything new/better than its predecessor? Microsoft's path is pretty clear: the OS is evolving into an internet terminal. Consumers don't pay for the OS: they pay a subscription to do anything, with features increasingly delivered online and, crucially, all their data "managed" (aka controlled by) by Microsoft too. Device sales don't matter first order in that model: it's a dumb terminal. But Microsoft has to keep the device manufacturers sweet: it's imperative consumers use Microsoft's dumb terminal, because it's connected to Microsoft's services. It would be a disaster if HP, Dell et al decided to use some other front end. Microsoft will do whatever it takes to remain the dominant desktop. Apple has more of a dilemma. It's always been about the integrated experience, and hardware sales are a first-order driver of revenue and profitability. So it needs to keep consumers buying hardware as well as trying to up its rental offerings (iCloud etc). Moving to its own silicon has powered that for the last few years (more supply chain control, better performance, and good marketing on why it's better). >It makes me wonder if Apple (for example) put macOS into a no-new-features mode and just improved security from here-on-out what the long term effects would be for users and the industry. That's arguably what MacOS has been for the last few years: security updates plus support for their own silicon. Beyond the hype, LLMs possibly offer an opportunity for a notable change in desktop interaction (note 'change' not necessarily 'better' - I'm withholding judgement on that). An OS that could respond to users' queries/instructions directly could be better than having to click about semi-randomly to find the right menu option. [1] which doesn't detract from e.g. security upgrades, different peripheral connection standards, hardware improvements, etc.

akira2501 3y ago

> make the new version of the OS appealing enough The OS does not have "appeal." It either works and facilitates my use of my own hardware or it does not. The only reason to think this way is because you want to turn your paying customers PCs into advertising machines that violate their privacy and turn their hardware against them. There's not amount of "appeal" you can cram into your product that will get me to work against my own interests.