5 ms·

They'd have to stop the practice of charging for every single minor point release update of their OS.

thristian 17y ago
The way to think about OS X versions is that the "10" is a marketing prefix, or an 'epoch' number - "10.5.8" should be read as "Mac OS X version 5, point release 8". It seems that Apple is trying to transition away from "version X (with cute codename Y)" to "Y (with implementation-detail version X)", much like Microsoft has been doing with Office, and Canonical has done with Ubuntu.
- elblanco 17y ago
  Except that X is version 10 of Apple's OS software. It's no coincidence that they chose X and not Z or Omega or some such.
barredo 17y ago
This logic suggest that Windows 95 is 88 times versions ahead of Windows 7, which is only three versions ahead of Windows 3, an OS released on 1990
- elblanco 17y ago
  No, this logic suggests that when Microsoft XP SP3 came out, it was a $0 update from SP2 which was a $0 update from SP1 which was a $0 update from the initial XP. The same cannot be said for any four sequential releases of OS X.
rimantas 17y ago
They don't charge for minor point (that would be y part in 10.x.y) releases. More than that, upgrade from 10.0 "Cheetah" to 10.1 "Puma" was free, and upgrade from 10.5 "Leopard" to 10.6 "Snow Leopard" is only $29.
- elblanco 17y ago
  That's because 10.0 was a disaster of slowness and brokenness. Puma was supposed to rectify that. It needed to be free.
elblanco 17y ago
I got downvoted, but I was serious. A major reason that Windows users don't switch to Macs is the cost. Everything in the Mac ecosystem costs more. The mice, the monitors, the software. Case in point: Windows XP was released in 2001. Users didn't have to pay a dime to go through three fairly major updates to the software (SP1, SP2 and SP3) and many many many minor updates. Each one making the OS better, faster, more stable, more secure, etc. That's 7 years of support for the initial purchase price, which was probably for most people either hidden in the cost of the machine as an OEM price,(AND the hardware was likely 20-40% lower than the cost of a similarly equipped Mac) or an upgrade from Windows 98, which probably ran around $50. So 10 years of fairly major operating system updates cost < $150 depending. rimantas said "and upgrade from 10.5 "Leopard" to 10.6 "Snow Leopard" is only $29." But in Microsoft land, the update from 10.5 -> 10.6 would have been $0 considering how minor the differences are between the two versions. This is really the great divide that Apple fans simply don't understand. If I have to pay $25 for a text editor (WriteRoom) on a Mac, or $0 for a choice of thousands of similar tools on a PC. I'll choose $0. If I have to pay $70 for a mouse on a Mac, or $10 for a mouse on a PC, I'll choose $10. The thread above is about ways to entice Windows users to Macs. The thrust was, "if Apple just stuck a VM out there with Snow Leopard on it for Windows users to bang on, they would loose their minds and run out and buy an entire office full of Apple stuff". My response is, "no they won't". Modern Windows OSs are actually pretty nice places to be(even Vista to a point), the delta between OSX 10.6 and Windows 7 is not as great as say 10.1 and Windows XP used to be. Thus "getting hands on" will not be the same kind of enticement as it used to be. If Apple seriously wants to pull over more Windows users and grow their user base, they have to adjust their pricing model. That's unlikely to happen though because: a) Seriously, Apple won't take over the computing world anytime soon even if their hardware was $0, there is too much momentum. b) Apple is wildly profitable with a smaller userbase. All they have to do is maintain the userbase and if they can grow it a few percent a year without adjusting pricing, fantastic. c) The Apple software/hardware ecosystem still doesn't have the depth and breadth of the equivalent Windows one. Lots of people have lots of things they need to do that they can't on a Mac. Many times there simply isn't "an app for that". The current response is "well just install Parallels". Which is again, another fantastic demonstration of pricing insensitivity. So for the average Windows user to switch 100% to a Mac, they have to a) Buy new hardware with a 20-40% markup over similarly equipped PC hardware b) Buy new software, in many cases old freeware software many people get by with on the PCs simply isn't available at $0, and instead we end up with $25 text editors as replacements. c) Buy parallels at $xxx dollars d) Buy the Windows OS again So to switch to a Mac and achieve equivalent levels of functionality I'm already well over the $499 for an average level PC + the cost of my Office 2007 variant to get up to speed. And it's not really clear that the buy-in price really bought anything special or new to the end-user. edit Here's a perfect example http://www.techdealdigger.com/pr/cheap-dell-vostro-220-desktop-core-2-duo-4gb-ddr2-win7-premium-deals/2412 http://www.techdealdigger.com/pr/cheap-dell-vostro-220-deskt... "Dell Vostro 220 Desktop Core 2 Duo E5300, 4GB DDR2, 320 GB HDD, DVD Burner, Windows 7 Premium bundled with a 1TB Western Digital My Book Essential Drive for just $394 plus shipping." Comes with a mouse and keyboard. Add in 21.5" monitor for $150 and $10 speakers and I could buy two of these for the price of the lowest, bargain basement iMac. This kind of pricing doesn't even exist in the world of Apple. At this price point, the system is practically disposable in a year. Who cares if the build quality is such that it won't take a bullet? I have a spare in the closet!
elblanco 17y ago
Go ahead, keep downvoting. Not one person has supplied a reason why cost is not a factor to consumers when making computing purchases. Not one.

The way to think about OS X versions is that the "10" is a marketing prefix, or an 'epoch' number - "10.5.8" should be read as "Mac OS X version 5, point release 8". It seems that Apple is trying to transition away from "version X (with cute codename Y)" to "Y (with implementation-detail version X)", much like Microsoft has been doing with Office, and Canonical has done with Ubuntu.

elblanco 17y ago
Except that X is version 10 of Apple's OS software. It's no coincidence that they chose X and not Z or Omega or some such.

barredo 17y ago

This logic suggest that Windows 95 is 88 times versions ahead of Windows 7, which is only three versions ahead of Windows 3, an OS released on 1990

elblanco 17y ago
No, this logic suggests that when Microsoft XP SP3 came out, it was a $0 update from SP2 which was a $0 update from SP1 which was a $0 update from the initial XP. The same cannot be said for any four sequential releases of OS X.

rimantas 17y ago

They don't charge for minor point (that would be y part in 10.x.y) releases. More than that, upgrade from 10.0 "Cheetah" to 10.1 "Puma" was free, and upgrade from 10.5 "Leopard" to 10.6 "Snow Leopard" is only $29.

elblanco 17y ago
That's because 10.0 was a disaster of slowness and brokenness. Puma was supposed to rectify that. It needed to be free.

elblanco 17y ago

I got downvoted, but I was serious. A major reason that Windows users don't switch to Macs is the cost. Everything in the Mac ecosystem costs more. The mice, the monitors, the software. Case in point: Windows XP was released in 2001. Users didn't have to pay a dime to go through three fairly major updates to the software (SP1, SP2 and SP3) and many many many minor updates. Each one making the OS better, faster, more stable, more secure, etc. That's 7 years of support for the initial purchase price, which was probably for most people either hidden in the cost of the machine as an OEM price,(AND the hardware was likely 20-40% lower than the cost of a similarly equipped Mac) or an upgrade from Windows 98, which probably ran around $50. So 10 years of fairly major operating system updates cost < $150 depending. rimantas said "and upgrade from 10.5 "Leopard" to 10.6 "Snow Leopard" is only $29." But in Microsoft land, the update from 10.5 -> 10.6 would have been $0 considering how minor the differences are between the two versions. This is really the great divide that Apple fans simply don't understand. If I have to pay $25 for a text editor (WriteRoom) on a Mac, or $0 for a choice of thousands of similar tools on a PC. I'll choose $0. If I have to pay $70 for a mouse on a Mac, or $10 for a mouse on a PC, I'll choose $10. The thread above is about ways to entice Windows users to Macs. The thrust was, "if Apple just stuck a VM out there with Snow Leopard on it for Windows users to bang on, they would loose their minds and run out and buy an entire office full of Apple stuff". My response is, "no they won't". Modern Windows OSs are actually pretty nice places to be(even Vista to a point), the delta between OSX 10.6 and Windows 7 is not as great as say 10.1 and Windows XP used to be. Thus "getting hands on" will not be the same kind of enticement as it used to be. If Apple seriously wants to pull over more Windows users and grow their user base, they have to adjust their pricing model. That's unlikely to happen though because: a) Seriously, Apple won't take over the computing world anytime soon even if their hardware was $0, there is too much momentum. b) Apple is wildly profitable with a smaller userbase. All they have to do is maintain the userbase and if they can grow it a few percent a year without adjusting pricing, fantastic. c) The Apple software/hardware ecosystem still doesn't have the depth and breadth of the equivalent Windows one. Lots of people have lots of things they need to do that they can't on a Mac. Many times there simply isn't "an app for that". The current response is "well just install Parallels". Which is again, another fantastic demonstration of pricing insensitivity. So for the average Windows user to switch 100% to a Mac, they have to a) Buy new hardware with a 20-40% markup over similarly equipped PC hardware b) Buy new software, in many cases old freeware software many people get by with on the PCs simply isn't available at $0, and instead we end up with $25 text editors as replacements. c) Buy parallels at $xxx dollars d) Buy the Windows OS again So to switch to a Mac and achieve equivalent levels of functionality I'm already well over the $499 for an average level PC + the cost of my Office 2007 variant to get up to speed. And it's not really clear that the buy-in price really bought anything special or new to the end-user. edit Here's a perfect example http://www.techdealdigger.com/pr/cheap-dell-vostro-220-desktop-core-2-duo-4gb-ddr2-win7-premium-deals/2412 http://www.techdealdigger.com/pr/cheap-dell-vostro-220-deskt... "Dell Vostro 220 Desktop Core 2 Duo E5300, 4GB DDR2, 320 GB HDD, DVD Burner, Windows 7 Premium bundled with a 1TB Western Digital My Book Essential Drive for just $394 plus shipping." Comes with a mouse and keyboard. Add in 21.5" monitor for $150 and $10 speakers and I could buy two of these for the price of the lowest, bargain basement iMac. This kind of pricing doesn't even exist in the world of Apple. At this price point, the system is practically disposable in a year. Who cares if the build quality is such that it won't take a bullet? I have a spare in the closet!

elblanco 17y ago

Go ahead, keep downvoting. Not one person has supplied a reason why cost is not a factor to consumers when making computing purchases. Not one.