Originally posted by Kickaha
[B]Er... so wait. You want to state that being open will only help Apple, yet that's not the state of affairs, and the one time they *were*, they blew it.
Are you sure you're not trying to prove a negative there? I mean, from my viewpoint, it's the only example of them being open there is. Regardless of the other factors, which are open to interpretation, that's pretty much it.
They were much more open along the entire time frame that Jobs wasn't there. That was just the example you used, so I went with it. Apple used to give magazines machines to look at some time before they came out. They also used to inform their partners of areas they were going to go into. We knew about the switch to PPC for a couple of years before they came out, just for another example.
At that time? No. Now? I think they'd have a good shot.
Oh stop looking at me like that.
Well, as we have bothe said, Jobs runs a tight ship.
And, I can't help looking at you like that. you're cute.
Well for one thing, the NeXT acquisition was a huge media event in the first place, so no... they couldn't have if they had wanted to. They *did* keep MacOS X/Intel under wraps for a few years though, other than discredited rumors.
Sure, we just covered that.
I see two areas of potential secrecy on product development: strategic, and tactical. Strategic are the big picture products and technologies - the ones that shift users and the market. iPod, or Spotlight, for instance. Tactical are the things like CoreData and Bindings. They don't shove market, but they do facilitate developers and the like.
Strategic items are the ones that really, quite honestly, need to be kept under wraps for various reasons. Tactical items are the ones that could leak out and not be a huge problem. Mac mini? Strategic, to some degree. Next incremental bump of MacBook Pro? Tactical.
I'd like to see more flexibility and openness on the tactical side of things, but where that line is, is fuzzy.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that they have to release everything to the general public. But, as other large concerns discuss their strategic plans with their large partners, under disclosure, of course, I see no reason why Apple should be any different.
Shorter term tactical plans for software, and even hardware should be more open though.
I really do think that the need for secrecy on the part of Apple is exaggerated.
With Apple having their own OS, many of their plans are not directly transferable to other PC makers, or even MS. Both Apple and MS take from each other now, as it is. I don't see much difference if Apple let things go a few months earlier.
The way it works is that if MS saw Apple's ideas just after they released their OS, they wouldn't be making changes until the next OS release, several years down the road anyway. If Apple releases the information a year before, MS has already fixed their model, or is running late (again), and is dropping features just to get it out the door, and doesn't have the time to put major features in. So, maybe there is a certain time during their development cycle when they could benefit, but I don't see them suddenly saying; "wow, we have to copy all of that." That's a lot of work. They usually copy features from the last release, after they have had time to study it, and before they have written much code.
But I thought you were asking for more info on schedule and features. If, as you say, that everyone knows that new versions are in the works, then there's no issue, is there?
Now, you know that's not what I meant. It's not the issue of whether there will be a release, but just what is being released.
Your businesses don't want 'someday', they want a calendar date, and they want reasons to migrate. The calendar date (within a couple months) is set long in advance for OS releases, and the reasons to migrate are given at WWDC. Whether those reasons finally ship, and ship in an implementation that is workable for the businesses, isn't known until later. (Unless, of course, the business simply ponies up for $500 for a Select membership and gets advanced seedings post-WWDC... pretty simple if you ask me. A business of the size that is going to need months and months to migrate *on day 1* is going to have $500 in the petty lunch fund for visiting execs, for cripessake.)
Well, we don't have a calander date anyway, do we? We thought the conference would be in June, for a late 2006, perhaps very early 2007 release. not it looks like a release in the late first quarter, maybe. but, some people here on this site still think that Macworld is still the best release date. If so, there is almost no time for developers of hardware or software to get their products out shortly after.
The problem isn't after the conference. We all know what's happening then. It's before the conference.
I think you missed the part when I mentioned that the original ship date is announced earlier than that. *I* missed putting in the words 'for most customers,' which I intended to do. You're right, for very large rollouts, 6-9 months isn't much time.
The ship date is usually announced during the conference, or not! Often, all we're told is that it will be out during the first quarter, or the second half. Look at what we were told about 10.4, and what actually happened.
You're right, we don't.
Er, that's the current timeline for Leopard I outlined above.
I was referring to what you said here:
"If Apple wasn't saying *anything*, and then suddenly announcing Leopard one day with a bunch of new features, I'd say you have a point."
Never said I did... I'm not one who whines when RandomApp3.0 (Now with More Features(tm)!) isn't shipping one day after a new OS release. Development takes time. Good development can take longer. I'll wait. Heck, I didn't upgrade to 10.4 until just a couple of months ago...
I'm not saying you said that either. But, you read plenty of posts here. You know that quite a few others do say that.