Steve Jobs talks future Mac OS X upgrades, Mac sales, and more - Page 2

That's really easy. Imagine yourself having been using OSX 10.0 the past 7 years and then getting Leopard on Friday. That's what Apple can do with 7 years of OS development.

How much is the Windows Vista Family pack again? I forget... ;-)

How did you get someone to pay that much for an iMac G5 when a new dual core iMac can be had for $200 more? Refurbished ones start at $850 right now, and that includes a warranty.

Actually, your forgot to add in the fact you need to purchase another copy of the "New and improved Windows" and also another Pee Cee to run it on because your old one that you just bought won't run it.

I tried the new iMac in a store at the weekend. Compared to my dual 1.8 G5 Powermac - which, let's face it, isn't that old it was blisteringly fast.

Apple have got their line-up about right.

I'm pretty sure that back in 2006, the cheapest 20 incher was still something like $1499. Plus I did have extra RAM in there so my calculation might be slightly off. Actually, I don't even remember what I paid for mine ;-)

I don't know. That seems to be wonky to me. The more capable the OS is, the more features you need to add to have people upgrade.

I don't see Apple adding much of substantial value in 12 months.

Remember, the OS is much more complex now. It takes more work in more areas to make serious upgrades.

If they have a release 12 months from now that implements both ZFS and RI as the big additions, people will be rightfully pissed.

RI was pretty much promised for 10.5, so wouldn't count as a major 10.6 feature. ZFS is almost here now, and so also wouldn't count for that.

What other major features could they add in that short time that we don't already know about, to make another investment in such a short time seem worthwhile to most people?

You'll have to expand on that a bit. Maybe I'm slow today, but I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.

I'm glad it won't be 24 month in between OS releases. I think it's obvious Microsoft can't keep up with the times using its release schedule. Having an OS release every 12-18 months keeps the momentum going and doesn't really allow consumers to "get comfortable" with the OS like they did with Windows XP.

Good luck running the next MS OS on anything being sold today. A 3 year old PC is better used as a doorstop unless you put the same amount of $ into it as buying a new one. Conversely, I'm running OS X 10.4.10 on an 8 year old iBook with no problems.

And futhermore, all OS X major upgrades are definitely Major, not pitiful attempts to get more money. They sell because they're good, period. And you can be happy without the upgrade if you want, because Apple will continue to support the older OS too.

Your model is actually getting a little old, about three to four years. It's not surprising that a new model is faster, three years is a long time in technology.

It wouldn't surprise me if they tried. If you look at the "new features" page, I think Apple counts the fact that Leopard can read FAT 32 as a new feature.


Personally, I think OS X is very mature as it is. If you had 10.2, then 10.3 was very well worth it. I don't think there's as apparent of a difference from 10.3 to 10.4. 10.5 is a bigger change, though I'm not jumping, at least in the short term.

Add to that the fact that Leopard took about two and a half years, about 30 months. And they want to cut that in half? Tiger take about 24 months, and that really didn't feel that significant, it was mostly a lot of tiny little tweaks, most of them I can easily live without if I had to.

I agree that the update cycle isn't going to be 12mo., but definitely closer to 18mo if not more like 24mo. And I think that's fine. But if they decide to do 150 new features every 12 months, then that' also OK. I'll probably just buy every other release.

That's the difference between OSX and Windows. With windows you HAVE to wait 7 years before any substantial upgrade. With OSX, you have the choice of upgrading or not.

Booga is quite right, having 1/3 of your computers sold being desktops, whilst the market as a whole is 1/2 desktops, is not something to be proud of. All it does is highlight the fact that you are failing to deliver desktops that people actually want to buy.

look, i'm a mac fan and all, but please tell me what the major upgrades are?

* i understand time machine is great for people who know nothing about backing up their files, but for the rest of us, who cares about it?
* i can email myself a note? yeah, i did that before, with an email subject line.
* i can put stacks into the dock? that's nice, but a Major upgrade?
* i can use a pretty template for my email to increase it's file size?
* can coverflow preview indesign, photoshop, or illustrator files? dreamweaver files? flash files?
* i can put a fake waterfall behind me in ichat? sweet.
* i have two monitors, i don't need "spaces" - [i'll admit, spaces could be nice for some people who haven't learned apple-tab]
* boot camp? "here's our new os, it features an easy way to use somebody else's os"

...i think i can wait for the next version. thanks for letting me know it won't be long until it's released!
i'll look forward to 10.6 "Bobcat" at MWSF 09.

Yes, I own an 800MHz G4 iMac... but taking a look at Apple's product line at the time sheds light on that decision. There was the G3 iBook, G4 iMac, PowerBook G4 and PowerMac G4. The high-end iMac was just a step behind the low-end PowerMac, and it was equally powered as the PBG4, only much cheaper. It WAS a prosumer desktop and it was affordable! Today, Apple doesn't even put desktop-class processors in the iMac. Just laptop ones. If I'm going to buy a computer only capable of laptop speeds, it may as well be mobile, hence MBP.

As for the PC Laptop, it was a cheap-old wreck I got for the sole purpose of writing and surfing the internet on-the-go, *maybe* some casual games, but it can't handle too much. I also have a home-built PC for the sake of having a capable Windows box for whatever purpose, be it games, or otherwise.

In light of the Intel Transition and bootcamp, however, my need for a PC desktop decreases, and my need for a capable, upgradable Mac increases. If you can't tell, I like to use my Macs for a long time. I would rather NOT buy a monitor I don't need, and I've learned from my iMac NOT to purchase a computer than can't be upgraded, especially a computer that I expect to run well for more than 4 years. By cutting out the monitor of iMac, replacing the CPU with the desktop-variant (non Xeon) and giving it a little space inside for upgrades (an extra HDD bay, optical drive bay, empty RAM slots, and user-replaceable GPU), Apple can create a VERY decent computer ranging between $1400 and $2200. Yes it intersects the iMac price range but fills the HUGE gap in performance.


It isn't, for the average user. For the average user, the iMac is plenty powerful. It's for people who do a bit of everything, where the iMac fails. Read on...


Not true. In fact, the reason for this is most-likely a lack of a gamer-friendly unit. As you said, the graphics on the mini are basically non-existant, and I don't care what anybody says, but the iMac's GPU will barely hobble through new games two years from now... and when that happens, good luck upgrading the graphics card... because you can't. Therefore the only solution for a would-be gamer is the Mac Pro... and with a minimum $2500 investment, that's not happening.

A mid-range tower that'll dual-boot Windows, yet have a user-replaceable GPU is the perfect solution... however, it does not exist.


There are instances where I FCPe, Logic Audio, Garage Band and sound-edit simultaneously... not to mention the applications I keep running at all times, like AIM, iTunes, Mail and Safari. In recent years my iMac can't do that anymore (especially Garage Band... yikes). A new iMac today would be able to handle all that, yes... but then the same argument arises as for the graphics. With the constantly advancing software, will the current iMac succeed at smoothly doing all these things at once? Or what if, in a year, I want to install a Blu-Ray drive? I wouldn't be able to in an iMac.

The iMacs of today are capable machines, I'm sure, for todays common tasks. But I want a computer that will succeed at today's tasks, tomorrow's tasks, and so on for four years... at which point I can upgrade for a couple hundred bucks and get a few more years out of it still.

You just can't do that with an iMac (anymore).

-Clive

[QUOTE=JeffDM;1161262]It wouldn't surprise me if they tried. If you look at the "new features" page, I think Apple counts the fact that Leopard can read FAT 32 as a new feature.[quote]

Well, that would be a very minor feature. Possibly a thousand people might uograde for that one.


And that's exactly what I'm saying.

Thanks for understanding my point-- If Apple's desktops were better, they'd sell more of them! (Duh.) The fact that they have a much higher percentage of laptops than the industry average just means they don't understand what some people who buy desktops want from them.

My next Mac will either be a laptop with a docking station or a mid-range desktop with a high-end (preferrably upgradable) video card with which I can use my existing monitors. Dell, of course, would sell me exactly what I want, but it won't run MacOS X, so I'll hold out hope that Apple will start selling these machines, too. In the meantime I'll keep chugging away with my G5.

Since most people are those who know little about backing up their files, it's very important. And it does far more than that, which features even YOU will probably use.


Without going through all the rest, an upgrade consists of ALL the features, not just the few that YOU think important.

That's certainly the glass half empty interpretation. The other interpretation is equally valid, that the laptops are so much better than other available that they pull more than their default share. Take your pick. I certainly think the laptops so outshine the competition, based on actual experience with both, that the second is far more likely. Apple identified the trend (laptops) and focussed there and are succeeding.

i bought my iMac @ 4 1/2 years ago. it's still fine for web use, ms office, and iLife [i never use garageband].
i bought it for 1800 bucks. about a year ago i got a MBP - at that time i could have sold my 3 1/2 year old iMac for about $600.

today you can get an iMac with a 20" screen for $1200.
if you need to upgrade, here's how: sell your mac on eBay and buy another.

i don't think apple can put the quality we're accustomed to into a $1000 - $1500 tower and give it any gaming performance. [i really hope they prove me wrong] mac's cost more for what you get hardware wise. anyone who thinks otherwise is looking at the ads and not the stats.

This, I agree with. I think 10.5 is cool, but a lot of it seems to be eye-candy. Frankly, I see no reason to switch yet from 10.4.10. At least, not yet, for $129.

I think that, at the very least, Apple could have improved iChat to be become an actually usable piece of software, by enabling it to link better with the non-Apple, firewall-ridden, ports-limited world.

I hope they don't upgrade for that, it's not even a new feature.

Man, there's a surprise. An AI article that spawns in to "Apple HAS to make an upgradable iMac-priced desktop or they'll, like, DIE!"

For average user (aka Anyone that doesn't know what a graphics card is) the iMac and Mac mini are fine. If you plan on doing GPU/CPU/etc heavy work, then you want a Mac Pro. The average user at most is going to use their computer for email, surfing, documents, finding information and such. None of that requires a huge lumbering expandable desktop. Doubly when a minute portion of these 'average users' would ever even upgrade anything!

The only argument I ever hear is 'Yes but but for gaming!' - well if that average user wants to buy a Dell and play games on it, that's fine. Apple has made it clear that they're not going to go out of their way to complicate their desktop lineup simply for the prospect of a marginal increase from "gamers". And this isn't even taking in to account the vast majority of "gamers" are rather anti-Apple, whether rightly so or not.

What people are really saying is "I want Apple to release a Mac Pro level upgradable desktop, that looks good, is smaller than a Mac Pro and cheaper just because I want one".

[e]: Why not be at least vaguely realistic and just hope Apple creates a cheaper, lower end Mac Pro?

I agree with you. I get so mad when Steve brags that Apple sells 2/3's notebook to desktop.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Guess what Steve, it's really not an all-in-one world as Apple's desktop to notebook ratio reflects. Apple's ratios are a screw-up, not a bragging point.

Apple sells over 66% notebooks and the industry just broke 50%. That means Apple is losing sales on some desktops not that they are converting 1/3 of desktop users into Notebook users.

From January to June of this year, MS had a limited time promotion which allowed you, with the purchase of 1 copy of Ulitmate, to purchase up to 2 additional licenses of Home Premium for $49.99 each.

That would been attempting to appeal to the majority of home users who honestly wouldn't miss anything by losing out on features like Novell Netware connectivity, home directory encryption, or Unix subsystem support.

Of course, that offer is no longer is available today. (But then again, I would recommend that anybody who's using XP today probably shouldn't even contemplate the possibility of considering upgrading to Vista until they have absolutely no alternative due to the end of MS's long term support program and deprecation by their 3rd party software vendors.)

Well since you asked;

1.
The mini lacks in expansion capabilities.
2.
One place lacking is in the area of RAM expansion. You have both a limitation in maximum capacity and the fact that odd DIMMs are used.
3.
Lacking internal Harddisk storage size and expansion potential.
4.
Very much an outdated video system.
5
Outdated optical media drive.
6.
Lack of expansion ports.

Note that these are a concern if the machine is you primary PC. It is a different story if you have a home network and the Mini is just a node on that network. In a nut shell the Mini is extremely limited as far as a traditional desktop machine goes.

This is where I have to disagree. The specs where decent a year or so ago but now the Mini is rather dated considering its selling price. You expect bottom end hardware for bottom end prices, this is not where the Mini is being marketed at.

In any event the needs described above have nothing to do with gaming.

Boy are we not whining about nothing today. It isn't a question of esoteric expansion but rather the need to spend money wisely. There in many of us have this idea that a PC needs to be around for a long time on our desk top to justify its price. A desktop machine provides a platform in which it can be viable and cost effective to keep for a number of years, if the base machine is solid to begin with. This is where the mini now falters, it is no longer a platform up to date enough to justify its price for a long term investment.

Dave

Actually no, that's not quite it, way off base in some ways. I don't think these people are asking for a cheap Mac Pro. A lot of people are asking for a non-workstation tower. Telling people to buy a workstation doesn't make sense. The costs can go down considerably when workstation parts aren't used.

Based on that "logic", since ALL companies are seeing notebook sales outpace desktop sales, then I guess ALL companies have bad desktop lineups?


People just increasingly want laptops more than desktops. And if apple's desktop line truly was bad, wouldn't we see apple's market share hurting, instead of increasing more than just about anyone elses?


While I'd like to see a third model in the middle, apple certainly has two desktops in the pro and mini. I guess the iMac is kind of a desktop in that it's not a laptop, but it doesn't fit the bill for me.

If Apple's laptops are so much better than other available laptops, why can't Apple's desktop machines also be so much better than other available desktops?

If take a step back and look at Apple's line-up as objectively as possible, from a hardware perspective you will see that whilst Apple's laptops are very nice, they aren't that much better than the competition. Better, yes; way, way, way better, no. The basic form-factor of an Apple laptop is the same as a Windows laptop; Apple's laptop lineup delivers the hardware that the market expects in a laptop.

You have to come to the conclusion that the real draw is OS X over Windows. Apple's laptops demonstrate that given hardware that the market expects, people will switch from Windows to OS X.

Now look at the desktop side. All Apple delivers is niche products: a high-end workstation, a laptop/desktop hybrid on a stick (iMac), and a laptop with no screen and no battery (Mac Mini). Whichever way you cut it, these machines are niche products that are failing to replicate on the desktop side, the mass Windows to OS X switching that is occurring on the laptop side.

No, that is not boogas' logic.

His logic is that the overall market split is about 50/50 desktop to laptop, but Apple is only selling 1/3 desktops. i.e., relative to the number of laptops they are selling, Apple aren't selling "enough" desktops (it should be 1/2, not 1/3).

There's still a *lot* of scope for computers to be easier to use/more intuitive and Apple is the company to do it.

As Jobs pointed out they were the first not just with the GUI, but with the stylus and now the touch interface. (first to bring it to the people, which is what counts. "Real artists ship")

I think the CoreAnimation framework in Leopard should help developers do better interfaces on Apple than on other platforms.

From observing some friends that do this all the time, if this is for 'work' then they are not spending their money wisely. The time they spend configuring, ordering, installing, debugging, and general support of all of these upgrades would easily pay for a new machine, especially since you can sell the older Mac for a reasonable price, if you want to invest even that time.


For hobbyist, it is, of course, as different equation, but then I really don't expect Apple to cater to that reasonably small market. That's not their goal.

Since Mac OS X is now used on iPhone and iPod as well, shouldn't they rename it Apple OS?

...and what would we name iTunes since it's also a place to buy movies, tv shows, videos, podcasts, audiobooks, and games, as well as a synching program for iCal and Address Book to iPods and iPhone...

melgross: i just think OS 9 to OS X is a "Major" upgrade. XP to Vista is a "Major" upgrade.
my post was a question: WHAT constitutes a "Major Upgrade"?

Some people (who?) here already feel that's the case (what?)

It sounded like you supported there issue. If not, I would have phrased it different. Perhaps had prefixed the sentence with a, "Unfortunately, (some people)"

the fact that almost every thread on every mac forum turns into "I want to buy an XMAC" should inform us to something: There is a huge market of people who want a desktop machine that's not a mini, an imac or a fracking macPro annihilator.

We want to spend 1300-1500 bucks on a machine with space for a video card, HDs, more ram, and no monitor built in.

how fracking hard is that to understand? The OP is right. Apple's desktop lineup sucks. That's why nobody buys them.

Doesn't exactly roll off the toungue now does it?

i'm much more interested in the rumored ultra-portable [2-3 lbs, 10-12" screen, uber-thin]
my laptop is almost 7 lbs and my iPhone is annoying to surf the web on.
[almost back on topic - i don't really care about desktops except for my computer at work - a macpro]

What do you mean by "old DIMMs"?