Dan is wrong. He has a "pokey old beige G3" (quote), waited until now to maybe go with Jaguar, complains that Panther will come soon and cost more, and thinks Apple should maybe do a yearly subscription for updates.
Ok. He hasn't bought any hardware from Apple for quite awhile. Updating (maybe) to Jaguar 7 months after it hits the street.
A retailers dream of a customer.
Why do I think that Dan would really not want to buy into the subscription thing unless it is really inexpensive? \
Well, depending on what kind of features it has, I would definatily be willing to pay the same $129 as it is now (+ inflation). Besides, what features do you think 13.5 would have??
Okay, on the other hand, Dan is actually doing it the proper way by buying Jaguar for each of his computers instead of buying one copy of Jaguar and (illegally) installing it on all his systems. Although I don't see why he doesn't just do a "trial installation" of Jaguar on his beige G3 just so he can see if a clean install is better than an update install.
Also, Dan writes about his 400 MHz TiBook which he has Jaguar for. So he's not taking forever to upgrade, he's just not getting rid of his older computers that are still useful. I mean, what do you expect from the guy who runs a site called "Low End Mac?"
On the other hand, I don't like the idea of a subscription. There's enough hype to know when another OS release is coming out, and it shouldn't be hard to figure out when you can expect to get it and if it'll cost money. Hardware is trickier than software because Apple doesn't ever preview upcoming hardware.
Although I do think yearly updates at $129 each is a bit steep. If it were lowered to $99 I think people would be more inclined to buy. Also, upgrade pricing would be very nice. Paying $20-$40 in order to get a CD that can only update a 10.2 system to 10.3 would be nice. I personally would want a full installer to both reduce the amount of time it takes to install and to make it more efficient, but cash-strapped buyers might like it.
Then there's that old rumor, "Glove," that never came to be. Although it would be cool, and a good way to get people like Dan (who have a number of low-end computers that are capable of running OS X) to install OS X on all their computers. It wouldn't exactly change anything other than the psychological factor of knowing you have a license for all the computers you own. I suppose the $199 family pack is the closest thing to that.
My Uncle even refuses to install 10.2 on one of my relatives' computers. He is angry because he has to pay for an upgrade to 'unusuable' software. In my opinion it is like this: Computers pre-10.2 included 10.1 or 10.0 as a Beta of sorts. 9.x was intended to be used for production, X was meant as a preview. You can relate this to if M$ included Windows 2003 Server beta with every computer shipped with Windows 2000 Server. Windows 2003 Server is just used as an example of what to come, not meant for production. When it is released, however, if you want to use it, you have to fork over the money.
Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.
You do know that WinXP is Windows 5.1 while Win2k is Windows 5. Windows 2003 Server is not Windows 6. Its a Windows 5.x version. Yet, people have to pay an upgrade price of $199 or up for the professional/server version. $299 for the full price version.
Removing the whole 10.x nomenclature is a bad idea. Unless you know for sure that Jaguar came before Panther, you have no clue which one is more recent.
I don't think they need to change their naming structure at all.
I think that a cost upgrade is only fair. With Jaguar, we got over 5 new applications. Let's bite the bullet, pay the money, and thank god we're not paying as much as the Windoze users are. I will like to see how Apple markets the diff between 10.3 64bit and 10.3 32bit. Hell, the 64bit version probably won't even be sold in a box at the Apple Store, since no one yet has a Mac to run it.
I have a hard time feeling for us Mac user complaining about the OS and it's cost.
Had Dan Knight been on Windows he would have been out at least $400 for the 5 machines he has. He would have been faced with Product activation for every XP based machine.
Mac users are quick to point out how "their" finances are strapped or how they "feel" it's an insult. Newsflash. Everytime you see OSX on Carracho or for every friend you know who'll let you "borrow" OSX to install that's money taken out of Apple's pockets. That's an Apple programmer that is not being paid.
What I continually see is Selfishness that is pervasive in many computer users. We all have the option to wait until we find it financially feasible to upgrade our OS. No one is forcing our hand ...yet that's not good enough because we all feel "entitled" to free or reduced OS upgrades because we
1. Bought .mac
2. Bought Jaguar
3. Bought a Mac
4. because I'm a really swell guy.
I'm sorry but I've been in Sales enought to develop a heavy pessimism for consumers. Although I am one myself I realize that consumers will pick your bones clean and move on. Hence the name..."consume"
Perhaps Apple will lower the price back to $99 for updates since they aren't developing OS9 at the same time. Perhaps they won't When "boxed" Linux costs $70 I think Apple is keeping things in check with it's OS pricing.
I have a hard time feeling for us Mac user complaining about the OS and it's cost.
Had Dan Knight been on Windows he would have been out at least $400 for the 5 machines he has. He would have been faced with Product activation for every XP based machine.
Mac users are quick to point out how "their" finances are strapped or how they "feel" it's an insult. Newsflash. Everytime you see OSX on Carracho or for every friend you know who'll let you "borrow" OSX to install that's money taken out of Apple's pockets. That's an Apple programmer that is not being paid.
What I continually see is Selfishness that is pervasive in many computer users. We all have the option to wait until we find it financially feasible to upgrade our OS. No one is forcing our hand ...yet that's not good enough because we all feel "entitled" to free or reduced OS upgrades because we
1. Bought .mac
2. Bought Jaguar
3. Bought a Mac
4. because I'm a really swell guy.
I'm sorry but I've been in Sales enought to develop a heavy pessimism for consumers. Although I am one myself I realize that consumers will pick your bones clean and move on. Hence the name..."consume"
Perhaps Apple will lower the price back to $99 for updates since they aren't developing OS9 at the same time. Perhaps they won't When "boxed" Linux costs $70 I think Apple is keeping things in check with it's OS pricing.
Perhaps Apple will get back to insuring the core OS works instead of trying to charge me $129 for improve iChat capabilities.
When Microsoft released XP it was a substancial improvement over even 2000. 10.2 was not a substancial improvement and even Apple has to resort to naming things like Mail having junk mail detection to try to sell the OS.
Could you imagine if Microsoft resold XP as a $129 upgrade that included "new Direct X", "new MSN messanger, "new address book", etc. Mac users would laugh their a**es off and declare Microsoft stupid as a board for that. Yet that is just what Apple has done and likely will continue to do.
I bought the five user licensed Jaguar the night it came out! It did happen! , lest you forget you evil doers!
as did I
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Perhaps Apple will get back to insuring the core OS works instead of trying to charge me $129 for improve iChat capabilities.
it wasn't improved, it was a whole new app...
Quote:
When Microsoft released XP it was a substancial improvement over even 2000.
um this is not true... first of all the only thing XP home did was take out networking capability so now everyone who goes to college HAS to buy "pro" to get on the LAN...
2nd pro costs $199 for one license...
3rd the difference between pro and 2000 was 90% cosmetic...
Quote:
10.2 was not a substancial improvement and even Apple has to resort to naming things like Mail having junk mail detection to try to sell the OS.
ummm also not true... there was over 150 new features in 10.2... things like Rendezvous and QE to name a few... these are NOT MINOR THINGS
Quote:
Could you imagine if Microsoft resold XP as a $129 upgrade that included "new Direct X", "new MSN messanger, "new address book", etc. Mac users would laugh their a**es off and declare Microsoft stupid as a board for that. Yet that is just what Apple has done and likely will continue to do.
Nick
umm they DID do that only it cost $199 not $129 and it is called Windows 2000-->XP Pro
ALSO there is the media expansion pack that they sell so customers can make MP3s
nick stop being a troll... 10.2 was a substantial update that was worth paying for... 10.3 will be as well...
I suppose the $199 family pack is the closest thing to that.
Note that I did mention the $199 family pack. I said that the Glove concept itself (unlimited licenses for a single person) didn't happen, but something similar did. So if Glove actually did happen just as it originally was rumored to, then I would have been able to go out and spend $129 to put OS X on every computer I own. As it is, I can spend $199 to do the same (I don't own over 5 OS X computers).
Semi-OT question: With the family pack, are you allowed to give install CDs to people who need them? Say I buy the family pack but I only own 3 Macs that need it. Am I allowed to give one of my installer CDs to a friend who also owns a Mac? I don't think you can sell them individually. In fact, I think I heard somewhere that the family pack still comes with only one CD set, and the only difference is the multiple licenses. Is that true?
the family pack is IDENTICAL to the reg $129 version save a single License change that is actually loose in the packaging...
all 5 computers have to be in the same household (as in like the US census definition...) so computers used primarily on say the Boston College campus (this one) cannot be used... so technically i shouldn't have used the family pack on this comp... but I was entitled to a FREE jaguar since i bought my comp on jaguar day (should have been pre-installed, but install CDs weren't updated yet) and so I just saved apple the trouble of sending me an update CD...
Comments
Ok. He hasn't bought any hardware from Apple for quite awhile. Updating (maybe) to Jaguar 7 months after it hits the street.
A retailers dream of a customer.
Why do I think that Dan would really not want to buy into the subscription thing unless it is really inexpensive?
Originally posted by Mike Eggleston
Well, depending on what kind of features it has, I would definatily be willing to pay the same $129 as it is now (+ inflation). Besides, what features do you think 13.5 would have??
What features does 10.3 have?
Also, Dan writes about his 400 MHz TiBook which he has Jaguar for. So he's not taking forever to upgrade, he's just not getting rid of his older computers that are still useful. I mean, what do you expect from the guy who runs a site called "Low End Mac?"
On the other hand, I don't like the idea of a subscription. There's enough hype to know when another OS release is coming out, and it shouldn't be hard to figure out when you can expect to get it and if it'll cost money. Hardware is trickier than software because Apple doesn't ever preview upcoming hardware.
Although I do think yearly updates at $129 each is a bit steep. If it were lowered to $99 I think people would be more inclined to buy. Also, upgrade pricing would be very nice. Paying $20-$40 in order to get a CD that can only update a 10.2 system to 10.3 would be nice. I personally would want a full installer to both reduce the amount of time it takes to install and to make it more efficient, but cash-strapped buyers might like it.
Then there's that old rumor, "Glove," that never came to be. Although it would be cool, and a good way to get people like Dan (who have a number of low-end computers that are capable of running OS X) to install OS X on all their computers. It wouldn't exactly change anything other than the psychological factor of knowing you have a license for all the computers you own. I suppose the $199 family pack is the closest thing to that.
Originally posted by adpowers
My Uncle even refuses to install 10.2 on one of my relatives' computers. He is angry because he has to pay for an upgrade to 'unusuable' software. In my opinion it is like this: Computers pre-10.2 included 10.1 or 10.0 as a Beta of sorts. 9.x was intended to be used for production, X was meant as a preview. You can relate this to if M$ included Windows 2003 Server beta with every computer shipped with Windows 2000 Server. Windows 2003 Server is just used as an example of what to come, not meant for production. When it is released, however, if you want to use it, you have to fork over the money.
Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.
You do know that WinXP is Windows 5.1 while Win2k is Windows 5. Windows 2003 Server is not Windows 6. Its a Windows 5.x version. Yet, people have to pay an upgrade price of $199 or up for the professional/server version. $299 for the full price version.
I think Apple needs to rename OS X to be:
Mac OS X Jaguar
Mac OS X Panther
and get rid of the 10.x nomenclature.
Originally posted by alex_kac
I think Apple needs to rename OS X to be:
Mac OS X Jaguar
Mac OS X Panther
and get rid of the 10.x nomenclature.
Removing the whole 10.x nomenclature is a bad idea. Unless you know for sure that Jaguar came before Panther, you have no clue which one is more recent.
I don't think they need to change their naming structure at all.
I mean, I don't *mind* the current pricing--I'm much more concerned about my &^%ing .mac subscription.
I bought the five user licensed Jaguar the night it came out! It did happen! , lest you forget you evil doers!
Had Dan Knight been on Windows he would have been out at least $400 for the 5 machines he has. He would have been faced with Product activation for every XP based machine.
Mac users are quick to point out how "their" finances are strapped or how they "feel" it's an insult. Newsflash. Everytime you see OSX on Carracho or for every friend you know who'll let you "borrow" OSX to install that's money taken out of Apple's pockets. That's an Apple programmer that is not being paid.
What I continually see is Selfishness that is pervasive in many computer users. We all have the option to wait until we find it financially feasible to upgrade our OS. No one is forcing our hand ...yet that's not good enough because we all feel "entitled" to free or reduced OS upgrades because we
1. Bought .mac
2. Bought Jaguar
3. Bought a Mac
4. because I'm a really swell guy.
I'm sorry but I've been in Sales enought to develop a heavy pessimism for consumers. Although I am one myself I realize that consumers will pick your bones clean and move on. Hence the name..."consume"
Perhaps Apple will lower the price back to $99 for updates since they aren't developing OS9 at the same time. Perhaps they won't When "boxed" Linux costs $70 I think Apple is keeping things in check with it's OS pricing.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I have a hard time feeling for us Mac user complaining about the OS and it's cost.
Had Dan Knight been on Windows he would have been out at least $400 for the 5 machines he has. He would have been faced with Product activation for every XP based machine.
Mac users are quick to point out how "their" finances are strapped or how they "feel" it's an insult. Newsflash. Everytime you see OSX on Carracho or for every friend you know who'll let you "borrow" OSX to install that's money taken out of Apple's pockets. That's an Apple programmer that is not being paid.
What I continually see is Selfishness that is pervasive in many computer users. We all have the option to wait until we find it financially feasible to upgrade our OS. No one is forcing our hand ...yet that's not good enough because we all feel "entitled" to free or reduced OS upgrades because we
1. Bought .mac
2. Bought Jaguar
3. Bought a Mac
4. because I'm a really swell guy.
I'm sorry but I've been in Sales enought to develop a heavy pessimism for consumers. Although I am one myself I realize that consumers will pick your bones clean and move on. Hence the name..."consume"
Perhaps Apple will lower the price back to $99 for updates since they aren't developing OS9 at the same time. Perhaps they won't When "boxed" Linux costs $70 I think Apple is keeping things in check with it's OS pricing.
Perhaps Apple will get back to insuring the core OS works instead of trying to charge me $129 for improve iChat capabilities.
When Microsoft released XP it was a substancial improvement over even 2000. 10.2 was not a substancial improvement and even Apple has to resort to naming things like Mail having junk mail detection to try to sell the OS.
Could you imagine if Microsoft resold XP as a $129 upgrade that included "new Direct X", "new MSN messanger, "new address book", etc. Mac users would laugh their a**es off and declare Microsoft stupid as a board for that. Yet that is just what Apple has done and likely will continue to do.
Nick
Please. Watch something else other than war coverage. It is clouding your judgement.
Originally posted by Nebagakid
The GLOVE thing came to pass
I bought the five user licensed Jaguar the night it came out! It did happen! , lest you forget you evil doers!
as did I
Originally posted by trumptman
Perhaps Apple will get back to insuring the core OS works instead of trying to charge me $129 for improve iChat capabilities.
it wasn't improved, it was a whole new app...
Quote:
When Microsoft released XP it was a substancial improvement over even 2000.
um this is not true... first of all the only thing XP home did was take out networking capability so now everyone who goes to college HAS to buy "pro" to get on the LAN...
2nd pro costs $199 for one license...
3rd the difference between pro and 2000 was 90% cosmetic...
Quote:
10.2 was not a substancial improvement and even Apple has to resort to naming things like Mail having junk mail detection to try to sell the OS.
ummm also not true... there was over 150 new features in 10.2... things like Rendezvous and QE to name a few... these are NOT MINOR THINGS
Quote:
Could you imagine if Microsoft resold XP as a $129 upgrade that included "new Direct X", "new MSN messanger, "new address book", etc. Mac users would laugh their a**es off and declare Microsoft stupid as a board for that. Yet that is just what Apple has done and likely will continue to do.
Nick
umm they DID do that only it cost $199 not $129 and it is called Windows 2000-->XP Pro
ALSO there is the media expansion pack that they sell so customers can make MP3s
nick stop being a troll... 10.2 was a substantial update that was worth paying for...
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
I suppose the $199 family pack is the closest thing to that.
Note that I did mention the $199 family pack. I said that the Glove concept itself (unlimited licenses for a single person) didn't happen, but something similar did. So if Glove actually did happen just as it originally was rumored to, then I would have been able to go out and spend $129 to put OS X on every computer I own. As it is, I can spend $199 to do the same (I don't own over 5 OS X computers).
Semi-OT question: With the family pack, are you allowed to give install CDs to people who need them? Say I buy the family pack but I only own 3 Macs that need it. Am I allowed to give one of my installer CDs to a friend who also owns a Mac? I don't think you can sell them individually. In fact, I think I heard somewhere that the family pack still comes with only one CD set, and the only difference is the multiple licenses. Is that true?
all 5 computers have to be in the same household (as in like the US census definition...) so computers used primarily on say the Boston College campus (this one) cannot be used... so technically i shouldn't have used the family pack on this comp... but I was entitled to a FREE jaguar since i bought my comp on jaguar day (should have been pre-installed, but install CDs weren't updated yet) and so I just saved apple the trouble of sending me an update CD...