YES - I agree! I'd rather see Leopard released this winter than see Apple strip great features as MS did with Vista. Cuz if they stip them out for a release now it'll be 2+ years before we see Mac OS X 10.6.
Yup. Figure this years WWDC is Leopard only talk so we will be waiting another year to even hear about Mac OS 10.6 with at least another nine months of development after that!
They can easily go out conduct market research themselves (as some occasionally do), and can also follow forums such as these for additional "market intelligence." I.e., they can come up with equally bold estimates if the trends justify such estimates.
The problem is, most of them are fairly lazy, and rely on what the management gives them as guidance (and look over each others' shoulders a lot).
ThinkEquity needs to do their research lil deeper. Leopard release is no where close for release. I i am not wrong it will be released either a week before WWDC or on WWDC.
What purpose would be served by Apple having two teams working on the release? One with the *secret features*, and one for developers without it? Do you think Apple needs the expense, and inevitable confusion within their own organization from that?
Well it wouldn't be 2 separate teams. We've heard how Apple has multiple groups working on specific parts of projects and some being totally unaware of others working on different parts of the same thing. Surely there's a breakdown like a Finder group, Spaces/Expose etc, Networking group, Secret Feature group, etc... Besides, API's could be made available without divulging the entire feature. Same goes with the development of iPhone with Cingular and games for the iPod with game devs. I bet for the games they were given a set of parameters and API's to hook into without even knowing what end product they were developing for. That's how Apple keeps it's secrets.
They can easily go out conduct market research themselves (as some occasionally do), and can also follow forums such as these for additional "market intelligence." I.e., they can come up with equally bold estimates if the trends justify such estimates.
The problem is, most of them are fairly lazy, and rely on what the management gives them as guidance (and look over each others' shoulders a lot).
That's exactly what they do. But, they can't make Apple give out information. They can try and follow manufacturing trails, but that's not definite.
Well it wouldn't be 2 separate teams. We've heard how Apple has multiple groups working on specific parts of projects and some being totally unaware of others working on different parts of the same thing. Surely there's a breakdown like a Finder group, Spaces/Expose etc, Networking group, Secret Feature group, etc... Besides, API's could be made available without divulging the entire feature. Same goes with the development of iPhone with Cingular and games for the iPod with game devs. I bet for the games they were given a set of parameters and API's to hook into without even knowing what end product they were developing for. That's how Apple keeps it's secrets.
That's exactly why Copeland was a failure. They had seperate grouops who didn't communicate with each other. So, every part of the OS worked. But, when they went to combine the parts, they didn't.
I assume that Apple has learned something since then.
It would be interesting if you actually knew how Apple keeps its secrets, rather than just guessing.
Dude, I really hope you are wrong about that. That's one hell of a turd. How do you "know" this turd to be fact? iLife should NOT be considered "features" of an OS. iLife is a group of applications. Great apps, but not something that should be called "Top Secret" features of Leopard. Top Secret features would be more along the lines of ZFS/bootcamp/virtualization/new UI/multitouch/etc.
right, those could be top secret features, but do they necessarily have to be 'built' in? Why not abstract them on top of the OS, that way everything still works but you can 'sell' more features, kind of like the Microsoft plus pack. Maybe not part of iLife, but more of iExtras. That way they can sell you iLife 07, Leopard, and if you want the Leopard iExtras (ZFS, new UI, multitouch) you have to buy Leopard AND the iExtras for $79 more. This way they can get away with charging more for the new OS without 'changing' the original $129 price. ++revenue.
right, those could be top secret features, but do they necessarily have to be 'built' in? Why not abstract them on top of the OS, that way everything still works but you can 'sell' more features, kind of like the Microsoft plus pack. Maybe not part of iLife, but more of iExtras. That way they can sell you iLife 07, Leopard, and if you want the Leopard iExtras (ZFS, new UI, multitouch) you have to buy Leopard AND the iExtras for $79 more. This way they can get away with charging more for the new OS without 'changing' the original $129 price. ++revenue.
Yes! they could call it names like 'home basic', 'business premium' or 'ultimate'!!!!
ThinkEquity seems to be thinking that somehow Leopard will ship before the end of calendar Q1 (late March). Odds are they are either frakking high, or they're trying to start a mini-run on Apple stock. Either way, bah. \
I'm not a bookie, but the Vegas odds seem to be on a late calendar Q2 launch, i.e. final unveiling/ship date announced at WWDC (June 11-15), actually shipping in late June. And that's fine, its not like Vista will have all the kinks even remotely worked out by then.
As others have said, either a very stable Leopard or none at all. We don't need to half-ass it the way Microsoft has done so many times in the past.
If Apple surprises us all by releasing Leopard both in March AND stable, then I will happily be wrong. But it just seems unlikely. The old adage seems inescapable... do you want it fast, or do you want it good?
But, they can't make Apple give out information. They can try and follow manufacturing trails, but that's not definite.
Hmmm.... I didn't know that Apple was a company that had sworn off the (fairly common) practice of earnings guidance (unlike thousands of companies) -- perhaps you know more about this.
I would be surprised if they did not do it (altho, some companies such as Coca Cola have explicitly said "no" to the practice of earnings guidance).
If Apple surprises us all by releasing Leopard both in March AND stable, then I will happily be wrong. But it just seems unlikely. The old adage seems inescapable... do you want it fast, or do you want it good?
.
Tiger wasn't fast or good until a couple 'service packs' later, so why should they start now?
Comments
LOL, well I hope they don't have "insider trading info".
I also hope they aren't "surly".
it'll be 2+ years before we see Mac OS X 10.6.
..and we'll be running out of big cats... there's always Lion.
YES - I agree! I'd rather see Leopard released this winter than see Apple strip great features as MS did with Vista. Cuz if they stip them out for a release now it'll be 2+ years before we see Mac OS X 10.6.
Yup. Figure this years WWDC is Leopard only talk so we will be waiting another year to even hear about Mac OS 10.6 with at least another nine months of development after that!
These guys forcast from what they know now.
They can easily go out conduct market research themselves (as some occasionally do), and can also follow forums such as these for additional "market intelligence." I.e., they can come up with equally bold estimates if the trends justify such estimates.
The problem is, most of them are fairly lazy, and rely on what the management gives them as guidance (and look over each others' shoulders a lot).
What purpose would be served by Apple having two teams working on the release? One with the *secret features*, and one for developers without it? Do you think Apple needs the expense, and inevitable confusion within their own organization from that?
Well it wouldn't be 2 separate teams. We've heard how Apple has multiple groups working on specific parts of projects and some being totally unaware of others working on different parts of the same thing. Surely there's a breakdown like a Finder group, Spaces/Expose etc, Networking group, Secret Feature group, etc... Besides, API's could be made available without divulging the entire feature. Same goes with the development of iPhone with Cingular and games for the iPod with game devs. I bet for the games they were given a set of parameters and API's to hook into without even knowing what end product they were developing for. That's how Apple keeps it's secrets.
They can easily go out conduct market research themselves (as some occasionally do), and can also follow forums such as these for additional "market intelligence." I.e., they can come up with equally bold estimates if the trends justify such estimates.
The problem is, most of them are fairly lazy, and rely on what the management gives them as guidance (and look over each others' shoulders a lot).
That's exactly what they do. But, they can't make Apple give out information. They can try and follow manufacturing trails, but that's not definite.
Well it wouldn't be 2 separate teams. We've heard how Apple has multiple groups working on specific parts of projects and some being totally unaware of others working on different parts of the same thing. Surely there's a breakdown like a Finder group, Spaces/Expose etc, Networking group, Secret Feature group, etc... Besides, API's could be made available without divulging the entire feature. Same goes with the development of iPhone with Cingular and games for the iPod with game devs. I bet for the games they were given a set of parameters and API's to hook into without even knowing what end product they were developing for. That's how Apple keeps it's secrets.
That's exactly why Copeland was a failure. They had seperate grouops who didn't communicate with each other. So, every part of the OS worked. But, when they went to combine the parts, they didn't.
I assume that Apple has learned something since then.
It would be interesting if you actually knew how Apple keeps its secrets, rather than just guessing.
Dude, I really hope you are wrong about that. That's one hell of a turd. How do you "know" this turd to be fact? iLife should NOT be considered "features" of an OS. iLife is a group of applications. Great apps, but not something that should be called "Top Secret" features of Leopard. Top Secret features would be more along the lines of ZFS/bootcamp/virtualization/new UI/multitouch/etc.
right, those could be top secret features, but do they necessarily have to be 'built' in? Why not abstract them on top of the OS, that way everything still works but you can 'sell' more features, kind of like the Microsoft plus pack. Maybe not part of iLife, but more of iExtras. That way they can sell you iLife 07, Leopard, and if you want the Leopard iExtras (ZFS, new UI, multitouch) you have to buy Leopard AND the iExtras for $79 more. This way they can get away with charging more for the new OS without 'changing' the original $129 price. ++revenue.
It would be interesting if you actually knew how Apple keeps its secrets, rather than just guessing.
Yes, but since I don't know I can only guess like the rest of us
Yes, but since I don't know I can only guess like the rest of us
Of course, except that most of us have our feet on the ground while we do it.
Of course, except that most of us have our feet on the ground while we do it.
I guess I was half-way there. Mine were bouncing up and down as I made the post.
right, those could be top secret features, but do they necessarily have to be 'built' in? Why not abstract them on top of the OS, that way everything still works but you can 'sell' more features, kind of like the Microsoft plus pack. Maybe not part of iLife, but more of iExtras. That way they can sell you iLife 07, Leopard, and if you want the Leopard iExtras (ZFS, new UI, multitouch) you have to buy Leopard AND the iExtras for $79 more. This way they can get away with charging more for the new OS without 'changing' the original $129 price. ++revenue.
Yes! they could call it names like 'home basic', 'business premium' or 'ultimate'!!!!
Way cool dude!
I'm not a bookie, but the Vegas odds seem to be on a late calendar Q2 launch, i.e. final unveiling/ship date announced at WWDC (June 11-15), actually shipping in late June. And that's fine, its not like Vista will have all the kinks even remotely worked out by then.
As others have said, either a very stable Leopard or none at all. We don't need to half-ass it the way Microsoft has done so many times in the past.
If Apple surprises us all by releasing Leopard both in March AND stable, then I will happily be wrong. But it just seems unlikely. The old adage seems inescapable... do you want it fast, or do you want it good?
.
But, they can't make Apple give out information. They can try and follow manufacturing trails, but that's not definite.
Hmmm.... I didn't know that Apple was a company that had sworn off the (fairly common) practice of earnings guidance (unlike thousands of companies) -- perhaps you know more about this.
I would be surprised if they did not do it (altho, some companies such as Coca Cola have explicitly said "no" to the practice of earnings guidance).
If Apple surprises us all by releasing Leopard both in March AND stable, then I will happily be wrong. But it just seems unlikely. The old adage seems inescapable... do you want it fast, or do you want it good?
.
Tiger wasn't fast or good until a couple 'service packs' later, so why should they start now?
Yes! they could call it names like 'home basic', 'business premium' or 'ultimate'!!!!
Way cool dude!
we'll revisit this after the first buggy release.
Tiger wasn't fast or good until a couple 'service packs' later, so why should they start now?
Actually, I found Tiger (10.4) to be both fast and good from the get-go. I didn't have super hardware to run it on either.
Now 10.0 and 10.1 were a different story.... they were slooooooooow.
Perhaps you were referring not to Tiger, but to OS X in general? If so, you'd be right, it wasn't acceptably fast until Jaguar (10.2).
.