If the point is to increase/speed adoption of OS X, all switchers are already accounted for. They've got OS X on their machines. So, they're over the fence. True, I'd be upset if I just bought a computer and had to pay for an OS upgrade, but they've already got OS X so they're role in this discussion is really moot. My $.02.
As far as I can tell... Apple isn't calling it 10.2... *WE* are. Apple simply refers to it as "Jaguar" on their website. I have NO IDEA what number the actual release is gong to be... but with all the new features and improvements, it far exceeds a "point release".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some Jaguar build screenshots (About this Mac)I've seen have 10.2 given. Granted, it's just a beta stage build, but...
<strong>Some Jaguar build screenshots (About this Mac)I've seen have 10.2 given. Granted, it's just a beta stage build, but...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well... you are correct.
My point (I guess) is that regardless of the number associated with the final release of Jaguar, I think it's worthy of a legitimate cost associated with it due to the amount of forward progression, improvements, new features and increase in speed.
Regarding the adoption rate... I think M$ and Corell might be looking for an excuse to pull-out of Mac development... I (personally) know a LOT (6 or 7) people that purchase Macs BECAUSE of OSX (and the new designs).
One of them is a QA/QC Tester and he says that all HIS colleagues are TOTALLY into OSX and the buzz is growing.
So what's M$'s problem...? It's only just over a year old and they expect 100% adoption across the board...? I'd like to see the figures 6-Months after the release of Jaguar.
<strong>According to the article, Apple claims that 10% of its users have made the leap to OSX. Wow, thats pretty low. I do believe OSX is reaching 'critical mass,' but there is a long way to go.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is low, but you have to remember, that a lot of people can't afford to go out and buy it. I still use OS9 because it works. Sure, I could spend the money to buy OSX, but why? I'm on a 266MHz beige G3. That would be stupid.
I'll upgrade to X when one of two things happens:
When I buy a new computer, or
When the software I need will no longer run on OS 9.
I suspect that many people are just waiting until they get a new computer. Most users are the "upgrade whores" that most people here are (no offense, I'm one too) and are perfectly content running OS 8.1.
Just my 2¢
Oh, and Scott F, when you ask that Microsoft's problem is, it's just that: They are Microsoft. They don't want people to use OSX (or OS9, for that matter) because that's less people to use their products. They are trying to scare users away from Apple by creating buzz that Office may not be around for long. That's a big deal. You'll notice that Office's availability is mentioned very often in Apple literature.
<strong>Oh, and Scott F, when you ask that Microsoft's problem is, it's just that: They are Microsoft. They don't want people to use OSX (or OS9, for that matter) because that's less people to use their products. They are trying to scare users away from Apple by creating buzz that Office may not be around for long. That's a big deal. You'll notice that Office's availability is mentioned very often in Apple literature.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah... I know... I "get it"... but it's just a lame argument considering regardless of OSX adoption, Office for Mac is a Carbon app that runs in BOTH environments... so if anything... the number of potential users INCREASES with the swithers and so-on... they don't need OSX adoption in order to continue development... that's just a crock.
I probably wont bother paying to upgrade. Maybe when I've got hardware that will take advantage of QE I'll think about it. But then again, it will come free with a new computer... so I won't have to think about it... I will just have it.. OSX is slow as shit on my 600 iBook, but then again i only have 128ram.
Yeah... I know... I "get it"... but it's just a lame argument considering regardless of OSX adoption, Office for Mac is a Carbon app that runs in BOTH environments...</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>It wont be free but should be. 10.2 is closer to what the public beta should have been, years late. If Apple has any respect for it's customers, which it doesn't, they wont charge for 10.2 to make up for the crappy OS X so far.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If Apple gave OS X away for free, it would barely affect the rate of adoption.
People aren't upgrading from OS 9 not because they don't want to spend $120, but because 9 is safe and comfortable. Crashy? Sure. But nice and safe. Plus Quark runs on it just fine.
Anyway, this will begin to change:
- in the consumer market with 10.2 and OS X-only features (iChat, iPhoto, iDVD 2, Sherlock 3)
- in education (with restored functionality from 9, Remote Access, and 10.2's new Universal Access)
- in publishing and design, once Quark is carbonized (or replaced with InDesign) and design firms, publishers, and the like finally make the move.
- in other professional markets, as the apps are made native and mature.
- and finally, as new Macs are bought.
For Apple not to charge for Jaguar is to throw money down the drain.
I'm sure that Steve is aware that he could bring the house down by going through all the cool features in Jaguar, and then saying that it's a) available now, and b) free. I'm sure that Apple is actually planning to give away most of their copies of Jaguar for free - if you count bundling it with new hardware as "free."
One significant variable: If .Mac is going to be a revenue generator for Apple, then suddenly it makes much less sense to charge for the OS. If Apple is switching to this model, they should give the platform (meaning the OS, of course) away and charge for the services.
I also think that OS X adoption will accelerate abruptly when a certain set of pro apps and pro functionality (e.g. the totally rethought printing architecture in Jaguar) appear. When whole shops start upgrading to OS X, the adoption rate should pick up quickly.
as i posted a few weeks ago in the macosx forum, i recently started moving my parents and sibs over to X after having switched fulltime myself about 6 months ago. not surprisingly, they really liked it. my dad only wished that he still had the control strip.
the great majority of my mac using friends have been waiting... to give you an idea, in this group of ~20, only 4 of uses X. the rest are all waiting an official "go ahead... it's safe" signal.
i still think 10.2 will be free... apple needs everyone using X to remain a single group so that developers focus their energies on one release. let's hope they're smart enough to realize this for themselves.
Hobbes is right -- Apple could pay YOU $20 to take an OS X 10.2 CD and it wouldn't affect the adoption rate at all.
The fact is that most people in the consumer market never upgrade their OS until they buy a new machine. There's just no incentive for either consumers or corporate IT to fix what ain't broken.
This hold just as true for Windows as it does on the Mac side -- Most of Microsoft's installed base is still 9x/NT4, and most of the software is engineered around that.
Still, even with the compatibility problems and slowness on old stock hardware, my guess is that the OS X adoption is still far greater than say the OS 9 or OS 8.5 adoption rate.
As for poor sales of Office 10, I wonder if that has to do with the fact that it came right on the heels of Office 2001. IMO, MS should have saved their upgrade window for when it counted. Also, maybe Macs are used less-and-less in work situations where Office compatibility is critical. I imagine that lots of individuals and graphics pros can just live without Office.
Well, MS did say that Office 2001 was currently selling faster than Office X...
Anyway, who should Jaguar be free for?
People who don't use OS X yet? Nope. We all paid for it. They will too.
People who already have OS X? Nope. That doesn't help the adoption rate, we already have it.
People who buy new computers? Nope, you're paying for it then too. It's part of the cost that makes macs more expensive than hand-built PCs with pirated copies of Windows installed.
Apple did say in their earnings announcement that they spent xx million dollars (don't remember the figure) developing OS X this quarter. Millions of dollars! You think they don't want to make some of that money back?
Logically, there is no reason to make the 10.2 update free. If it is free, it will be a massive amount of goodwill on Apple's part that probably wouldn't be appreciated as people on forums like this would still find some angle to whine about.
<strong>Well, MS did say that Office 2001 was currently selling faster than Office X...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That might have something to do with what I've heard around the Mac Web, that even people who have adopted OS X as a primary platform are getting Office 2001 and running it in Classic, because it's a better performer than Office X!
So what's M$'s problem...? It's only just over a year old and they expect 100% adoption across the board...? I'd like to see the figures 6-Months after the release of Jaguar.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good Point Scott, just ask around your Wintel user friends (don't hate them cause they're not as smart as you), how many of them are running the latest version of Windoze?
Comments
<strong>
As far as I can tell... Apple isn't calling it 10.2... *WE* are. Apple simply refers to it as "Jaguar" on their website. I have NO IDEA what number the actual release is gong to be... but with all the new features and improvements, it far exceeds a "point release".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some Jaguar build screenshots (About this Mac)I've seen have 10.2 given. Granted, it's just a beta stage build, but...
<strong>Some Jaguar build screenshots (About this Mac)I've seen have 10.2 given. Granted, it's just a beta stage build, but...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well... you are correct.
My point (I guess) is that regardless of the number associated with the final release of Jaguar, I think it's worthy of a legitimate cost associated with it due to the amount of forward progression, improvements, new features and increase in speed.
Regarding the adoption rate... I think M$ and Corell might be looking for an excuse to pull-out of Mac development... I (personally) know a LOT (6 or 7) people that purchase Macs BECAUSE of OSX (and the new designs).
One of them is a QA/QC Tester and he says that all HIS colleagues are TOTALLY into OSX and the buzz is growing.
So what's M$'s problem...? It's only just over a year old and they expect 100% adoption across the board...? I'd like to see the figures 6-Months after the release of Jaguar.
<strong>According to the article, Apple claims that 10% of its users have made the leap to OSX. Wow, thats pretty low. I do believe OSX is reaching 'critical mass,' but there is a long way to go.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is low, but you have to remember, that a lot of people can't afford to go out and buy it. I still use OS9 because it works. Sure, I could spend the money to buy OSX, but why? I'm on a 266MHz beige G3. That would be stupid.
I'll upgrade to X when one of two things happens:
When I buy a new computer, or
When the software I need will no longer run on OS 9.
I suspect that many people are just waiting until they get a new computer. Most users are the "upgrade whores" that most people here are (no offense, I'm one too) and are perfectly content running OS 8.1.
Just my 2¢
Oh, and Scott F, when you ask that Microsoft's problem is, it's just that: They are Microsoft. They don't want people to use OSX (or OS9, for that matter) because that's less people to use their products. They are trying to scare users away from Apple by creating buzz that Office may not be around for long. That's a big deal. You'll notice that Office's availability is mentioned very often in Apple literature.
[ 07-15-2002: Message edited by: Stroszek ]</p>
<strong>Oh, and Scott F, when you ask that Microsoft's problem is, it's just that: They are Microsoft. They don't want people to use OSX (or OS9, for that matter) because that's less people to use their products. They are trying to scare users away from Apple by creating buzz that Office may not be around for long. That's a big deal. You'll notice that Office's availability is mentioned very often in Apple literature.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah... I know... I "get it"... but it's just a lame argument considering regardless of OSX adoption, Office for Mac is a Carbon app that runs in BOTH environments... so if anything... the number of potential users INCREASES with the swithers and so-on... they don't need OSX adoption in order to continue development... that's just a crock.
Pres
*shakes his head*
Well, you can get jaguar and more ram, or you can continue using a slow iBook. I guess it's your choice.
<strong>
Yeah... I know... I "get it"... but it's just a lame argument considering regardless of OSX adoption, Office for Mac is a Carbon app that runs in BOTH environments...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uhm, no it doesn't.
<strong>It wont be free but should be. 10.2 is closer to what the public beta should have been, years late. If Apple has any respect for it's customers, which it doesn't, they wont charge for 10.2 to make up for the crappy OS X so far.</strong><hr></blockquote>
oooo, you're all...scrunchy! ick! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>Idea OS 10.2 is free full install to a people with macs. All you pay is the shipping, this will help people convert hell it's free.
Flood the market with the software like MS'es IE and they will get used to using it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even better, like it's AOL.
More coasters! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
People aren't upgrading from OS 9 not because they don't want to spend $120, but because 9 is safe and comfortable. Crashy? Sure. But nice and safe. Plus Quark runs on it just fine.
Anyway, this will begin to change:
- in the consumer market with 10.2 and OS X-only features (iChat, iPhoto, iDVD 2, Sherlock 3)
- in education (with restored functionality from 9, Remote Access, and 10.2's new Universal Access)
- in publishing and design, once Quark is carbonized (or replaced with InDesign) and design firms, publishers, and the like finally make the move.
- in other professional markets, as the apps are made native and mature.
- and finally, as new Macs are bought.
For Apple not to charge for Jaguar is to throw money down the drain.
[ 07-16-2002: Message edited by: Hobbes ]</p>
<strong>
Uhm, no it doesn't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Boy... I feel silly... I could have SWORN it was a Carbon app that ran in both OS9 & OSX... apparently I know not what I talk about.
Thanks for correcting that.
One significant variable: If .Mac is going to be a revenue generator for Apple, then suddenly it makes much less sense to charge for the OS. If Apple is switching to this model, they should give the platform (meaning the OS, of course) away and charge for the services.
I also think that OS X adoption will accelerate abruptly when a certain set of pro apps and pro functionality (e.g. the totally rethought printing architecture in Jaguar) appear. When whole shops start upgrading to OS X, the adoption rate should pick up quickly.
the great majority of my mac using friends have been waiting... to give you an idea, in this group of ~20, only 4 of uses X. the rest are all waiting an official "go ahead... it's safe" signal.
i still think 10.2 will be free... apple needs everyone using X to remain a single group so that developers focus their energies on one release. let's hope they're smart enough to realize this for themselves.
na
The fact is that most people in the consumer market never upgrade their OS until they buy a new machine. There's just no incentive for either consumers or corporate IT to fix what ain't broken.
This hold just as true for Windows as it does on the Mac side -- Most of Microsoft's installed base is still 9x/NT4, and most of the software is engineered around that.
Still, even with the compatibility problems and slowness on old stock hardware, my guess is that the OS X adoption is still far greater than say the OS 9 or OS 8.5 adoption rate.
As for poor sales of Office 10, I wonder if that has to do with the fact that it came right on the heels of Office 2001. IMO, MS should have saved their upgrade window for when it counted. Also, maybe Macs are used less-and-less in work situations where Office compatibility is critical. I imagine that lots of individuals and graphics pros can just live without Office.
Anyway, who should Jaguar be free for?
People who don't use OS X yet? Nope. We all paid for it. They will too.
People who already have OS X? Nope. That doesn't help the adoption rate, we already have it.
People who buy new computers? Nope, you're paying for it then too. It's part of the cost that makes macs more expensive than hand-built PCs with pirated copies of Windows installed.
Apple did say in their earnings announcement that they spent xx million dollars (don't remember the figure) developing OS X this quarter. Millions of dollars! You think they don't want to make some of that money back?
Logically, there is no reason to make the 10.2 update free. If it is free, it will be a massive amount of goodwill on Apple's part that probably wouldn't be appreciated as people on forums like this would still find some angle to whine about.
[ 07-17-2002: Message edited by: rogue27 ]</p>
<strong>Well, MS did say that Office 2001 was currently selling faster than Office X...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That might have something to do with what I've heard around the Mac Web, that even people who have adopted OS X as a primary platform are getting Office 2001 and running it in Classic, because it's a better performer than Office X!
<strong>
So what's M$'s problem...? It's only just over a year old and they expect 100% adoption across the board...? I'd like to see the figures 6-Months after the release of Jaguar.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good Point Scott, just ask around your Wintel user friends (don't hate them cause they're not as smart as you), how many of them are running the latest version of Windoze?
That answers that...