Snow Leopard roadmap; Pro app updates in pipeline

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 95
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,381member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MotherBrain View Post


    Really? Making the UI more like iTunes is significant? Really the only thing that looks that different is the scroll bars. Am i missing something?



    They are likely not showing many major GUI changes yet.
  • Reply 62 of 95
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    That's just it, though. OS X has never really been a "threat" to Windows, nor will it be with Apple's current business model. Is it a better OS? The answer to that question is and always will be a matter of opinion and personal preference.



    For me, OS X is more intuitive, responsive, stable, user-friendly, and has just the right amount of eye-candy without going overboard. I've tried Windows 7 Beta since its release, and it is just a modified version of Vista--improved in performance and stability for sure, yet still lacking the overall refinement and user experience that OS X has long mastered. It is still undeniably Windows.



    Those who have always used Windows and have no desire to try any other OS will be happy with Windows 7, no doubt. I am sure most will gladly dump Vista (Vista will go the way of Windows ME) or upgrade from XP. Will Windows 7, coupled with cheap hardware, lure people away from Macs en masse? Nope.
  • Reply 63 of 95
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    They are likely not showing many major GUI changes yet.



    That is what happened with Leopard. There were certainly changes along the way, but absurdly close to the GM release they switched up a lot with the Beta. So much that things became considerably less usable in the developer Betas until the GM was finally introduced.



    I think that the rumours of a UI change will happen much sooner and smoother this time around. Well, I hope so anyway.
  • Reply 64 of 95
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,381member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    That is what happened with Leopard. There were certainly changes along the way, but absurdly close to the GM release they switched up a lot with the Beta. So much that things became considerably less usable in the developer Betas until the GM was finally introduced.



    I think that the rumours of a UI change will happen much sooner and smoother this time around. Well, I hope so anyway.



    They don't have the pressure they had last time, or the time before that, so I hope you're right.
  • Reply 65 of 95
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    They don't have the pressure they had last time, or the time before that, so I hope you're right.



    With MS working on making Win 7 more streamlined, and with Grand Central and OpenCL being two major foundation features that they can't easily back out of from the final release I think that Apple has considerable pressure at the other end of the spectrum to make this release as streamlined and powerful as they can muster before an official release.
  • Reply 66 of 95
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    I think for the majority of people received a simple message from the Apple ads: Mac is better than PC. I don't believe most people understand all the details of why, they just believe the perception.



    I'd wager if you walked into a coffee shop and asked the Mac users if they were using the Mac because of problems with Vista. The majority of people could articulate reasons they chose a Mac over Windows in general, but the majority would not be able to articulate specific issues with Vista.



    I think over all Apple has hit a tipping point of popularity for various reasons. Vista may be one part of it but I see no evidence that it is a primary reason.







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I can't agree with that. Apple's Tv ads are thought to have had a big effect on switchers, and their main thrust has been OS X vs Vista. Unlike you, I do know people who moved to the Mac rather than buy a new Vista machine. I suspect that a lot of people have done so.



    It's not a matter of people switching from XP to Vista in their current machines. Only people who bought a machine within a year of Vista's release did that, older machines couldn't run the OS. Those people who had machines that couldn't upgrade to Vista were major candidates for Macs, because they were wanting to buy a new machine anyway.



    Many people have been made nervous about all the problems with, and talk about, the virus problems on the Windows platform as well, something that Vista, despite the publicity otherwise from MS, hadn't really diminished.



    Right now, Apple's sales are down. I hope that Win 7, which looks as though it might come out in May, won't keep people on the Win platform who otherwise might have moved to Macs.



    If the release of Win 7 goes smoothly, it could have that effect.



    I don't want to be too secure in my thinking about Apple's success. It isn't easy. This economic situation has caused a lot of assumptions to go down the drain. We can't get too complacent.



    Remember the phrase that investment houses are required to use in their ads:



    "Past performance doesn't guarantee future performance." Paraphrasing, of course.



  • Reply 67 of 95
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Apple has never had an issue with abandoning legacy code. I don't think they have a problem with streamlining OS X. We already know Apple is getting letting go of the universal binary code and shrinking all of OS X's apps.



    MS cannot so easily let go of legacy code, what can MS radically do to streamline Windows?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    With MS working on making Win 7 more streamlined, and with Grand Central and OpenCL being two major foundation features that they can't easily back out of from the final release I think that Apple has considerable pressure at the other end of the spectrum to make this release as streamlined and powerful as they can muster before an official release.



  • Reply 68 of 95
    kbeatkbeat Posts: 47member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Now that Apple "officially" has announced that Aperture is also for amateur photogs, it looks as though it's on the backburner, though I hope that's not so.



    I hope not as well. I prefer Aperture to Lightroom for a number of reasons (although Lightroom got much better with version 2) and competition in this space is really important. Last time I was at the "Mother Ship" the product manager seemed really happy with Aperture's development and reception since 2 had been released. But hey, what else would he tell me?



    iPhoto is a very, very successful application for Apple, and the development teams seem to feed one another. I don't mine Apple making Aperture more attractive to amateurs (seems like everyone has a DSLR these days), so long as they keep working with and support the pros.
  • Reply 69 of 95
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Yes they do abandon hardware all the time especially anything that does not sell well, but I cannot think of too many software suites that they abandon. Especially where they attempted to build a 3rd party plug in platform.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Apple has a bad habit of abandoning programs if they don't see them doing well, or if Apple has a different idea about where they want to go. Adobe has rarely done this. They even brought Premiere back to the Mac, better than ever.



  • Reply 70 of 95
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    Ah, bad news to me.



    care to explain some logic into that statement?





    --



    hows the pneumonia BTW?
  • Reply 71 of 95
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,381member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    With MS working on making Win 7 more streamlined, and with Grand Central and OpenCL being two major foundation features that they can't easily back out of from the final release I think that Apple has considerable pressure at the other end of the spectrum to make this release as streamlined and powerful as they can muster before an official release.



    I'm talking about the internal pressure they had with getting the original iPhone out the door on time. That problem no longer exists. The later upgrades don't have to be on a strict schedule.



    MS may ship Win 7 in late May, according to latest reports. If true, that takes the pressure off Apple. There's no way they can hope to match that, so they can take their time to get it right.
  • Reply 72 of 95
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,381member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    I think for the majority of people received a simple message from the Apple ads: Mac is better than PC. I don't believe most people understand all the details of why, they just believe the perception.



    I'd wager if you walked into a coffee shop and asked the Mac users if they were using the Mac because of problems with Vista. The majority of people could articulate reasons they chose a Mac over Windows in general, but the majority would not be able to articulate specific issues with Vista.



    I think over all Apple has hit a tipping point of popularity for various reasons. Vista may be one part of it but I see no evidence that it is a primary reason.



    No matter how you look at it, a large part of Mac upgraders will be previous Mac owners, so that kind of survey may not be useful.



    But there's been an awful amount of bad press associated with Vista, and Longhorn before the name change. A lot of people are aware of that.



    Also people new to computers will have heard plenty from both sides. I don't believe that they are all so ignorant.
  • Reply 73 of 95
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,381member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Yes they do abandon hardware all the time especially anything that does not sell well, but I cannot think of too many software suites that they abandon. Especially where they attempted to build a 3rd party plug in platform.



    They abandoned Appleworks, the best selling software they ever had. They could have improved it, but decided to go in an entirely different direction. It took years before they came close to providing all that it had, though individual programs in iworks were better.



    They never gave those of us who owned it upgrade pricing either!



    How far do you want to go back? MacPaint?



    They abandoned major parts of the OS, well after third parties has given them major support. This was well before OS X that Im talking about.



    iDVD hasn't see any improvements for a couple of years, because Apple doesn't want us making DVD's anymore, they want us to put all our stuff in Mobile ME instead.



    There are other major areas in which they've abandoned software.



    Heck, AOL was an Apple division before they sold it and the name was turned into AOL.
  • Reply 74 of 95
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    No matter how you look at it, a large part of Mac upgraders will be previous Mac owners, so that kind of survey may not be useful.



    Well we could change the scenario and randomly ask Windows users the difference in problems between XP and Vista. Most would not know.



    Quote:

    But there's been an awful amount of bad press associated with Vista, and Longhorn before the name change. A lot of people are aware of that.



    Also people new to computers will have heard plenty from both sides. I don't believe that they are all so ignorant.



    There has been a lot of bad press about Vista, but I don't think most people are paying any attention to the detailed differences between XP, Vista, or Windows 7. I think there is a growing perception against Windows in general, not simply against its specific versions.
  • Reply 75 of 95
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Well with this logic you could say that Apple abandoned the original Mac OS. Technically they did but it was replaced with something better. There is some degree of logic why Apple did what it did in the examples you've shown. I cannot see in any of these examples why they would abandon Aperture.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    They abandoned Appleworks, the best selling software they ever had. They could have improved it, but decided to go in an entirely different direction. It took years before they came close to providing all that it had, though individual programs in iworks were better.



    They never gave those of us who owned it upgrade pricing either!



    How far do you want to go back? MacPaint?



    They abandoned major parts of the OS, well after third parties has given them major support. This was well before OS X that Im talking about.



    iDVD hasn't see any improvements for a couple of years, because Apple doesn't want us making DVD's anymore, they want us to put all our stuff in Mobile ME instead.



    There are other major areas in which they've abandoned software.



    Heck, AOL was an Apple division before they sold it and the name was turned into AOL.



  • Reply 76 of 95
    kbeatkbeat Posts: 47member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    They never gave those of us who owned it upgrade pricing either!



    I've always felt that upgrade pricing complaints in relation to iLife, iWork, and even OS X are a bit of a red herring. If Apple charged for those products what most competitors charge for similar software packages, then the $79 ($129 on OS X) price point would be the upgrade price. Combined with the fact that the latest version of these suites come free with most Mac purchases, I don't think expecting an upgrade price below $79 is realistic.



    Given the choice between $79 for all customers, or something along the lines of $149 for new customers and $79 for others, I'll take the former. Also, taking into account that pretty much anyone with a Mac has a copy of iLife and OS X, aren't all sales, by default, upgrades anyway?
  • Reply 77 of 95
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KBeat View Post


    I've always felt that upgrade pricing complaints in relation to iLife, iWork, and even OS X are a bit of a red herring. If Apple charged for those products what most competitors charge for similar software packages, then the $79 ($129 on OS X) price point would be the upgrade price. Combined with the fact that the latest version of these suites come free with most Mac purchases, I don't think expecting an upgrade price below $79 is realistic.



    Given the choice between $79 for all customers, or something along the lines of $149 for new customers and $79 for others, I'll take the former. Also, taking into account that pretty much anyone with a Mac has a copy of iLife and OS X, aren't all sales, by default, upgrades anyway?



    Agreed the complaints about no upgrade pricing stem from the ASSumption that the upgrade pricing should be cheaper. As you point out this doesn't take into consideration the actual value of the apps. iLife and iWork are certainly worth more than $79 if one is actually going to use a majority of the applications in the suite.



    Also many can't see the forest through the trees. If Apple ships out full versions as the upgrade it doesn't obsolete your prior purchase. I sold my iWork 08 for %30 of its value and this would have been more difficult had I just had an upgrade disc for iWork 09.
  • Reply 78 of 95
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,381member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Well we could change the scenario and randomly ask Windows users the difference in problems between XP and Vista. Most would not know.







    There has been a lot of bad press about Vista, but I don't think most people are paying any attention to the detailed differences between XP, Vista, or Windows 7. I think there is a growing perception against Windows in general, not simply against its specific versions.



    I don't think that most non technical people really do think about the details, or specifics of these problems. You're right there. But I don't think that matters. They hear about Vista having a lot of problems. That's all they need to hear about that. Those who want to upgrade from XP are either told that their machine won't take it, or find out for themselves after they buy it. That's all they need to know as well.



    Some of their friends have moved to Macs and told them that they have no problems with virus's, which is a problem that everyone has heard about, or had experience with on their own machine, or possibly at work.



    Overall, these things have been pushing some people to Macs.



    You do have to remember that while the rise in Mac ownership over the past three years or so has been large, it only represents a very small part of the Windows community. It's easy to realize that those are the people who are aware of these problems.



    Perhaps if more Windows users were also aware of these problems, they would have switched.



    As Windows users need to get new machines, why would they want a Mac, with all the hassles it entails, unless there is a reason for them to do so? What would that reason, or reasons be? It's not people saying, "Oh, I think I'll do something different, and start all over agin, from scratch."
  • Reply 79 of 95
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,381member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Well with this logic you could say that Apple abandoned the original Mac OS. Technically they did but it was replaced with something better. There is some degree of logic why Apple did what it did in the examples you've shown. I cannot see in any of these examples why they would abandon Aperture.



    If sales don't meet their goals, and they are not making money, and even losing it, they will drop it like a hot potato.
  • Reply 80 of 95
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,381member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KBeat View Post


    I've always felt that upgrade pricing complaints in relation to iLife, iWork, and even OS X are a bit of a red herring. If Apple charged for those products what most competitors charge for similar software packages, then the $79 ($129 on OS X) price point would be the upgrade price. Combined with the fact that the latest version of these suites come free with most Mac purchases, I don't think expecting an upgrade price below $79 is realistic.



    Given the choice between $79 for all customers, or something along the lines of $149 for new customers and $79 for others, I'll take the former. Also, taking into account that pretty much anyone with a Mac has a copy of iLife and OS X, aren't all sales, by default, upgrades anyway?



    I'm not talking about that.



    I'm talking about all those people using Appleworks, which was abandoned by Apple, being given an upgrade price to iWork when it first came out, even though it did less, though what it did do, it did better.



    The upgrade prices for Appleworks were lower than the price for iWork. Therefor, an upgrade, priced the same as the Appleworks upgrade price, was in order.
Sign In or Register to comment.