this issue is much different from that. While Apple is blaming the iPhone for thios delay. While I think that is, to some extent, a smokescreen, it's likely to be true to some extent, though not to the extent they are saying.
This is, no doubt, the biggest OS X release Apple has ever made. Apple is big, and rich enough now to be able to hire some more people if they need them. If they are shorthanded, they could have done that. Good coders are not that hard to find, esp. in this environment with much work going overseas.
You know nothing about software development, that much is clear. Hiring top people who are familiar with the code, the platform, the objectives, and the working environment and processes with less than six months to go on a project the size of OSX would be sheer lunacy and a bigger disaster (by far) than delivering it 6 months late. And then after the project Apple would either be stuck with oversized staff, or they would have to lay off the people who just finished their product for them and are therefore best equipped to track down bugs (which are inevitable, especially with new programmers on the team).
No conspiracy theories are needed here.
The attitude prevalent in this thread is all wrong. Delaying 10.5 by 4 months is a good thing, not a bad one. Much of the OSX development team continues to work on 10.5, so it will end up being a better product thanks to the delay. And really, what is the rush to get it out in June? We have a fine OS already, and while some of the new features are shiny and cool we have managed to live without them for a long time. The only people really hurt by this are developers who want to release software products that require 10.5... but you make your planning choices and you live with them. Its always possible for any project to slip its schedule.
You know nothing about software development, that much is clear. Hiring top people who are familiar with the code, the platform, the objectives, and the working environment and processes with less than six months to go on a project the size of OSX would be sheer lunacy and a bigger disaster (by far) than delivering it 6 months late. And then after the project Apple would either be stuck with oversized staff, or they would have to lay off the people who just finished their product for them and are therefore best equipped to track down bugs (which are inevitable, especially with new programmers on the team).
No conspiracy theories are needed here.
The attitude prevalent in this thread is all wrong. Delaying 10.5 by 4 months is a good thing, not a bad one. Much of the OSX development team continues to work on 10.5, so it will end up being a better product thanks to the delay. And really, what is the rush to get it out in June? We have a fine OS already, and while some of the new features are shiny and cool we have managed to live without them for a long time. The only people really hurt by this are developers who want to release software products that require 10.5... but you make your planning choices and you live with them. Its always possible for any project to slip its schedule.
One must be careful using such an argument because it's a slippery slope. To admit that there is no need to rush Leopard is also admitting that there's no need of it at all. If Tiger does everything that people need to do today, there's no fundamental reason to work on leopard at all.
Apple will make the case as to why we need Leopard and not Tiger (or prior cats) in the months ahead. But to suggest that Apple can take all the time it wants to release Leopard is to also insinuate that Leopard isn't needed and that Tiger is all that people need to do everything they want to do.
I believe that Apple is making the right choice to delay Leopard, but in saying so, I also hold them accountable and will be very upset with them if we're issued updates immediately due to stability issues. They've worked on Leopard longer than any other cat thus far. That fact had better be reflected in the sheen of the OS when it is released.
One must be careful using such an argument because it's a slippery slope. To admit that there is no need to rush Leopard is also admitting that there's no need of it at all. If Tiger does everything that people need to do today, there's no fundamental reason to work on leopard at all.
True, although the extra time can and will translate to a better delivered product which gives the users more reason to want it. There is an obsessive now-now-now attitude amongst consumers and who don't seem to realize that there is a trade off between early delivery and quality. Four months will fly by before you know it, and is nothing compared to a decade ago when Apple's OS releases slipped by years before eventually being cancelled completely.
Quote:
But to suggest that Apple can take all the time it wants to release Leopard is to also insinuate that Leopard isn't needed and that Tiger is all that people need to do everything they want to do.
I wasn't suggesting that they take an arbitrarily long time. The project planning by Apple in the last few years has been very impressive and suggests that they know how to figure out how much time they need to finish a product (as opposed to just continuing to work on it indefinitely). As anyone who has actually brought a product to market knows, there is a skill and an art to finishing.
Apple will make the case as to why we need Leopard and not Tiger (or prior cats) in the months ahead. But to suggest that Apple can take all the time it wants to release Leopard is to also insinuate that Leopard isn't needed and that Tiger is all that people need to do everything they want to do.
Insinuate? Heck, I'll say it outright. I don't understand the need to use loaded terminology for this. Your current computer is not broken. Tiger, as a whole, is not broken. If it was, you probably wouldn't be using it.
Leopard isn't needed and Tiger is all that people need to do everything they want to do. A few years from now, that will change, but four months is nothing.
I don't have a problem with Apple taking a few more months because I don't want Leopard to be broken on release.
Don't reduce the argument to absurdity and act as if it will be years before Leopard is released.
You know nothing about software development, that much is clear. Hiring top people who are familiar with the code, the platform, the objectives, and the working environment and processes with less than six months to go on a project the size of OSX would be sheer lunacy and a bigger disaster (by far) than delivering it 6 months late. And then after the project Apple would either be stuck with oversized staff, or they would have to lay off the people who just finished their product for them and are therefore best equipped to track down bugs (which are inevitable, especially with new programmers on the team).
No conspiracy theories are needed here.
The attitude prevalent in this thread is all wrong. Delaying 10.5 by 4 months is a good thing, not a bad one. Much of the OSX development team continues to work on 10.5, so it will end up being a better product thanks to the delay. And really, what is the rush to get it out in June? We have a fine OS already, and while some of the new features are shiny and cool we have managed to live without them for a long time. The only people really hurt by this are developers who want to release software products that require 10.5... but you make your planning choices and you live with them. Its always possible for any project to slip its schedule.
Thank goodness for some sanity. I would have thought most of the people here would have at least heard of 'The Mythical Man Month'.
Insinuate? Heck, I'll say it outright. I don't understand the need to use loaded terminology for this. Your current computer is not broken. Tiger, as a whole, is not broken. If it was, you probably wouldn't be using it.
Leopard isn't needed and Tiger is all that people need to do everything they want to do. A few years from now, that will change, but four months is nothing.
I don't have a problem with Apple taking a few more months because I don't want Leopard to be broken on release.
Don't reduce the argument to absurdity and act as if it will be years before Leopard is released.
Using such an argument means there's no need for Leopard at all. Apple has achieved all they need to with Tiger and that's it. No need to update again. After all, "your computer is not broken."
People upgrade because they want to. When people trade in their cars for a new one, it's not because they have to. It's not because the car they are buying is much better than the one it is replacing. They do it because they can.
Most people ought to care less about the time Leopard arrives. After all, we all know that airlines never arrive on time. We all pretty much predict that's the case. The same ought to be applied to hardware and software too. Just assume it'll be late, and just sometimes...you'll be right.
You know nothing about software development, that much is clear. Hiring top people who are familiar with the code, the platform, the objectives, and the working environment and processes with less than six months to go on a project the size of OSX would be sheer lunacy and a bigger disaster (by far) than delivering it 6 months late. And then after the project Apple would either be stuck with oversized staff, or they would have to lay off the people who just finished their product for them and are therefore best equipped to track down bugs (which are inevitable, especially with new programmers on the team).
No conspiracy theories are needed here.
The attitude prevalent in this thread is all wrong. Delaying 10.5 by 4 months is a good thing, not a bad one. Much of the OSX development team continues to work on 10.5, so it will end up being a better product thanks to the delay. And really, what is the rush to get it out in June? We have a fine OS already, and while some of the new features are shiny and cool we have managed to live without them for a long time. The only people really hurt by this are developers who want to release software products that require 10.5... but you make your planning choices and you live with them. Its always possible for any project to slip its schedule.
Kudos! The voice of experience, the voice of reason on a board populated with too many "chicken littles".
Very well said, you make perfect sense, however I would like Apple to just spell it out and not make excuses and lies. Just say .... "guys we gave it a hell of a try, but then we ran into problems with all the new fangled features. Adding a, b, c, d, turned out a lot harder than we figured, so it is going to take us a few more months".
Be honest to the customers.
Well, which do you want EagerDragon? First you say you don't want them to make excuses, then, as an example of what you would like them to say, you give another excuse. You don't want them to lie, but at the same time, you want them to lie about why it's being delayed ("we ran into problems with new fangled features," when actually it was because of developers working on another product, which is what they said). If you can't figure out what you want from Apple, think about what the committee's of people at Apple are having to go through trying to figure out what to tell people like you.
This is what I think happened. Some reporter asked the spokesperson at Apple if the rumors that there would be a delay were true. Until a committee sits down and decides whether there will be a delay, then there is no delay. So the person said there was no delay. It's as simple as that. That's called "life in a major corporation." You can contrast that to "life in EagerDragon's head." Life is a pretty complicated game sometimes. Why don't you join us?
Most people ought to care less about the time Leopard arrives. After all, we all know that airlines never arrive on time. We all pretty much predict that's the case. The same ought to be applied to hardware and software too. Just assume it'll be late, and just sometimes...you'll be right.
That's a ridiculous comparison. One is a service. The other is a product. Getting accurate estimates of how long it takes to go between two points is logistically far simpler than accurately estimating the design and development time of any electronic or software product.
Software development might look like magic to you but the process is much more difficult to predict how long it's going to take doing something that hasn't necessarily been done before than it is to predict the timeliness of a service that has been done thousands of times so that the variables are much more refined.
You know nothing about software development, that much is clear. Hiring top people who are familiar with the code, the platform, the objectives, and the working environment and processes with less than six months to go on a project the size of OSX would be sheer lunacy and a bigger disaster (by far) than delivering it 6 months late. And then after the project Apple would either be stuck with oversized staff, or they would have to lay off the people who just finished their product for them and are therefore best equipped to track down bugs (which are inevitable, especially with new programmers on the team).
Well, you aren't paying attention to what I said. It's hardly likely that Apple just learned of these problems. They have been creeping up bit by bit. It should have become obvious long ago that this would be a difficult ride.
You also have to read more of my posts on this before you make such a silly, overriding comment on what I know.
I also said that Apple should have had teams in place before they started these projects, that would be adequate. Obviously, they didn't.
Don't be so defensive.
Quote:
No conspiracy theories are needed here.
No. But Apple has never been above using one thing as an excuse for another. I have no doubt that they had to remove staff from the main 10.5 project to work on the iPhone. But, that just proves that what I said about inadequate staff is true.
Quote:
The attitude prevalent in this thread is all wrong. Delaying 10.5 by 4 months is a good thing, not a bad one. Much of the OSX development team continues to work on 10.5, so it will end up being a better product thanks to the delay. And really, what is the rush to get it out in June? We have a fine OS already, and while some of the new features are shiny and cool we have managed to live without them for a long time. The only people really hurt by this are developers who want to release software products that require 10.5... but you make your planning choices and you live with them. Its always possible for any project to slip its schedule.
I have no problem with the delay. I've always been among the first here to tell people to calm down about release dates. I always stand up for a quality product, rather than a botched, rushed one. For that reason, I would always prefer to see a release come out near the end of the expected time instead of it's being released as early as possible to meet some nebulus artificial date. And if it's going to be late, that's fime as well.
Insinuate? Heck, I'll say it outright. I don't understand the need to use loaded terminology for this. Your current computer is not broken. Tiger, as a whole, is not broken. If it was, you probably wouldn't be using it.
Leopard isn't needed and Tiger is all that people need to do everything they want to do. A few years from now, that will change, but four months is nothing.
I don't have a problem with Apple taking a few more months because I don't want Leopard to be broken on release.
Don't reduce the argument to absurdity and act as if it will be years before Leopard is released.
I can understand that. I'm just saying that *we* don't need it so desperately that four months is an undue burden. I think you've been saying things to that effect too.
Thank goodness for some sanity. I would have thought most of the people here would have at least heard of 'The Mythical Man Month'.
Just like Programmer is missing the point, you are as well.
This has nothing to do with your "Mythical Man Month".
What this has to do with is that Apple themselves just announced, though not so directly, that they don't have enough people do do both projects, and get them both out on time.
This is Apple's own statement about moving staff from the main 10.5 line to the offshoot, not mine!
Even if we are to believe what they said 100%, it shows that they are short staffed.
If we can figure that they are also encountering more problems than they thought they would, back when the projects began, then we can also figure that they didn't do a proper accessment when they started.
It's truely absurd to say that if they didn't spot problems as they went, that they couldn't have increased their staffing level a bit at a time as developement went forward.
Dispite Programmer's insistance that I don't know anything, I think his knowledge is less than he claims, as I've never seen companies fail to add to staffing as projects went forward, and they saw that they were falling behind, or needed more bodies.
If it's being thought that I'm saying that 6 months ago, Apple should have doubled it's staff in one big push, well, that's absurd!
I can understand that. I'm just saying that *we* don't need it so desperately that four months is an undue burden. I think you've been saying things to that effect too.
I have no problem with waiting. I've made this clear many times over the years, which it's so funny that people who have been here for a long time read one post I write, don't understand that.
My only gripe, and it's not a really big one, is that Apple is NOT always as up front about what is going on as they could be. They do so much in the dark, partly to conceal any problems they may be having. It isn't only to hide features from the enemy. Anyone who thinks that is just naive.
There is a lot of self deception when running a project. It's no different from putting a Broadway play on. The procedure is amazingly the same.
And the same problems occur. How many dead ends has Apple gone down over the years? Quite a few!
You can get all the way to the end before you release it and see it won't work. And sometimes, you need an outside, or new eye, to see the problems.
Just like Programmer is missing the point, you are as well.
This has nothing to do with your "Mythical Man Month".
What this has to do with is that Apple themselves just announced, though not so directly, that they don't have enough people do do both projects, and get them both out on time.
This is Apple's own statement about moving staff from the main 10.5 line to the offshoot, not mine!
Even if we are to believe what they said 100%, it shows that they are short staffed.
If we can figure that they are also encountering more problems than they thought they would, back when the projects began, then we can also figure that they didn't do a proper accessment when they started.
It's truely absurd to say that if they didn't spot problems as they went, that they couldn't have increased their staffing level a bit at a time as developement went forward.
Dispite Programmer's insistance that I don't know anything, I think his knowledge is less than he claims, as I've never seen companies fail to add to staffing as projects went forward, and they saw that they were falling behind, or needed more bodies.
If it's being thought that I'm saying that 6 months ago, Apple should have doubled it's staff in one big push, well, that's absurd!
But I think the point that everyone is missing here (those who are subscribing to conspiracies or lies) is that this is just what Apple said. Their release says '.. we HAD to BORROW some key software engineering and QA....' [emphasis mine]. This is saying 'we misjudged and are adapting as we can' . No company is simply going to say 'we screwed up'. Can you imagine the reaction here if they did, given the reaction to what they did say??? And, as Programmer said, it still may make more sense, even half way though the project (about 1-year ago from the timeline presented for both iPhone and Leopard) to risk the delay of one of the project rather than staffing up in such a way that they would end up overstaffed. They took a risk, and lost, and a very minor loss at that and that's basically what they said.
But I think the point that everyone is missing here (those who are subscribing to conspiracies or lies) is that this is just what Apple said. Their release says '.. we HAD to BORROW some key software engineering and QA....' [emphasis mine]. This is saying 'we misjudged and are adapting as we can' . No company is simply going to say 'we screwed up'. Can you imagine the reaction here if they did, given the reaction to what they did say??? And, as Programmer said, it still may make more sense, even half way though the project (about 1-year ago from the timeline presented for both iPhone and Leopard) to risk the delay of one of the project rather than staffing up in such a way that they would end up overstaffed. They took a risk, and lost, and a very minor loss at that and that's basically what they said.
Of course, while we all love to make our own pronouncements, others are saying this as well.
MS has long had perhaps 20 times as many programmers as Apple, possible much more than even that. They need them so they can run many different projects at once.
I'm not saying that their projects are devoid from error. We know better than that. But those problems are likely for other reasons. But now that Apple is emulating MS in trying to get its OS into other devices (and, yes, I do know that Windows Mobile products aren't really Windows, but they are an OS), Apple has to have sufficiently complete programming teams that are fully competent on their own..
With the problems with Aperture, we see that they don't. If anyone thinks that that problem is not extending to their OS products, they are obviously wrong, from Apple's own statement of need.
And how would they be overstaffed?
If they are understaffed now, why would staffing to full levels leave them overstaffed? It isn't as though they are wrapping up all of their OS projects.
When 10.5 is out, they will still need a significant staff to continue development on that track, with the rest of them going to to work on 10.6.
The same is true for the other projects. From Apple's own mouth, the OS on the phone is a complete OS, except for what they removed that was unnecessary for that small device. They then added what was needed for the phone. The same is true for the ATv.
Does anyone here believe that continued development of both of these other OS X versions is going to really slow down? If anything, the will be adding more to them.
Sure. A mid-size application versus two Operating Systems with 3 versions. The embedded OS X and the Client/Server flagship OS.
There is no comparison.
No joke, hotshot. There's no question working on the flagship OS is tougher than working on "a mid-size application", as you put it.
Like a number of others, you've missed the point. Apple's ability to grow is directly tied to its ability as a company to deliver. I'm hard pressed to remember the last time Apple failed to deliver an OS release when Steve said they would. I certainly believe this is the first refresh missed during the OS X, era, the Mac OS X Public Beta aside. If I'm wrong, please refresh my memory.
What I was stressing in my post was to look at the long game. With this delay, Apple has just demonstrated it has issues, as a company, in delivering multiple software projects. They seem to be able to deliver either an OS update, or an application (new or new version) project within a year, but not both. This could well prove a problem going forward.
In fairness to Apple, it stands to reason their programmers are really working on three OS updates at once: Mac OS X, Mac OS X Server, and Mac OS X Embedded. Under the best of circumstances, this would tax any software company.
No joke, hotshot. There's no question working on the flagship OS is tougher than working on "a mid-size application", as you put it.
Like a number of others, you've missed the point. Apple's ability to grow is directly tied to its ability as a company to deliver. I'm hard pressed to remember the last time Apple failed to deliver an OS release when Steve said they would. I certainly believe this is the first refresh missed during the OS X, era, the Mac OS X Public Beta aside. If I'm wrong, please refresh my memory.
What I was stressing in my post was to look at the long game. With this delay, Apple has just demonstrated it has issues, as a company, in delivering multiple software projects. They seem to be able to deliver either an OS update, or an application (new or new version) project within a year, but not both. This could well prove a problem going forward.
In fairness to Apple, it stands to reason their programmers are really working on three OS updates at once: Mac OS X, Mac OS X Server, and Mac OS X Embedded. Under the best of circumstances, this would tax any software company.
That's right. The concern is not that Apple won't deliver a quality product, but that it is stretching its resources in doing several of them at once.
But I think the point that everyone is missing here (those who are subscribing to conspiracies or lies) is that this is just what Apple said. Their release says '.. we HAD to BORROW some key software engineering and QA....' [emphasis mine]. This is saying 'we misjudged and are adapting as we can' . No company is simply going to say 'we screwed up'. Can you imagine the reaction here if they did, given the reaction to what they did say???
I think that's one standard that I think should change. No one likes to admit mistakes, but when a person denies mistakes that are almost plainly obvious to seemingly anyone else, then I think the credibility loss is worse. The problem is that credibility loss is often more insidious than an outcry from admitting a mistake, so the losses aren't noticed immediately.
We don't know when the labor pool was raided, but I do believe that should have been a time to consider hiring more developers, even if they weren't necessarily as experienced, but so that they can eventually get that experience so future development isn't hampered like that again.
I don't see iPhone going bust, so it would need constant development for the next revision, just like OS X. Both projects will always have more work that needs to be done.
Comments
It's not a real site or even a registered domain, just a suggested site name for humor.
I was hoping it was someone else with my name.
this issue is much different from that. While Apple is blaming the iPhone for thios delay. While I think that is, to some extent, a smokescreen, it's likely to be true to some extent, though not to the extent they are saying.
This is, no doubt, the biggest OS X release Apple has ever made. Apple is big, and rich enough now to be able to hire some more people if they need them. If they are shorthanded, they could have done that. Good coders are not that hard to find, esp. in this environment with much work going overseas.
You know nothing about software development, that much is clear. Hiring top people who are familiar with the code, the platform, the objectives, and the working environment and processes with less than six months to go on a project the size of OSX would be sheer lunacy and a bigger disaster (by far) than delivering it 6 months late. And then after the project Apple would either be stuck with oversized staff, or they would have to lay off the people who just finished their product for them and are therefore best equipped to track down bugs (which are inevitable, especially with new programmers on the team).
No conspiracy theories are needed here.
The attitude prevalent in this thread is all wrong. Delaying 10.5 by 4 months is a good thing, not a bad one. Much of the OSX development team continues to work on 10.5, so it will end up being a better product thanks to the delay. And really, what is the rush to get it out in June? We have a fine OS already, and while some of the new features are shiny and cool we have managed to live without them for a long time. The only people really hurt by this are developers who want to release software products that require 10.5... but you make your planning choices and you live with them. Its always possible for any project to slip its schedule.
You know nothing about software development, that much is clear. Hiring top people who are familiar with the code, the platform, the objectives, and the working environment and processes with less than six months to go on a project the size of OSX would be sheer lunacy and a bigger disaster (by far) than delivering it 6 months late. And then after the project Apple would either be stuck with oversized staff, or they would have to lay off the people who just finished their product for them and are therefore best equipped to track down bugs (which are inevitable, especially with new programmers on the team).
No conspiracy theories are needed here.
The attitude prevalent in this thread is all wrong. Delaying 10.5 by 4 months is a good thing, not a bad one. Much of the OSX development team continues to work on 10.5, so it will end up being a better product thanks to the delay. And really, what is the rush to get it out in June? We have a fine OS already, and while some of the new features are shiny and cool we have managed to live without them for a long time. The only people really hurt by this are developers who want to release software products that require 10.5... but you make your planning choices and you live with them. Its always possible for any project to slip its schedule.
One must be careful using such an argument because it's a slippery slope. To admit that there is no need to rush Leopard is also admitting that there's no need of it at all. If Tiger does everything that people need to do today, there's no fundamental reason to work on leopard at all.
Apple will make the case as to why we need Leopard and not Tiger (or prior cats) in the months ahead. But to suggest that Apple can take all the time it wants to release Leopard is to also insinuate that Leopard isn't needed and that Tiger is all that people need to do everything they want to do.
I believe that Apple is making the right choice to delay Leopard, but in saying so, I also hold them accountable and will be very upset with them if we're issued updates immediately due to stability issues. They've worked on Leopard longer than any other cat thus far. That fact had better be reflected in the sheen of the OS when it is released.
One must be careful using such an argument because it's a slippery slope. To admit that there is no need to rush Leopard is also admitting that there's no need of it at all. If Tiger does everything that people need to do today, there's no fundamental reason to work on leopard at all.
True, although the extra time can and will translate to a better delivered product which gives the users more reason to want it. There is an obsessive now-now-now attitude amongst consumers and who don't seem to realize that there is a trade off between early delivery and quality. Four months will fly by before you know it, and is nothing compared to a decade ago when Apple's OS releases slipped by years before eventually being cancelled completely.
But to suggest that Apple can take all the time it wants to release Leopard is to also insinuate that Leopard isn't needed and that Tiger is all that people need to do everything they want to do.
I wasn't suggesting that they take an arbitrarily long time. The project planning by Apple in the last few years has been very impressive and suggests that they know how to figure out how much time they need to finish a product (as opposed to just continuing to work on it indefinitely). As anyone who has actually brought a product to market knows, there is a skill and an art to finishing.
Apple will make the case as to why we need Leopard and not Tiger (or prior cats) in the months ahead. But to suggest that Apple can take all the time it wants to release Leopard is to also insinuate that Leopard isn't needed and that Tiger is all that people need to do everything they want to do.
Insinuate? Heck, I'll say it outright. I don't understand the need to use loaded terminology for this. Your current computer is not broken. Tiger, as a whole, is not broken. If it was, you probably wouldn't be using it.
Leopard isn't needed and Tiger is all that people need to do everything they want to do. A few years from now, that will change, but four months is nothing.
I don't have a problem with Apple taking a few more months because I don't want Leopard to be broken on release.
Don't reduce the argument to absurdity and act as if it will be years before Leopard is released.
You know nothing about software development, that much is clear. Hiring top people who are familiar with the code, the platform, the objectives, and the working environment and processes with less than six months to go on a project the size of OSX would be sheer lunacy and a bigger disaster (by far) than delivering it 6 months late. And then after the project Apple would either be stuck with oversized staff, or they would have to lay off the people who just finished their product for them and are therefore best equipped to track down bugs (which are inevitable, especially with new programmers on the team).
No conspiracy theories are needed here.
The attitude prevalent in this thread is all wrong. Delaying 10.5 by 4 months is a good thing, not a bad one. Much of the OSX development team continues to work on 10.5, so it will end up being a better product thanks to the delay. And really, what is the rush to get it out in June? We have a fine OS already, and while some of the new features are shiny and cool we have managed to live without them for a long time. The only people really hurt by this are developers who want to release software products that require 10.5... but you make your planning choices and you live with them. Its always possible for any project to slip its schedule.
Thank goodness for some sanity. I would have thought most of the people here would have at least heard of 'The Mythical Man Month'.
Insinuate? Heck, I'll say it outright. I don't understand the need to use loaded terminology for this. Your current computer is not broken. Tiger, as a whole, is not broken. If it was, you probably wouldn't be using it.
Leopard isn't needed and Tiger is all that people need to do everything they want to do. A few years from now, that will change, but four months is nothing.
I don't have a problem with Apple taking a few more months because I don't want Leopard to be broken on release.
Don't reduce the argument to absurdity and act as if it will be years before Leopard is released.
Using such an argument means there's no need for Leopard at all. Apple has achieved all they need to with Tiger and that's it. No need to update again. After all, "your computer is not broken."
People upgrade because they want to. When people trade in their cars for a new one, it's not because they have to. It's not because the car they are buying is much better than the one it is replacing. They do it because they can.
Most people ought to care less about the time Leopard arrives. After all, we all know that airlines never arrive on time. We all pretty much predict that's the case. The same ought to be applied to hardware and software too. Just assume it'll be late, and just sometimes...you'll be right.
You know nothing about software development, that much is clear. Hiring top people who are familiar with the code, the platform, the objectives, and the working environment and processes with less than six months to go on a project the size of OSX would be sheer lunacy and a bigger disaster (by far) than delivering it 6 months late. And then after the project Apple would either be stuck with oversized staff, or they would have to lay off the people who just finished their product for them and are therefore best equipped to track down bugs (which are inevitable, especially with new programmers on the team).
No conspiracy theories are needed here.
The attitude prevalent in this thread is all wrong. Delaying 10.5 by 4 months is a good thing, not a bad one. Much of the OSX development team continues to work on 10.5, so it will end up being a better product thanks to the delay. And really, what is the rush to get it out in June? We have a fine OS already, and while some of the new features are shiny and cool we have managed to live without them for a long time. The only people really hurt by this are developers who want to release software products that require 10.5... but you make your planning choices and you live with them. Its always possible for any project to slip its schedule.
Kudos! The voice of experience, the voice of reason on a board populated with too many "chicken littles".
Very well said, you make perfect sense, however I would like Apple to just spell it out and not make excuses and lies. Just say .... "guys we gave it a hell of a try, but then we ran into problems with all the new fangled features. Adding a, b, c, d, turned out a lot harder than we figured, so it is going to take us a few more months".
Be honest to the customers.
Well, which do you want EagerDragon? First you say you don't want them to make excuses, then, as an example of what you would like them to say, you give another excuse. You don't want them to lie, but at the same time, you want them to lie about why it's being delayed ("we ran into problems with new fangled features," when actually it was because of developers working on another product, which is what they said). If you can't figure out what you want from Apple, think about what the committee's of people at Apple are having to go through trying to figure out what to tell people like you.
This is what I think happened. Some reporter asked the spokesperson at Apple if the rumors that there would be a delay were true. Until a committee sits down and decides whether there will be a delay, then there is no delay. So the person said there was no delay. It's as simple as that. That's called "life in a major corporation." You can contrast that to "life in EagerDragon's head." Life is a pretty complicated game sometimes. Why don't you join us?
Most people ought to care less about the time Leopard arrives. After all, we all know that airlines never arrive on time. We all pretty much predict that's the case. The same ought to be applied to hardware and software too. Just assume it'll be late, and just sometimes...you'll be right.
That's a ridiculous comparison. One is a service. The other is a product. Getting accurate estimates of how long it takes to go between two points is logistically far simpler than accurately estimating the design and development time of any electronic or software product.
Software development might look like magic to you but the process is much more difficult to predict how long it's going to take doing something that hasn't necessarily been done before than it is to predict the timeliness of a service that has been done thousands of times so that the variables are much more refined.
You know nothing about software development, that much is clear. Hiring top people who are familiar with the code, the platform, the objectives, and the working environment and processes with less than six months to go on a project the size of OSX would be sheer lunacy and a bigger disaster (by far) than delivering it 6 months late. And then after the project Apple would either be stuck with oversized staff, or they would have to lay off the people who just finished their product for them and are therefore best equipped to track down bugs (which are inevitable, especially with new programmers on the team).
Well, you aren't paying attention to what I said. It's hardly likely that Apple just learned of these problems. They have been creeping up bit by bit. It should have become obvious long ago that this would be a difficult ride.
You also have to read more of my posts on this before you make such a silly, overriding comment on what I know.
I also said that Apple should have had teams in place before they started these projects, that would be adequate. Obviously, they didn't.
Don't be so defensive.
No conspiracy theories are needed here.
No. But Apple has never been above using one thing as an excuse for another. I have no doubt that they had to remove staff from the main 10.5 project to work on the iPhone. But, that just proves that what I said about inadequate staff is true.
The attitude prevalent in this thread is all wrong. Delaying 10.5 by 4 months is a good thing, not a bad one. Much of the OSX development team continues to work on 10.5, so it will end up being a better product thanks to the delay. And really, what is the rush to get it out in June? We have a fine OS already, and while some of the new features are shiny and cool we have managed to live without them for a long time. The only people really hurt by this are developers who want to release software products that require 10.5... but you make your planning choices and you live with them. Its always possible for any project to slip its schedule.
I have no problem with the delay. I've always been among the first here to tell people to calm down about release dates. I always stand up for a quality product, rather than a botched, rushed one. For that reason, I would always prefer to see a release come out near the end of the expected time instead of it's being released as early as possible to meet some nebulus artificial date. And if it's going to be late, that's fime as well.
But, let's not fool ourselves as to the reason.
Insinuate? Heck, I'll say it outright. I don't understand the need to use loaded terminology for this. Your current computer is not broken. Tiger, as a whole, is not broken. If it was, you probably wouldn't be using it.
Leopard isn't needed and Tiger is all that people need to do everything they want to do. A few years from now, that will change, but four months is nothing.
I don't have a problem with Apple taking a few more months because I don't want Leopard to be broken on release.
Don't reduce the argument to absurdity and act as if it will be years before Leopard is released.
We may not "need" Leopard, but Apple does.
We may not "need" Leopard, but Apple does.
I can understand that. I'm just saying that *we* don't need it so desperately that four months is an undue burden. I think you've been saying things to that effect too.
Thank goodness for some sanity. I would have thought most of the people here would have at least heard of 'The Mythical Man Month'.
Just like Programmer is missing the point, you are as well.
This has nothing to do with your "Mythical Man Month".
What this has to do with is that Apple themselves just announced, though not so directly, that they don't have enough people do do both projects, and get them both out on time.
This is Apple's own statement about moving staff from the main 10.5 line to the offshoot, not mine!
Even if we are to believe what they said 100%, it shows that they are short staffed.
If we can figure that they are also encountering more problems than they thought they would, back when the projects began, then we can also figure that they didn't do a proper accessment when they started.
It's truely absurd to say that if they didn't spot problems as they went, that they couldn't have increased their staffing level a bit at a time as developement went forward.
Dispite Programmer's insistance that I don't know anything, I think his knowledge is less than he claims, as I've never seen companies fail to add to staffing as projects went forward, and they saw that they were falling behind, or needed more bodies.
If it's being thought that I'm saying that 6 months ago, Apple should have doubled it's staff in one big push, well, that's absurd!
I can understand that. I'm just saying that *we* don't need it so desperately that four months is an undue burden. I think you've been saying things to that effect too.
I have no problem with waiting. I've made this clear many times over the years, which it's so funny that people who have been here for a long time read one post I write, don't understand that.
My only gripe, and it's not a really big one, is that Apple is NOT always as up front about what is going on as they could be. They do so much in the dark, partly to conceal any problems they may be having. It isn't only to hide features from the enemy. Anyone who thinks that is just naive.
There is a lot of self deception when running a project. It's no different from putting a Broadway play on. The procedure is amazingly the same.
And the same problems occur. How many dead ends has Apple gone down over the years? Quite a few!
You can get all the way to the end before you release it and see it won't work. And sometimes, you need an outside, or new eye, to see the problems.
Just like Programmer is missing the point, you are as well.
This has nothing to do with your "Mythical Man Month".
What this has to do with is that Apple themselves just announced, though not so directly, that they don't have enough people do do both projects, and get them both out on time.
This is Apple's own statement about moving staff from the main 10.5 line to the offshoot, not mine!
Even if we are to believe what they said 100%, it shows that they are short staffed.
If we can figure that they are also encountering more problems than they thought they would, back when the projects began, then we can also figure that they didn't do a proper accessment when they started.
It's truely absurd to say that if they didn't spot problems as they went, that they couldn't have increased their staffing level a bit at a time as developement went forward.
Dispite Programmer's insistance that I don't know anything, I think his knowledge is less than he claims, as I've never seen companies fail to add to staffing as projects went forward, and they saw that they were falling behind, or needed more bodies.
If it's being thought that I'm saying that 6 months ago, Apple should have doubled it's staff in one big push, well, that's absurd!
But I think the point that everyone is missing here (those who are subscribing to conspiracies or lies) is that this is just what Apple said. Their release says '.. we HAD to BORROW some key software engineering and QA....' [emphasis mine]. This is saying 'we misjudged and are adapting as we can' . No company is simply going to say 'we screwed up'. Can you imagine the reaction here if they did, given the reaction to what they did say??? And, as Programmer said, it still may make more sense, even half way though the project (about 1-year ago from the timeline presented for both iPhone and Leopard) to risk the delay of one of the project rather than staffing up in such a way that they would end up overstaffed. They took a risk, and lost, and a very minor loss at that and that's basically what they said.
But I think the point that everyone is missing here (those who are subscribing to conspiracies or lies) is that this is just what Apple said. Their release says '.. we HAD to BORROW some key software engineering and QA....' [emphasis mine]. This is saying 'we misjudged and are adapting as we can' . No company is simply going to say 'we screwed up'. Can you imagine the reaction here if they did, given the reaction to what they did say??? And, as Programmer said, it still may make more sense, even half way though the project (about 1-year ago from the timeline presented for both iPhone and Leopard) to risk the delay of one of the project rather than staffing up in such a way that they would end up overstaffed. They took a risk, and lost, and a very minor loss at that and that's basically what they said.
Of course, while we all love to make our own pronouncements, others are saying this as well.
MS has long had perhaps 20 times as many programmers as Apple, possible much more than even that. They need them so they can run many different projects at once.
I'm not saying that their projects are devoid from error. We know better than that. But those problems are likely for other reasons. But now that Apple is emulating MS in trying to get its OS into other devices (and, yes, I do know that Windows Mobile products aren't really Windows, but they are an OS), Apple has to have sufficiently complete programming teams that are fully competent on their own..
With the problems with Aperture, we see that they don't. If anyone thinks that that problem is not extending to their OS products, they are obviously wrong, from Apple's own statement of need.
And how would they be overstaffed?
If they are understaffed now, why would staffing to full levels leave them overstaffed? It isn't as though they are wrapping up all of their OS projects.
When 10.5 is out, they will still need a significant staff to continue development on that track, with the rest of them going to to work on 10.6.
The same is true for the other projects. From Apple's own mouth, the OS on the phone is a complete OS, except for what they removed that was unnecessary for that small device. They then added what was needed for the phone. The same is true for the ATv.
Does anyone here believe that continued development of both of these other OS X versions is going to really slow down? If anything, the will be adding more to them.
Sure. A mid-size application versus two Operating Systems with 3 versions. The embedded OS X and the Client/Server flagship OS.
There is no comparison.
No joke, hotshot. There's no question working on the flagship OS is tougher than working on "a mid-size application", as you put it.
Like a number of others, you've missed the point. Apple's ability to grow is directly tied to its ability as a company to deliver. I'm hard pressed to remember the last time Apple failed to deliver an OS release when Steve said they would. I certainly believe this is the first refresh missed during the OS X, era, the Mac OS X Public Beta aside. If I'm wrong, please refresh my memory.
What I was stressing in my post was to look at the long game. With this delay, Apple has just demonstrated it has issues, as a company, in delivering multiple software projects. They seem to be able to deliver either an OS update, or an application (new or new version) project within a year, but not both. This could well prove a problem going forward.
In fairness to Apple, it stands to reason their programmers are really working on three OS updates at once: Mac OS X, Mac OS X Server, and Mac OS X Embedded. Under the best of circumstances, this would tax any software company.
No joke, hotshot. There's no question working on the flagship OS is tougher than working on "a mid-size application", as you put it.
Like a number of others, you've missed the point. Apple's ability to grow is directly tied to its ability as a company to deliver. I'm hard pressed to remember the last time Apple failed to deliver an OS release when Steve said they would. I certainly believe this is the first refresh missed during the OS X, era, the Mac OS X Public Beta aside. If I'm wrong, please refresh my memory.
What I was stressing in my post was to look at the long game. With this delay, Apple has just demonstrated it has issues, as a company, in delivering multiple software projects. They seem to be able to deliver either an OS update, or an application (new or new version) project within a year, but not both. This could well prove a problem going forward.
In fairness to Apple, it stands to reason their programmers are really working on three OS updates at once: Mac OS X, Mac OS X Server, and Mac OS X Embedded. Under the best of circumstances, this would tax any software company.
That's right. The concern is not that Apple won't deliver a quality product, but that it is stretching its resources in doing several of them at once.
But I think the point that everyone is missing here (those who are subscribing to conspiracies or lies) is that this is just what Apple said. Their release says '.. we HAD to BORROW some key software engineering and QA....' [emphasis mine]. This is saying 'we misjudged and are adapting as we can' . No company is simply going to say 'we screwed up'. Can you imagine the reaction here if they did, given the reaction to what they did say???
I think that's one standard that I think should change. No one likes to admit mistakes, but when a person denies mistakes that are almost plainly obvious to seemingly anyone else, then I think the credibility loss is worse. The problem is that credibility loss is often more insidious than an outcry from admitting a mistake, so the losses aren't noticed immediately.
We don't know when the labor pool was raided, but I do believe that should have been a time to consider hiring more developers, even if they weren't necessarily as experienced, but so that they can eventually get that experience so future development isn't hampered like that again.
I don't see iPhone going bust, so it would need constant development for the next revision, just like OS X. Both projects will always have more work that needs to be done.