I think we are starting to see the problem with Apple's 5-year exclusive contract with ATT. 5 years is a very long time in the world of mobile phones, and it's prevented Apple from branching out to other carries in the US earlier. This has allowed Android to build up momentum and Apple hasn't been allowed to respond. If/when iPhone becomes available on other US carriers, it will be interesting to see how hard Apple fights back.
I also wonder what the terms of Apple's contract with ATT said in respect to other models and if that's been why Apple has stuck with only having a single (more-or-less) version of the iPhone? It's a big Android advantage that there are multiple handsets available so users can pick what suits their needs and/or style. Apple shouldn't license iOS, that would be foolish. But they should create a family of iPhones. Just like the have a family of laptops, of desktops, and of iPods. (And even for all those other families, Apple should diversify. The volume is high enough to justify Apple offering greater choices in their lineups.)
There are still a lot of people who have no interest owning a smartphone, but would love a phone that easily syncs to their computer for contacts and music only. With the new nano, Apple appears to think there is utility in a 1.7" touch screen. Now how about an iPhone nano (perhaps a flip-phone). That would get more people using Apple's devices and provide a future pool of potential smartphone owners in the Apple camp before they even consider Android.
Apple is not in the same business as the other two. Apple is a Consumer Electronics company. The other two are software companies.
Au contraire... Apple is very much a software company, and a music company and an advertising company and much much more.
While Apple is famous for its industrial hardware design, it is the Mac OS and the iOS user experience that differentiates Apple from the from the rest...
Google and it's partners are trying so hard to copy Apple that they will lose their souls trying as Apple redefines market after market after market ...including the Television and advertising market...
God what a shower of responses. If we just look at the Mac in the past decade and the traction it's gaining we see that it's the second most popular type of computer IN THE WORLD. And it's laptop sales are nearly reaching to the top. The fact is iPhone's got massive market share and if Android doesn't deliver as good as experience as iPhone many people will convert. We don't have to compare, to see which one's better and is getting more coverage... yes folks iPhone. I just see Android as another phone OS in the 'other' section. Which makes the other section quite big I know.
Apple is not in the same business as the other two. Apple is a Consumer Electronics company. The other two are software companies.
Why do u think Apple is not a software company? Because Press said so? Because Steve said so? What is the prerequisite for a company to be called a software company?
God what a shower of responses. If we just look at the Mac in the past decade and the traction it's gaining we see that it's the second most popular type of computer IN THE WORLD.
Yeah, and Zune is the second most popular type of MP3 player IN THE WORLD.
Do you really care? Both the Zune and the Mac are all but irrelevant in their respective markets.
yes, you're correct. But those figures include iPhone 4 but not the Droid X or Droid 2 or any of the Samsung Galaxy S series phones. There's no way iPhone can remain first with that kind of multi-carrier/manufacturer model.
They do not - the figures everybody quote are from the second quarter 2010, before the iPhone4 was launced. The next quarterly reports will include the iP4 along with the D-X, D-2 and others, so let's wait and see till then.
I can see that the iOS may be surpassed globally (in total market share) by Android in the future, but it hasn't happend yet, not by a long shot.
Don't think the Galaxy Tab will be a mega success either, not with a price almost twice that of the iPad (saw it on the website of the Samsung importer in Norway). I simply don't see the Droid'ers flocking around such super-expensive devices...
Why do u think Apple is not a software company? Because Press said so? Because Steve said so? What is the prerequisite for a company to be called a software company?
I don't have a list of requirements, sorry.
But Steve says that they are a mobile device company, which means that they are a CE company.
They have never enjoyed software as a dominant source of revenue.
Au contraire... Apple is very much a software company, and a music company and an advertising company and much much more.
While Apple is famous for its industrial hardware design, it is the Mac OS and the iOS user experience that differentiates Apple from the from the rest...
Google and it's partners are trying so hard to copy Apple that they will lose their souls trying as Apple redefines market after market after market ...including the Television and advertising market...
Time will tell.
Well whenever something ingenious comes out people copy it Morris Mini, Dyson, Hoover, AT&T Telephone, EMI Television and who can forget the SINCLAIR Executive! They come out with cheeper models, better models... and people trade then in with newer models. But Apple has beaten them all. Not many can claim to have come out with colour computers, modern day printers and the modern GUI.
They don't need to license iOS. That would be pointless because the whole point is optimizing the hardware/software combination. There's no way Apple would optimize the software for another manufacturer's hardware. So all you would have is a bunch of crap devices running iOS subpar and taking sales away from Apple. Stupid.
What they need to do is get iPhone on other carriers. ATT only represents about 1/3 of the US mobile market. That gives Android a 3-to-1 addressable customer base advantage over iPhone. That an imbalance Apple needs to fix if they want to compete with Android on a level playing field in the US.
Crap devices running iOS subpar? There are plenty of smartphones that are just as well built if not better than the iPhone running Android with better specs and more hardware features. If those phones ran iOS, it wouldn't have the problems associated with Android (and it wouldn't have the benefits).
Licensing iOS would be perfectly fine, and would net the iOS alot of market share, but it wouldn't serve Apple's end goal of PROFITS.
Yeah, and Zune is the second most popular type of MP3 player IN THE WORLD.
Do you really care? Both the Zune and the Mac are all but irrelevant in their respective markets.
No not really. But Apple should care as it's there achievement. And no the Zune is not irrelevant, and the Mac definitely isn't. No 1 in the Media and Arts, and people who buy comps over $1000, Apple has 91% of that Market. It isn't me with a single minded point of view.
They don't need to license iOS. That would be pointless because the whole point is optimizing the hardware/software combination. There's no way Apple would optimize the software for another manufacturer's hardware. So all you would have is a bunch of crap devices running iOS subpar and taking sales away from Apple. Stupid.
What they need to do is get iPhone on other carriers. ATT only represents about 1/3 of the US mobile market. That gives Android a 3-to-1 addressable customer base advantage over iPhone. That an imbalance Apple needs to fix if they want to compete with Android on a level playing field in the US.
I thought the point was to maximize the return on the investors' investments.
The comment to which you replied was simply and manifestly correct. This is just about as brain-dead simple as it could possibly be. The number 6% was pulled out of the air. It will change over time, and it's anyone guess exactly where it will end up. But the point of the comment to which your replied is essentially correct. The mere fact that iOS will run only on devices manufactured by Apple means that it is destined to a much smaller market share than the Andoid OS. This is a given, and is a guaranteed consequence of the fact that one OS is available to any interested manufacturer and the other OS is not. The question of whether it would be in the best interest of Apple investors for Apple to license iOS to other manufacturers is a different question and one that does not have easy answers. But the comment made by the manufacturer to which you replied is essentially truthful, and it is brain-dead obvious that it is truthful, and the reason why it is truthful is brain-dead obvious.
But Steve says that they are a mobile device company, which means that they are a CE company.
They have never enjoyed software as a dominant source of revenue.
Apple *is* a mobile device company, and a software company and a hardware company and an advertising company and a music company and a book company and a video company and a television company and a microprocessor company and a touch screen company and a track pad company and phone company and a ...
Note that it is the Apple Software that sells the hardware.
Unless Apple licenses iOS, it has no chance of fending off Android. Android will be as ubiquitous as Windows and Apple will be at 6%, again.
You say that like it is a bad thing. Part of what has allowed Apple to avoid anti-trust charges and forced cloning a la Psystar is the lack of dominance in appropriate markets. So long as they continue to make sales and money for the shareholders I doubt they really care what their percent is compared to the rest. In fact, not really giving a darn about what everyone else is doing seems to be a key element in Apple's mindset. Which could be why we don't have certain features like blu-ray in the computers even though everyone else is doing it.
And there is a flaw in this data. They speak of losing market share but isn't the market rising all the time. going from 10% to 9% or whatever doesn't seem like that big of a deal if the market has risen 5-10% from the last time it was measured. Particularly when you consider who had new devices etc release during the month (which tends to cause a jump in numbers). And you add in the detail that the counters ignored a whole set of devices that probably would change the results greatly
Android is gaining share for two reasons: buy-one-get-one firesales and the lack of iPhone on Verizon. The sun is shining for Android now, but the one-two punch of Oracle's lawsuit and iPhone on Verizon will hit Android like nuclear winter. The clock is ticking, Google...
The real reason that Android is gaining market share is that a variety of manufacturers of mobile devices like it and are permitted to use it. Duh.
The lawsuit will likely inhibit Google from being able to do whatever they want to do with Java, but it is exceedingly unlikely that it will have any significant impact on the emergence of Android as the defacto standard operating system for mobile devices manufactured by diverse manufacturers. Very quickly, within one or perhaps two years, it will become apparent that Android is to mobile platforms as Windows is to PCs. That this will in fact happen is manifest, and this is why Oracle was not able to look the other way. It is an absolute certainty that this is going to happen. And it is far better than for it to be a Java platform than something owned lock stock and barrel by Microsoft. Apple's strategy and role in the mobile device arena is clearly destined to be much the same as it is in the personal computer arena. Apple will have a small market share in terms of units but, but this will not accurately reflect their overall presence in the market.
The real reason that Android is gaining market share is that a variety of manufacturers of mobile devices like it and are permitted to use it. Duh.
The lawsuit will likely inhibit Google from being able to do whatever they want to do with Java, but it is exceedingly unlikely that it will have any significant impact on the emergence of Android as the defacto standard operating system for mobile devices manufactured by diverse manufacturers. Very quickly, within one or perhaps two years, it will become apparent that Android is to mobile platforms as Windows is to PCs.
Maybe. This assumes that MS cannot recapture any share they lost to Android with WP7. Android CE makers have no overwhelming loyalty to the platform in the same way that Apple has with iOS, Nokia has with Symbian and RIM with Blackberry.
LG, Samsung, HTC, Sony-Ericsson all are rumored to have WP7 phones in the pipeline. These aren't going to take share from iOS but Android and Symbian.
Unless Apple licenses iOS, it has no chance of fending off Android. Android will be as ubiquitous as Windows and Apple will be at 6%, again.
This again?
The analogy you are looking for isn't Windows vs Mac. It's IBM PC vs. Apple II. That's when Apple saw its dominant market position evaporate.
Remember that Windows rode in on the back of DOS' dominance as an operating system. In fact, DOS was originally required to run Windows up until 1995, when the two where combined. When Mac 128K was introduced, it struggled against a giant: DOS. Mac was never the dominant platform. Windows marketshare grew because it could already run on DOS, and DOS was everywhere. If you were a DOS user, you already invested in PC hardware and software, so why throw that out to buy a Mac when you could just add Windows and a mouse, and run the next generation of GUI programs, like Office or Lotus or WordPerfect?
Remember too that Apple had licensed Mac OS to Mac clone makers (like Bill Gates was publicly suggesting they do), and all it did was further weaken Apple's profits without gaining any marketshare against Windows.
Things are different this time:
they continue to innovate
they focus on the customer experience instead of adding the kitchen sink feature
they are leveraging all their strengths (for example, iPhone and iPad is also fully functional iPods)
they learned how to keep marketshare by building infrastructure and services to their hardware/software platforms
the smartphone market still has a lot of "churn" which means it is not mature yet. Marketshare is anyone's to gain or lose at this point
Apple's long-term strategy for keeping iOS on top seems to be the same one they used to keep iPod dominant: support the hardware with world class infrastructure and services. For example: iTunes and then iTunes Music Store (which has since expanded to include movies, TV shows and now Apps and Books) has kept the iPod unbeatable, long after the novelty of its interface & style wore off (and Zune had stolen it). Apple is following a similar strategy for iOS. They know that the things competitor can copy from the UI or hardware design will be copied (it's already happened).
If Apple ever gets to the point where they're desperate enough to license iOS to clone makers, then they've forgotten all the lessons they've learned and what got them to the top in the first place.
No not really. But Apple should care as it's there achievement. And no the Zune is not irrelevant, and the Mac definitely isn't. No 1 in the Media and Arts, and people who buy comps over $1000, Apple has 91% of that Market. It isn't me with a single minded point of view.
In the computer market as a whole, Macs are not important.
In the niche markets you identify, the Mac sells well.
Regarding your comment about morphing OSX into iOS on the Mac, the very notion of taking something as brilliant as the Mac and crippling it into an iPhone or iPad is the worst idea in the world.
Therefore I'm sure Steve Jobs will be doing it soon. He seems bent on ruining everything he touches.
I'm old enough to recall in the early years of the Mac an Apple execute stating that the Mac OS would be replaced within 10 years. We got OSX which was more like 16 years later. The march to iOS for everything will be a slow one. Every iteration brings a wealth and richness to the platform. Eventually OSX will be replaced but not anytime soon.
I agree that OSX is brilliant and perfect for my needs. The question of it being retired is fueled by Apple's lack of information on the next major iteration of the platform. I honestly believe the Apple rotates their developers around (as Apple has attested to themselves) to have them gain fresh insights. My feeling is that a skeleton crew were working on OSX when iOS 4.0 was being crafted. Now I'm sure OSX 10.7 is in full swing.
I do hope the iLife and iWork teams are back to producing new iterations as well. I'm still wanting Xcode 4.0 badly too.
Comments
I also wonder what the terms of Apple's contract with ATT said in respect to other models and if that's been why Apple has stuck with only having a single (more-or-less) version of the iPhone? It's a big Android advantage that there are multiple handsets available so users can pick what suits their needs and/or style. Apple shouldn't license iOS, that would be foolish. But they should create a family of iPhones. Just like the have a family of laptops, of desktops, and of iPods. (And even for all those other families, Apple should diversify. The volume is high enough to justify Apple offering greater choices in their lineups.)
There are still a lot of people who have no interest owning a smartphone, but would love a phone that easily syncs to their computer for contacts and music only. With the new nano, Apple appears to think there is utility in a 1.7" touch screen. Now how about an iPhone nano (perhaps a flip-phone). That would get more people using Apple's devices and provide a future pool of potential smartphone owners in the Apple camp before they even consider Android.
Apple is not in the same business as the other two. Apple is a Consumer Electronics company. The other two are software companies.
Au contraire... Apple is very much a software company, and a music company and an advertising company and much much more.
While Apple is famous for its industrial hardware design, it is the Mac OS and the iOS user experience that differentiates Apple from the from the rest...
Google and it's partners are trying so hard to copy Apple that they will lose their souls trying as Apple redefines market after market after market ...including the Television and advertising market...
Time will tell.
Apple is not in the same business as the other two. Apple is a Consumer Electronics company. The other two are software companies.
Why do u think Apple is not a software company? Because Press said so? Because Steve said so? What is the prerequisite for a company to be called a software company?
Au contraire... Apple is very much a software company, and a music company and an advertising company and much much more.
The point is the same. Apple marketshare/market cap is not directly comparable to those other two companies.
God what a shower of responses. If we just look at the Mac in the past decade and the traction it's gaining we see that it's the second most popular type of computer IN THE WORLD.
Yeah, and Zune is the second most popular type of MP3 player IN THE WORLD.
Do you really care? Both the Zune and the Mac are all but irrelevant in their respective markets.
yes, you're correct. But those figures include iPhone 4 but not the Droid X or Droid 2 or any of the Samsung Galaxy S series phones. There's no way iPhone can remain first with that kind of multi-carrier/manufacturer model.
They do not - the figures everybody quote are from the second quarter 2010, before the iPhone4 was launced. The next quarterly reports will include the iP4 along with the D-X, D-2 and others, so let's wait and see till then.
I can see that the iOS may be surpassed globally (in total market share) by Android in the future, but it hasn't happend yet, not by a long shot.
Don't think the Galaxy Tab will be a mega success either, not with a price almost twice that of the iPad (saw it on the website of the Samsung importer in Norway). I simply don't see the Droid'ers flocking around such super-expensive devices...
Why do u think Apple is not a software company? Because Press said so? Because Steve said so? What is the prerequisite for a company to be called a software company?
I don't have a list of requirements, sorry.
But Steve says that they are a mobile device company, which means that they are a CE company.
They have never enjoyed software as a dominant source of revenue.
Au contraire... Apple is very much a software company, and a music company and an advertising company and much much more.
While Apple is famous for its industrial hardware design, it is the Mac OS and the iOS user experience that differentiates Apple from the from the rest...
Google and it's partners are trying so hard to copy Apple that they will lose their souls trying as Apple redefines market after market after market ...including the Television and advertising market...
Time will tell.
Well whenever something ingenious comes out people copy it Morris Mini, Dyson, Hoover, AT&T Telephone, EMI Television and who can forget the SINCLAIR Executive! They come out with cheeper models, better models... and people trade then in with newer models. But Apple has beaten them all. Not many can claim to have come out with colour computers, modern day printers and the modern GUI.
They don't need to license iOS. That would be pointless because the whole point is optimizing the hardware/software combination. There's no way Apple would optimize the software for another manufacturer's hardware. So all you would have is a bunch of crap devices running iOS subpar and taking sales away from Apple. Stupid.
What they need to do is get iPhone on other carriers. ATT only represents about 1/3 of the US mobile market. That gives Android a 3-to-1 addressable customer base advantage over iPhone. That an imbalance Apple needs to fix if they want to compete with Android on a level playing field in the US.
Crap devices running iOS subpar? There are plenty of smartphones that are just as well built if not better than the iPhone running Android with better specs and more hardware features. If those phones ran iOS, it wouldn't have the problems associated with Android (and it wouldn't have the benefits).
Licensing iOS would be perfectly fine, and would net the iOS alot of market share, but it wouldn't serve Apple's end goal of PROFITS.
Yeah, and Zune is the second most popular type of MP3 player IN THE WORLD.
Do you really care? Both the Zune and the Mac are all but irrelevant in their respective markets.
No not really. But Apple should care as it's there achievement. And no the Zune is not irrelevant, and the Mac definitely isn't. No 1 in the Media and Arts, and people who buy comps over $1000, Apple has 91% of that Market. It isn't me with a single minded point of view.
They don't need to license iOS. That would be pointless because the whole point is optimizing the hardware/software combination. There's no way Apple would optimize the software for another manufacturer's hardware. So all you would have is a bunch of crap devices running iOS subpar and taking sales away from Apple. Stupid.
What they need to do is get iPhone on other carriers. ATT only represents about 1/3 of the US mobile market. That gives Android a 3-to-1 addressable customer base advantage over iPhone. That an imbalance Apple needs to fix if they want to compete with Android on a level playing field in the US.
I thought the point was to maximize the return on the investors' investments.
The comment to which you replied was simply and manifestly correct. This is just about as brain-dead simple as it could possibly be. The number 6% was pulled out of the air. It will change over time, and it's anyone guess exactly where it will end up. But the point of the comment to which your replied is essentially correct. The mere fact that iOS will run only on devices manufactured by Apple means that it is destined to a much smaller market share than the Andoid OS. This is a given, and is a guaranteed consequence of the fact that one OS is available to any interested manufacturer and the other OS is not. The question of whether it would be in the best interest of Apple investors for Apple to license iOS to other manufacturers is a different question and one that does not have easy answers. But the comment made by the manufacturer to which you replied is essentially truthful, and it is brain-dead obvious that it is truthful, and the reason why it is truthful is brain-dead obvious.
I don't have a list of requirements, sorry.
But Steve says that they are a mobile device company, which means that they are a CE company.
They have never enjoyed software as a dominant source of revenue.
Apple *is* a mobile device company, and a software company and a hardware company and an advertising company and a music company and a book company and a video company and a television company and a microprocessor company and a touch screen company and a track pad company and phone company and a ...
Note that it is the Apple Software that sells the hardware.
Meet Google CEO Eric Schmidt
Unless Apple licenses iOS, it has no chance of fending off Android. Android will be as ubiquitous as Windows and Apple will be at 6%, again.
You say that like it is a bad thing. Part of what has allowed Apple to avoid anti-trust charges and forced cloning a la Psystar is the lack of dominance in appropriate markets. So long as they continue to make sales and money for the shareholders I doubt they really care what their percent is compared to the rest. In fact, not really giving a darn about what everyone else is doing seems to be a key element in Apple's mindset. Which could be why we don't have certain features like blu-ray in the computers even though everyone else is doing it.
And there is a flaw in this data. They speak of losing market share but isn't the market rising all the time. going from 10% to 9% or whatever doesn't seem like that big of a deal if the market has risen 5-10% from the last time it was measured. Particularly when you consider who had new devices etc release during the month (which tends to cause a jump in numbers). And you add in the detail that the counters ignored a whole set of devices that probably would change the results greatly
Android is gaining share for two reasons: buy-one-get-one firesales and the lack of iPhone on Verizon. The sun is shining for Android now, but the one-two punch of Oracle's lawsuit and iPhone on Verizon will hit Android like nuclear winter. The clock is ticking, Google...
The real reason that Android is gaining market share is that a variety of manufacturers of mobile devices like it and are permitted to use it. Duh.
The lawsuit will likely inhibit Google from being able to do whatever they want to do with Java, but it is exceedingly unlikely that it will have any significant impact on the emergence of Android as the defacto standard operating system for mobile devices manufactured by diverse manufacturers. Very quickly, within one or perhaps two years, it will become apparent that Android is to mobile platforms as Windows is to PCs. That this will in fact happen is manifest, and this is why Oracle was not able to look the other way. It is an absolute certainty that this is going to happen. And it is far better than for it to be a Java platform than something owned lock stock and barrel by Microsoft. Apple's strategy and role in the mobile device arena is clearly destined to be much the same as it is in the personal computer arena. Apple will have a small market share in terms of units but, but this will not accurately reflect their overall presence in the market.
The real reason that Android is gaining market share is that a variety of manufacturers of mobile devices like it and are permitted to use it. Duh.
The lawsuit will likely inhibit Google from being able to do whatever they want to do with Java, but it is exceedingly unlikely that it will have any significant impact on the emergence of Android as the defacto standard operating system for mobile devices manufactured by diverse manufacturers. Very quickly, within one or perhaps two years, it will become apparent that Android is to mobile platforms as Windows is to PCs.
Maybe. This assumes that MS cannot recapture any share they lost to Android with WP7. Android CE makers have no overwhelming loyalty to the platform in the same way that Apple has with iOS, Nokia has with Symbian and RIM with Blackberry.
LG, Samsung, HTC, Sony-Ericsson all are rumored to have WP7 phones in the pipeline. These aren't going to take share from iOS but Android and Symbian.
Unless Apple licenses iOS, it has no chance of fending off Android. Android will be as ubiquitous as Windows and Apple will be at 6%, again.
This again?
The analogy you are looking for isn't Windows vs Mac. It's IBM PC vs. Apple II. That's when Apple saw its dominant market position evaporate.
Remember that Windows rode in on the back of DOS' dominance as an operating system. In fact, DOS was originally required to run Windows up until 1995, when the two where combined. When Mac 128K was introduced, it struggled against a giant: DOS. Mac was never the dominant platform. Windows marketshare grew because it could already run on DOS, and DOS was everywhere. If you were a DOS user, you already invested in PC hardware and software, so why throw that out to buy a Mac when you could just add Windows and a mouse, and run the next generation of GUI programs, like Office or Lotus or WordPerfect?
Remember too that Apple had licensed Mac OS to Mac clone makers (like Bill Gates was publicly suggesting they do), and all it did was further weaken Apple's profits without gaining any marketshare against Windows.
Things are different this time:
- they continue to innovate
- they focus on the customer experience instead of adding the kitchen sink feature
- they are leveraging all their strengths (for example, iPhone and iPad is also fully functional iPods)
- they learned how to keep marketshare by building infrastructure and services to their hardware/software platforms
- the smartphone market still has a lot of "churn" which means it is not mature yet. Marketshare is anyone's to gain or lose at this point
Apple's long-term strategy for keeping iOS on top seems to be the same one they used to keep iPod dominant: support the hardware with world class infrastructure and services. For example: iTunes and then iTunes Music Store (which has since expanded to include movies, TV shows and now Apps and Books) has kept the iPod unbeatable, long after the novelty of its interface & style wore off (and Zune had stolen it). Apple is following a similar strategy for iOS. They know that the things competitor can copy from the UI or hardware design will be copied (it's already happened).If Apple ever gets to the point where they're desperate enough to license iOS to clone makers, then they've forgotten all the lessons they've learned and what got them to the top in the first place.
No not really. But Apple should care as it's there achievement. And no the Zune is not irrelevant, and the Mac definitely isn't. No 1 in the Media and Arts, and people who buy comps over $1000, Apple has 91% of that Market. It isn't me with a single minded point of view.
In the computer market as a whole, Macs are not important.
In the niche markets you identify, the Mac sells well.
Regarding your comment about morphing OSX into iOS on the Mac, the very notion of taking something as brilliant as the Mac and crippling it into an iPhone or iPad is the worst idea in the world.
Therefore I'm sure Steve Jobs will be doing it soon. He seems bent on ruining everything he touches.
I'm old enough to recall in the early years of the Mac an Apple execute stating that the Mac OS would be replaced within 10 years. We got OSX which was more like 16 years later. The march to iOS for everything will be a slow one. Every iteration brings a wealth and richness to the platform. Eventually OSX will be replaced but not anytime soon.
I agree that OSX is brilliant and perfect for my needs. The question of it being retired is fueled by Apple's lack of information on the next major iteration of the platform. I honestly believe the Apple rotates their developers around (as Apple has attested to themselves) to have them gain fresh insights. My feeling is that a skeleton crew were working on OSX when iOS 4.0 was being crafted. Now I'm sure OSX 10.7 is in full swing.
I do hope the iLife and iWork teams are back to producing new iterations as well. I'm still wanting Xcode 4.0 badly too.