I mean seriously, what do you, personally, need to know about Leopard that would influence your business or personal purchasing? If it's just curiosity, then... naw.
But what if said curiosity is impacting on your mental well being?!?! Oh wait never mind... In cases where the curiosity for Apple information gets THAT bad you simply sign on to one of the many Apple rumors discussion forums (like AI for example) and have the comfort of knowing "Hey! You're NOT alone and everything will be j_u_s_t fine!". oh and strive to one day achieve either 'an insanely high post count' or eventual 'mod status' since usually by the time you reach either distinction you've LONG been cured of all such silliness.
[B]Probably the best reasoning I've seen yet for keeping things under wraps.
Seriously, look at what the Copland debacle did - people kept waiting for it, and waiting for it, and waiting for it... and then nothing. Apple looked incompetent, they lost many sales in the meantime, and then in the end result, had nothing but egg on their face. (To say nothing of the bludgeoning they took on Wall Street.)
Apple WAS incompetent. There was no strong management hand involved in keeping the teams working together. The problem with the OS was that while even though each of the modules worked well, they didn't work together.
Quote:
Vista, anyone?
MUCH better IMO to just keep quiet until things are going well, and you can then promise things you already are pretty darned sure are deliverable, instead of promising the moon, and delivering dog poo. (Again, cf. Vista.)
Anyway, that has nothing to do with it. Vista's problems are not something that would be changed in any way if they were being secretive about it. If anything, they would be beaten up about it even more, because no one would know what the problems were. It's better to be open about it.
Quote:
I mean seriously, what do you, personally, need to know about Leopard that would influence your business or personal purchasing? If it's just curiosity, then... naw.
Now, that my business has been sold, I don't need to know . But, when I did have the business, it could have mattered. Plans as to machine purchasing is one of the biggest headaches a business has. How to prepare for a new version of an OS that might require new machines, and at what level.
For example. When Apple came out with Quartz, remember how unhappy people were that it didn't work on their machines?. Apple comes out with machines that don't enable their latest technologies until later. Sometimes those technologies will work, but the machine needs a new video card, or some other upgrade. Possibly a faster machine is required than the one being considered.
I might equip a machine differently if I knew what was coming, and apple let us know the specs we would need. I might also put purchases off until the proper machine came around. This is what business does.
Now, I know that you will likely say that it wouldn't be good for Apple. My answer is that that would be nonsense. What is good for Apple's customers, is good for them!. If I put off buying machines, I will buy them later. But, I won't get stuck with machines that don't operate properly with the new OS.
Therefore, I wouldn't upgrade to the new OS until much later.
Developers could have their products ready much faster if they knew what major features were coming out, because, even if they couldn't do final coding for them, they could do the planning and preliminary coding.
One reason business gives for not moving to the Mac is that they need to have a roadmap of where their suppliers of technology are going over the next two years, or so. Everyone else provides that information. Apple does not.
Errors occur (Vista, Copeland), but the only reason why Apple is being given a free ride over here, is that we are Apple *fans*. We are willing to put up with things that others won't.
I understand your point, but look at the flip side... heck, look at the Copland event for the counter point. Businesses *did* wait, and so did consumers, because they were told that Copland was 'just around the corner'. Then they got tired of waiting, and many went Windows.
So on the one hand we have a failed scheduling issue coupled with too much info about the development process creating essentially an Osborne Effect... and on the other hand, what some would see as too little info creating... what?
Seriously, let's take a look at the Leopard timeline: WWDC gives us a preview, and then it's what, about 6 months before delivery? And, businesses have known about that delivery date for a few months *now*. So any business looking to upgrade is going to be saying "Okay, 1Q 2007 is when it comes out, let's take a close look at WWDC and see if it has anything we might want come 1Q, or later."
If Apple wasn't saying *anything*, and then suddenly announcing Leopard one day with a bunch of new features, I'd say you have a point. (Apple makes hardware purchases difficult for people who need to plan a few months down the road because of this.) But they don't, and they're not - they're giving a schedule, then a few months later technical info, then shipping a few months later. I think this is a reasonable approach.
I understand your point, but look at the flip side... heck, look at the Copland event for the counter point. Businesses *did* wait, and so did consumers, because they were told that Copland was 'just around the corner'. Then they got tired of waiting, and many went Windows.
You can't go by a failed project. It shouldn't have failed. That was entirely Apple's fault. There is no evidence that if Apple not said anything for those several years, customers would not have left anyway. You can't prove a negative. When OS 9 came out, a year or so later than it would have, had Apple kept to their previous schedule, there would have been talk as to why it was so late, and why hasn't Apple said anything.
And, of course, there is no way that Apple could have kept their search for a new OS out of the press. Without an expression as to what was going on, the speculation would have been much worse.
And at any rate, a project the size of Copeland could never have been kept secret anyway.
And then, should Apple have tried to keep the entire OS X project secret? By telling us what was planned for the GUI, among other things, they got enough feedback that they changed the whole look. That's one of the points to giving this information out. to get the reaction before it gets to the "can't change it" stage of development.
Quote:
So on the one hand we have a failed scheduling issue coupled with too much info about the development process creating essentially an Osborne Effect... and on the other hand, what some would see as too little info creating... what?
I can't agree with that because everyone knows that new versions are in the works. That isn't a surprise. The Osborne Effect was far more than that. Osborne had very poor internal controls.
EDIT: I just realized that I wrote this improperly. =They *were owed* (should be = they owed much money to their suppliers, and were owed much money from their distributors. When the Osborn II was running late, they ran out of money.
Quote:
Seriously, let's take a look at the Leopard timeline: WWDC gives us a preview, and then it's what, about 6 months before delivery? And, businesses have known about that delivery date for a few months *now*. So any business looking to upgrade is going to be saying "Okay, 1Q 2007 is when it comes out, let's take a close look at WWDC and see if it has anything we might want come 1Q, or later."
That's not a lot of time. Purchasing plans for a business my size were made a year in advance. Large businesses make plans over a two or three years schedule. Six months is nothing. And, I'm not sure it will be six months. We don't know why they delayed the conference.
Quote:
If Apple wasn't saying *anything*, and then suddenly announcing Leopard one day with a bunch of new features, I'd say you have a point. (Apple makes hardware purchases difficult for people who need to plan a few months down the road because of this.) But they don't, and they're not - they're giving a schedule, then a few months later technical info, then shipping a few months later. I think this is a reasonable approach.
That would be a total disaster!
But, as I said, several months is a short time. We complain when programs aren't out shortly after the new OS version is out. Well, that's why. Can't have it both ways.
You can't go by a failed project. It shouldn't have failed. That was entirely Apple's fault. There is no evidence that if Apple not said anything for those several years, customers would not have left anyway. You can't prove a negative. When OS 9 came out, a year or so later than it would have, had Apple kept to their previous schedule, there would have been talk as to why it was so late, and why hasn't Apple said anything.
Er... so wait. You want to state that being open will only help Apple, yet that's not the state of affairs, and the one time they *were*, they blew it.
Are you sure you're not trying to prove a negative there? I mean, from my viewpoint, it's the only example of them being open there is. Regardless of the other factors, which are open to interpretation, that's pretty much it.
Quote:
And, of course, there is no way that Apple could have kept their search for a new OS out of the press. Without an expression as to what was going on, the speculation would have been much worse.
And at any rate, a project the size of Copeland could never have been kept secret anyway.
At that time? No. Now? I think they'd have a good shot.
Oh stop looking at me like that. Intel switch?
Quote:
And then, should Apple have tried to keep the entire OS X project secret? By telling us what was planned for the GUI, among other things, they got enough feedback that they changed the whole look. That's one of the points to giving this information out. to get the reaction before it gets to the "can't change it" stage of development.
Well for one thing, the NeXT acquisition was a huge media event in the first place, so no... they couldn't have if they had wanted to. They *did* keep MacOS X/Intel under wraps for a few years though, other than discredited rumors.
I see two areas of potential secrecy on product development: strategic, and tactical. Strategic are the big picture products and technologies - the ones that shift users and the market. iPod, or Spotlight, for instance. Tactical are the things like CoreData and Bindings. They don't shove market, but they do facilitate developers and the like.
Strategic items are the ones that really, quite honestly, need to be kept under wraps for various reasons. Tactical items are the ones that could leak out and not be a huge problem. Mac mini? Strategic, to some degree. Next incremental bump of MacBook Pro? Tactical.
I'd like to see more flexibility and openness on the tactical side of things, but where that line is, is fuzzy.
Quote:
I can't agree with that because everyone knows that new versions are in the works. That isn't a surprise. The Osborne Effect was far more than that. Osborne had very poor internal controls. They were owed much money by their suppliers, as well as their distributors. when the Osborn II was running late, they ran out of money.
But I thought you were asking for more info on schedule and features. If, as you say, that everyone knows that new versions are in the works, then there's no issue, is there? Your businesses don't want 'someday', they want a calendar date, and they want reasons to migrate. The calendar date (within a couple months) is set long in advance for OS releases, and the reasons to migrate are given at WWDC. Whether those reasons finally ship, and ship in an implementation that is workable for the businesses, isn't known until later. (Unless, of course, the business simply ponies up for $500 for a Select membership and gets advanced seedings post-WWDC... pretty simple if you ask me. A business of the size that is going to need months and months to migrate *on day 1* is going to have $500 in the petty lunch fund for visiting execs, for cripessake.)
Quote:
That's not a lot of time. Purchasing plans for a business my size were made a year in advance. Large businesses make plans over a two or three years schedule. Six months is nothing.
I think you missed the part when I mentioned that the original ship date is announced earlier than that. *I* missed putting in the words 'for most customers,' which I intended to do. You're right, for very large rollouts, 6-9 months isn't much time.
Quote:
And, I'm not sure it will be six months. We don't know why they delayed the conference.
You're right, we don't.
Quote:
That would be a total disaster!
Er, that's the current timeline for Leopard I outlined above.
Quote:
But, as I said, several months is a short time. We complain when programs aren't out shortly after the new OS version is out. Well, that's why. Can't have it both ways. [/B]
Never said I did... I'm not one who whines when RandomApp3.0 (Now with More Features(tm)!) isn't shipping one day after a new OS release. Development takes time. Good development can take longer. I'll wait. Heck, I didn't upgrade to 10.4 until just a couple of months ago...
I'd just like to know one thing... What makes your Apple run business so very different than the one I work for not to mention almost the entirety of businesses running on Windows. I simply can think of one field (other than perhaps computer support and developers) that has the desperate need to migrate to the next OS so quickly and or even need to know the intimate details so far in advance.
XP was release by Microsoft in what October 2001? Here we are 4 years and 6 months later and yet to this day XP hasn't made an enormous dent in 'corporate america'.
AssetMetrix, a Canadian asset-monitoring software company has released a report from its AssetMetrix Research Labs, which says that almost half of all business PCs still run Windows 2000, the operating system which is nearing its 'expiry' date.
..SNIP..
The figures reveal that the Windows 2000's share of the business market fell by just 4 percent since the first quarter of 2003. It continues to command a marketshare of 48 percent. The marketshare for the Windows XP has moved upto 38 percent up from a miserable 6.6 percent in 2003.
Here is one more interesting quote from that story... "The general trend was that the larger the firm, the stronger Windows 2000's presence, O'Halloran said."
Thats right... Almost half of all businesses were still not on the XP bandwagon even (close to) four years after XP was first released and the bigger the business the more slowly they are to move to the next OS and hell, these are people in the Windows world where advanced product roadmaps get handed out like candy by Microsoft.... ESPECIALLY to the 'big businesses' and yet even with all of that advanced insider info... much of big business is still to this very day are using os that was release close to 6 years ago!
Why is it that Microsoft has decided it had no problem releasing the "Business Edition of Vista" ahem 'on time' and is only delaying it's "Consumer Edition of Vista". Maybe cause Microsoft knows the score... Vista isn't ready and to save some face they'll release the edition that nobody will touch anyway (and I use these words loosely) on time and 'only' have a slight delay till 2007 with the 'Consumer Edition' while they put the finishing touches on the new Media Center or some such line of bunk...
Sorry... the need to know when it comes to hardware (when it comes to businesses) yea I can see that is NOT a hard sell in my eyes (budgets being what they are)... the need to know when it comes to major OS details (when it comes to businesses)... Sorry but with everything I've read and experienced (from a business point of view) it just doesn't seem to be necessary.
Wearing my 'MacGeek' hat.. Sure I'd L_O_V_E to know as much as I could as soon as I could but lets be real... Will it change my business decisions? Nope it wont - I know that 'some time in 2007' I'll need to re-up my 3 year OS site license / maintenance agreement (whatever its called) for 1500 or so machines - edit - in-fact I'd need to do this anyway the thing with OS and or Software maintenance is to not let them expire (or you'd need to 'get current' with all of your machines first (one cost) and then re-do the three year maintenance (another cost)... So, it's really no big deal... If OS 10.5 comes out prior to my maintenance expiration I'll get it (even if I choose not to re-up my maintenance) but either way I will be re-uping my maintenance so the point is truly moot.
When it comes to actual usage... Yea my machine will get it ASAP and I'll live with the nits and picks of a new OS but for 1500 users who I'd rather NOT be calling into the help desk every other minute (hey we have an institution to run) I'll probable not deploy the new OS till release 10.5.4 at the earliest (if history is any indication) and more than likely most of the 1500 machines wont have 10.5 till the end of 2007 or early 2008 (assuming a 1st or 2nd quarter 2007 release) and I'd bet my schedule for OS an upgrade is pretty aggressive for a institution of our size (but maybe I'm wrong).
[B]Er... so wait. You want to state that being open will only help Apple, yet that's not the state of affairs, and the one time they *were*, they blew it.
Are you sure you're not trying to prove a negative there? I mean, from my viewpoint, it's the only example of them being open there is. Regardless of the other factors, which are open to interpretation, that's pretty much it.
They were much more open along the entire time frame that Jobs wasn't there. That was just the example you used, so I went with it. Apple used to give magazines machines to look at some time before they came out. They also used to inform their partners of areas they were going to go into. We knew about the switch to PPC for a couple of years before they came out, just for another example.
Quote:
At that time? No. Now? I think they'd have a good shot.
Oh stop looking at me like that. Intel switch?
Well, as we have bothe said, Jobs runs a tight ship.
And, I can't help looking at you like that. you're cute.
Quote:
Well for one thing, the NeXT acquisition was a huge media event in the first place, so no... they couldn't have if they had wanted to. They *did* keep MacOS X/Intel under wraps for a few years though, other than discredited rumors.
Sure, we just covered that.
Quote:
I see two areas of potential secrecy on product development: strategic, and tactical. Strategic are the big picture products and technologies - the ones that shift users and the market. iPod, or Spotlight, for instance. Tactical are the things like CoreData and Bindings. They don't shove market, but they do facilitate developers and the like.
Strategic items are the ones that really, quite honestly, need to be kept under wraps for various reasons. Tactical items are the ones that could leak out and not be a huge problem. Mac mini? Strategic, to some degree. Next incremental bump of MacBook Pro? Tactical.
I'd like to see more flexibility and openness on the tactical side of things, but where that line is, is fuzzy.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that they have to release everything to the general public. But, as other large concerns discuss their strategic plans with their large partners, under disclosure, of course, I see no reason why Apple should be any different.
Shorter term tactical plans for software, and even hardware should be more open though.
I really do think that the need for secrecy on the part of Apple is exaggerated.
With Apple having their own OS, many of their plans are not directly transferable to other PC makers, or even MS. Both Apple and MS take from each other now, as it is. I don't see much difference if Apple let things go a few months earlier.
The way it works is that if MS saw Apple's ideas just after they released their OS, they wouldn't be making changes until the next OS release, several years down the road anyway. If Apple releases the information a year before, MS has already fixed their model, or is running late (again), and is dropping features just to get it out the door, and doesn't have the time to put major features in. So, maybe there is a certain time during their development cycle when they could benefit, but I don't see them suddenly saying; "wow, we have to copy all of that." That's a lot of work. They usually copy features from the last release, after they have had time to study it, and before they have written much code.
Quote:
But I thought you were asking for more info on schedule and features. If, as you say, that everyone knows that new versions are in the works, then there's no issue, is there?
Now, you know that's not what I meant. It's not the issue of whether there will be a release, but just what is being released.
Quote:
Your businesses don't want 'someday', they want a calendar date, and they want reasons to migrate. The calendar date (within a couple months) is set long in advance for OS releases, and the reasons to migrate are given at WWDC. Whether those reasons finally ship, and ship in an implementation that is workable for the businesses, isn't known until later. (Unless, of course, the business simply ponies up for $500 for a Select membership and gets advanced seedings post-WWDC... pretty simple if you ask me. A business of the size that is going to need months and months to migrate *on day 1* is going to have $500 in the petty lunch fund for visiting execs, for cripessake.)
Well, we don't have a calander date anyway, do we? We thought the conference would be in June, for a late 2006, perhaps very early 2007 release. not it looks like a release in the late first quarter, maybe. but, some people here on this site still think that Macworld is still the best release date. If so, there is almost no time for developers of hardware or software to get their products out shortly after.
The problem isn't after the conference. We all know what's happening then. It's before the conference.
Quote:
I think you missed the part when I mentioned that the original ship date is announced earlier than that. *I* missed putting in the words 'for most customers,' which I intended to do. You're right, for very large rollouts, 6-9 months isn't much time.
The ship date is usually announced during the conference, or not! Often, all we're told is that it will be out during the first quarter, or the second half. Look at what we were told about 10.4, and what actually happened.
Quote:
You're right, we don't.
Er, that's the current timeline for Leopard I outlined above.
I was referring to what you said here:
"If Apple wasn't saying *anything*, and then suddenly announcing Leopard one day with a bunch of new features, I'd say you have a point."
Quote:
Never said I did... I'm not one who whines when RandomApp3.0 (Now with More Features(tm)!) isn't shipping one day after a new OS release. Development takes time. Good development can take longer. I'll wait. Heck, I didn't upgrade to 10.4 until just a couple of months ago...
I'm not saying you said that either. But, you read plenty of posts here. You know that quite a few others do say that.
I'd just like to know one thing... What makes your Apple run business so very different than the one I work for not to mention almost the entirety of businesses running on Windows. I simply can think of one field (other than perhaps computer support and developers) that has the desperate need to migrate to the next OS so quickly and or even need to know the intimate details so far in advance.
I never said that we had to migrate so desperately. I said that we make plans. No business wants to get cought short. The photo graphics business does upgrade much more quickly than other businesses. With us, the new software and hardware can be a competitive edge. When you charge between $275 to $400 an hour to do work, there is competition between companies to see who can get that work out the door the fastest. No client wants to pay for an extra hour, if they don't have to. It really does add up!
If Adobe adds a new feature to a program that is dependent on the new OS to run, which is then also dependent on a newer model machine to install, you have to think of these things.
As companies are on an upgrade schelule, It can be difficult to realise that Apple doesn't release their OS's on some regular schedule. If they released once every few years, the was MS does, then it wouldn't matter so much. But the had been releasing every 12 months or so. Now it's around every 18 to 20 months or so. The upgrade cycle, therefore, hits that OS upgrade all too oftem, making planning more difficult.
It's really difficult to explain the details of business plans in posts. But, Im' trying.
Quote:
XP was release by Microsoft in what October 2001? Here we are 4 years and 6 months later and yet to this day XP hasn't made an enormous dent in 'corporate america'.
I have no argument about that that. But, again, the graphics business is different. And Apple is different. It's a specialty field, and it moves more quickly.
Quote:
Here is one more interesting quote from that story... "The general trend was that the larger the firm, the stronger Windows 2000's presence, O'Halloran said."
Thats right... Almost half of all businesses were still not on the XP bandwagon even (close to) four years after XP was first released and the bigger the business the more slowly they are to move to the next OS and hell, these are people in the Windows world where advanced product roadmaps get handed out like candy by Microsoft.... ESPECIALLY to the 'big businesses' and yet even with all of that advanced insider info... much of big business is still to this very day are using os that was release close to 6 years ago!
Again, it's different. But, businesses that deal with the same issues as I did, were not happy. They are also among the first to move over.
Quote:
Why is it that Microsoft has decided it had no problem releasing the "Business Edition of Vista" ahem 'on time' and is only delaying it's "Consumer Edition of Vista". Maybe cause Microsoft knows the score... Vista isn't ready and to save some face they'll release the edition that nobody will touch anyway (and I use these words loosely) on time and 'only' have a slight delay till 2007 with the 'Consumer Edition' while they put the finishing touches on the new Media Center or some such line of bunk...
None of us can speak to MS's problems. But, nevertheless, they do meet with partners, hand out beta's, hold conferences where they detail what they are doing, etc.
Quote:
Sorry... the need to know when it comes to hardware (when it comes to businesses) yea I can see that is NOT a hard sell in my eyes (budgets being what they are)... the need to know when it comes to major OS details (when it comes to businesses)... Sorry but with everything I've read and experienced (from a business point of view) it just doesn't seem to be necessary.
Again, it depends upon the business.
Quote:
Wearing my 'MacGeek' hat.. Sure I'd L_O_V_E to know as much as I could as soon as I could but lets be real... Will it change my business decisions? Nope it wont - I know that 'some time in 2007' I'll need to re-up my 3 year OS site license / maintenance agreement (whatever its called) for 1500 or so machines - edit - in-fact I'd need to do this anyway the thing with OS and or Software maintenance is to not let them expire (or you'd need to 'get current' with all of your machines first (one cost) and then re-do the three year maintenance (another cost)... So, it's really no big deal... If OS 10.5 comes out prior to my maintenance expiration I'll get it (even if I choose not to re-up my maintenance) but either way I will be re-uping my maintenance so the point is truly moot.
I feel as though I'm responding to the same thing in each paragraph.
I really don't know what to say to you other than the industry which I was in operated the way I said. I know it pretty well. I don't know what business you are in, but I'm nort surprised that it might be different. Neither of us is speaking for everyone.
Quote:
When it comes to actual usage... Yea my machine will get it ASAP and I'll live with the nits and picks of a new OS but for 1500 users who I'd rather NOT be calling into the help desk every other minute (hey we have an institution to run) I'll probable not deploy the new OS till release 10.5.4 at the earliest (if history is any indication) and more than likely most of the 1500 machines wont have 10.5 till the end of 2007 or early 2008 (assuming a 1st or 2nd quarter 2007 release) and I'd bet my schedule for OS an upgrade is pretty aggressive for a institution of our size (but maybe I'm wrong).
Dave
I never buy new models when they first come out. If my buying schedule isn't ready for them, and unless there is a compelling reason to do so, I won't buy anything for several months. That's for me personally, as well as for my business. I never buy a new version of the OS the instant it comes out, again, I wait until it seems to be ok. I don't even update machines until I know that the update won't break something critical. And never upgrade anyrthing during oprojects, etc.
But, all of that makes it very helpful to have more information on hand.
Anyone who says that it's better to have less information on which to base a decision upon, and as early as possible, hasn't had to make business decisions.
[B]They were much more open along the entire time frame that Jobs wasn't there. That was just the example you used, so I went with it. Apple used to give magazines machines to look at some time before they came out. They also used to inform their partners of areas they were going to go into. We knew about the switch to PPC for a couple of years before they came out, just for another example.
True. And that was one that went well.
I think there's one important aspect that is different now from then though, that you're missing...
The net.
There was an article on TS recently about how Mac magazine readership is plummeting, while the number of users is growing. I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised by this, when I haven't seen a magazine in *years* that wasn't several weeks behind the current news in the Mac world.
Back in the era you're talking about, however, the Mac magazine were the *only* way we all got news about goings on in Cupertino - the media outlet pool was, if you think about it, quite controlled by Apple even then. They could give magazines machines, and *specific* information, then be assured that it would come out when desired.
The net sort of changed that. Any snippet of info spreads like lightning, and can be misinterpreted, misreported and screwed up *horribly*. We've all seen it.
The rumor and news distribution mechanisms are *vastly* different now, and require different controls. I don't know that we actually have that much less info now, on the software front. A bit of advance notice on tactical releases in HW would be nice, but... *shrug*
Quote:
Well, as we have bothe said, Jobs runs a tight ship.
And, I can't help looking at you like that. you're cute.
You're creeping me out, man...
Quote:
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that they have to release everything to the general public. But, as other large concerns discuss their strategic plans with their large partners, under disclosure, of course, I see no reason why Apple should be any different.
Shorter term tactical plans for software, and even hardware should be more open though.
It'd be nice, and in some segments, I can see an argument for 'should', but as a general rule? Naw.
Quote:
I really do think that the need for secrecy on the part of Apple is exaggerated.
Considering the change in information distribution channels? I'm not so sure. Honestly, I'm not sure that the real amount of useful information we get now is that much less than it was during the 'open' eras.
Quote:
With Apple having their own OS, many of their plans are not directly transferable to other PC makers, or even MS. Both Apple and MS take from each other now, as it is. I don't see much difference if Apple let things go a few months earlier.
The way it works is that if MS saw Apple's ideas just after they released their OS, they wouldn't be making changes until the next OS release, several years down the road anyway. If Apple releases the information a year before, MS has already fixed their model, or is running late (again), and is dropping features just to get it out the door, and doesn't have the time to put major features in. So, maybe there is a certain time during their development cycle when they could benefit, but I don't see them suddenly saying; "wow, we have to copy all of that." That's a lot of work. They usually copy features from the last release, after they have had time to study it, and before they have written much code.
While true, this is an interesting upcoming year - the release of Leopard (and information on features) is *VERY* likely tied to Vista's release. I don't think, this time around, that is has that much to do with feature copying, but marketing opportunities.
Quote:
Well, we don't have a calander date anyway, do we? We thought the conference would be in June, for a late 2006, perhaps very early 2007 release. not it looks like a release in the late first quarter, maybe. but, some people here on this site still think that Macworld is still the best release date. If so, there is almost no time for developers of hardware or software to get their products out shortly after.
The problem isn't after the conference. We all know what's happening then. It's before the conference.
Alright. By 'calendar date' I meant 'financial quarter'. Really, if a company is looking for a *specific day* a year in advance to be able to do sufficient planning, they need to take a look at their deployment mechanism a bit.
Quote:
The ship date is usually announced during the conference, or not! Often, all we're told is that it will be out during the first quarter, or the second half. Look at what we were told about 10.4, and what actually happened.
Refresh my memory.
Quote:
I'm not saying you said that either. But, you read plenty of posts here. You know that quite a few others do say that.
Yeah they do - and I've long since learned to block out the noise. Life's better that way.
Anyone who says that it's better to have less information on which to base a decision upon, and as early as possible, hasn't had to make business decisions.
Just a nit to pick here...
Bad information is worse than less information.
"Longhorn, due in 2004!"
"Vista, due in 2006! With WinFS!"
If you were a business who had counted on either of those, you had to *RE*plan... meaning you wasted your resources the first time around.
There was an article on TS recently about how Mac magazine readership is plummeting, while the number of users is growing. I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised by this, when I haven't seen a magazine in *years* that wasn't several weeks behind the current news in the Mac world.
Back in the era you're talking about, however, the Mac magazine were the *only* way we all got news about goings on in Cupertino - the media outlet pool was, if you think about it, quite controlled by Apple even then. They could give magazines machines, and *specific* information, then be assured that it would come out when desired.
I agree with you there. No doubt. I've been saying that for years. The other major source of information was the user groups. Apple used to present there as well. also the regional shows.
My Mac user group here in NYC had, at one time, 5,400 members. Can you imagine? We even sponsored, along with Macworld magazine, a large New York Macworld in the Hilton Hotel. we had well over 20,000 people attend.
Quote:
The net sort of changed that. Any snippet of info spreads like lightning, and can be misinterpreted, misreported and screwed up *horribly*. We've all seen it.
But errors can be corrected faster as well. when mistakes went out before, and they did all the time, it could take months before we knew what really happened.
Quote:
The rumor and news distribution mechanisms are *vastly* different now, and require different controls. I don't know that we actually have that much less info now, on the software front. A bit of advance notice on tactical releases in HW would be nice, but... *shrug*
Rumor control is needed BECAUSE Apple refuses to give information out.
Quote:
It'd be nice, and in some segments, I can see an argument for 'should', but as a general rule? Naw.
I didn't say about everything.
Quote:
Considering the change in information distribution channels? I'm not so sure. Honestly, I'm not sure that the real amount of useful information we get now is that much less than it was during the 'open' eras.
Well, what do we know about the new MacBook, or the new tower? Not much. We used to know much more. Apple also let us know much more about what they were working on regarding the OS as well. They even let us know everything about OS X before it came out. They even released a beta, just like MS does.
If they were going to keep something secret, that was the time to do it, before the OS even came out. But, now, the changes are far smaller, but still enough to cause problems.
Quote:
Refresh my memory.
I don't remember the details now, but it came out much earlier than we expected. We were led to believe that it would be out second quarter, but it came out in April. Remember the arguments about the bugs, and why it was released when it was?
We know now why it was released early, but at the time, it surprised us all. Remember what I was saying about Apple just before the release, and shortly afterward?
Quote:
Yeah they do - and I've long since learned to block out the noise. Life's better that way. [/B]
If you were a business who had counted on either of those, you had to *RE*plan... meaning you wasted your resources the first time around.
Well, I'm not talking about bad information.
But, even in that case, MS has kept a running advisement on what is happening. It's not as though they made an announcement and then said nothing for the next year or two. People could adjust their plans.
By releasing beta's, companies could get an early start on their plans, coding, modification of in-house projects, etc.
Aren't infinitum quotes with infinitum responses within the same post resulting in my having to scroll the page down to be able to read one entire post to then be followed by another post just as long... I'm sure this is against AI's terms of membership. It has to be. If it isn't we should vote for it right now. That's right, that's what we should do.
Oh ya, the secret thing. Apple is smart in doing so. The mob never got anything right. Trust me.
Comments
Originally posted by Kickaha
I mean seriously, what do you, personally, need to know about Leopard that would influence your business or personal purchasing? If it's just curiosity, then... naw.
But what if said curiosity is impacting on your mental well being?!?! Oh wait never mind... In cases where the curiosity for Apple information gets THAT bad you simply sign on to one of the many Apple rumors discussion forums (like AI for example) and have the comfort of knowing "Hey! You're NOT alone and everything will be j_u_s_t fine!".
Dave
Originally posted by Kickaha
[B]Probably the best reasoning I've seen yet for keeping things under wraps.
Seriously, look at what the Copland debacle did - people kept waiting for it, and waiting for it, and waiting for it... and then nothing. Apple looked incompetent, they lost many sales in the meantime, and then in the end result, had nothing but egg on their face. (To say nothing of the bludgeoning they took on Wall Street.)
Apple WAS incompetent. There was no strong management hand involved in keeping the teams working together. The problem with the OS was that while even though each of the modules worked well, they didn't work together.
Vista, anyone?
MUCH better IMO to just keep quiet until things are going well, and you can then promise things you already are pretty darned sure are deliverable, instead of promising the moon, and delivering dog poo. (Again, cf. Vista.)
Anyway, that has nothing to do with it. Vista's problems are not something that would be changed in any way if they were being secretive about it. If anything, they would be beaten up about it even more, because no one would know what the problems were. It's better to be open about it.
I mean seriously, what do you, personally, need to know about Leopard that would influence your business or personal purchasing? If it's just curiosity, then... naw.
Now, that my business has been sold, I don't need to know . But, when I did have the business, it could have mattered. Plans as to machine purchasing is one of the biggest headaches a business has. How to prepare for a new version of an OS that might require new machines, and at what level.
For example. When Apple came out with Quartz, remember how unhappy people were that it didn't work on their machines?. Apple comes out with machines that don't enable their latest technologies until later. Sometimes those technologies will work, but the machine needs a new video card, or some other upgrade. Possibly a faster machine is required than the one being considered.
I might equip a machine differently if I knew what was coming, and apple let us know the specs we would need. I might also put purchases off until the proper machine came around. This is what business does.
Now, I know that you will likely say that it wouldn't be good for Apple. My answer is that that would be nonsense. What is good for Apple's customers, is good for them!. If I put off buying machines, I will buy them later. But, I won't get stuck with machines that don't operate properly with the new OS.
Therefore, I wouldn't upgrade to the new OS until much later.
Developers could have their products ready much faster if they knew what major features were coming out, because, even if they couldn't do final coding for them, they could do the planning and preliminary coding.
One reason business gives for not moving to the Mac is that they need to have a roadmap of where their suppliers of technology are going over the next two years, or so. Everyone else provides that information. Apple does not.
Errors occur (Vista, Copeland), but the only reason why Apple is being given a free ride over here, is that we are Apple *fans*. We are willing to put up with things that others won't.
And you ask why Apple keeps hush hush...
What could it be..?
hmmm!
p.s. what a waist of time..!
Originally posted by Zenga
I thought this thread was about Leopard, but it is in fact a pissing contest...
And you ask why Apple keeps hush hush...
What could it be..?
hmmm!
p.s. what a waist of time..!
Then don't post!
We're having a good time with it.
I understand your point, but look at the flip side... heck, look at the Copland event for the counter point. Businesses *did* wait, and so did consumers, because they were told that Copland was 'just around the corner'. Then they got tired of waiting, and many went Windows.
So on the one hand we have a failed scheduling issue coupled with too much info about the development process creating essentially an Osborne Effect... and on the other hand, what some would see as too little info creating... what?
Seriously, let's take a look at the Leopard timeline: WWDC gives us a preview, and then it's what, about 6 months before delivery? And, businesses have known about that delivery date for a few months *now*. So any business looking to upgrade is going to be saying "Okay, 1Q 2007 is when it comes out, let's take a close look at WWDC and see if it has anything we might want come 1Q, or later."
If Apple wasn't saying *anything*, and then suddenly announcing Leopard one day with a bunch of new features, I'd say you have a point. (Apple makes hardware purchases difficult for people who need to plan a few months down the road because of this.) But they don't, and they're not - they're giving a schedule, then a few months later technical info, then shipping a few months later. I think this is a reasonable approach.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Sez you.
I understand your point, but look at the flip side... heck, look at the Copland event for the counter point. Businesses *did* wait, and so did consumers, because they were told that Copland was 'just around the corner'. Then they got tired of waiting, and many went Windows.
You can't go by a failed project. It shouldn't have failed. That was entirely Apple's fault. There is no evidence that if Apple not said anything for those several years, customers would not have left anyway. You can't prove a negative. When OS 9 came out, a year or so later than it would have, had Apple kept to their previous schedule, there would have been talk as to why it was so late, and why hasn't Apple said anything.
And, of course, there is no way that Apple could have kept their search for a new OS out of the press. Without an expression as to what was going on, the speculation would have been much worse.
And at any rate, a project the size of Copeland could never have been kept secret anyway.
And then, should Apple have tried to keep the entire OS X project secret? By telling us what was planned for the GUI, among other things, they got enough feedback that they changed the whole look. That's one of the points to giving this information out. to get the reaction before it gets to the "can't change it" stage of development.
Quote:
So on the one hand we have a failed scheduling issue coupled with too much info about the development process creating essentially an Osborne Effect... and on the other hand, what some would see as too little info creating... what?
I can't agree with that because everyone knows that new versions are in the works. That isn't a surprise. The Osborne Effect was far more than that. Osborne had very poor internal controls.
EDIT: I just realized that I wrote this improperly. =They *were owed* (should be = they owed much money to their suppliers, and were owed much money from their distributors. When the Osborn II was running late, they ran out of money.
Quote:
Seriously, let's take a look at the Leopard timeline: WWDC gives us a preview, and then it's what, about 6 months before delivery? And, businesses have known about that delivery date for a few months *now*. So any business looking to upgrade is going to be saying "Okay, 1Q 2007 is when it comes out, let's take a close look at WWDC and see if it has anything we might want come 1Q, or later."
That's not a lot of time. Purchasing plans for a business my size were made a year in advance. Large businesses make plans over a two or three years schedule. Six months is nothing. And, I'm not sure it will be six months. We don't know why they delayed the conference.
Quote:
If Apple wasn't saying *anything*, and then suddenly announcing Leopard one day with a bunch of new features, I'd say you have a point. (Apple makes hardware purchases difficult for people who need to plan a few months down the road because of this.) But they don't, and they're not - they're giving a schedule, then a few months later technical info, then shipping a few months later. I think this is a reasonable approach.
That would be a total disaster!
But, as I said, several months is a short time. We complain when programs aren't out shortly after the new OS version is out. Well, that's why. Can't have it both ways.
Originally posted by melgross
You can't go by a failed project. It shouldn't have failed. That was entirely Apple's fault. There is no evidence that if Apple not said anything for those several years, customers would not have left anyway. You can't prove a negative. When OS 9 came out, a year or so later than it would have, had Apple kept to their previous schedule, there would have been talk as to why it was so late, and why hasn't Apple said anything.
Er... so wait. You want to state that being open will only help Apple, yet that's not the state of affairs, and the one time they *were*, they blew it.
Are you sure you're not trying to prove a negative there? I mean, from my viewpoint, it's the only example of them being open there is. Regardless of the other factors, which are open to interpretation, that's pretty much it.
And, of course, there is no way that Apple could have kept their search for a new OS out of the press. Without an expression as to what was going on, the speculation would have been much worse.
And at any rate, a project the size of Copeland could never have been kept secret anyway.
At that time? No. Now? I think they'd have a good shot.
Oh stop looking at me like that.
And then, should Apple have tried to keep the entire OS X project secret? By telling us what was planned for the GUI, among other things, they got enough feedback that they changed the whole look. That's one of the points to giving this information out. to get the reaction before it gets to the "can't change it" stage of development.
Well for one thing, the NeXT acquisition was a huge media event in the first place, so no... they couldn't have if they had wanted to. They *did* keep MacOS X/Intel under wraps for a few years though, other than discredited rumors.
I see two areas of potential secrecy on product development: strategic, and tactical. Strategic are the big picture products and technologies - the ones that shift users and the market. iPod, or Spotlight, for instance. Tactical are the things like CoreData and Bindings. They don't shove market, but they do facilitate developers and the like.
Strategic items are the ones that really, quite honestly, need to be kept under wraps for various reasons. Tactical items are the ones that could leak out and not be a huge problem. Mac mini? Strategic, to some degree. Next incremental bump of MacBook Pro? Tactical.
I'd like to see more flexibility and openness on the tactical side of things, but where that line is, is fuzzy.
I can't agree with that because everyone knows that new versions are in the works. That isn't a surprise. The Osborne Effect was far more than that. Osborne had very poor internal controls. They were owed much money by their suppliers, as well as their distributors. when the Osborn II was running late, they ran out of money.
But I thought you were asking for more info on schedule and features. If, as you say, that everyone knows that new versions are in the works, then there's no issue, is there? Your businesses don't want 'someday', they want a calendar date, and they want reasons to migrate. The calendar date (within a couple months) is set long in advance for OS releases, and the reasons to migrate are given at WWDC. Whether those reasons finally ship, and ship in an implementation that is workable for the businesses, isn't known until later. (Unless, of course, the business simply ponies up for $500 for a Select membership and gets advanced seedings post-WWDC... pretty simple if you ask me. A business of the size that is going to need months and months to migrate *on day 1* is going to have $500 in the petty lunch fund for visiting execs, for cripessake.)
That's not a lot of time. Purchasing plans for a business my size were made a year in advance. Large businesses make plans over a two or three years schedule. Six months is nothing.
I think you missed the part when I mentioned that the original ship date is announced earlier than that. *I* missed putting in the words 'for most customers,' which I intended to do. You're right, for very large rollouts, 6-9 months isn't much time.
And, I'm not sure it will be six months. We don't know why they delayed the conference.
You're right, we don't.
That would be a total disaster!
Er, that's the current timeline for Leopard I outlined above.
But, as I said, several months is a short time. We complain when programs aren't out shortly after the new OS version is out. Well, that's why. Can't have it both ways. [/B]
Never said I did... I'm not one who whines when RandomApp3.0 (Now with More Features(tm)!) isn't shipping one day after a new OS release. Development takes time. Good development can take longer. I'll wait. Heck, I didn't upgrade to 10.4 until just a couple of months ago...
I'd just like to know one thing... What makes your Apple run business so very different than the one I work for not to mention almost the entirety of businesses running on Windows. I simply can think of one field (other than perhaps computer support and developers) that has the desperate need to migrate to the next OS so quickly and or even need to know the intimate details so far in advance.
XP was release by Microsoft in what October 2001? Here we are 4 years and 6 months later and yet to this day XP hasn't made an enormous dent in 'corporate america'.
To back up that statement, here is an interesting quote from an article titled Windows 2000 continues to rule corporate marketshare (Published - June 2005).
AssetMetrix, a Canadian asset-monitoring software company has released a report from its AssetMetrix Research Labs, which says that almost half of all business PCs still run Windows 2000, the operating system which is nearing its 'expiry' date.
..SNIP..
The figures reveal that the Windows 2000's share of the business market fell by just 4 percent since the first quarter of 2003. It continues to command a marketshare of 48 percent. The marketshare for the Windows XP has moved upto 38 percent up from a miserable 6.6 percent in 2003.
Here is one more interesting quote from that story... "The general trend was that the larger the firm, the stronger Windows 2000's presence, O'Halloran said."
Thats right... Almost half of all businesses were still not on the XP bandwagon even (close to) four years after XP was first released and the bigger the business the more slowly they are to move to the next OS and hell, these are people in the Windows world where advanced product roadmaps get handed out like candy by Microsoft.... ESPECIALLY to the 'big businesses' and yet even with all of that advanced insider info... much of big business is still to this very day are using os that was release close to 6 years ago!
Why is it that Microsoft has decided it had no problem releasing the "Business Edition of Vista" ahem 'on time' and is only delaying it's "Consumer Edition of Vista". Maybe cause Microsoft knows the score... Vista isn't ready and to save some face they'll release the edition that nobody will touch anyway (and I use these words loosely) on time and 'only' have a slight delay till 2007 with the 'Consumer Edition' while they put the finishing touches on the new Media Center or some such line of bunk...
Sorry... the need to know when it comes to hardware (when it comes to businesses) yea I can see that is NOT a hard sell in my eyes (budgets being what they are)... the need to know when it comes to major OS details (when it comes to businesses)... Sorry but with everything I've read and experienced (from a business point of view) it just doesn't seem to be necessary.
Wearing my 'MacGeek' hat.. Sure I'd L_O_V_E to know as much as I could as soon as I could but lets be real... Will it change my business decisions? Nope it wont - I know that 'some time in 2007' I'll need to re-up my 3 year OS site license / maintenance agreement (whatever its called) for 1500 or so machines - edit - in-fact I'd need to do this anyway the thing with OS and or Software maintenance is to not let them expire (or you'd need to 'get current' with all of your machines first (one cost) and then re-do the three year maintenance (another cost)... So, it's really no big deal... If OS 10.5 comes out prior to my maintenance expiration I'll get it (even if I choose not to re-up my maintenance) but either way I will be re-uping my maintenance so the point is truly moot.
When it comes to actual usage... Yea my machine will get it ASAP and I'll live with the nits and picks of a new OS but for 1500 users who I'd rather NOT be calling into the help desk every other minute (hey we have an institution to run) I'll probable not deploy the new OS till release 10.5.4 at the earliest (if history is any indication) and more than likely most of the 1500 machines wont have 10.5 till the end of 2007 or early 2008 (assuming a 1st or 2nd quarter 2007 release) and I'd bet my schedule for OS an upgrade is pretty aggressive for a institution of our size (but maybe I'm wrong).
Dave
Originally posted by melgross
Well, 'im not going to piss on you
R. Kelly?
Originally posted by Kickaha
[B]Er... so wait. You want to state that being open will only help Apple, yet that's not the state of affairs, and the one time they *were*, they blew it.
Are you sure you're not trying to prove a negative there? I mean, from my viewpoint, it's the only example of them being open there is. Regardless of the other factors, which are open to interpretation, that's pretty much it.
They were much more open along the entire time frame that Jobs wasn't there. That was just the example you used, so I went with it. Apple used to give magazines machines to look at some time before they came out. They also used to inform their partners of areas they were going to go into. We knew about the switch to PPC for a couple of years before they came out, just for another example.
At that time? No. Now? I think they'd have a good shot.
Oh stop looking at me like that.
Well, as we have bothe said, Jobs runs a tight ship.
And, I can't help looking at you like that. you're cute.
Well for one thing, the NeXT acquisition was a huge media event in the first place, so no... they couldn't have if they had wanted to. They *did* keep MacOS X/Intel under wraps for a few years though, other than discredited rumors.
Sure, we just covered that.
I see two areas of potential secrecy on product development: strategic, and tactical. Strategic are the big picture products and technologies - the ones that shift users and the market. iPod, or Spotlight, for instance. Tactical are the things like CoreData and Bindings. They don't shove market, but they do facilitate developers and the like.
Strategic items are the ones that really, quite honestly, need to be kept under wraps for various reasons. Tactical items are the ones that could leak out and not be a huge problem. Mac mini? Strategic, to some degree. Next incremental bump of MacBook Pro? Tactical.
I'd like to see more flexibility and openness on the tactical side of things, but where that line is, is fuzzy.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that they have to release everything to the general public. But, as other large concerns discuss their strategic plans with their large partners, under disclosure, of course, I see no reason why Apple should be any different.
Shorter term tactical plans for software, and even hardware should be more open though.
I really do think that the need for secrecy on the part of Apple is exaggerated.
With Apple having their own OS, many of their plans are not directly transferable to other PC makers, or even MS. Both Apple and MS take from each other now, as it is. I don't see much difference if Apple let things go a few months earlier.
The way it works is that if MS saw Apple's ideas just after they released their OS, they wouldn't be making changes until the next OS release, several years down the road anyway. If Apple releases the information a year before, MS has already fixed their model, or is running late (again), and is dropping features just to get it out the door, and doesn't have the time to put major features in. So, maybe there is a certain time during their development cycle when they could benefit, but I don't see them suddenly saying; "wow, we have to copy all of that." That's a lot of work. They usually copy features from the last release, after they have had time to study it, and before they have written much code.
But I thought you were asking for more info on schedule and features. If, as you say, that everyone knows that new versions are in the works, then there's no issue, is there?
Now, you know that's not what I meant. It's not the issue of whether there will be a release, but just what is being released.
Your businesses don't want 'someday', they want a calendar date, and they want reasons to migrate. The calendar date (within a couple months) is set long in advance for OS releases, and the reasons to migrate are given at WWDC. Whether those reasons finally ship, and ship in an implementation that is workable for the businesses, isn't known until later. (Unless, of course, the business simply ponies up for $500 for a Select membership and gets advanced seedings post-WWDC... pretty simple if you ask me. A business of the size that is going to need months and months to migrate *on day 1* is going to have $500 in the petty lunch fund for visiting execs, for cripessake.)
Well, we don't have a calander date anyway, do we? We thought the conference would be in June, for a late 2006, perhaps very early 2007 release. not it looks like a release in the late first quarter, maybe. but, some people here on this site still think that Macworld is still the best release date. If so, there is almost no time for developers of hardware or software to get their products out shortly after.
The problem isn't after the conference. We all know what's happening then. It's before the conference.
I think you missed the part when I mentioned that the original ship date is announced earlier than that. *I* missed putting in the words 'for most customers,' which I intended to do. You're right, for very large rollouts, 6-9 months isn't much time.
The ship date is usually announced during the conference, or not! Often, all we're told is that it will be out during the first quarter, or the second half. Look at what we were told about 10.4, and what actually happened.
You're right, we don't.
Er, that's the current timeline for Leopard I outlined above.
I was referring to what you said here:
"If Apple wasn't saying *anything*, and then suddenly announcing Leopard one day with a bunch of new features, I'd say you have a point."
Never said I did... I'm not one who whines when RandomApp3.0 (Now with More Features(tm)!) isn't shipping one day after a new OS release. Development takes time. Good development can take longer. I'll wait. Heck, I didn't upgrade to 10.4 until just a couple of months ago...
I'm not saying you said that either. But, you read plenty of posts here. You know that quite a few others do say that.
Originally posted by DaveGee
Mel,
I'd just like to know one thing... What makes your Apple run business so very different than the one I work for not to mention almost the entirety of businesses running on Windows. I simply can think of one field (other than perhaps computer support and developers) that has the desperate need to migrate to the next OS so quickly and or even need to know the intimate details so far in advance.
I never said that we had to migrate so desperately. I said that we make plans. No business wants to get cought short. The photo graphics business does upgrade much more quickly than other businesses. With us, the new software and hardware can be a competitive edge. When you charge between $275 to $400 an hour to do work, there is competition between companies to see who can get that work out the door the fastest. No client wants to pay for an extra hour, if they don't have to. It really does add up!
If Adobe adds a new feature to a program that is dependent on the new OS to run, which is then also dependent on a newer model machine to install, you have to think of these things.
As companies are on an upgrade schelule, It can be difficult to realise that Apple doesn't release their OS's on some regular schedule. If they released once every few years, the was MS does, then it wouldn't matter so much. But the had been releasing every 12 months or so. Now it's around every 18 to 20 months or so. The upgrade cycle, therefore, hits that OS upgrade all too oftem, making planning more difficult.
It's really difficult to explain the details of business plans in posts. But, Im' trying.
Quote:
XP was release by Microsoft in what October 2001? Here we are 4 years and 6 months later and yet to this day XP hasn't made an enormous dent in 'corporate america'.
To back up that statement, here is an interesting quote from an article titled Windows 2000 continues to rule corporate marketshare (Published - June 2005).
I have no argument about that that. But, again, the graphics business is different. And Apple is different. It's a specialty field, and it moves more quickly.
Quote:
Here is one more interesting quote from that story... "The general trend was that the larger the firm, the stronger Windows 2000's presence, O'Halloran said."
Thats right... Almost half of all businesses were still not on the XP bandwagon even (close to) four years after XP was first released and the bigger the business the more slowly they are to move to the next OS and hell, these are people in the Windows world where advanced product roadmaps get handed out like candy by Microsoft.... ESPECIALLY to the 'big businesses' and yet even with all of that advanced insider info... much of big business is still to this very day are using os that was release close to 6 years ago!
Again, it's different. But, businesses that deal with the same issues as I did, were not happy. They are also among the first to move over.
Quote:
Why is it that Microsoft has decided it had no problem releasing the "Business Edition of Vista" ahem 'on time' and is only delaying it's "Consumer Edition of Vista". Maybe cause Microsoft knows the score... Vista isn't ready and to save some face they'll release the edition that nobody will touch anyway (and I use these words loosely) on time and 'only' have a slight delay till 2007 with the 'Consumer Edition' while they put the finishing touches on the new Media Center or some such line of bunk...
None of us can speak to MS's problems. But, nevertheless, they do meet with partners, hand out beta's, hold conferences where they detail what they are doing, etc.
Quote:
Sorry... the need to know when it comes to hardware (when it comes to businesses) yea I can see that is NOT a hard sell in my eyes (budgets being what they are)... the need to know when it comes to major OS details (when it comes to businesses)... Sorry but with everything I've read and experienced (from a business point of view) it just doesn't seem to be necessary.
Again, it depends upon the business.
Quote:
Wearing my 'MacGeek' hat.. Sure I'd L_O_V_E to know as much as I could as soon as I could but lets be real... Will it change my business decisions? Nope it wont - I know that 'some time in 2007' I'll need to re-up my 3 year OS site license / maintenance agreement (whatever its called) for 1500 or so machines - edit - in-fact I'd need to do this anyway the thing with OS and or Software maintenance is to not let them expire (or you'd need to 'get current' with all of your machines first (one cost) and then re-do the three year maintenance (another cost)... So, it's really no big deal... If OS 10.5 comes out prior to my maintenance expiration I'll get it (even if I choose not to re-up my maintenance) but either way I will be re-uping my maintenance so the point is truly moot.
I feel as though I'm responding to the same thing in each paragraph.
I really don't know what to say to you other than the industry which I was in operated the way I said. I know it pretty well. I don't know what business you are in, but I'm nort surprised that it might be different. Neither of us is speaking for everyone.
Quote:
When it comes to actual usage... Yea my machine will get it ASAP and I'll live with the nits and picks of a new OS but for 1500 users who I'd rather NOT be calling into the help desk every other minute (hey we have an institution to run) I'll probable not deploy the new OS till release 10.5.4 at the earliest (if history is any indication) and more than likely most of the 1500 machines wont have 10.5 till the end of 2007 or early 2008 (assuming a 1st or 2nd quarter 2007 release) and I'd bet my schedule for OS an upgrade is pretty aggressive for a institution of our size (but maybe I'm wrong).
Dave
I never buy new models when they first come out. If my buying schedule isn't ready for them, and unless there is a compelling reason to do so, I won't buy anything for several months. That's for me personally, as well as for my business. I never buy a new version of the OS the instant it comes out, again, I wait until it seems to be ok. I don't even update machines until I know that the update won't break something critical. And never upgrade anyrthing during oprojects, etc.
But, all of that makes it very helpful to have more information on hand.
Anyone who says that it's better to have less information on which to base a decision upon, and as early as possible, hasn't had to make business decisions.
Originally posted by melgross
They must know that it's way too late for MS, even if they did want to, to "steal" any features for Vista.
It's too late for the Engineering team, but not Redmond's most potent weapon - it's marketing team.
Cairo announcement. XP name adopted after the OS X announcement.
There are many, many examples.
There are very good reasons to delay WWDC so that Redmond's marketing for Vista is far enough along before they get a good look at Leopard.
It's not all about delivering new features, it's about denying Redmond the chance to say "we're working on something just like this..."
Originally posted by melgross
[B]They were much more open along the entire time frame that Jobs wasn't there. That was just the example you used, so I went with it. Apple used to give magazines machines to look at some time before they came out. They also used to inform their partners of areas they were going to go into. We knew about the switch to PPC for a couple of years before they came out, just for another example.
True. And that was one that went well.
I think there's one important aspect that is different now from then though, that you're missing...
The net.
There was an article on TS recently about how Mac magazine readership is plummeting, while the number of users is growing. I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised by this, when I haven't seen a magazine in *years* that wasn't several weeks behind the current news in the Mac world.
Back in the era you're talking about, however, the Mac magazine were the *only* way we all got news about goings on in Cupertino - the media outlet pool was, if you think about it, quite controlled by Apple even then. They could give magazines machines, and *specific* information, then be assured that it would come out when desired.
The net sort of changed that. Any snippet of info spreads like lightning, and can be misinterpreted, misreported and screwed up *horribly*. We've all seen it.
The rumor and news distribution mechanisms are *vastly* different now, and require different controls. I don't know that we actually have that much less info now, on the software front. A bit of advance notice on tactical releases in HW would be nice, but... *shrug*
Well, as we have bothe said, Jobs runs a tight ship.
And, I can't help looking at you like that. you're cute.
You're creeping me out, man...
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that they have to release everything to the general public. But, as other large concerns discuss their strategic plans with their large partners, under disclosure, of course, I see no reason why Apple should be any different.
Shorter term tactical plans for software, and even hardware should be more open though.
It'd be nice, and in some segments, I can see an argument for 'should', but as a general rule? Naw.
I really do think that the need for secrecy on the part of Apple is exaggerated.
Considering the change in information distribution channels? I'm not so sure. Honestly, I'm not sure that the real amount of useful information we get now is that much less than it was during the 'open' eras.
With Apple having their own OS, many of their plans are not directly transferable to other PC makers, or even MS. Both Apple and MS take from each other now, as it is. I don't see much difference if Apple let things go a few months earlier.
The way it works is that if MS saw Apple's ideas just after they released their OS, they wouldn't be making changes until the next OS release, several years down the road anyway. If Apple releases the information a year before, MS has already fixed their model, or is running late (again), and is dropping features just to get it out the door, and doesn't have the time to put major features in. So, maybe there is a certain time during their development cycle when they could benefit, but I don't see them suddenly saying; "wow, we have to copy all of that." That's a lot of work. They usually copy features from the last release, after they have had time to study it, and before they have written much code.
While true, this is an interesting upcoming year - the release of Leopard (and information on features) is *VERY* likely tied to Vista's release. I don't think, this time around, that is has that much to do with feature copying, but marketing opportunities.
Well, we don't have a calander date anyway, do we? We thought the conference would be in June, for a late 2006, perhaps very early 2007 release. not it looks like a release in the late first quarter, maybe. but, some people here on this site still think that Macworld is still the best release date. If so, there is almost no time for developers of hardware or software to get their products out shortly after.
The problem isn't after the conference. We all know what's happening then. It's before the conference.
Alright. By 'calendar date' I meant 'financial quarter'. Really, if a company is looking for a *specific day* a year in advance to be able to do sufficient planning, they need to take a look at their deployment mechanism a bit.
The ship date is usually announced during the conference, or not! Often, all we're told is that it will be out during the first quarter, or the second half. Look at what we were told about 10.4, and what actually happened.
Refresh my memory.
I'm not saying you said that either. But, you read plenty of posts here. You know that quite a few others do say that.
Yeah they do - and I've long since learned to block out the noise. Life's better that way.
Originally posted by Frank777
It's too late for the Engineering team, but not Redmond's most potent weapon - it's marketing team.
Cairo announcement. XP name adopted after the OS X announcement.
There are many, many examples.
There are very good reasons to delay WWDC so that Redmond's marketing for Vista is far enough along before they get a good look at Leopard.
It's not all about delivering new features, it's about denying Redmond the chance to say "we're working on something just like this..."
I don't see that as a major problem. And the name Cairo is ages old.
Originally posted by melgross
Anyone who says that it's better to have less information on which to base a decision upon, and as early as possible, hasn't had to make business decisions.
Just a nit to pick here...
Bad information is worse than less information.
"Longhorn, due in 2004!"
"Vista, due in 2006! With WinFS!"
If you were a business who had counted on either of those, you had to *RE*plan... meaning you wasted your resources the first time around.
Originally posted by Kickaha
The net.
There was an article on TS recently about how Mac magazine readership is plummeting, while the number of users is growing. I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised by this, when I haven't seen a magazine in *years* that wasn't several weeks behind the current news in the Mac world.
Back in the era you're talking about, however, the Mac magazine were the *only* way we all got news about goings on in Cupertino - the media outlet pool was, if you think about it, quite controlled by Apple even then. They could give magazines machines, and *specific* information, then be assured that it would come out when desired.
I agree with you there. No doubt. I've been saying that for years. The other major source of information was the user groups. Apple used to present there as well. also the regional shows.
My Mac user group here in NYC had, at one time, 5,400 members. Can you imagine? We even sponsored, along with Macworld magazine, a large New York Macworld in the Hilton Hotel. we had well over 20,000 people attend.
The net sort of changed that. Any snippet of info spreads like lightning, and can be misinterpreted, misreported and screwed up *horribly*. We've all seen it.
But errors can be corrected faster as well. when mistakes went out before, and they did all the time, it could take months before we knew what really happened.
The rumor and news distribution mechanisms are *vastly* different now, and require different controls. I don't know that we actually have that much less info now, on the software front. A bit of advance notice on tactical releases in HW would be nice, but... *shrug*
Rumor control is needed BECAUSE Apple refuses to give information out.
It'd be nice, and in some segments, I can see an argument for 'should', but as a general rule? Naw.
I didn't say about everything.
Considering the change in information distribution channels? I'm not so sure. Honestly, I'm not sure that the real amount of useful information we get now is that much less than it was during the 'open' eras.
Well, what do we know about the new MacBook, or the new tower? Not much. We used to know much more. Apple also let us know much more about what they were working on regarding the OS as well. They even let us know everything about OS X before it came out. They even released a beta, just like MS does.
If they were going to keep something secret, that was the time to do it, before the OS even came out. But, now, the changes are far smaller, but still enough to cause problems.
Refresh my memory.
I don't remember the details now, but it came out much earlier than we expected. We were led to believe that it would be out second quarter, but it came out in April. Remember the arguments about the bugs, and why it was released when it was?
We know now why it was released early, but at the time, it surprised us all. Remember what I was saying about Apple just before the release, and shortly afterward?
Yeah they do - and I've long since learned to block out the noise. Life's better that way. [/B]
Amen, brother!
Originally posted by Kickaha
Just a nit to pick here...
Bad information is worse than less information.
"Longhorn, due in 2004!"
"Vista, due in 2006! With WinFS!"
If you were a business who had counted on either of those, you had to *RE*plan... meaning you wasted your resources the first time around.
Well, I'm not talking about bad information.
But, even in that case, MS has kept a running advisement on what is happening. It's not as though they made an announcement and then said nothing for the next year or two. People could adjust their plans.
By releasing beta's, companies could get an early start on their plans, coding, modification of in-house projects, etc.
Originally posted by Louzer
I just hope they don't just try rushing this crap out before its actually ready.
Since when has crap ever been ready?
Originally posted by sjk
Since when has crap ever been ready?
Good point!
Oh ya, the secret thing. Apple is smart in doing so. The mob never got anything right. Trust me.