Why Apple Delayed Leopard for the iPhone

Ernest DeFarge writes "Apple recently announced that they've pulled several key programmers from the OS X 10.5 "Leopard" and assigned them to the iPhone in order to get it done on time. In doing so, they delayed Leopard for 4 months. Does that mean that the iPhone is more important to Apple than Mac OS? Or is it just capitalizing on the current state of Apple's fanbase?"

Unfair comparison

[catxk (1086945)]

I guess brand new massively hyped iPhone is more important to Apple than the difference between OS X 10.4 and 10.5 during the limited time period of the summer of 2007.

Re:Unfair comparison

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

Pretty much. This isn't "Apple Vista" we're talking about here. 10.4 is a good OS and there's no rush to upgrade. I think we'll all survive waiting for 10.5 if it means that the iPhone (something which is completely unavailable to the market) gets here faster.

From a business perspective, Apple doesn't want their major announcements overlapping. So delaying the OS by a few months means that they can provide a steady stream of announcements.

Re:Unfair comparison

[HAKdragon (193605)]

Pretty much. This isn't "Apple Vista" we're talking about here. 10.4 is a good OS and there's no rush to upgrade.

There doesn't seem to be much of a rush to upgrade to Vista either.

Re:

[313373_bot (766001)]

The comparison is somewhat apt, in my opinion:

10.4 is a good OS and there's no rush to upgrade

XP is a good (enough) OS and there's no rush to upgrade

I believe MS failed its costumers by delaying Vista not because of the delay itself (it would be acceptable if they did ship all the new technology that was promised, not just the eye candy), but because the lateness seems due to incompetence and the inclusion of all sort of technology worthless to the end-user (read anti-consumer drm.)

Now let's look at Apple:

Re:Unfair comparison

[juiceCake (772608)]

Pretty much. This isn't "Apple Vista" we're talking about here.

Quite right. Copland/Rhapsody was Apple's Vista.

Captivated market

[Gary W. Longsine (124661)]

Given the Apple emphasis on support for open standards (such as a standards-compliant web browser and email client) and the UNIX base of Mac OS X, I'd say Apple users are relatively much less locked in than Windows users.

Apple users are certainly no more locked in than users of any other platform. The average useful life of a general purpose personal computer has been two to four years, depending largely on individual use case. If you don't like being locked in to Windows, buy a Mac the next time you need a new system. Same works in reverse.

Re:Captivated market

[ClosedSource (238333)]

I don't see how the Unix base has anything to do with it. Which Unix systems can run typical OS X apps?

relevancy

[Gary W. Longsine (124661)]

No, it would also be relevant if UNIX applications could run on Mac OS X, or if Mac OS X applications interoperated seamlessly with UNIX servers, both of which are true. Thus my comment.

Who is being held captive?

[Infonaut (96956)]

You can not install the update and deal with new apps not working with your Mac, or you can install Windows or Linux on your Mac, wasting the premium you paid for the box.

You're making the usual Apples v. Oranges mistake. Just as nobody would compare a $500 Windows machine with a $2,000 Windows machine, it is foolish to compare bargain basement PCs with Macs. If you want to compare quality hardware with quality hardware, compare $2,000 machines. You spend $2,000 each on three different laptops. Here are the three scenarios:

On your Mac, if you can not install the update and deal with new apps not working with your Mac, you CAN install Windows or you CAN install Linux on your Mac.

On your Windows machine, Microsoft comes out with an upgrade. You cannot install the update and deal with new apps not working with your Windows computer. You CAN install Linux on your machine. You CANNOT install Macintosh on your machine.

On your Linux machine, the latest and greatest Linux distro arrives. You cannot install the update and deal with new apps working sluggishly or not working at all on your computer because of processor speed, graphics card limitations, or limited disk space. You CAN install Windows on your machine. You CANNOT install Macintosh on your machine.

So the Macintosh hardware gives you three OS choices. The other two only give you two OS choices each. I fail to see how the Apple hardware locks you in more than PC hardware.

Re:Not locked in, locked OUT

[LKM (227954)]

What you're complaining about is being locked out, not being locked in. How does your problem affect Mac users?

Re:Not locked in, locked OUT

[bberens (965711)]

There's not a lack of choices for the consumer. I can run any of a number of Fedora Core, Ubuntu, Solaris x86, FreeBSD, Windows XP, Windows 2000, DOS, Debian, and dozens upon dozens of other operating systems on my machine. The fact that I can't run one in particular doesn't indicate to me that I have a lack of choices. It means one provider of operating systems chooses not to target me as a potential customer. It happens all the time.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

You aren't Apple's customer. Apple is a HARDWARE company that sells integrated solutions.

Get over it. You want OS X, buy a Mac. Otherwise stick with Windows, *Nix, or write your own OS.

If Apple tried the business model of selling people like you copies of OS X, they would go out of business. Their hardware sales subsidize software development. No hardware revenue, no development expense. If they priced it to actually recover the "hardwareless" cost, you wouldn't be willing to pay and lots of your unwashed b

Re:Not locked in, locked OUT

[Mattintosh (758112)]

This is not an example of "giving the customer what they want".

No, it's an example of you're not the customer. You haven't purchased a computer from them, so you're not a customer. Period. Whine and gripe about it all you want, but if you want Mac OS X, you must become Apple's customer, and that pretty much requires a hardware purchase.

Try thinking of it like this: Apple sells computers. Mac OS X is a pack-in (and really, it's optional, you can install Linux or Windows if you want). You don't get the "free" copy of Mac OS X and a fully supported installation without buying hardware. You could just buy the boxed version of Mac OS X (well, once 10.5 is out, anyway) and install it on your existing hardware, but it's unsupported. And don't bother with the tired "it's not allowed by the EULA" argument, since that hasn't ever stopped anyone before and it probably isn't even legally enforceable, much less enforceable in a practical sense.

So don't use Apple computers. It is, as you stated, your choice. But know that by not using them, you aren't a customer, and aren't entitled to be treated like one.

Re:Not locked in, locked OUT

[gig (78408)]

> I've got a great new Core 2 duo machine, and I've spent a lot of time and money creating a quiet cooling system
> for it because I use the computer for music production.

> I'd like Apple to sell me a version of OSX that I could run on this new machine, too, but they've decided that I can't use
> their OS unless I pay a premium for their hardware (which is basically either the same or inferior to what I've got).

You spent a lot of time and money creating a quiet and cool machine for music production, yet you are not willing to pay Apple any kind of premium to make you a quiet and cool machine for music production? Apple has specifically made "quiet" a feature since the 1980's. They put time and effort into that whereas others don't and then you have to.

In addition to making your machine quiet and cool, Apple will also include a complete multichannel digital audio subsystem with plug-in format and 32-bit 192 kHz support, it is a whole digital mixer in there. It takes me about 20 minutes to install MOTU drivers on a Mac and hook up through USB and FireWire and in no time I'm running Logic Pro and Ableton Live side-by-side and it all just works. It would be worth paying a premium for, but you don't because it is all the same Intel hardware. The software is essentially free.

> This is not an example of "giving the customer what they want".

In this you are 100% correct because you are not one of their customers. You bought a Windows PC.

> Free markets are supposed to be about choices. It's the lack of choices that has kept me from switching to Vista. After careful
> consideration, and despite the fact that I admire much about OSX, I choose not to use Macs because I don't want to be limited
> in such a way.

You bought a Windows PC with version 5.1 of the OS ... Vista is version 6.0. You don't have a choice not to use it. You have to change to another computing platform to avoid Vista.

Complaining that you would rather run the PS3 operating system or the Mac operating system or the iPod operating system on your Windows computer is pointless.

Earlier you blamed Apple for "deciding" that in order to use their OS you have to buy their PC. It is you who decided to buy a commodity PC. It is you who is to blame for the fact that your operating system choices are limited to commodity operating systems. Apple is not the only company to build specific OS for specific hardware, in fact, this is the typical method. The only company that does it the OTHER way is PART of Microsoft. It is not even all of Microsoft, because with XBox and Zune they are using the typical method same as Apple and Sony.

> I'm less certain of the long-term viability of the Macintosh platform now than I've been at any time since 1998.

Apple is selling more Macs now than ever. You buy a really good computer and it comes with tons of world-class software, and if you have other uses for it you can run Windows or Unix on it or do as you please. It's hard to argue with that compared to other name brands.

However if you are doing music and you're not using a Mac I truly think you are a mad man. CoreAudio is worth buying a Mac just to use it. It takes me 20 minutes to turn a stock Mac into a digital audio workstation using a couple of MOTU boxes and a handful of software installers and then it just works. It is easy to swap a Mac out for a new one and get more CPU because the IT overhead is almost zero, even in a music studio.

Re:Captive market

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

Either way, everybody using a Mac has to buy it and will buy it.

Yeah, I know they've FORCED me to buy the upgrades several times now. Damn I wish I still had freewill...

Re:

[Gr8Apes (679165)]

Interesting that most Apple software continues to work for years. I don't recall anyone having to upgrade to 10.4 or 10.3. You might have wanted to, since the OS got leaner and faster and offered some serious new benies, quite unlike, say, the XP -> Vista "upgrade".

However, unlike Mac upgrades, the Vista/Office upgrade is designed to force an upgrade cycle, by that wonderful "incompatible" format structure. What do you get for your upgrade dollar? A more unstable system with a new UI to learn and ever ad

Re:Unfair comparison

[Divebus (860563)]

Since Vista has proven to be absolutely no competition to even the current OS X, what's the rush for Leopard? Get the iPhone right and they'll have a HUGE winner on their hands. A million people [reuters.com] have already queried AT&T about the iPhone through the notification list at Cingular [cingular.com], so who's your daddy?

Re:Unfair comparison

[Divebus (860563)]

What do you mean? There are probably at least 10 times as many new computers sold with Vista, as with OS X

That's down from 20 times a few years ago. Two-thirds of the people in my office drop kicked their PCs and bought Macs in the last couple of years. That's a trend I'm watching first hand. Those who still want/need a new PC are trying to figure out where to get one with XP. They don't even WANT Vista but that's what's shipping now, like it or not. I've shown a few PC users XP under Parallels and they all had that "aha" moment. More switchers, albeit AC/DC.

Microsoft's MBU: The Mac's Fifth Column

[by Anonymous Coward]

Your anecdote is a perfect example of why I think the Mac community has been compromised by using Office X, and other products from Microsoft's Mac Business Unit. As I have mentioned here before, I do not trust PC-type people. They do not think like us. They are not like us. They are as close to "alien life forms" as we can get without having to leave this planet.

Seriously, they do not share our values. They hate that we have good taste. They like to keep their windows maximized and their ligatures uncombin

Re:

[A Friendly Troll (1017492)]

Two-thirds of the people in my office drop kicked their PCs and bought Macs in the last couple of years. That's a trend I'm watching first hand.

I take it you're living in the USA, right? While I don't in any way want to oppose your opinion, as I do believe that the trend you're watching is very much real, you have to think outside the box a little.

I live in a small and rather undeveloped country (but it's getting better); last week was the first time I have ever (!) seen a Mac. It was an iMac running Window

Re:

[Jesus_666 (702802)]

As for Germany, the GP's observation applies. Apple is luring in people from both the Windows and Linux camps (I should know, having gone from a Linux/Mac configuration to being a pure Mac user - even though the Linux machine's hardware going haywire is a major factor in that). While people are starting to become aware of Linux, Apple's mindshare is much bigger and thus Apple receives more switchers.

People know that Apple is cool. People know that Apple creates sleek Hardware and the ones that have taken

Re:Unfair comparison

[SuperMog2002 (702837)]

Because the release of Vista hasn't really made a dent in Mac sales. Sure, Vista's sold many more copies than Mac OS X has, which everyone should have expected given the market four months ago (i.e. MS dominates and almost all new computers ship with Windows). The key is that, year over year, Apple's sales are still increasing, even though last year they didn't have to compete with Vista and this year they do. Sure, when the iPod first came out 5 years ago, maybe MP3 players were all that was keeping Apple alive. However, today Mac sales are self sustaining and rising.

In my mind, there was never much of a doubt that Vista would do well. Microsoft just had too much momentum for it to flop. What's up the air right now, especially if it takes 5 years to come out, is Windows 7. MS's momentum is decreasing, and if they don't reverse the trend, then they eventually won't have enough to get another free pass like Vista. The fact that Vista didn't slow Mac sales is bad for them. Very bad.

Re:Unfair comparison

[bgfay (5362)]

http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html [paulgraham.com]

Paul Graham's article "Microsoft is Dead" [paulgraham.com] may be applicable here. For me, I'm no longer worried about buying another Windows machine (yes, I'm on XP right now) because I no longer use apps that are tied to Windows. In fact, as things go, I use fewer and fewer apps that aren't web based. I just don't need them any more. Beyond that, most of the apps I use have free alternatives and I use them.

The one proprietary application I still use is iTunes with my iPod. So a Mac machine might work for me next time around. I want one because they are so well designed, unlike this HP piece of junk whose battery doesn't make it an hour, and because friends and family have all had very good experiences.

Then again, I might just throw the whole lot out and buy something cheap and put Ubuntu on it.

Whatever the case, there's more to the equation than Bill Gates's relative worth.

Re:

[2nd Post! (213333)]

Think about it.

There are 18 times as many PCs as Macs
Sales of Vista rank only 10 times as much as sales of OS X

Indeed...

[someone300 (891284)]

What's up with these binary comparisons? Just because OS X 10.5 was delayed a few months for the iPhone doesn't mean anything to do with OS X being unimportant. The iPhone runs OS X; it must be important.

Most users are happy with 10.4 and 10.5 is more of a luxury than a necessity. All this means is that 10.4 is sufficient that the general Apple buyer isn't screaming for OS improvements, but that the market may indeed be screaming for a decent mobile phone, like they were screaming for a decent MP3 player around when the iPod gained in popularity.

Anyway, a lot of the funds and improvements from the potential success from the iPhone will probably be funneled back into OS X and the Mac hardware. Haven't some of the improvements in 10.5, like Core Animation, been brought about due to the iPhone already?

Re:Indeed...

[Scudsucker (17617)]

Taco? Is that you? How much space do you have left on that Nomad these days?

What can wait?

[Scrameustache (459504)]

Cell phone buyers, or releasing the preview to Microsoft's next OS features?

...and you know the end product never lives up to the previews ;-)

Re:What can wait?

[Rakshasa Taisab (244699)]

I don't know about you, but Windows Vista certainly lived up to my expectations. It might even have surpassed them by a little.

BTW, don't take this to mean I'd ever be willing to come within 5km of a computer running it though.

Rumor has it

[falcon5768 (629591)]

That Apple wasnt delaying to for the iPhone more than they are delaying it for some secret additions to the codebase and the testing involved for it that we will get a hint of come WWDC.

System Restore isn't equivalent to Time Machine

[Gary W. Longsine (124661)]

Time Machine solves a different problem than Windows System Restore. Time Machine is a backup system designed to make it so easy for ordinary users to back up and restore data that they actually do it. It can back up over the network or to a secondary hard disk (FireWire, USB, internal, Airport Disk). It allows restore of individual files.

Time Machine [apple.com]
Leopard Technology Series for Developers [apple.com]
Time Machine [wikipedia.org]

Although System Restore on Windows is a useful concept on Windows, it's not designed as a bac

They're playing the hype

[oskard (715652)]

I don't know what Leopard is. I know what an iPhone is. You know why?

Because the iPhone is on the news, tv, radio; everyone is talking about it. It is absolutely more important than OSX at the moment. The iPhone could potentially be Apple's new iPod.

Yes!

[by Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean that the iPhone is more important to Apple than Mac OS?

Did nobody else notice that when Jobs announced the iPhone, he also renamed the company to take the word "Computer" out of it?

That sounds kind of, well, I dunno, strategic to me.

I Think Their Excuse is Lame

[Black-Man (198831)]

Pulling QA and Software Engineers off the Leopard project onto iPhone?? I don't care if its the "same" OS, i.e. iPhone using the mobile version of OSX. Adding developers and QA towards the end of a project lifecycle usually means disaster. I'm curious to see if they pull it off.

Re:I Think Their Excuse is Lame

[ZachPruckowski (918562)]

How do you know it happened just now. It could have happened 3 months ago, and they're just telling us now. For all we know, those programmers could have been reassigned last year (in like Oct) and are now heading back to Leopard (which is why we now have a time estimate on release)

don't be so gullible

[nanosquid (1074949)]

You can't conclude from a press release what the real reason for the delay is. Leopard may be delayed because of the iPhone, or it may be delayed because it's still buggy, or maybe Apple is still trying to file some last minute patents, or maybe it's something completely different.

Quite obvious...

[Kjella (173770)]

..it's a matter of which one they can't afford to fail with. I saw a *lot* of mainstream press on the AppleTV, simply because it was Apple. The reviews weren't that great though, and they really can't afford the iPhone to be a flop - they'll go from being the iPod king to so-so producer of stylish consumer electronics. That is far more important to them than missing an OS upgrade (how long was Vista delayed again? Debian etch? It's not like Apple is the bad apple here.

It's no longer the "Apple Computer Company" is it.

[HerculesMO (693085)]

It's the iTunes company.

AppleTV, iPod, iPhone, Airport, etc.... all complements to iTunes.

Watch out for the iphone

[loftling (574538)]

My personal theory is that Apple is hiding a big iphone feature. They announced it in January because they had to for FCC filings, they showed us a bunch of the features to get people excited, but there's going to be something more that justifies the price and their entry into the market.

ignore the hype

[FFFish (7567)]

There's a single OS X development team. OS X is running on Mac, AppleTV, iPhone, and god knows what other products Apple has in the development stream. The team is going to focus on numerous facets of the OS; currently, they're focused more on the iPhone drivers & UI et al. All of which is going to pay off for us Mac users.

My bet is that the big OS X secret is going to have something to do with new ways of interacting with the computer, using technologies developed expressly for the iPhone initially. All Apple products are high-touch/interactive; the iPhone is *especially* so. The computer and TV platforms can only benefit by that.

These are very exciting times in the OS world. We are *finally* beginning to get an OS that really lives up to everything an OS should be: stable, secure, great UI, intuitive, pleasant.

Re:

[anti-human 1 (911677)]

I dunno, I think its made by Cisco though...

Re:Release early, release often

[owlnation (858981)]

I think Apple has no need to aim lower. 10.4 is already better than Vista. There's no pressure on them to rush anything.

Apple makes more money on hardware sales than it does with software. Thus, it makes sense that the iPhone is a priority (if that is actually the case). Apple got a big hardware sales boost with switching to Intel. However many Mac users, such as myself, haven't upgraded to Intel machines because of the delay with Adobe CS3.

Leopard is icing on the cake, and I'm sure it's going to be great, but CS3 is going to sell many more new Macs than Leopard.

They've BEEN doing that!

[phillymjs (234426)]

Have you been in a cave on the dark side of the moon since 2000?

During the last five years, Apple released major versions of OS X about every 1-1.5 years while all Microsoft had was XP. Third party developers were actually complaining because of the rapid pace of change of OS X. Before Tiger was released, Apple announced they would be slowing down the pace of their OS X releases. [eweek.com]

I'm disappointed that I have to wait longer than expected for Leopard, but I'd rather they ship it when it's ready-- besides, it's not like they had to scrap it midstream and start over, and then chop all the compelling features to make an already embarassingly late ship date.

  It does make sense to focus on the iPhone right now, because the mobile phone market is much larger than the personal computer market. If Apple gets a nice foothold in it, it will mean more money for them to pour into expanding their presence in the computer market.

~Philly

Re:They've BEEN doing that!

[Smurf (7981)]

You are not getting it. "Mac OS X" is just a marketing name, just as "Microsoft Windows" or "Microsoft Windows Vista" is. When looking for a final name for Rhapsody, Apple realized that in order to avoid alienating the (classic) Mac OS users it was a good idea to give a similar name to the new operating system (just like Windows NT vs old Windows). And since the next mayor version was 10, they decided to call the new OS "Mac OS X", with the X in Roman to differentiate it.

Well, Jobs and his cronies found out that they really liked the big X, and quite frankly XI isn't that appealing, so they decided to name subsequent major versions as 10.2, 10.3, etc. Some day that will wear off, but meanwhile marketing-wise it's working. Minor (point) versions, the equivalent of a less-juicy but more-frequent Windows Service Pack, are named 10.x.y.

The best way to get your mind untangled is to look at Darwin [wikipedia.org], the underlying OS. It started with a major screw-up with the version numbers, but then Apple recognized that:
1) Darwin/Mac OS X is more a descendant of NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP than of MacOS.
2) Puma (10.1) was more like a huge service pack for Cheetah (10.0). That's not true for the subsequent cats.

Thus, they revised the numbering so that Darwin would fit in the NeXTSTEP lineage. The Darwin versions and the corresponding Mac OS X versions can be found here [wikipedia.org]. Now you see that Jaguar, Panther and Tiger are all major versions.

(For another famous mash-up of version numbers, look at SunOS vs Solaris [wikipedia.org] and the jump of Solaris 2.6 to Solaris 7 [wikipedia.org].)

So, assuming that we can make a similar argument for Windows NT 5.1 (aka "XP"), since the year 2000 Microsoft has released:
Windows 2000 and 2000 Server (NT 5.0)
(Windows ME doesn't count, since it was not an NT).
Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 (NT 5.1 & 5.2)
Windows Vista (NT 6.0) (Longhorn Server may be released this year, or more likely next).

And Apple has released:
Cheetah + Server (I'm not counting Puma, which was anyway a free upgrade) (Darwin (screwedup-number)-5.x)
Jaguar + Server (Darwin 6.x)
Panther + Server (Darwin 7.x)
Tiger + Server (Darwin 8.x)
Leopard (+ Server) on October. (Darwin 9.x)

If you want to count all the service packs, MS made around 12 major+minor releases, Apple almost 40. But that's not very significant, since Microsoft packs more into each service pack than Apple does, and that's OK. Only major releases matter.

Re:

[rbanffy (584143)]

Unixes, in general, are very flexible OSs.

If a Motorola phone can run Linux, most certainly an iPhone can run Darwin.

Even if it doesn't - and Apple goes a different route with the kernel - they still have the BSD layer and most of their userland stuff remains relatively portable as soon as you port the *Kit stuff.

As for the eye candy, it's easy to do decent 2D acceleration even on a low-power device.

I say they are still looking good on the iPhone front.

Re:

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

OS X version -1 was OPENSTEP 4.2. It ran on a 33MHz Motorola 68040 with 12MB of RAM, and drove a 1120x832 display with 4K colours. My current mobile has much higher specs than this (with the exception of screen size, which is smaller, and thus easier), is over a year old, and was cheap when I got it. Running OS X on an iPhone will not be a problem.

Re:

[admactanium (670209)]

That would have easily passed any decent spell checker. What you're probably thinking of is a grammar chacker, none of which are or have ever been very good.

which is why i said "beyond the obligatory spell checker" implying that simply running a spellchecker is not the same thing as proofing an article.

Re:

[tverbeek (457094)]

You're spot on. As a college tech geek, I'm greatly annoyed that Leopard won't be out this summer; I was really looking forward to some of the new features for the Fall semester (release-quality Boot Camp would be a god-send), as well as hoping to get it pre-installed (not an after-market upgrade) on hundreds of new computers being purchased by our students in July/August. An iPhone isn't even on my Xmas wish list, and I resent it a bit for stealing resources from Leopard. However, I agree that Apple's d

Re:This piece doesn't make much sense....

[linguae (763922)]

Well, this announcement illustrates the difference between Apple fans and Mac fans. Apple fans like the decision because they feel that the iPhone would be a great product. The Apple fans are the ones saying that the delay of the OS is fine; OS X 10.4 is good enough for them. Apple fans like the idea of Apple becoming a consumer electronics company. Mac fans, on the other hand, don't really care about the iPhone. They feel that this decision is a slap in the face to Apple's loyal Mac customers, who want to prioritize a new phone over their long-standing product with millions of users. They'd rather see better Macs and improvements to OS X than to see a phone. Mac fans are worried that the Mac would be marginalized as Apple chases profits from MP3 players, phones, media center boxes, and other consumer electronics.

I fall in the Mac fan category. Personally, I'm starting to get worried about Apple's change from Apple Computer, Inc. to just Apple, Inc. At MacWorld 2007, not a single Mac product was announced. The only hardware update that we've received in five months was the updated Mac Pros that came out recently. Now OS X is delayed to work on a phone. I, and many other Mac users who have switched away from Linux, BSD, and other Unices, are not interested in Apple because of their phones, media centers, or MP3 players. We're interested in Apple because of their easy to use Unix with commercial software support and easy to use GUI applications. I hope the Mac doesn't become marginalized, but I already feel that it has by Apple's actions this year.

I'll just have to wait and see. But for now, although I like my MacBook, I'll be very careful to not be locked-in. Just as I switched to the Mac last summer from Windows XP and FreeBSD, I will switch back if I discover that Apple doesn't care about us.

Re:

[Ash-Fox (726320)]

Unlike certain fanboys of another-not-to-be-named-OS who waited through intermediate releases (XP, XPsp2) for over 5 years - wait, what? 7?), I think I can handle 3 months.

Heh, well, I'm going to count how many "intermediate releases" Windows OS releases I've had since 2000.

Win2k SP1, WinXP, Win2k SP2, WinXP sp1, Win2k SP3, Win2k3, WinXP SP2, Win2k3 sp1, Win2k SP3, win2k3 sp2, WinVista etc.

Every year, I've definitely played with new 'intermediate' Windows OS versions.

Re:

[2nd Post! (213333)]

Does it not occur to you that both the AppleTV and the iPhone are computers?

Albeit smaller, more usable, and more affordable than the traditional Mac?