Garth Algar (way) wrote:
Well,
This post just lives on, because there are some real, (what's the right word?) ...concerns, maybe, that are real with average users and long time users alike.
FWIW, the reason I originally posted in this thread over 3 months ago (and held Apple's feet to the fire) was because I was prompted to download iTunes 10 on a PPC-based G4 laptop running X.10.4.11, when the "check for updates" server SHOULD'VE been able to determine which OS I was running, and know not to prompt me to download and install software which I cannot install (since iTunes 10 can't run on Tiger, as we all know by now).
It's reasonable to expect that Apple's update servers should be sophisticated enough to know that the available update can't run under Tiger, so it shouldn't prompt users to download software they can't install. Seems pretty basic, no?
Unlike some here, though, I don't expect Jobs/Apple to perform miracles, like turning water into wine by making a single-core PPC chip perform like a C2D.
Firstly, I think that $30 for Leopard is a very fair price, even though I don't use it. Apple has always delivered the goods in this way. I think that some newer Mac users, or recent "switchers" just simply weren't expecting the shorter legacy of backward compatibility with Macs, as they are used to the really long compatibility of Windows.
During the past 5 years, PC's ALSO transitioned from 32-bit to 64-bit chips, so the situation would not be any different had someone been on the PC side. So you could've transitioned from XP to Vista to Windows 7 on the PC side, or 10.4 to 10.5 to 10.6 on the Mac side.
Speaking of costs, I paid Microsoft $120 for the 'XP Home' to 'Win 7 Home' upgrade, whereas Apple charges $29 for the Tiger to Snow Leopard upgrade. $29 or $120? OS X upgrade is relatively cheap, I'd say (and that's not even the cost for upgrading to 'Win 7 Pro', which retails for $200).
There are plenty of long time, power-users still using Tiger by choice, because it is more stable for their business. I hear from many pro-audio techs who use Tiger because they say it is more stable than the newest OS. In fact many pro editors
Never use the newest OS in their work environment! They will wait until all the bugs are worked out before switching, until they learn the nuances of the new one, at which point they move up.
Yup, the smart approach is to never change ANYTHING on a production machine until you absolutely have to! Early adopter beta-testing is NOT something working pros will bother with, esp. if it's a machine used to earn one's bread and butter.
That said, most pro users I know have held off updating their machines until this year, when it was clear that stability of X.10.6 is better than X.10.4: it's mature enough to know by now. They hold off on incremental updates, though, unless they're experiencing a problem that the update reports to address, or until they've tested on a non-production machine (or the early adopters report no relevant issues).
I know a guy who uses Cubase, Logic, and Pro Tools, and he's not practically going to spend another $1500 on upgraded music production tools so he can have iTunes 10? It really doesn't make a lot of sense. He just uses another app. for music, and buys his tunes on a PC or an iPod. I really like Toast as an alternative.
Most serious recording musicians/producers have computers dedicated to music production, with a bare-bones minimal 'clean' installation of the OS, and won't use the studio computer for anything aside from recording (i.e. no e-mails, browsing the web, even not setting up an internet connection on it to prevent the risk of viruses, etc). You just don't want anything running in the background that potentially interferes with the responsiveness of the music software (whether it be Pro Tools, Logic, etc). Most will use a separate machine for general use.
As for "planned obsolescence", no I don't have any 100% proof that it happens, and I don't know really how much "planning" goes into it with regard to exact timetable. We certainly could never attest to that part of it, but if you don't believe that companies, including this one, don't engage in +purposefully dropping support+ for hardware, then we disagree. No one can expect a company to support apps for too long. They have to make money. They have to sell new stuff. However, in this case all one has to do is watch the keynotes and one will see that some companies (*+cough, cough+*) make the majority of their money selling H-a-r-d-ware. I've seen the stock price go from about $90 to $350+, in 4 yrs., on mostly, and admittedly, hardware sales. That's fine. Great. I don't have a problem with a company doing what it wants to do. And having great success, too! There will be a point of diminishing returns, however. People will decide if having this is worth that. It will come because it always does, just like the housing market.
Apple's made no attempt to hide the fact that they're a HARDWARE company: they BRAG about it, and their pricing on OS X software and iLife apps reflect they don't see software as their profit center.
Now if any socialists out there want to blame a company for making profits off sales of their products, then I want to live in your World, where apparently some still expect something for nothing (is that part of growing up in a "music is free via torrent" generation?)!
In general, "new and improved" is part and parcel of free-market capitalism. No one decries automakers as they rush to introduce new models every year, despite the new products not offering technological advances (often changes in body style, alone). So when I see tech companies introducing newer, faster, and more powerful machines due to using faster processors (with supporting OSes to take advantage of the capabilities), I can hardly accuse them of providing cosmetic updates, alone.
All that being said, I think that computer hardware is leveling-off for a while, so current Intel users might catch a longer interval of app support, although the history of innovation and pushing the "new" thing doesn't really support that.
I think you're right. The transition from 32-bit to 64-bit is almost complete, and we're at the point where devs have introduced software that actually takes advantage of the increased multi-processor/multi-thread capabilities. But when it comes to major transition hurdles, the pain seems to be behind us.
The main changes will probably occur as pricing of processors drop, such that costs of chips drops to allow wider implementation in future products for lower prices. That's fairly predictable: more computing power for less $$$.
But I also believe in the business philosophy of "the customer is always >right". Its old school I know, but history always repeats itself..
FWIW, "the customer is always right" is an oft-repeated CS mantra that was popular in the 1970's, but is not current CS thinking. It's been replaced by the concept that the customer sometimes is WRONG, VERY WRONG, and a company will absolutely lose profitability by trying to concede to their unreasonable demands.
What IS true is that the customer remains someone who's business a company should desire, but only if it can maintain a 'win-win' relationship with the customer. Some businesses are wise to show unreasonable/irrational customers the door, and let their competitor watch their business erode by trying to please a customer with unrealistic expectations.
