Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
OS X Businesses Operating Systems Apple

Jaguar Release Ahead of Schedule? 87

Posted by Hemos from the moving-along-at-a-respectable-pace dept.
Warlock7 writes "CNET has an article that discusses the 'early' release of Mac OS X 10.2, codename Jaguar. The article says that Jaguar should be ready for release in August, more than a month earlier than the analysts expected."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jaguar Release Ahead of Schedule? More

Jaguar Release Ahead of Schedule?

Comments Filter:
  • Now, somebody just kick Digidesign in the ass and get Pro Tools on OSX, and I'm OS9 free.....
    • You might be interested to know that Apple just bought Emagic [emagic.de], and is accelerating development of Logic Audio 5 for OS X - to be called Logic Audio Titanium, I think. Competitively speaking, would that qualify as a kick in the ass?
      • Oh yeah, that's a kick in the ass, and a much needed one. I'm already firmly entrenched in the Digi camp, though, and just plunked down for a big new HD rig to replace my now-aging TDM rig. Sequencing is a feature we don't need, as we go out and do recordings of live performances, and then bring them back and mix them. Letting clients see that Aqua interface running on a rack mount XServe with all those hot swappable drives is just too much fun :-)
    • After that, move the boot over to MOTU's ass. I think they are waiting on Jaguar for some reason.

  • Keynotes.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by h0tblack ( 575548 )
    ..or other big events are generally the only time Apple release anything new. Only minor updates to hardware and software are released in-between MacWorld's, Seybold's et al, Steve never being one to miss a big PR opportunity. This was one of the reasons for the axing of Apple sponsorship of the UK MacWorld and the re-scheduling of other apple events worldwide; if there isn't a big launch for Steve to put a show on about, then it's not worth the bother (in Apple's opinion).
    With this in mind I really can't see Apple not releasing Jaguar earlier than September, here they have both the Seybold (September 9-12 in San Francisco, CA) and Apple Expo Europe (September 10-14 in Paris). The extra time would certainly help tidy up any lose ends to make 10.2 all it is hoped it will be, as well as worth the expected upgrade fee.

    • Not true (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Microsift ( 223381 )
      This used to be true, but one can look to several recent releases that were made independent of Expo's iPod, XServe, eMac, and I think the redesigned iBook. Apple has moved away from the release at an Expo model for releasing software and hardware. If they really can make the August date, expect an announcement at Expo, and a relatively quiet rollout (no event, announcement on website) in August.

      • Re:Not true (Score:2, Interesting)

        by h0tblack ( 575548 )
        XServe - this was in effect part of WWDC, not during it, but the events were definitely linked. This is the only of the mentioned products that would really be considered a major launch and was specifically targeted to be launched at a non-consumer level event.
        eMac - Launch as a consumer machine was not in line with any of the larger events, launch as an education machine for that sector is again not something that would be considered a Keynote event.
        iPod - Was launched at MacExpo 2001, a UK event, good enough for a product launch, but obviously not good enough for Steve himself ;)
        iBook - the redisigne was merely a product tweak, the same happened with the TiPb. Although many people including myself saw these revisions I cannot see a major PR event being based around Steve saying "Hey, there's a slightly faster processor and better GPU".
        Okay, so I'm being a bit nit-picky and am second-guessing Apple's thoughts and moves to a degree, but I don't believe Apple saw the above things as good PR opportunities and certainly not as Keynote material. On the other hand they do see Jaguar as this and have already made this view clear. Purely the fact that they were talking about it and publicly calling it by it's development name shows the hype they are creating, they'll want to release it with a bang. The sooner Apple get a better version of OS X out the door the better, but I believe a few more weeks of tweaking along with the chance for Steve to run around on stage at an event the world (at least the Mac world) will be focused on is something that Apple will not miss.

  • and in the great unix namespace... (Score:3, Funny)

    by ubiquitin ( 28396 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2002 @10:33AM (#3814567) Homepage Journal
    X11 is already taken and refers to the XFree86 protocol. So what will the next major release be named? "But it goes all the way to eleven." (insert Spinal Tap joke here) Which makes me wonder whether Apple will go back to the tradition of calling things "plus" or "II" like the MacPlus or MacII in days of old. MacOSXPlus and MacOSXII sounds bad, but MacOSXIIx would be even worse.

  • Analysis Paralysis (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03, 2002 @10:34AM (#3814571)
    From the article...

    "But IDC analyst Roger Kay was unenthusiastic about the Jaguar release, contending that Apple's OS updates come too frequently. The company launched Mac OS X 10.0 in March 2001, followed by version 10.1 in September.

    "OS X 10.1 didn't get its full shot at maturity before the release of the new system," Kay said. "From a tactical point of view, they're truncating one revenue stream to bring on another one. They didn't even fully extract the revenue from the first product."

    What absolute rubbish! This is why I despise analysts and MBAs with no revenue responsibility. This person would delay 10.2 because it would cannibalize 10.1 sales?

    OSX 10.0, 10.1 and 10.2 are not different products each with unique life cycles. It's all THE Apple OS, their unique competitive differentiator in the market place.

    Well done Apple. The only way to survive is to put your best effort in front of the customer all the time.

    • Re:Analysis Paralysis (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03, 2002 @11:02AM (#3814759)
      This really highlights the MAIN difference between Windows OS and Mac OS:

      Windows is treated by Microsoft as a product with a certain market viability and a lifespan. The next real update is not released until the previous generation has more or less outlived its usefulness, i.e. sales are running down (or in danger of running down). The product, by definition, can't suck as long as it sells. This, of course, keeps advancement artificially slow, but maximizes profits and optimizes shareholder value.

      Apple brings out updates to its Mac OS when it can. New versions are released because they are better than the old one, not necessarily because the marketing machinery is winding down. This is good for customers, but (due in part to imbeciles like those quoted above) not necessarily for shareholders.

      Of course, both companies attempt to dress up their strategy somewhat so as not to disgruntle customers/shareholders, respectively, too much, but this seems to me to be the heart of the matter.

      -spheric*

      • Re:Analysis Paralysis (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ivan256 ( 17499 )
        Of course, both companies attempt to dress up their strategy somewhat so as not to disgruntle customers/shareholders, respectively, too much

        Anybody who finds themselves thinking like this, or similarly, should be forced to repeat the following ten times before work every morning:

        "The customers are the customers, the shareholders are not the customers"

        The customers are more important then the shareholders. Whithout customers, what good is a company? Maximize shareholder value after you've done everything necissary to keep the customers happy.

        happy \Hap"py\, a. 1: satisfaction resulting in the willingness to spend more money
        • I agree with this 100%. However (there's always a however, right), any company with shareholders is legal responsible to maximize prfit - right? I hope I'm wrong about this - anyone know?

          I also agree that apple is doing the right thing by bringing out updates when thay can, rather than when the market says so. I'm very much looking forward to 10.2.

          Any ideas how much/if an upgrade from 10.1 will cost?
        • The customers are more important then the shareholders. Whithout customers, what good is a company? Maximize shareholder value after you've done everything necissary to keep the customers happy.
          sorry bud, but this is not true. Let me extend your argument... sell your products for $0, you keep customers happy but shareholders won't be.

          You sell a product at $x to a consumer, and other than the service, your transaction with the consumer is complete. If they don't like it, they walk away. If they do like it, they buy. Simple. Customer happy. But the reason the company exists, the reason it sells the products, is for profit. Profit for the owners - the shareholders.

          That's the reason a company exists. Keeping customers happy is just one way of making money. And that's what counts, in the final analysis.

          -- james
          • sorry bud, but this is not true. Let me extend your argument... sell your products for $0, you keep customers happy but shareholders won't be.

            If you want to go to rediculous extremes, you can "prove" either side of the argument. That's why I included my alternate definition of happy at the end of the post. Obviously you want to charge as much as you possibly can and still keep the customers happy.

            At the end of the day, you work for the customer. If you have no paying customers, you have no profit. The goal should be to maximize the profit while keeping the customers happy, not to maximize the profit while keeping the shareholders happy. These can be one and the same thing it you work it right, and if your investors are smart (most of them are). If you can't make enough money to make the shareholders happy by keeping you customers happy, then you're in the wrong business, and the investors should be putting their money elsewhere, anyway.

            Keeping customers happy is just one way of making money.

            Agreed, you can also beat them into submission by having a monopoly (legal, of course) on your product or service, but that can't last for ever, and isn't usually a good long term strategy.
      • I don't think it's shareholders vs. customers--it's just a matter of Apple selling hardware, while Microsoft sells software. Apple doesn't care whether everyone runs out to buy their newest $100 OS, they want everyone to run out to buy their newest $2000 computer.

      • Shareholder results (Score:3, Insightful)

        by BitGeek ( 19506 )
        This is good for customers, but (due in part to imbeciles like those quoted above) not necessarily for shareholders.

        I'd like to disagree with you on that one. Analysts can move a stock in the short term, but the long term results that shareholders get are determined solely by the performance of the company.
        Apple's regular release schedule is probably good for this-- each time they do it they add significant value to the Mac platform. I don't think the $19 or $29 they get for a new OS is significant (for instance, all us Developers get it sent to us for free) revenue compared to the fact that EVERY MAC SHIPPING just got better.

        The new features increaste the hardware value and support hardware sales.

        And the way things are going, it probably won't be long before the percieved value of a Mac is as far ahead of Windows as it used to be.

        Apple doesn't trade at the multiple of Microsoft because Apple's financials are not as good, and not as consistent as Microsoft.

        Stock is, actually, one of the most fair evaluators-- Apple''s been performing well, but they need consistent results for a couple more years before their multiple will expand.

        Microsoft, because they are in a more attractive segment (Software has a much higher gross profit margine than hardware) are going to continue to trade at a higher multiple than Apple.

        But that said, it may mean that Apple is the better stock because Microsoft's value is fully realized in its current price, while Apple is discounted because of its spotty history and (short term) anaysts opinions.

        As warren buffet has said "IF you're going to be buying steak do you want the price to be high or low?" When buying stock, you want a low price....
    • Furthermore, 10.1 was a free upgrade for 10.0 owners! So they're cannabalizing the chance to give away more free cds?

    • Re:Analysis Paralysis (Score:3, Informative)

      by JHromadka ( 88188 )
      From the article... "But IDC analyst Roger Kay was unenthusiastic about the Jaguar release, contending that Apple's OS updates come too frequently. The company launched Mac OS X 10.0 in March 2001, followed by version 10.1 in September.

      "OS X 10.1 didn't get its full shot at maturity before the release of the new system," Kay said. "From a tactical point of view, they're truncating one revenue stream to bring on another one. They didn't even fully extract the revenue from the first product."

      Even worse, 10.1 was free. Apple maybe made a few bucks off the $20 shipping cost, but anyone could go to CompUSA or Microcenter (like I did) and get the upgrade CD for free.

      And anyone that thinks that people are going to stick with 10.1 instead of paying to upgrade to 10.2 is crazy. I know that I will be first in line.

    • Re:Analysis Paralysis (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sentry21 ( 8183 )
      OSX 10.0, 10.1 and 10.2 are not different products each with unique life cycles. It's all THE Apple OS, their unique competitive differentiator in the market place.

      One thing you forgot to mention. The Mac OS isn't a money-maker. The only reason Apple charges for 10.2 is to pay for documentation/packaging/distribution/media, and to cover some of the costs of developing (and because they can). With all the latest updates being free, OS X has all but disappeared off the shelves, since no one needs to buy it. It comes with the computer at no charge. Updates are free. Fixes are likewise free. Most things that get added are downloadable anyway.

      I predict 10.2 will be a purchase-upgrade, but also that it will be inexpensive by 'modern OS' (Windows) standards, and that people will buy it because it rocks, and because it's worth the moderate price. I also predict that people will 'pirate' it and that Apple won't really care because it's not a cash cow anyway.

      Their money is hardware that their OS runs on, and software that runs on their OS (Final Cut Pro anyone?). The OS itself is just a way to show off the shiny hardware and the kickass applications. The sooner they can get that shiny middleware out to the public, the sooner people can ooh and aah. Simple as that.

      --Dan

  • Clueless Analysts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EvlG ( 24576 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2002 @10:35AM (#3814575)
    This is from the article:

    But IDC analyst Roger Kay was unenthusiastic about the Jaguar release, contending that Apple's OS updates come too frequently. The company launched Mac OS X 10.0 in March 2001, followed by version 10.1 in September.

    Since when is it bad to keep your products up to date, adding compelling new features all the time? This is something that I think Apple has executed very well, and few other companies have really mastered. Microsoft in particular doesn't seem to get it.

    "OS X 10.1 didn't get its full shot at maturity before the release of the new system," Kay said. "From a tactical point of view, they're truncating one revenue stream to bring on another one. They didn't even fully extract the revenue from the first product."

    Excuse me? AFAIK, 10.1 wasn't about being a new product, it was about letting the system mature. Some have called OS X 10.0 something akin to Final Public Beta, and in many respects they are right. It wasn't until 10.1 that the system was really usable for end users, and included enough enhancements for ISVs. But releasing 10.1 was all about delivering on the promise of a stable, next-generation computing platform - something that *is* driving revenue.

    Kay also questioned how many Mac OS X 10.1 users would move to Jaguar, although he did see a good market for those on the older system, Mac OS 9.

    Sorry but I think this is unfounded also. Apple has EOL'd OS 9, and this past quarter saw some of the most important apps make the switch (namely Photoshop). There is no going back folks. OS X is the way of the future, Apple has said so, ISVs agree, and users are coming along as their favorite apps migrate.

    The switch won't happen overnight, true; however, for Apple, it doesn't have to. The important thing is, all new Apple machines ship with OS X, and have for some time. This means all those interested in upgrades will make the switch. Other users will come along as their favorite apps are migrated.

    OS X is a fine product, and Apple should be commended for keeping it up to date and fresh. These analysts don't have a clue, IMO.

    • Re:Clueless Analysts (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tbmaddux ( 145207 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2002 @11:13AM (#3814850) Homepage Journal
      AFAIK, 10.1 wasn't about being a new product, it was about letting the system mature... OS X is a fine product, and Apple should be commended for keeping it up to date and fresh.

      Agreed. Furthermore, MacOS X 10.1 was a free update for anyone who had MacOS X 10.0. That means 10.1 wasn't a new revenue stream/product at all and it didn't "truncate" 10.0 in any sense from a financial standpoint.

      IMHO Apple must keep innovating in both hardware and software to stay afloat. If they stop, then the rest of the industry catches up with cheap knock-offs and they drown. The analysts don't understand this.

      • Re:Clueless Analysts (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Surlyboi ( 96917 )
        IMHO Apple must keep innovating in both hardware and software to stay afloat. If they stop, then the rest of the industry catches up with cheap knock-offs and they drown. The analysts don't understand this.

        They can't understand it and probably never will,
        they've all been through too many year of Windows
        product rollouts to know any better. Apple's
        OS model isn't based on the same principles as
        Microsoft. It's not about milking the customer,
        they've already done that with the hardware. =D
        (beat the trolls to the punch.) It's about providing
        the best experience they possibly can and continually
        striving to improve that experience.

        I think That's the real reason most of us Mac
        users are such fanatics, we don't feel like total
        cash cows. (Or at least, I don't.)

      • Re:Clueless Analysts (Score:3, Informative)

        by realgone ( 147744 )
        MacOS X 10.1 was a free update for anyone who had MacOS X 10.0

        Not entirely. Unless you were fortunate enough to live near an Apple retail store, you needed to shell out $20 (plux tax!) to have the update CD mailed to you; 10.1 wasn't a downloadable patch. Seeing as this is substantially more than the cost of burning + shipping/handling, I'd say that Apple clearly intended to generate some revenue from the deal.

        It's not hard to imagine the 10.2 update being handled in a similar manner...

        • Apple Retail Store? Heck, all the CompUSA's, if not others, got the free upgrade CD's. The one I used to work at still had some left over when they closed in February.
        • In Calgary, Westworld and London Drugs (IE: a really big corner drugstore) had 10.1 CDs for free.

          I'm especially impressed because London Drugs was on a street corner in a residential area (Glamorgan, for you Calgarians)

          In Saskatoon, CompuSmart and Microage had 10.1 cds for free as well. There is no London Drugs or WestWorld in Saskatoon.
      • Never quite got how $20 is a free update, but everybody comlains about $29.95 for a new version of quicktime.

  • why upgrade? this is why... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    From the article...

    "Kay also questioned how many Mac OS X 10.1 users would move to Jaguar"

    10.2 pretty much does away with the spinning pizza wheel of death.

    That's all the incentive I need!

  • Dumbest Source for a Rumor (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "Sources close to Apple's marketing strategy" is their source.

    What's that mean, a former CompUSA sales person or the head of Apple Worldwide Sales?

    The silly season is elsewhere already underway with Mac Expo less than two weeks away. Business may be a little thin for Apple and other vendors, but it appears news may be a little thin for this online "news" source and they may be skimming the Mac rumor web sites for their "news."

    I wonder if anyone can quote "a janitor who works for Apple" as they may be more reliable than the "source" in this instance. Did they see something Steve Jobs doodled on a stickie note in the trash?

  • "Officially" 10.2? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Soulfader ( 527299 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <ecapsgis>> on Wednesday July 03, 2002 @12:15PM (#3815421) Journal
    The new version, code-named Jaguar and officially known as Mac OS X 10.2, is now expected to ship in early August...
    A quick perusal of Apple's Jaguar site [apple.com] fails to unearth an official designation of any kind. Same for the news headlines section.

    I could have missed it, of course, but it sure doesn't look like there's an official version number determined; witness the "OSXI" jokes posted above.

    It's a small thing, but it undermines the article's credibility just a wee bit.


    • I agree that Apple has painted themselves into an awkward corner with the "Mac OS X 10" name. I hope they simplify it to something like "Mac OS 11" soon. Drop the X, please! ;-)


      • They will.

        The product name is "Mac OS 10.1". The "Marketing" name is "Mac OS X".

        The X is a ten.

        I suspect they will either do 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, etc until they get to 10.9 which should take them 5 years, and then they release Mac OS 11. Which gives them 5 years with the X brand -- a bit too long.

        Or they will make this next release Mac OS 10.5 and next year do Mac OS 11.

        But this update is too much stuf not to rev the version number.

  • nickels and dimes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Laplace ( 143876 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2002 @12:23PM (#3815522)
    But IDC analyst Roger Kay was unenthusiastic about the Jaguar release, contending that Apple's OS updates come too frequently. The company launched Mac OS X 10.0 in March 2001, followed by version 10.1 in September.

    "OS X 10.1 didn't get its full shot at maturity before the release of the new system," Kay said. "From a tactical point of view, they're truncating one revenue stream to bring on another one. They didn't even fully extract the revenue from the first product."

    Well holy fuck, Roger. Apple actually gives a shit about releasing performance enhancing and bug fix updates without regard to squeezing their consumers for every last penny. Maybe your tiny analyst brain doens't recognize that treating customers with class might help to make them loyal to the Apple product line.

    You are also probably the same kind of shithead who wonders why Apple doesn't charge hundreds of dollars for their exceptional developer tools.
    • "Well holy fuck, Roger. Apple actually gives a shit..."

      Roger's unenthusiasm for the Jaguar schedule means only that he thinks the majority of customers who have upgraded to OS X have done so too recently to want to pay for another upgrade so soon, not that he thinks Apple should delay the release of Jaguar. From a financial point of view, he's correct. Since 10.1 was the first mainstream 10.x release and therefore when normal people started upgrading, it is too soon to charge for an upgrade given the time between 10.1 and Jaguar.

      On the other hand, Roger is one cold-hearted analyst.

      I hope Apple gives Jaguar free to a lot of recent upgraders and only charges those of us who've been using 10.x for a while.

  • When Apple moved to OSX, they did a big marketting campaign about "OSX, it's better, cause it has a higher number than 9" Of course Apple isn't going to release Jaguar as OS 11, because they haven't hyped it at all.

    When OS11 is slated to come out, there'll be a MacWorld Expo announcing it to the world, and then we'll have to wait a long duration before we actually see it.

  • Why do reporters no longer research? (Score:4, Informative)

    by gbooker ( 60148 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2002 @02:57PM (#3817041) Homepage Journal
    But the new rendering engine, called Quartz Extreme, could tax some systems running older graphics cards. For optimum performance, the new engine requires at minimum an Nvidia GeForce2MX or greater graphics card or any 32MB ATI Radeon graphics card. The hefty graphics requirements could present problems for some Apple notebooks or older desktops.

    Jobs clearly stated in his keynote that the new Quartz Extreme will run the same on the older hardware as the current Quartz. Only those with the required graphics hardware will see any change and it will be an improvement. Also, the 32MB of VRAM is not required, just recomended.

    Kay also questioned how many Mac OS X 10.1 users would move to Jaguar

    Simple: Almost all of them. I know I will!

    Already, Apple is the first computer maker to offer wireless networking on all its systems.

    Nice to see that they have gotten over Dell's lies.

    Adding Bluetooth to Mac OS X would put Apple ahead of Microsoft, which has yet to incorporate support for the technology into Windows XP.

    A sign of things to come. With OS X, Apple has the easiest development platform out there. Once it start to get fully ramped up (still getting there), development on OS X should take off without any end in sight.

  • Version numbering (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fraki ( 580166 )
    The way I see it is this: there are two operating systems made for the Mac: Mac OS, and Mac OS X. Mac OS has versions numbering 1 - 9.x.x. Mac OS X numbering just starts at 10.x.x - there's no Mac OS X version 1 or 4 or 8, but that's the way life is. It's probably spoken most accurately as 'Mac oh-ess ten version ten-point-one-point-five' (or 'dot-one-dot-five,' if you're The Steve).

    As for Jaguar, it will most likely be Mac OS X version 10.2, although that's not certain. (There has been some speculation that it will be 10.5 instead, but I have a feeling that Mac OS X 10.x.x will be around for a while - Apple's going to let it mature fully, so I doubt there will be any early leaps.) I don't think it will be 10.II or X.II or anything strange like that - that will only make things more confusing than they are already.

    Of course, this leads to yet more confusion with the next iteration of the modern, UNIX-based Mac operating system - will it be Mac OS 11, or Mac OS X version 11, or...?

    Meh. Just my take.
    • I think Apple would like to keep the version vumber more or less in the background and just call it Mac OS X. Whether the version number changes before or after the decimal (or even which decimal place) is more marketing than any written law.

      Mac OS X will probably keep all of its version numbers as 10.n.n as long as possible. Only when a MAJOR overhaul happens will they move to calling it Mac OS XI.

Slashdot Top Deals

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann

Close