Jaguar vs. .mac

[ksv]

Anyway, petitions against Apple with 30000 signatures aren't good, and that is a clear sign that Apple has done another mistake.

[ElDiabloConCaca]

Originally posted by ksv
Yup, their prices are completely acceptable too, but for many users they aren't, and that's the point.

How are Apple's software prices NOT acceptable to many people? I don't know of any other mainstream desktop OS solution that costs less than Jaguar, besides Linux, which really isn't mainstream and really can't be considered a desktop OS solution yet.

A little over $100 seems cheap, cheap, cheap -- even to someone with no money -- compared with the other offerings out there. I just don't understand -- I think people were shocked that they had to pay ANYTHING for Jaguar, and directed their shock directly at Apple, when they should have been directing at themselves for assuming they'd get something for nothing.

[ksv]

For the last time;
Do you really think e.g. a school that has just bought Macs for every classroom, and barely can afford pencils and draft books for their pupils, would pay $69 for every single computer, for a system update? Eh, no!?

That's why we have 133 MHz pentiums running Windows 95 at school.

[ElDiabloConCaca]

First of all, a school that can afford a classroom full of Macs can definitely afford a box of pencils. No two ways around it. And if that school chose computers over pencils, then I'd be inclined to say that school needs some serious review of their administration. Computers are useful, but it's the children's brains that do the work -- not the computers. I grew up without computers in my schools and I turned out just fine, and pretty damn computer-savvy at the same time. And we always had a pencil to write with.

Second of all, $69 per machine for a system update (and oh, WHAT AN UPDATE!) is pretty damn affordable compared to upgrading a Windows machine -- and, we all know damn well that Apple will help out the educational sector in order to regain some market share there... they did it in Maine (is that correct?) or WHEREVER they did it -- for much cheaper than the educational prices... remember the plan to put an iBook in the hands of every 6th-8th grader? They didn't get the prices as listed on the educational Apple store page -- they got them for MUCH less. And I'm sure Apple would do the same for a school full of Macs that wanted to get Jaguar on all their machines.

And I hope to high heaven that if you're still running Pentium 133s that you've got a well-stocked supply closet full of pencils and draft books. Otherwise I'd be tempted to say you're living in a 3rd-world country -- I don't know of a single school in America that can't afford pencils and draft books. You're making this situation out to be worse than it actually is. Plus, what's the harm of running OS X 10.1.5 for a year or so until the school's funds catch up? Hell, that's what most schools do now! My university is still on Windows 2000 Pro -- not XP Pro -- probably because of the cost prohibitive upgrade path -- but we encounter no problems doing the things that people do with XP Pro every day.

Just because OS 10.2 is out (well, as of Aug. 24th) doesn't mean that people will be forced to upgrade. Apple's not holding a gun to your head chanting, "Upgrade or else." Look at Microsoft -- they're SERIOUSLY considering FORCING people to upgrade their software when new software is released! That means if you're running Windows 2000, and Microsoft releases Windows 2001 or whatever, you'll be forced to pay whether you want or not, because if you don't, Microsoft will disable your previous software. Now THAT'S what we should be bitching about -- not a room full of perfectly good Macs that could either be upgraded or not.

[ksv]

To say it in an other way, why charge for updates at all? What's the point? Microsoft has to because Windows is their primary income source.
I'd gladly pay some more for new Macs if it included free software updates for e.g. a year or two. That would keep all Macs up-to-date, and both sides would be happy.
Tell me, how many 70 years old grandmas are going to pay for the 10.2 update? Or former PC users who just bought a brand new Mac?
I know a lot of both Mac and PC users, and I can tell you that the only ones of them who pays for software updates are the pro-users.

Over to an other topic; no, on my school we are only given one pencil and a rubber every year. The ventilation system doesn't work, so we have to have the windows constantly open. That results in a classroom being 17°C in winter and 33°C in summer (yes, I've brought a thermometer several times and measured). Bugs and insects crawl out of the drainpipes in the shower in the wardrobe. And this is Norway, listed by the UN as the best country to live in ( )

[wtmcgee]

i was just hoping for an upgrade price for 10.1 owners.... other than that, im fine wiht everything else.

[nuke10]

[dsibilly]

Originally posted by simX

Person 2: Using OS X since Mac OS X 10.0:

Mac OS X 10.0........... cost: $129
Mac OS X 10.1........... cost: Free upgrade.
Mac OS X 10.2........... cost: $129

So in this case we still have $129 + $129, or $258.

OK, how about this situation: I've had a copy of 10.0 since release ($129), but until recently didn't even have a Mac to put it on. In order to use any of the productive software (Photoshop, Office, etc) I had to run out and buy 10.1 less than a month ago ($129)... now Apple wants another $129 for 10.2.

That's (129.00)x3 = $387.00

Pretty close to $400 for my liking for an OS that STILL isn't finished. It's great, but why am I paying hundreds of dollars for what's still a late-beta OS? It wasn't finished with 10.0, 10.1 made it at least useable, and 10.2 is doing nothing but adding features that should have been there from the get-go. I understand that Apple needs to make money, but with so small a market share, they need to make friends too...