What do you think about Apple's $129 price tag?

For me its simply about cost anyway. You cant have hundreds of technicians working for a year on coding, testing and recoding without paying them something. And considering the quality of their work they would get paid bloody well. So if each user has to fork out $129 for their hard work and Apples dedication to the user then so be it. Plus if there is a performance improvement as a result, then you just postponed a multi-thousand dollar purchase of a new Mac anyway. This is the cost of the IT age.
 
This 'marketing' thing about OS names is just dumb. I'm not sure, of course, but I guess Microsoft would have sold just as many copies of Windows XP if it had the tag 'Windows 2002' to it. Or 'Windows 6'. Or whatever.

I think Apple should just kill the 'X' (which they first said was an 'eks' and then later said was a '10', which was the beginning of the disaster...). Apple should just go back to normal version numbering, now that OS 9 is history (and it is!). Let's have a Mac OS 10.4 after Mac OS X 10.3. Then, Mac OS 11.0 will be no problem at all. Sure, it'll be kinda strange at the beginning, but in the end, it'll be better for everyone. Or do you really want a Mac OS X 10.13.4 one day?
 
Maybe Apple should just call OS 11 Mac OS X version 2.0, or 3.0... Mac OS X and Mac OS (classic) are not the same thing. They kinda look the same, but they're different softwares, so they should have a different name, even if it is almost the same. Let's just keep the X as part of the name. What do you think?
 
Originally posted by fryke
Or do you really want a Mac OS X 10.13.4 one day?
Click to expand...
I figured they'd think of something better by then... And I don't think the X marketing thing is "dumb."
 
I don't know what the fuss is about on the price thing. Since when are Mac users such cheap asses?

$130 for a significant upgrade after a year, c'mon. That's nothing.

Easy for me to say, I admit. I'm not exactly a starving student anymore, but suffice it so that anyone using their Mac to make money shouldn'y even flinch, blnk, sudder, stammer or sweat at this trivial fee.
 
Originally posted by fryke
The problem, as you put it, is that apparently many people feel betrayed when they hear Steve Jobs speaking about how great the Mac is (showing off a future build of Mac OS X) and then having to shell out another 129$ when the time for the OS arrives.

I guess (and that's only that, a guess) that with open source software and 'free' (read: illegal) music/movie downloads, people have just come to expect things are free. I suggest changing this expectation to them.

On the other hand: There was a time when Mac OS was still called 'System', and the thought of "buying a new System" was one of the strange thoughts a Macintosh user could have had. AFAIK System 7 was the first one that you could buy in packaged form.
Click to expand...
Yeah... And until System 7.1, you could stilll get free upgrades.
 
Originally posted by arden
The real problem is that all these OS upgrades should have different whole numbers. By now, we should be at Mac OS XII or Mac OS 12 )take your pick), expecting OS 13 (Panther). But Apple is keeping these upgrades in only .1 increment upgrades, making them seem like a lot less than what they are. When most software companies release a .1 upgrade, it is to fix bugs or change a few features, not release an entirely new and different version.

So deal with it, save up the money, and buy the upgrade. You're getting a lot better deal than the +.1 moniker implies.
Click to expand...
10.1 wasn't big enough to merit a new one; if I had my way, we'd eithier be here:
10.0, 10.5 (10.1), 11 (10.2) 12 (10.3), or here: 10.0 (10.1), 11 (10.2), 11.5 (10.3).
 
Originally posted by fryke
This 'marketing' thing about OS names is just dumb. I'm not sure, of course, but I guess Microsoft would have sold just as many copies of Windows XP if it had the tag 'Windows 2002' to it. Or 'Windows 6'. Or whatever.

I think Apple should just kill the 'X' (which they first said was an 'eks' and then later said was a '10', which was the beginning of the disaster...). Apple should just go back to normal version numbering, now that OS 9 is history (and it is!). Let's have a Mac OS 10.4 after Mac OS X 10.3. Then, Mac OS 11.0 will be no problem at all. Sure, it'll be kinda strange at the beginning, but in the end, it'll be better for everyone. Or do you really want a Mac OS X 10.13.4 one day?
Click to expand...
They first said it was an 'eks' (X)? That's interesting. And. Windows XP came out in October 2001 (not 2002).
 
yes, but Microsoft tends to add a year. ;-) (just kiddin')

Yes, Steve Jobs said 'eks' when he was first talking about the label 'Mac OS X'. But back then, it was still a developer driven decision. Apple promised developers to add Carbon and renamed Rhapsody Mac OS X Server. It all seemed to make a lot of sense, as the X could be interpreted as both an X as in UNIX and a 10 as in the roman number X.

Back then, I thought we'd see:

Mac OS 9
Mac OS X Server 1.0 (plus 1.1, 1.2)
Mac OS X 2.0 Client
Mac OS X 2.0 Server

But hey, we're here. Apple seems to take the way of 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6 etc. We'll be in 2009 when 10.9 arrives. And I'm pretty sure that _then_ Apple will think of something entirely new. The 'X' tag will be almost 10 years old by then, and 'something new' will make sense to most people, anyway.
 
For me it is going to be a Family Pack of 5 with Panther... Cost for 5-Pack?

--> ONLY $199* <--

Now, ain't THAT cheap? ;)

And don't let me start with the cost of 5-Pack of Windows XP... That thing IS expensive :p


*If all rumors of Panther pricing scheme are true :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by fryke Yes, Steve Jobs said 'eks' when he was first talking about the label 'Mac OS X'. But back then, it was still a developer driven decision. Apple promised developers to add Carbon and renamed Rhapsody Mac OS X Server. It all seemed to make a lot of sense, as the X could be interpreted as both an X as in UNIX and a 10 as in the roman number X.
Click to expand...

Just so there is no mistake, Steve Jobs has always said "Mac OS 10" from the beginning. The first reference to Mac OS X was at WWDC 1998. No one officially involved with Apple (who had to see Jobs in person at any rate) ever used the term "eks" when talking about Mac OS X.

Earliest Mac media references:

  • StepWise- May 12, 1998, 3:25am: WWDC Coverage, Mondays report
    The keynote this morning was mainly about the convergence of Rhapsody and Mac OS, which is to be called Mac OS X (ten).

    MacAddict- July 1998:Meet Mac OS X (that stands for 10)
    interim CEO Steve Jobs took the stage this morning at the Worldwide Developer Conference to lay out the company's long-term system software strategy. And guess what- the future lies not with Rhapsody, but with Mac OS X (pronounced "Mac OS Ten")

    MacWorld- Aug. 1998: The X Factor
    Mac OS X- think roman numeral 10, not Mulder and Scully-

Also there was never a version 1.1 of Mac OS X Server, there was only 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2, and 1.2 (associated with Rhapsody versions 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6).

As I recall the question at the time was "what happened to Mac OS 9?" The current version of the Mac OS at the time was 8.1, with 8.5 and 8.6 supposedly being the end of life for the classic Mac OS.
 
Originally posted by RacerX
As I recall the question at the time was "what happened to Mac OS 9?" The current version of the Mac OS at the time was 8.1, with 8.5 and 8.6 supposedly being the end of life for the classic Mac OS.
Click to expand...
I remember that - then came Mac OS 9, and some company who develops an "OS 9" sued Apple over it. I forget who won.

p.s. On a totally unrelated note, I'm writing this at 2:37 AM because I just can't sleep! Too much to think about these days... sometimes insomnia sucks! ::sleepy::
 
X can be used as "eXperimental." They did that a lot in Star Trek; the Defiant was NX-something, the Enterprise (in Enterprise) is NX-01, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top