Leopard delayed until October

On 4/13/07 1:49 PM, "Adam C. Engst" <acetidbits.com> wrote:

> I'm curious, what are people here thinking about Apple's announcement
> yesterday that devoting resources to the iPhone has caused Leopard to
> slip until October?

In a way, a relief. What effect on both products would it have had to have
them both debut in the same month? Not good for either, I think. This way,
the phone will have three solid months to take center stage, and then, about
when people are tired of talking about the iPhone, Leopard will pounce.

As for me personally, I need extra time this summer to take on a new
responsibility with the local Mac User Group, and being an early adopter,
having Leopard would have been an unneeded distraction. October is about
perfect!

--

Allen Watson . Writer/Webmaster [ p. 503 .281 .0250 m. 503 .916 .9411
e. watson.allencomcast.net
homepage.mac.com/allen_a_watson/

At 11:08 PM -0700 4/13/07, Kirk McElhearn wrote:
>It makes me seriously question Apple's ability to compete beyond its
>current product line. If they don't have enough developers to manage
>two products, then this really raises questions about how the company
>is going to continue its expansion toward a more consumer-electronic-
>centered product line.

This is an interesting point. What I'm gathering from this
announcement is that the fact that the iPhone runs Mac OS X means
that it makes sense for Apple to share resources between the iPhone
and Leopard (and AppleTV) - in other words, from Apple's perspective,
the iPhone (and AppleTV) aren't really new product lines, but merely
new forms of Apple-created hardware that are in essence applications
of Mac OS X.

cheers... -Adam

On Apr 13, 2007, at 1:49 PM, Adam C. Engst wrote:

> I'm curious, what are people here thinking about Apple's announcement
> yesterday that devoting resources to the iPhone has caused Leopard to
> slip until October? Is it a welcome relief? Or does it throw a
> wrench into your plans for some reason?

Not totally disappointed but happy that they are delaying it in order
to make it a quality OS. We were really looking forward to see what
they had developed on the Wiki side for their server product. That
means we will continue to use another source for this. Also given the
length of time and the problems with fixing some of their past server
issues it will probably save us some hours in the headache department.

Gene Blishen
www.tinfoiling.wordpress.com

On Apr 14, 2007, at 10:53 PM, Adam C. Engst wrote:

> What I'm gathering from this
> announcement is that the fact that the iPhone runs Mac OS X

Small quibble:

Apple says (on the iPhone Tech Specs page) that the iPhone runs "OS
X". And they don't seem to say on their web site that the Apple TV
runs OS X, but that is well known, and it isn't a full Mac OS X.

I think Apple now thinks of OS X like this (should look right in
fixed width--it did here before pasting into my variable-width
message window in Mail)--Ignoring anything else that may appear
sometime on the chart--some would hope for "tablet OS X" or "Newton
OS X"*:

                               OS X
       +----------------+----------------+----------------+
       | | | |
Mac OS X Server OS X iPhone OS X Apple TV OS X

   --John

* That's how rumors get started.

John C. Welch wrote:

They've a ton of open positions. But finding people with the right skill sets ain't easy. <http://jobs.apple.com/>

But they are hiring and have snared Jay Welshofer from FileMaker Inc as part of the product management team for the Mac Pro. Jay has always been recognised as one of the sharpest minds and most able communicators within FMI so watch out for his contibutions to the mother ship.

John Wolff

Adam C. Engst wrote:
> At 11:08 PM -0700 4/13/07, Kirk McElhearn wrote:
>> It makes me seriously question Apple's ability to compete beyond its
>> current product line. If they don't have enough developers to manage
>> two products, then this really raises questions about how the company
>> is going to continue its expansion toward a more consumer-electronic-
>> centered product line.
>
> This is an interesting point. What I'm gathering from this
> announcement is that the fact that the iPhone runs Mac OS X means
> that it makes sense for Apple to share resources between the iPhone
> and Leopard (and AppleTV) - in other words, from Apple's perspective,
> the iPhone (and AppleTV) aren't really new product lines, but merely
> new forms of Apple-created hardware that are in essence applications
> of Mac OS X.
>
Given the time lines, very little new code is being written and even if
it is almost all of it is being done by original developers. New folks
are doing QA testing, manual proofing, call center script writing and
checking, etc... If you look at the time lines and work back, their just
isn't much time left.

Working backwards (and assuming it will NOT be a retail buy initially)
It has to be boxed and sealed and put on a shelf in some warehouse.
OBE has to be tested and any issues resolved and/or noted as errata.
Final printing of documentation and packaging.
Etc....

Given this announcement I'm assuming that there are 1000s of iPhones
built sitting in racks waiting for final firmware to be installed. Which
leads to there are also likely power supplies, cables, manuals (maybe
not yet), all staged waiting to be stuffed as soon as the iPhones get
there firmware loaded. And there are likely 100 or so iPhones somewhere
getting firmware updates and being used to exercise scripts against a
test cell setup in a lab somewhere. 24 hours a day. :(

I remember Bruce Horn talking to a small group way back when he was
attending CMU around 87 about how there were 1000s of original Macs
assembled and boxed but not yet sealed up as he was working to get the
Finder ready for mass production. I think he said something to the
effect that Steve Jobs had told him and the others on the team they
would get to pull an all nighter to stuff boxes with floppies if they
had gone one more day. :)

Being part of a new big release of anything can be a very trying
experience. Yet also somewhat fun (in hindsight) if the right team is
involved. I've been involved in several smaller ones in the past. Lack
of sleep can be a big part of the experience. If you want to know what
to avoid, read about "Death March Projects" by Yourdon and think about
how some people work on these for a decade or more.

David Ross

--On April 13, 2007 11:08:42 PM -0700 Kirk McElhearn <kirkmcelhearn.com>
wrote:

> It makes me seriously question Apple's ability to compete beyond its
> current product line. If they don't have enough developers to manage
> two products

Actually it makes me think the iPhone is more OS X than separate product
and they're having problems getting it embedded in the phone fully. So
they're focusing on getting the current OS X into the phone and they need
OS X developers to do it.

In the parts of the "Mythical Man Month" I've read so far I think most
people (except maybe Microsoft) agree that throwing developers at a problem
rarely works. The fact that Apple has managed to be on most of the time
makes me think they do pretty good resource allocation, but having the same
developers needed for 2 products caused a bottleneck. Simply moving
developers from other products won't fix the problem because of the time
needed to get them up to speed.

I'm hoping the time they picked is longer than they really think, but I
won't worry until this becomes a symptom of the entire company rather than
a one time issue.

On 4/15/07 23:26, "johnbaxterlistsmac.com" <johnbaxterlistsmac.com> wrote:

>
> OS X
> +----------------+----------------+----------------+
> | | | |
> Mac OS X Server OS X iPhone OS X Apple TV OS X


I'd redo that as:

                              OS X
       +----------------+----------------+
       | | |
Mac OS X iPhone OS X Apple TV OS X
       |
Mac OS X Server

It's a minor nit, but Mac OS X Server is really a series of addons to Mac
OS X.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

Instead of debuting Leopard at the Worldwide Developers Conference in San Francisco, CA, this June 2007, Apple Inc. (AAPL) will release "a near final version" of Mac OS X 10.5, a sort of preview of the complete feature set at that time. Bad news? Perhaps for the fierce Mac users, but overall? Hmmm. Let me check the facts first. Apple's iPhone is right on track – passing several required certification tests and is expected to start shipping in late June as originally planned. The device is touted to have the most sophisticated software ever shipped on a mobile device, and finishing it on time has come with a price. Engineering resources at AAPL have reportedly been diverted from Leopard to the mobile device, possibly indicating the firmness of Apple's belief that the market holds tremendous promise and business opportunities for the entity.

Despite its forecast of modest sales in the initial year of release, Apple may capitalize and leverage on the hype surrounding the iPhone (e.g., integration of perceived faults of the device such as 3G technology) to eliminate any negative effect on third quarter Mac sales. However, there will still be an earnings hit for that quarter, albeit minor, and Apple knows that its stock may trade on the mobile communication device for a number of weeks.

Apple Inc. has learned well from Microsoft Corp.'s failure to generate positive buzz on Vista. Besides preventing a spill of the negatives associated with Vista's failure over to AAPL's Leopard, it is possible that Steve Jobs has realized that the Mac has been over-rated as a near-term sales driver! Thus, Jobs is positioning the iPhone for short-term cash infusion and the Leopard as the icing on the cake for the long-term haul because, after all, the complete integration of a new OS in both the enterprise and individual level takes around 10 to 12 months. And the decision to allocate resources from one division to another highlights Apple Inc.'s inherent ability to quickly move and shift talent; a lean and mean company with no bloated head count overhead. It also underscores an important fact in the industry, i.e., that a first-release product demands more resources in terms of testing and integration.

After all is said and done, one thing is crystal clear: Apple understands what it is doing. It expects modest sales (iPhone) in the first year. But wait! What if it overshoots its initial target of 10 million units? Possible? You bet! Steve Jobs has that gift of creating hype and excitement around his products and cementing it with releases perfectly in-tuned to the times. And coupled that with luck, maybe Jobs can repeat history. After all, the Nintendo Wii was initially laughed at (it was just a year ago that the PlayStation and Xbox were the king and queen of the video game industry), and everyone sneered at the iPod when it first came out (everybody said Sony's Walkman was ei, “invincible”). Tsk. www.anitokid.blogspot.com

Maybe the Mac OS X is being moved "to the background". Mac OX Boxes may
be seen as a part of the buisiness that "iPod/iPhone" will have to "carry".
Where do we go from here?

No OS lasts forever, no platform. How long can we expect to last?
...When Copeland was foundering I really thought Apple might go under.
and
Will the iPhone focus hurt the Mac OS platform? ...It's success could
diminish the Mac OS platform in one way, it's failure could hurt more
directly

Thanks
Not so very happy with all this.

Hal,
a happy Apple II GS - Beagle Boys Appleworks Macro Kit guy....

Harald Sundt wrote:

Maybe the Mac OS X is being moved "to the background". Mac OX Boxes may be seen as a part of the buisiness that "iPod/iPhone" will have to "carry". Where do we go from here?

No OS lasts forever, no platform. How long can we expect to last? ...When Copeland was foundering I really thought Apple might go under. and Will the iPhone focus hurt the Mac OS platform? ...It's success could diminish the Mac OS platform in one way, it's failure could hurt more directly

Thanks Not so very happy with all this.

I'll repeat my sentiments more clearly. This is not a strong indicator of bad things. Apple has been batting in the high .900s for a long time. To have this slip (and for what seems a very valid reason to me and others in the business) is somewhat overdue.

David Ross

In the end, an update to the OS is delayed so they can ship a $600 phone that will suffer dropped calls just like a $60 phone.

I'm in the market for a 24" imac & waited for Leopard to debut so that it would be pre-installed. Eagerly I looked for the original release date in April/May. Now its October & I usually wait a few months to see the bugs ironed out before I buy. Very disappointed.

Apple's main forte are computers, phones, Apple TV should be secondary & the company should cater to its computer customers first

With all the talk I've seen out on the net regarding moving resources
from Leopard to iPhone, everyone seems to assume that they decided to
move the resource at the time of the announcement, as if it were a
last minute decision. I would put forth the idea that they probably
moved resources relatively early in the iPhone software development,
hoping that the Leopard developers would be able to pick up the
slack. iPhone is definitely a play that needed to get done properly,
and on-time. Apple will not fare especially poorly if Leopard is
delayed IMHO. They would be dinged big-time if the iPhone flopped.
Look at the Newton. Even though the Newton (especially later
versions) wasn't a bad product, the initial handwriting snafus set
the tone for the product in the minds of people, especially the press.

Unfortunately, I don't think I'll be buying the first generation of
the iPhone. I've been a Treo person for the last few years, and just
moved to Sprint because of the improved network. The lack of 3G on
the iPhone won't cut it to bring me back to Cingular/AT&T.

Jay

I have an eMac and a MacBook both of I which I keep updated. I have also promised myself a 24inch iMac when Leopard is released.

I understand others frustrations over and concerns about the delay but my credit card has just heaved a massive sigh of relief !

Wouldn't it be nice if Apple offered an upgrade to Leopard for a reduced fee for
anyone buying a Tiger license after June 1st? At least they would keep up the sales.

Hans Erik Hazelhorst.

I'm not planning to buy an iPhone (at least not for a long time), so delaying Leopard for the iPhone is somewhat disappointing. Of course, I'd rather they delay Leopard than release something half-baked. (Remember how little time there was between OS X 10.0 and 10.1?)

I really hope they update iWork before October, though, and I *really* hope they add a spreadsheet program -- the Appleworks spreadsheet module is a bit old in the tooth.

I played with some numbers -- the release dates for Mac OS's 10.0 - 10.4 were 24 Mar 01, 25 Sep 01, 24 Aug 02, 24 Oct 03, and 29 Apr 05. That means the distance between releases has been about 6, 10, 14, and 18 months.

If Leopard had continued the pattern, it would have arrived when Tiger was 22 months old, in March 2007. Tiger will be 29 months old in October.

By the way, extrapolating, we should expect OS 10.6 in mid-March 2010, plus or minus 3.5 months. (Remember, you heard it here first! :-)

-- Jim S.

In my shop the Leopard delay means we get more time to fully test
Adobe CS3 on OSX 10.5 - so it's a considerable benefit. (Though it's
hard to imagine that we need that many months of testing.)

Personally, I was hoping that the next version of MacBook Pro would
be announced concurrently with Leopard at WWDC, and I would
immediately order one for my new work machine. I can afford to wait
as my PowerBook runs fine, but the business benefit of simultaneously
running both OSX and XP is considerable.

But last night I did read one developer's blog* which said that his
upcoming version 2 release is critically dependent on features in
Leopard, so he is going to feel a real impact by the long delay.
Being a one-man shop makes it a critical financial deficiency as
well. However, he writes that the benefit of the delay is that some
features he'd planned for a later "dot" release will now be worked
into the initial version. So that benefits those of us who use the
software.


Bee Documents Timeline:
<http://www.beedocuments.com/blog/2007/04/leopard-delay-what-it-means-for-t2.html>


(ps: I have no affiliation with Bee Docs.)

On 4/18/07 9:04 AM, "jsasaki" <sasakiiit.edu> wrote:

> I'm not planning to buy an iPhone (at least not for a long time), so delaying
> Leopard for the iPhone is somewhat disappointing.

On the other hand, I want to buy an iPhone yesterday, so I'm glad they're
putting a lot of resources into it.

John