[Thorin]

Looks like Apple are going to slow down the rate that they release major OS X updates.

Story from The Register

Apple CTO and head of the company's software development operation Avie Tevanian said this week Tiger will be the last to follow such a rigorous update schedule, which he described as "not sustainable".

Sounds like a reasonable decision to me. I don't want to have to shell out money for an update every year. So long as they don't leave it too long between updates.

[theolein]

Steve is starting to run out of "hundreds of new features" and users are staring to get tired of yearly payable updates.

[Mediaman_12]

If they are going to end anual major updates, they should increase the number of minor (free 10.4.?) updates. Having very few beacuse the dev is being rolled into the yearly major is sort of ok, letting the OS 'wither' while the next update could be 2 years away is not so good.

[sniffer]

I kind of doubt this means less OS development, just less frequent 129$ updates. Sounds good to me.

[Maflynn]

Originally posted by Mediaman_12:
If they are going to end anual major updates, they should increase the number of minor (free 10.4.?) updates.

eWeek had this story as well and basically they (apple) intimated that there would be more robust updates being pushed through.

I'd have to agree that OSX is a fairly mature product, and its tough to keep telling your customers to fork over 120 a year. As previously mentioned its also difficult to continue to add new features and not get a bloated beast.

Mike

[The Placid Casual]

They should now go back to the 'old' OS 9 system update cycle.

One paid update, then one free update.

They have milked the OS update ca$h cow long enough IMHO.

[SMacTech]

They can now concentrate on getting all the little bugs squashed in 10.4 and fix all the little annoying problems with the Finder and Network Browser. Maybe they will remove the DEBUG code too

[sniffer]

Originally posted by SMacTech:
They can now concentrate on getting all the little bugs squashed in 10.4 and fix all the little annoying problems with the Finder and Network Browser. Maybe they will remove the DEBUG code too

Yep. I am too in favor of more mature releases. Conservative, mature, and secure updates sounds like a good path. I think most users would prefer a solid 10.x upgrade instead of getting the bugs worked out in a 10.x.2 update or the like. At least dial up users will appreciate it.

[ink]

Either that, or System XI will come out next fall.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by ink:
Either that, or System XI will come out next fall.

Crap, then the non-enlighten public will need to learn spelling "ex-i".

[mitchell_pgh]

It's not annual when it's on a 16 month cycle.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by theolein:
Steve is starting to run out of "hundreds of new features" and users are staring to get tired of yearly payable updates.

Actually, I think they're starting to run out of big cats ...

[typoon]

I think this is great. OS X will be MUCH more matured by Tiger and that will hopefully give them more time to make the next release whenever that might be even better. Hopefully they will incoporate some of the newer features in a .x upgrade.

Apple has been using the Paid update then free update path for a while now. System 7-8.0 Paid 8.0-8.1 free,8.1-8.5 paid, 8.5-8.6 was a paid upgrade. 8.6-9.0 was a paid upgrade. I also believe 9.0- 9.1/.2 was a paid upgrade as well. Same as it's been since OS X 10.0. 10.0-10.1 Paid, 10.1-10.1.x free, 10.1-10.2 Paid 10.2-10.2.x free 10.2-10.3 Paid 10.3-10.3.x free.


Apple only charges for updates if there are major changes.

[Millennium]

Agreed. This is good news; perhaps this will allow for better QA.

I do, however, hope that security updates continue to be at least as responsive as they are now, if not more so. With longer major-release schedules, this allows Apple somewhat more flexibility to do this, though, so I'm not really worried.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Agreed. This is good news; perhaps this will allow for better QA.

I do, however, hope that security updates continue to be at least as responsive as they are now, if not more so. With longer major-release schedules, this allows Apple somewhat more flexibility to do this, though, so I'm not really worried.

Maybe this will also help with more hardware updates.

[JLL]

Originally posted by The Placid Casual:
They should now go back to the 'old' OS 9 system update cycle.

One paid update, then one free update.

They have milked the OS update ca$h cow long enough IMHO.

Mac OS 8 cycle actually, and that was no different than today, since the paid upgrades came out once a year (more or less) withe the free updates in between.

[Agasthya]

I think 10.3 was the last annual update.

Tiger is only being announced and previewed at WWDC (which is later than it was last year). I think Tiger will be coming out during MWSF at the earliest (remember, Panther came out in late October).

[hldan]

I agree, it's definitely time to slow down the major updates. OSX is now Gold Master and there's no telling what Tiger will have until next month.
After Tiger's release, Apple can go 2-3 years before even a minor update because Microsoft certainly does this with Windows. After Win 95 it was a few years before Win 98 was released and with Windows XP it's been out for 3 years with only 1 service pack released and Service Pack 2 has been delayed.
XP certainly needs to be updated more often than Apple updates the Mac OS.

[typoon]

Originally posted by hldan:
I agree, it's definitely time to slow down the major updates. OSX is now Gold Master and there's no telling what Tiger will have until next month.
After Tiger's release, Apple can go 2-3 years before even a minor update because Microsoft certainly does this with Windows. After Win 95 it was a few years before Win 98 was released and with Windows XP it's been out for 3 years with only 1 service pack released and Service Pack 2 has been delayed.
XP certainly needs to be updated more often than Apple updates the Mac OS.

I agree but as long as they keep up with the security updates as often as they have and bug fixes .x release. They could go to 10.4.7-8-9 if they had to before coming out with 10.5 or 10.6 As long as bug fixes and some minor new features are added/fixed.

[mitchell_pgh]

Public Beta - September 13, 2003

7 months later

10.0 - Cheetah - March 24, 2001 - PAID

6 months later

10.1 - Puma - September 29, 2001 - "FREE"

10 months later

10.2 - Jaguar - August 13, 2002 - PAID

15 months later

10.3 - Panther - October 24, 2003 - PAID

So it's always been a minimum of 15 months between upgrades, not annually as some make out.

[benb]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
So it's always been a minimum of 15 months between upgrades, not annually as some make out.

Annual - occurring or happening every year or once a year : YEARLY <an annual reunion>

m-w.com

[Krypton]

I'm hoping that Tiger won't follow the trend of only being bug free by the 5th or more minor update.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by benb:
Annual - occurring or happening every year or once a year : YEARLY <an annual reunion>

m-w.com

an�nu�al�ly - of or happening every year.
not an�nu�al�ly - happening erratically at an approximate range of 15-16 months.

[::maroma::]

Originally posted by Krypton:
I'm hoping that Tiger won't follow the trend of only being bug free by the 5th or more minor update.

There's no such thing as bug free (especially a bug free OS). Less bugs, maybe. Bug free? Never.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Public Beta - September 13, 2000

Fixed.

[absmiths]

Originally posted by typoon:
Same as it's been since OS X 10.0. 10.0-10.1 Paid, 10.1-10.1.x free, 10.1-10.2 Paid 10.2-10.2.x free 10.2-10.3 Paid 10.3-10.3.x free.

First of all, 10.3.0 -> 10.3.1 hardly counts as a 'free' update since that would be expected to be free. Secondly, 10.0 -> 10.1 was free.

[absmiths]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
an�nu�al�ly - of or happening every year.
not an�nu�al�ly - happening erratically at an approximate range of 15-16 months.

Especially because that cycle (15-16 months) would inevitably skip years - if Tiger is released in 1/2005 or after then there will have been no paid upgrades in 2004.

[Chris O'Brien]

Originally posted by absmiths:
First of all, 10.3.0 -> 10.3.1 hardly counts as a 'free' update since that would be expected to be free. Secondly, 10.0 -> 10.1 was free.

Hmm... I downloaded 10.3.1 for free after buying 10.3

However, I paid ~�100 for 10.1 (when I already had 10.0) with a student discount. That may just have been something for here in the UK though - I read about people getting free upgrades from 10.0-10.1, but I couldn't... PCWorld over here were supposed to do it, but not that I seen...

I don't understand how you paid to go from 10.3.0 -> 10.3.1 - it was a free download via software update, as all the 10.x.x updates have been (unless I'm missing something).

[goMac]

Tiger looks to be quite an update for games from what I've scoured on the Apple Developers site.

I'm worried that Tiger will be an update for mostly developers and normal users won't see the point in upgrading. This would happer efforts for developers to use any new Tiger features. Updates for developers should be free.

We'll see what user-side features come in Tiger though.

[hldan]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Public Beta - September 13, 2003

7 months later

10.0 - Cheetah - March 24, 2001 - PAID

6 months later

10.1 - Puma - September 29, 2001 - "FREE"

10 months later

10.2 - Jaguar - August 13, 2002 - PAID

15 months later

10.3 - Panther - October 24, 2003 - PAID

So it's always been a minimum of 15 months between upgrades, not annually as some make out.

Well, it hasn't been announced by Apple if they will charge for Tiger. It may be a free upgrade for Panther users or maybe even a low price upgrade.Even at full price Apple has given Mac User's their money's worth.

[klinux]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
an�nu�al�ly - of or happening every year.
not an�nu�al�ly - happening erratically at an approximate range of 15-16 months.

Man, you are still wrong.

Anually = once a year.

2001 - paid upgrade to 10.0
2002 - paid upgrade to 10.2
2003 - paid upgrade to 10.3

Hence, to describe the paid cycle as annual is 100% correct.

[lngtones]

Originally posted by goMac:
Tiger looks to be quite an update for games from what I've scoured on the Apple Developers site.

I'm worried that Tiger will be an update for mostly developers and normal users won't see the point in upgrading. This would happer efforts for developers to use any new Tiger features. Updates for developers should be free.

We'll see what user-side features come in Tiger though.

where did you find information about Tiger?

[turtle777]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
It's not annual when it's on a 16 month cycle.

Yeah, in that sense, even every 13 months is not annual

-t

[turtle777]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Actually, I think they're starting to run out of big cats ...

And what's next ?

Dogs ?
Lizards ?
Clowns ?

-t

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by turtle777:
And what's next ?

Dogs ?
Lizards ?
Clowns ?

-t

They should go back to the musical terms. I liked that. Really fit the style and elegance that is Apple.

[msuper69]

Here come the complainers saying that Apple doesn't update Mac OS X often enough.

Just wait and see.

[nagromme]

After Tiger, releases will be slowing down? They already have been. It's natural for a new OS. Upgrade or not as you see fit.

As I've posted before--although perhaps not in these forums... Since OS X 10.0 was released in early 2001, there have only been TWO paid upgrades of OS X ever: 10.2 and 10.3 (remember: 10.1 was free). The time before these paid versions was 17 months and 14 months. So if anyone complains about having a paid upgrade every year, they are very mistaken.

People often overlook four things when they complain that Apple advances Mac OS X too quickly:

First, you don't HAVE to upgrade just because you can. Your current apps will keep right on running, AND most new apps will run on your slightly-older OS too. Some new ones won't, but app vendors make clear when that's the case. You can then stick with the older OS/app until the timing is better for you. You won't be left out of security updates, either, if you're afraid that OS X may get its first virus. Apple updates older OS versions for a time. (10.0 got a free update to 10.1, and 10.2 is still receiving updates even with 10.3 long since out.)

Second, regarding cost, US$129 is NOT "full" price, it's an upgrade to whatever version of Mac OS (8? 9? X?) you already own. Some expect OS X should ship at two different prices--like a new version of Photoshop or Office does--but that would only make sense if there were buyers who did not ALREADY own Mac OS. Apple has never sold Macs without Mac OS, so there IS no "standalone"/"first purchase" price for OS X. Everyone's first Mac OS purchase is simply bundled WITH a Mac. Apple could still offer a range of different prices depending on HOW old your current OS is--but many app vendors don't do that either: it complicates the upgrade for both buyers and retailers. Buyers would then need to use a serial number scheme or dig up an old DVD or otherwise electronically prover ownership, while retailers would have to stock at least 2 different versions. I'm glad Apple has kept it simple rather than charging more to OS 8/9 owners or something like that. A mail-in rebate would make more sense, but I'm just happy that Apple doesn't do what Macromedia does: charge you more if you miss too may upgrades in a row. (Sure, I'd love every upgrade of every software to be $5... or free... but developing them isn't free.)

Third, regarding version numbers, 10.3 (etc.) is NOT just a "point release" as some people like to pretend. Many companies use a decimal point for minor updates, and change the main version number for every major update. But Apple doesn't anymore. They have a known brand (and logo) for Mac OS X, and they want to stick with that for now. So they put the major number after the 10. 10.3 is like Mac OS 13. One look at the feature list of Panther will make clear that it is no minor release. The number is not what's important. You tend to get a LOT for your money with an OS X upgrade. (If you choose to buy.)

Fourth, regarding timing, OS X was a new OS, and thus initially it was subject to faster improvement and more frequent upgrades. That's very desirable in a new product! If fast change is hard on certain businesses, that inevitably made OS X less attractive in the early years to that kind of customer. There's no way around the fact that an enterprise customer may not wish to be an early adopter. But the update rate slows down over time--and that's clearly been the case as OS X has grown from a promising start into the mature OS we now have:

Mac OS X Public Beta: 9/13/2000
US$30 (free shipping, like all versions), all credited towards purchase of 10.0.

...6 months...

10.0 Cheeta: 3/24/2001
$129 upgrade from all earlier versions of Mac OS: 8, 9, or X. ($99 for Public Beta users.) Or $69 for education staff/students/teachers.

...6 months...

10.1 Puma: 9/29/2001
Free to 10.0 owners ($129 or $69 edu upgrade from all pre-X versions, same as 10.0 was). Given away at CompUSA and other stores. Mac users who have been with OS X from the beta days have still only paid for it once.

...11 months...

10.2 Jaguar: 8/24/2002
$129 or $69 edu upgrade from all earlier versions of Mac OS. The first of two paid upgrades. But available for free to educators.

...14 months...

10.3 Panther: 10/24/2003
$129 or $69 upgrade from all earlier versions of Mac OS. The second of two paid upgrades. (Or the first ever, for educators.) Also available: family pack for $199. That means OS installations only cost from $99.50 each (for 2 installs) down to $39.80 each (for the maximum 5).

...more than 14 months?...

10.4 Tiger: 2004 or 2005?

So the upgrade cycle, in months, has been: 6 - 6 - 11 - 14 (including two free versions early on). Apple's rate of change has naturally slowed as the OS has matured.

Panther took 3 months longer than Jaguar. What if 10.4/Tiger takes 3 months longer (17 months) than Panther? 10.4 would then be released in late March 2005. Or if development STOPS slowing down and 10.4 only takes 14 months again... that's still late December 2004. So even if 10.4 takes the same or slightly less time than 10.3, Apple might still wait a few days and release it in 2005. That would please the vocal people who think Apple should move slower: there would be NO paid releases in 2004.

And remember that earliest reports and developer previews of a new Mac OS often come out FAR ahead of the shipping product. So I think early 2005 is very likely for 10.4. And then, as in the past, you can expect Amazon and others offer deals below Apple's MSRP.

If Tiger makes it in 2004, though, as Apple now seems to be aiming for, I'll be pleased. I won't HAVE to buy it if I'd rather wait a few months or even skip it and wait for 10.5. (With most products I buy every other upgrade and cut my costs in half.) But if it's like Jaguar and Panther were, it will be well worth my money.

[wtmcgee]

even if there aren't a ton of compelling reasons to upgrade, i can't wait to see their pitch

Originally posted by goMac:
Tiger looks to be quite an update for games from what I've scoured on the Apple Developers site.

I'm worried that Tiger will be an update for mostly developers and normal users won't see the point in upgrading. This would happer efforts for developers to use any new Tiger features. Updates for developers should be free.

We'll see what user-side features come in Tiger though.

[MartiNZ]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
They should go back to the musical terms. I liked that. Really fit the style and elegance that is Apple.

That is quite brilliant - they should have done that with OS X in hindsight. That way people wouldn't have done so much complaining about the speed / snappiness� .

Think about it: OS X 10.0 Largo; 10.1 Andante; 10.2 Andantino; 10.3 Allegro (possibly a bit optimistic ) ... and eventually Presto and Vivace.

That would also have been a logical progression rather than picking cats out of a hat, as it were.

!

[digiology2]

This is kind of strange if you keep in mind the new iPod division.
Apple are focusing on something new I'd say...

[UberFu]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Public Beta - September 13, 2003

7 months later

10.0 - Cheetah - March 24, 2001 - PAID

6 months later

10.1 - Puma - September 29, 2001 - "FREE"

10 months later

10.2 - Jaguar - August 13, 2002 - PAID

15 months later

10.3 - Panther - October 24, 2003 - PAID

So it's always been a minimum of 15 months between upgrades, not annually as some make out.

I'm sorry to inform you - but Apple was charging $129 for v10.1_ However they eventually let up on it and places like CompUSA and such were passing it out for free_ But to still get it from Apple it was $129_

Also the part you say at the end about "a minimum of 15 months between upgrades" - I see in your timeline - 10 months - 6 months and 7 months - all 3 of those are a lot less than 15_

[UberFu]

Originally posted by typoon:
I think this is great. OS X will be MUCH more matured by Tiger and that will hopefully give them more time to make the next release whenever that might be even better. Hopefully they will incoporate some of the newer features in a .x upgrade.

Apple has been using the Paid update then free update path for a while now. System 7-8.0 Paid 8.0-8.1 free,8.1-8.5 paid, 8.5-8.6 was a paid upgrade. 8.6-9.0 was a paid upgrade. I also believe 9.0- 9.1/.2 was a paid upgrade as well. Same as it's been since OS X 10.0. 10.0-10.1 Paid, 10.1-10.1.x free, 10.1-10.2 Paid 10.2-10.2.x free 10.2-10.3 Paid 10.3-10.3.x free.


Apple only charges for updates if there are major changes.

First of all Apple IS using a different upgrade/update system with version 10_

Currently we have paid for 10.0 - 10.1 - 10.2 - 10.3_

In the past to go from 8.0 to 8.1 to 8.5 was free_ To go from ver7.x to 8.x to 9.x we paid for_

The decimal point has been moved since to release of the new OS_ Under the current method to advance your OS 1 decimal point costs $130� and under the previous method to advance 1 deicmal point cost $0_

Your own 2nd paragraph contradicts itself_ You can read everything in it after the first sentence and see that_ Your comparison is off_

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by UberFu:
In the past to go from 8.0 to 8.1 to 8.5 was free

To go from 8.1 to 8.5 was not free. 8.5 was "like a whole new Mac for $99."

[nagromme]

Originally posted by UberFu:
I'm sorry to inform you - but Apple was charging $129 for v10.1_ However they eventually let up on it and places like CompUSA and such were passing it out for free_ But to still get it from Apple it was $129_

There was no "eventual" decision from Apple--it was free all along. I got 10.1 for free the very day it was released. And I KNEW I'd be getting it free in advance: Apple had already announced it would be free to existing OS X (10.0) owners.

Unless a simple error was made in some certain case, the only people who were required to pay $129 for 10.1 were the people upgrading from OS 8 or 9--in other words, the people who didn't pay for 10.0. So yes, Apple did sell it for $129--but if you were an OS X 10.0 user, you should not have bought it. You should have chosen the free upgrade instead.

[idlewild]

Originally posted by wtmcgee:
even if there aren't a ton of compelling reasons to upgrade, i can't wait to see their pitch

Me too! It's unbelievable the bulk of this thread is about when Apple has charged for updates and not. The real issues are what benefit an OS update provides. Most of the online community is figuring out the "one hundred fifty" new features only seem like a strong four or five once the upgrade is installed and used. I'm not surprised Apple has matured the OS, any company worth it's salt should have that accomplished within as much time.

Real issues for me about Apple products and platforms are more concerned with the longevity these technologies will be supported by Apple. I can never forget how the Apple II was killed in favor of the Mac, and more recently, how HyperCard was killed. In both of these examples, no upgrades were offered to retain customers; no concerns for preservation of data.

With the big news of the week being how Apple is now an iPod division and a Mac division makes Avie's announcement even more intriguing. I believe someone is noticing that the annual-ish upgrades are losing steam and favor. I've spoke with numerous Mac users that never actively participated in the upgrade path the past five years. Combine this with G5 sales not reaching expected levels, while iPod and iTunes takes the stage.

Apple is not the Apple of yesterdays when they wrote their own OS from scratch. OSX was never "new" and it's core has always been free. What we've paid Apple for is the glitzy polish they put on BSD Unix to deliver a mass marketable OS. They could have done the same thing using Linux.

What if a new technology comes along that outperforms the current CPU standards so much so that it jeopardizes all the players, including Apple? It is best Apple is ready, to the point of dumping the Mac and making certain their OS works with, and is marketable to users of the new technology. It makes more sense to have multiple revenue streams coming from products that are useful on many platforms rather than one. That is why iPod works with Mac and Windows. That is why there's an Intel build of OSX in the background if it's needed.

If the Mac can't gain market share, it will be axed for something totally new and better, and if something else comes outside of Apple, Apple is poised to market an OS for it. Their pitch will be that it's friendlier to use. Apple has killed products in the past, leaving customers to figure for themselves whether to embrace new technologies or no. It's inevitable it will happen again.

What impresses me most about Mr. Jobs' Apple is that it's all outsourced technology, polished into a brand internally. R&D is lower, as a result. And when the profit disappears on a product, it doesn't hurt the balance sheet to kill it and replace it with something else.

An interesting thought today about what Apple might introduce for the Mac's 20th year, and it's not a new Mac. Another peripheral, called the iPlot. And the iPlot is nothing like any computer in the world; it's software is programmed to manage your data as Steve Jobs would. It lets you plot success or death to all your projects and tasks. It has a "realty distortion" command that applies Steve's logic to your files in ways you'd never have guessed. The iPlot , like the iPod, will work with more than one computer platform, so now, Steve's brand of logical thinking can be used with any Macintosh or Windows computer, yet provide great utility on it's own right out of the box.

In case any questions, I have been a Mac user for twenty years. I've never patronized Windows or Microsoft products. I'm an average computer and internet geek dealing with realities created by profit motivated corporate personalities. I'm glad to hear the annual-ish OS upgrades are history. Maybe quality will improve, but I wonder.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by nagromme:
First, you don't HAVE to upgrade just because you can. Your current apps will keep right on running, AND most new apps will run on your slightly-older OS too. Some new ones won't, but app vendors make clear when that's the case. You can then stick with the older OS/app until the timing is better for you. You won't be left out of security updates, either, if you're afraid that OS X may get its first virus. Apple updates older OS versions for a time. (10.0 got a free update to 10.1, and 10.2 is still receiving updates even with 10.3 long since out.)

Even some Apple apps don't run on older OS X versions, and you can't even get the complete set of bug fixes for Safari if you're running OS X.2. X.2 users are still stuck at Safari 1.0. Furthermore, if you're still on X.1 you may not get all the security updates. So in essence, many people are forced to upgrade anyway even if they don't really want to.

Also, I think the OS X release update slowdown is a good thing because corporate admins would hate to have to upgrade the OS to simply be able to run new apps (for good reason). A semi-mandatory yearly update cycle is a very bad thing for enterprise, and Apple has been pushing somewhat lately to try to enter the enterprise market.

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Public Beta - September 13, 2003

7 months later

10.0 - Cheetah - March 24, 2001 - PAID

6 months later

10.1 - Puma - September 29, 2001 - "FREE"

10 months later

10.2 - Jaguar - August 13, 2002 - PAID

15 months later

10.3 - Panther - October 24, 2003 - PAID

So it's always been a minimum of 15 months between upgrades, not annually as some make out.

Except that 10.0 was not usable as a mainstream OS. I don't really think it counts as a real release OS. 10.0 was effectively OS X's beta OS. (The public beta was completely unusable - essentially almost an alpha.)

So from the first "real" release (10.1) to Panther was only 25 months, or just over 2 years.

[benb]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
an�nu�al�ly - of or happening every year.
not an�nu�al�ly - happening erratically at an approximate range of 15-16 months.

I guess I have to tell my boss that our annual meetings really arn't annual. Sure they occur once a year, but sometimes its every 340 days, other times as long as 400 days. And our annual family reunion too. Who knows, it could by in August, it could be in June. But its certianly not annual! To be annual it would have to be every 365.25 days, give or take a few hours.

[nagromme]

I think it's obvious that SOME people think Apple releases a paid update on average every 12 months. They don't--that's simple fact. An annual meeting does average every 12 months, even if it varies.

Even some Apple apps don't run on older OS X versions

But the version FOR the older OS X, if there was one, doesn't go away. If you want the latest apps, SOMETIMES you will need the features of a new OS. Sometimes you will need new hardware! That's obvious and will never change.

I guess the people who complain must be people who want ALL--not most--of the latest apps, ASAP the moment they come out, but who do NOT want OS features ASAP. Most people who can do without the latest OS can also settle for a few of last year's apps a while longer--those apps are as good today as they were "back then."

Yes, "some" apps--and the latest versions of others--need the latest OS. That's hardly "forcing" people to upgrade. It's giving them the choice IF the benefits are worth it. If not, skip an upgrade and get those few apps later.

[HOMBRESINIESTRO]

I'm willing to pay 129,- $ if OS X keeps up evolving that fast and well.
I had the impression to have invested my money right with _every_ update I've bought.

[Thorin]

As far as the annual thing goes, in my defence I switched around about the time that Panther came out, and I was under the impression that major updates came out roughly every 12 months. So that's what it says annual in the topic title .

I think that slightly less frequent major updates is a good thing, so long as they keep up with the bug fixes in between times.