[milhous]

That's my thinking, plus a nominal fee for shipping.

They'll treat this just like the 10.1 release when people bought 10.0. Optimizations and footprint reductions are nice, but I can't see how Apple can justify charging $129 for it, or any other price for that matter.

And if this happens to be the case, it will be an automatic 1-up against Windows 7, which MS will definitely sell for $100s of dollars.

[Big Mac]

Doubtful. They'll charge less than 10.2-10.5 perhaps, but it won't be free. If not, I'll owe you a Coke.

[davidbk1]

There will be marketable features and they will charge for it. But I'm really happy they are cleaning up.

[Simon]

Apple will post a web page detailing 100 or so new features. They will aggressively advertise the new UI. A single license will cost $129.

And I agree with the general sentiment there too. Most of the software I use is pretty feature rich, not to say feature complete. I would appreciate it if developers would direct more attention to making things more stable and faster instead of adding more and more crap to already overloaded apps. AFAIC Leopard is pretty mature. I can think of things I'd like to see added, but none of that is urgent. I think it's great if rather than add a lot of features, Apple starts polishing it, overhauls the underlying framework, and optimizes the heck out of it. I'll gladly pay for that.

[hmurchison2001]

I think it makes sense to make it free.

Ok I'm assuming that Apple is going to:

1. Deliver an optimized OS X that is more responsive
2. Deliver a more unified system UI
3. Deliver Exchange features
4. Usher in new multi-tasking API like Grand Central
5. Introduce GPGPU computing
6. And more underlaying stuff

Now all these features sound nice and consumers are certainly going to want them but the truth is we know the economy isn't running gangbusters and everyone is watching their nickels. There's just not enough stuff in Snow Leopard to charge for it IMO. Features like OpenCL, Grand Central, 64-bit support and unified UI are things that either must be leveraged by Apple and 3rd parties at a later date or revision or fairly small evolution.

What Apple needs to do simply give Snow Leopard away. I paid for Leopard but frankly I'd be none too upset if Tiger users with SL capable hardware were able to jump up for free. Snow Leopard represents not only an optimization but a clear path forward with Cocoa being "the" framework and Intel being "the" hardware of choice.

Let's just get everyone on Snow Leopard as quickly as possible and this will create a critical mass of Snow Leopard users which means developers are more likely to leverage OpenCL or Grand Central. They're going to write 64-bit apps.

The money isn't worth it to Apple frankly. It's a drop in the bucket but what it allows them to do is streamline the os and apps. No more bloated fat binary Intel/PPC downloads for some apps. It sends a clear message to developer to get their 64-bit kexts ready.

It means that every Mac Box Set owner really gets Snow Leopard in the deal. After the Snow Leopard transition we've got a lot to look forward to with 10.7 which will be the next feature release. The more Mac users we have on Snow Leopard the easier that transition is going to be.

[Chuckit]

Snow Leopard will be free — on every new Mac.

[Amorya]

Originally Posted by hmurchison2001 

Let's just get everyone on Snow Leopard as quickly as possible and this will create a critical mass of Snow Leopard users which means developers are more likely to leverage OpenCL or Grand Central. They're going to write 64-bit apps.

Developers, especially small developers, switch to writing for the latest version of MacOS X pretty damned quickly anyway. The new APIs are usually too lush to resist, unless there's a really solid business case for coding for older versions.

Personally, I'd rather get lots of little tweaks, performance increase, extra stability and revamped APIs for my money than I would flashy features. I think Grand Central and Quicktime X will be worth more to me than Spaces and Time Machine. Therefore, I'd be more than happy to pay for Snow Leopard.

Amorya

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Snow Leopard will be free — on every new Mac.

And downloads will be free too...





... as Torrents.

*rimshot*

-t

[wadesworld]

And when you download via a torrent, it comes with a FREE Trojan!

[OreoCookie]

It's not as outlandish as some people may think. From what I can tell, most of the changes will only come with 10.7, i. e. when people make use of the improved APIs, the cleaned up underpinnings, etc. Judging from the surface, 10.6 is what Windows 7 is to Vista (only that Leopard doesn't suck ).

[hmurchison2001]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It's not as outlandish as some people may think. From what I can tell, most of the changes will only come with 10.7, i. e. when people make use of the improved APIs, the cleaned up underpinnings, etc. Judging from the surface, 10.6 is what Windows 7 is to Vista (only that Leopard doesn't suck ).

It really isn't. Even 60 dollars would be expensive today for many people for Snow Leopard. While we all want optimizations buying a computer and watching is get left by faster hardware is part and parcel what this industry does.

If Apple simply announces in grand 25th year pomp and circumstance that Snow Leopard is going to be free or at a very nominal cost (say $9.95 for the disc) then Snow Leopard will quickly become the defacto for most Intel based computers and as always developers will flock to it.

[CharlesS]

^ Isn't "most Intel computers" overstating things just a bit there?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

^ Isn't "most Intel computers" overstating things just a bit there?

Obviously, he meant Intel Macs.

-t

[EndlessMac]

I don't know if it's going to be free or not but I know for sure that I'm not going to pay the usual full price for Snow Leopard. It has to be at least half the price for people who already have Leopard. It would be a tough sell otherwise.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by hmurchison2001 

It really isn't. Even 60 dollars would be expensive today for many people for Snow Leopard. While we all want optimizations buying a computer and watching is get left by faster hardware is part and parcel what this industry does.

If Apple simply announces in grand 25th year pomp and circumstance that Snow Leopard is going to be free or at a very nominal cost (say $9.95 for the disc) then Snow Leopard will quickly become the defacto for most Intel based computers and as always developers will flock to it.

Don't hold your breath.

[B Gallagher]

Some very good points have been made here. If Snow Leopard is going to be free, this would very quickly make it the default installation of OS X, which would be great for programmers and developers. And, as mentioned, it would pave the road very nicely for whatever 10.7 will bring which will take advantage of the new features from 10.6.

I could see it being a free or minimal upgrade for those who already have Leopard. Of course, free on all new macs. For those still running Tiger (and nothing earlier, due to the PPC/Intel switch), I could see it being the full $129, as it's introducing slightly more mature versions of much of what is new in Leopard.

Whether Apple would want to go with a two-tier full/upgrade pricing plan is another story.

I also agree with whoever said that Leopard feels mature. If I have to use Tiger these days, I miss too many features. But there's always more work to be done.

[mduell]

My guess is both Snow Leopard and Win7 are both going to be paid upgrades at normal prices.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

My guess is both Snow Leopard and Win7 are both going to be paid upgrades at normal prices.

If you call $400 a "normal" price for an OS.

[Salty]

Puhleeeez. Snow Leopard will be paid, Apple realized the error of their ways with making 10.1 free, not that they wouldn't do it again now, but now every time an OS update comes out people want it for free. Problem is every time you give away something for free, people clamor next time you charge for it. I see tons of customers every day who got a $0 phone when they signed up, half an year later they've killed it because to them it's worth nothing, and they want a new one, and they flip out when you tell em 300 for a new phone. Apple doesn't sell $0 copies of OS X.

[Chuckit]

I don't think giving free upgrades to 10.1 was a mistake. OS X 10.0 was essentially Public Beta Service Pack 1. It wasn't until 10.1 that OS X was really usable, so offering upgrades to people who essentially volunteered to beta-test their fledgeling operating system was a good idea.

[Salty]

Agreed, but the problem has been that ever since then EVERYONE always says that the next version of OS X is gonna be free when it wont' be.

[OreoCookie]

Ditto.
I'm not sure that Apple creates an incentive to main stream users to upgrade. Also the code name, snow leopard, indicates that this is a continuation of the work on Leopard. I'm not sure they'll put the upgrade on the market for full price.

[Gavin]

There are accounting reasons that it will not be free.

If you recall, the software(firmware?) that turned on the hidden Draft N capabilities of airport cards on certain macbooks, etc. had a nominal price. Apple charged $3 or something like that.

Why?

The US has a law (Sarbanes-Oxley?) that tries to prevent companies from getting away with accounting tricks which in the past allowed them to defer recording of profits so as to make their income seem more regular, thereby fooling investors and manipulating the stock price. Remember Tyco and Enron?

So, under the old way Apple could theoretically say that the free software OS I am getting (10.6) finally completes the computer I received two years ago. They then record the delivery (and profit) of the final product in this financial quarter, basically pretending that I just bought it. So if actual hardware sold falls this quarter they can make it look like they are still selling lots of machines. Fudging the quarterly financial report. Keeping the stock price high.

The new accounting rules say you have to charge for things that add value to previously sold items in order to keep this scenario from happening.

So while they are a hassle for companies, the rules make things more transparent for investors and keep the market high and the economy on track!

Snow leopard cannot be free.

[Spheric Harlot]

If it's sold for $20 (equivalent to the usual "shipping and handling" cost - but obviously not declared as such), it will be essentially "free".

The question is whether it will be $130?

Doubtful, unless they really pull some top-secret stuff out of the hat.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Gavin 

There are accounting reasons that it will not be free.

If you recall, the software(firmware?) that turned on the hidden Draft N capabilities of airport cards on certain macbooks, etc. had a nominal price. Apple charged $3 or something like that.

Why?

The US has a law (Sarbanes-Oxley?) that tries to prevent companies from getting away with accounting tricks which in the past allowed them to defer recording of profits so as to make their income seem more regular, thereby fooling investors and manipulating the stock price. Remember Tyco and Enron?

So, under the old way Apple could theoretically say that the free software OS I am getting (10.6) finally completes the computer I received two years ago. They then record the delivery (and profit) of the final product in this financial quarter, basically pretending that I just bought it. So if actual hardware sold falls this quarter they can make it look like they are still selling lots of machines. Fudging the quarterly financial report. Keeping the stock price high.

The new accounting rules say you have to charge for things that add value to previously sold items in order to keep this scenario from happening.

So while they are a hassle for companies, the rules make things more transparent for investors and keep the market high and the economy on track!

Snow leopard cannot be free.

You've misunderstood (which appears to be what Apple intended with a lot of their statements) the impact of SOX. Apple could give it away for free, but they'd have to account for it appropriately, and they don't want to do that.

[Gavin]

How is that not the impact of it?
Clearly apple actually acted in that way because of SOX. Maybe you meat the "intent" of SOX , that's another mater. Companies actions are based on the hassle of compliance and frankly fear of scrutiny. Instead of going forward and jumping through all the hoops, you turn left.

An extreme example might be if someone does not buy a car because of a mandatory seatbelt law.

[milhous]

So in theory, Apple could charge $.01 and a $19.98 shipping charge for the upgrade disc. Problem solved.

[Don Pickett]

All those who believe 10.6 will be free, please contact me. I have a slightly used bridge for sale at a very reasonable price.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

All those who believe 10.6 will be free, please contact me. I have a slightly used bridge for sale at a very reasonable price.

My sentiments exactly. Not sure what people are smoking around here but Snow Leopard will cost $129 as Simon suggested above.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Gavin 

There are accounting reasons that it will not be free.

[...]
The US has a law (Sarbanes-Oxley?) that tries to prevent companies from getting away with accounting tricks which in the past allowed them to defer recording of profits so as to make their income seem more regular, thereby fooling investors and manipulating the stock price.

This is spot-on.

Originally Posted by Gavin 

So, under the old way Apple could theoretically say that the free software OS I am getting (10.6) finally completes the computer I received two years ago. They then record the delivery (and profit) of the final product in this financial quarter, basically pretending that I just bought it. So if actual hardware sold falls this quarter they can make it look like they are still selling lots of machines. Fudging the quarterly financial report. Keeping the stock price high.

This is where you have it backwards.

From what I understand, what Sarbanes-Oxley tries to prevent is the exact OPPOSITE: declaring sales as "shipped" in this quarter in order to make the numbers look good, before everything explodes NEXT quarter, when it turns out you won't be delivering at all this year, but you've already sold your own stock and made off home-free to Barbados.

From that, it follows that this bit...

Originally Posted by Gavin 

The new accounting rules say you have to charge for things that add value to previously sold items in order to keep this scenario from happening.

...is not quite correct, either.

This is the RESULT of the rules, because while Sarbanes-Oxley may make sense in some contexts, it runs completely counter to what constitutes a lasting investment in the technology market: a device whose possibilities grow over time.

When delivering new functionality, corporations will now opt to charge for small updates rather than having to account for them in part each and every quarter over the entire useful lifespan of the product and then no longer making them available.

Apple does account for iPhones over the two-year contract span, but that makes sense because they're sharing AT&T's revenue over that time, anyway. Doing so for each and every product is a bureaucratic *nightmare*.


In an utterly frustrating twist that illustrates the complete madness of this act, minor updates often enough constitute or incorporate absolutely vital bugfixes, as well - LOGIC ****ING PRO, I'M LOOKING AT YOU. But the second these bugfixes may be construed as "new functionality", Apple will apparently delay them until the next chargeable update.

The frequency of point-updates for the Logic suite has hit absolute rock-bottom since Apple bought Emagic.

It's got to the point where some absolutely nasty bugs make the damn thing so annoying in everyday use (MIDI-clock bugs and NASTY **** involving moving regions when hidden or frozen tracks are enabled) that it's becoming nigh impossible to recommend it for professional use.


Then again, what can you expect from software that only costs $500 (vs. the $5000 it used to with all the plug-ins)?

</rant>

[Hal Itosis]

I usually buy the 5-pack (or "Family"? pack).
So that will be free too then???

[Gavin]

Spheric Harlot -
From what I understand, what Sarbanes-Oxley tries to prevent is the exact OPPOSITE: declaring sales as "shipped" in this quarter in order to make the numbers look good, before everything explodes NEXT quarter, when it turns out you won't be delivering at all this year, but you've already sold your own stock and made off home-free to Barbados.

I think various companies were shifting the revenue in both directions. You had the crash the company and cash in types like enron, but you also had less evil management who just wanted the revenue to look even from quarter to quarter, or just so they could more closely hit their projected earnings (the stock price goes up when management are fortune telling geniuses). At the time the later seemed perfectly reasonable to many companies.

...is not quite correct, either.
This is the RESULT of the rules

I'll give you that - I was just painting with a broad brush to get the point across. And I was getting tired of typing.

The rest is a good point - I wonder how many companies are simply using it as an excuse to nickel and dime for updates/bug fixes. Basically to justify what they've been doing all along.

[Simon]

Here's something for all those of you disappointed that SL will end up costing the usual $129.

Supposedly the $30 QuickTime Pro extras will be included for free with SL.

[Amorya]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Here's something for all those of you disappointed that SL will end up costing the usual $129.

Supposedly the $30 QuickTime Pro extras will be included for free with SL.

Finally!

[SierraDragon]

If it was legal I would wager that Snow Leopard ships for under US$100, largely due to the economy, plus the ability to take another whack at Windows. Note that Win fanboys/girls already play Windows as "cheaper than OS X" by adding up the cumulative cost of all the 10.5.x upgrades. However to argue against myself, the high cost of Win7 gives room for Snow Leopard to stay high priced <sigh>.

So far 10.4.11 has been superb with Aperture and CS3 so I have entirely skipped Leopard. However if Snow Leopard is stable when it is in the wild I will jump right to it (and finally install the 7600 card I have waiting for Leopard/Snow Leopard).

-Allen Wicks

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Here's something for all those of you disappointed that SL will end up costing the usual $129.

Supposedly the $30 QuickTime Pro extras will be included for free with SL.

Nice. Now we're back to where we were with System 7.

[Hal Itosis]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Here's something for all those of you disappointed that SL will end up costing the usual $129.

Supposedly the $30 QuickTime Pro extras will be included for free with SL.

Excellent (if true).

Now if only they'd also include ARD within OSX as well. I sometimes wonder (and have heard others express): what if Apple Remote Desktop (and its predecessor "Apple Remote Access") had been included free with the system from day one (i.e., since ARA's inception)? Would the Mac market-share be greater today (and during all those lean years) had such a useful (and self-serving) tool been a free part of the OS all along?

i vote yes on that.

[Spheric Harlot]

100% of the ARD functionality that "normal" people might need is already included for free in Leopard.

In Finder: "Go to..." --> "Connect to Server..." --> type "vnc://yourothercomputersname.local"

Even comes with clipboard transfer in both directions.

What other ARD functionality would warrant its inclusion for free? (Make it part of OS X server for free, sure, but who really needs scheduled package installation management as part of a regular OS install?)

[OreoCookie]

What do normal people need ARD for? I use vnc over ssh and it works like a charm.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

100% of the ARD functionality that "normal" people might need is already included for free in Leopard.

In Finder: "Go to..." --> "Connect to Server..." --> type "vnc://yourothercomputersname.local"

Even comes with clipboard transfer in both directions.

You don't even have to work that hard - if you enable "Screen Sharing" in the Sharing preferences, your computer will show up in the Finder window sidebar on other Leopard machines on the same subnet, and all you have to do is click on your machine and enter your password.

[Hal Itosis]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

You don't even have to work that hard - if you enable "Screen Sharing" in the Sharing preferences, your computer will show up in the Finder window sidebar on other Leopard machines on the same subnet, and all you have to do is click on your machine and enter your password.

Wow... i never saw any of that in System 7, 8, or 9.
[i.e., read my entire paragraph... don't cherry pick.]

[CharlesS]

Uh, what? What does the classic Mac OS have to do with anything in this thread?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Hal Itosis 

Wow... i never saw any of that in System 7, 8, or 9.
[i.e., read my entire paragraph... don't cherry pick.]

a) Apple(Talk) Remote Access (the "Talk" was dropped as networking migrated to TCP/IP in the late 90s) was the network stack in System 7, 8, and 9, and is NOT the "predecessor" to Apple Remote Desktop, at least not any more than Ma Bell was the predecessor to YouTube.

b) Apple Remote Desktop wasn't released until 2001 or 2002, and it never supported systems lower than 8.1.

c) Are you seriously surmising that including GUI remote machine control (as opposed to the Terminal emulation that's been around for decades, even on System 6) as part of the general-purpose operating system would have affected Apple's market-share in any meaningful way? They had a huge marketshare in the late 80s because in publishing and graphics, they were the ONLY game in town. They did NOT lose that market-share in the 90s just because they didn't include server-grade network administration tools, and the inclusion of such would likely not have made a difference.

[Hal Itosis]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

c) Are you seriously surmising that including GUI remote machine control (as opposed to the Terminal emulation that's been around for decades, even on System 6) as part of the general-purpose operating system would have affected Apple's market-share in any meaningful way?

Not quite as seriously as you guys seem intent on making a big debate about it.
Did you ever use Apple remote Access under system 8 or 9?
It provided a little more than a "terminal". Anyway . . .

You can't prove i'm wrong... you can't prove you're right... so let's not waste time.
[i don't see any "meaningful" harm it would cause... but, nevermind]

You vote no then... fine.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

100% of the ARD functionality that "normal" people might need is already included for free in Leopard.

Someone could easily say the same about QuickTime Pro.
Quick... write Apple and tell them *not* to make it free!!!

[Spheric Harlot]

QuickTime Pro alternatives are available for free or can be taken care of using Apple's own iMovie (for example).

The function of interest in QuickTime Pro was just the fullscreen playback - and that was really the only incentive to buy, until Leopard.

They're only rolling it into Snow Leopard because sales have probably dropped to near-zero since the re-inclusion of full-screen viewing in 10.5. It's merely the completion of a graceful retreat from an idiotic marketing charge.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Hal Itosis 

Not quite as seriously as you guys seem intent on making a big debate about it.
Did you ever use Apple remote Access under system 8 or 9?
It provided a little more than a "terminal". Anyway . . .

Ah - after a little googling, I believe you're talking about the "Apple Network Assistant"!
That looks like the direct predecessor to ARD:
http://lowendmac.com/lab/02/0104.html


I never did use that, no.

Remote Access was never more than an INIT and a cdev, AFAIK.

[Hal Itosis]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Ah - after a little googling, I believe you're talking about the "Apple Network Assistant"!

Hmm, I don't even remember that one.
No... ARA was formally called (as a little googling reminded me): >> "Apple Remote Access Personal Server" <<

It was sorta like Timbuktu... and sold for a little over $100.
During the early 90's (when "normal" folk had no ISP), it was pretty cool.

Here's the most informative article Apple seems to have left on their site: Apple Remote Access Personal Server

Wikipedia discusses a little about its decline, as IP service became more prevalent: Wikipedia

--

Anyway... sorry for the disruption,
Back to Snow Leopard then?

[hmurchison2001]

Steve Jobs is a fantastic marketer but not even he can convince the masses that Snow Leopard as we know it today is worth $129.

64-bit support - does me no good or anyone else no good unless they have a Mac with more than 4GB of RAM or capable of 4GB+

OpenCL- How many apps do we really expect to see supporting OpenCL in the first year? What are the realworld ramifications. It's tantalizing but I'm not expecting much from the dinky GPU in most consumer Macs.

Quicktime X- Playback only and hopefully will be accelerated and fluid. I don't expect developers to deliver QTX enabled apps for some time.

Grand Central- When Snow Leopard is announced I'll have 0 applications or close to 0 that support Grand Central. It's simply not going to make a big difference for me other than internal efficiencies in the OS.

Exchange support - Not going to help the typical home user

What I'm hoping is that Snow Leopard delivers these new API as bug free as possible.
I hope that Apple makes Snow Leopard very cheap $29.99 tops so that uptake is fast
I hope that they have at least a couple of small apps that are imediately updated to take advantage
of OpenCL or Grand Central as a show case.

Otherwise i'm not seeing $129 worth of OS advancement here. Many people haven't shelled out for Leopard and it was chalk
full of features that I'd miss the minute I had to go back to Tiger.

Let's call Snow Leopard what it is. The Gateway to a new leaner OS X. An OS X with a wider reach and the first to kick off the rule of Cocoa the new undisputed champ. The real fun starts with 10.7 which should layer back on new features and polish the existing features to a glossy shine.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Hal Itosis 

Hmm, I don't even remember that one.
No... ARA was formally called (as a little googling reminded me): >> "Apple Remote Access Personal Server" <<

It was sorta like Timbuktu... and sold for a little over $100.

No it wasn't, and your links don't even claim that. ARA was for routing an AppleTalk network over a modem connection, so that you could do things that typically required AppleTalk in a pre-IP world, such as file sharing, intranet e-mail, or playing Marathon - really, really slowly. Eventually, someone made a shareware app called NetLink Remote that did pretty much the same thing, but fast enough so that Marathon would actually be playable. To the best of my recollection, ARA didn't include any VNC-like features.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hmurchison2001 

OpenCL- How many apps do we really expect to see supporting OpenCL in the first year? What are the realworld ramifications. It's tantalizing but I'm not expecting much from the dinky GPU in most consumer Macs.

Quicktime X- Playback only and hopefully will be accelerated and fluid. I don't expect developers to deliver QTX enabled apps for some time.

Grand Central- When Snow Leopard is announced I'll have 0 applications or close to 0 that support Grand Central. It's simply not going to make a big difference for me other than internal efficiencies in the OS.

You're assuming these are things developers need to go out of their way to benefit from. It's entirely possible that the existing system libraries could be enhanced to take advantage of the new features, in which case your claim that "no apps will support it" would be exactly backwards.