yeah, 10.9 Geoffroy's Cat, or Jungle Cat, or Flat-Headed Cat, or Kodkod
i think apple has run out of names. but they've been expecting that
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
When does OS X end and OS XI begin?
- Thread starter WiiDSmoker
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yeah, 10.9 Geoffroy's Cat, or Jungle Cat, or Flat-Headed Cat, or Kodkod
i think apple has run out of names. but they've been expecting that
Mad Mac Maniac
macrumors 601
It is a mystery to my why you would persist in this assertation when a simple read of my full post and sense of logic would show just how wrong you are.
African Golden Cat, Andean Mountain Cat, Black-Foot Cat, Caracal, Pallas' Cat, Temminck's Cat... shall I go on?? The ONLY names on that link that Apple could conceivably use would be Cougar, bobcat, and Lynx.... sounds familiar...
FYI, I didn't "persist" with anything. I jumped to the defense of someone else.
yeah, 10.9 Geoffroy's Cat, or Jungle Cat, or Flat-Headed Cat, or Kodkod
i think apple has run out of names. but they've been expecting that
Word
And this is why i think a merge is actually inevitable. Your desktop/laptop will be phased out for most people by a tablet that wirelessly connects to all your input devices, a larger display, and swiches UI when you get to your desk. the elements are already there - bluetooth mouse/keyboard/trackpad, airplay for wireless display - all we need is an apple inductive charging pad to sit your device on.
Essentially you'll have something similar to OS X's UI running in desktop mode, and iOS running in tablet mode, depending on whether or not you are connected to input/display peripherals.
As discussed, and as you say, the OS underneath is the same, its the UI that is different - as mobile hardware becomes powerful enough for the average desktop user (imho, it is there already) we'll see hybrid type devices start to appear.
imho. i've been following home computer hardware since 1984 though so make of that what you will.
----------
yeah, 10.9 Geoffroy's Cat, or Jungle Cat, or Flat-Headed Cat, or Kodkod
i think apple has run out of names. but they've been expecting that
I propose Simons Cat
You still have not explained how. I have told you iPhoto '11 doesn't behave like the iOS GUI at all.
From the rest of your post, it seems you're not even talking about merging GUIs and UIs, you're taking about skinning. Like they would apply an iOS skin to OS X just to rebrand it (why would they even rebrand it ? All I can see that would achieve would be grief from Mac users and provide them with no benefit at all).
----------
And then we can all have the following thread :
- "Apple is sheer genius!" +34
- "Hum... I had this back in 2011, when it was called a Motorola Atrix" -96
- "Nyuh uh, this is nothing like the Atrix because people are actually buying this" +154
- "But it's the same god damn thing. Apple just copied it" -253
- "Samsung are the only ones that copy!" +378
- "We weren't even talking about Samsung ?!?" -456
...
I can't wait...
Looking like and behaving like, yes as you pointed out, are different for iPhoto '11 in iOS and iPhoto '11 full screen on the Mac, as you can do more gestures on the iPad.
But the point is, it looks exactly the same. Apple is bringing the iOS GUI theme to the Mac slowly. They would rebrand it because OS X is an old name - they want a new skinned OS that has far more multitouch gestures and innovations to have a new name. iOS is a strong brand.
And there would be little benefit to current Mac users, but this is Apple..
So what - it is functionally very different. You are talking about re branding something that functions very differently. iOS is not Mac OS and just because they visually look the same doesn't justify a name change.
There is absolutely no reason to re-brand anything here - especially just because it is old (or perceived that way). The only reason that Apple would abandon a good name is for a darned good reason. Right now the systems are different at a functional level - far too different to justify a rename. Heck, Apple even specifically markets the devices as different things for a deliberate reason - it want's people to understand that their laptops and desktops are different from their mobile devices.
So McDonald's should rebrand their restaurants because it's an old name ? Hint, old brands are a good thing. Apple knows this.
You're still not making any sense in all of this.
None of them does. It boils down to "they look the same in this way so the naming should be the same too!" That doesn't make much sense to me either.
I understand that there are many cat names that can still conceivably be used.
But out of well known big cats that (in my opinion) are reasonably likely to be used...they're starting to run out.
This is just my opinion. I could be dead wrong.
Not really, 10.11 in version numbers is less than 10.2 so reading it anyone familiar with version numbers would say it was an older OS.
Personally I feel 10.6 was more like a 10.55. it was 10.5 cleaned, optimized and tweaked.
I disagree. Apple's already set the precedent. If what you are saying is true, the people would think that Mac OS X Tiger 10.4.10 would be equivalent to Mac OS X Tiger 10.4.1. We know that's not true, and I don't think anyone thinks that they are the same. It also works the same for 10.4.11. It is not an older version than 10.4.2. These are version numbers, and version numbers aren't decimals. 10.55 would be the fifty-fifth version of Mac OS X, wouldn't it? It wouldn't be between 10.5 and 10.6.
Last edited:
Mad Mac Maniac
macrumors 601
Right now I am running 10.7.3
Woah, his does that work!? Double decimal! That's why (or is an easy proof) they aren't numerical.
10.1.11 and 10.11.1 are clearly different right?
Woah, his does that work!? Double decimal! That's why (or is an easy proof) they aren't numerical.
10.1.11 and 10.11.1 are clearly different right?
No it isn't. Software ware versions are not decimals. 11 comes after 10 after 9, etc. If you want to differentiate between 10.1 and 10.2 you create a subset using another decimal. 10.1.x.
And yet is was a lot more than that, hence the new version number. Just because the changes are not visual doesn't mean that they are there and real
Indeed. Version numbers are not decimal. Each number is independent of each other and should be seen as independent numbers. The only relation that they have is in terms of hierarchy. Heck, Apple isn't the only guys in town that treat version numbers as non-decimals. It doesn't happen very frequently because most version numbers roll over faster (we aren't talking about OS's) than that. They also use other branding than the version number.
10.6 threw away powerpc and carbon support for a start - this is a MAJOR change (in terms of application compatibility), and hence worthy of a bump in "major" version number.
OS X has a nice ring to it. It makes for nice logo designs. If you ask me, XI is less attractive. Apple likes attractive and catchy, and who could blame them with their success?
They'll rebrand it as a unification of their operating systems. Say hello to iOS on your Mac. Unification of their branding is something I think Apple values, and it's no secret that they're blending the functions of the two. At the heart of it, the two operating systems are the same. At the user level they're growing closer. What's left beyond further blending function? The name.
Maybe I'm crazy, but I'd be likely to place a bet on it.
They'll rebrand it as a unification of their operating systems. Say hello to iOS on your Mac. Unification of their branding is something I think Apple values, and it's no secret that they're blending the functions of the two. At the heart of it, the two operating systems are the same. At the user level they're growing closer. What's left beyond further blending function? The name.
Maybe I'm crazy, but I'd be likely to place a bet on it.
To be honest, I don't think I will ever upgrade from Snow Leopard to Lion or Mountain Lion... It hurts the battery life of my MacBook Pro and the fact is I see no reason to upgrade.
Mac OS X will be here for another decade if we follow what Steve Jobs said when OS X first came out - the fact that OS X will be the foundation of Apple operating systems for 20 years.
Mac OS X will be here for another decade if we follow what Steve Jobs said when OS X first came out - the fact that OS X will be the foundation of Apple operating systems for 20 years.
What is the next Mac OS going to be??
The next Mac OS is going to be a browser, running HTML6.
The next Windows OS is going to be a browser too.
What does it run under the hood? Who cares. What can Apple get for "free"? Android looks appealing.
But really it doesn't much matter what is running underneath. Apple has NEVER been about software per se, it's been about user experience and branding.
Computers are commoditizing. The iPad broke ground not because it was a new interaction paradigm (touch), but because it took 90% of computer users and said to them - "you don't actually NEED a computer, you need a simple device to consume content". The brilliance of the iPad is that the computation aspect is "invisible".
Who needs a laptop or desktop anymore? Not many - only the elite content creators. And here is the problem... I'm not sure Apple wants to hold the PC market given the profitability of iDevices.
Consider this one fact: the iPad has made more revenue for Apple than 20 years of selling Macs. TWENTY YEARS. So why does Apple want to keep creating Macbooks? Beats me.
The next Mac OS is going to be a browser, running HTML6.
The next Windows OS is going to be a browser too.
What does it run under the hood? Who cares. What can Apple get for "free"? Android looks appealing.
But really it doesn't much matter what is running underneath. Apple has NEVER been about software per se, it's been about user experience and branding.
Computers are commoditizing. The iPad broke ground not because it was a new interaction paradigm (touch), but because it took 90% of computer users and said to them - "you don't actually NEED a computer, you need a simple device to consume content". The brilliance of the iPad is that the computation aspect is "invisible".
Who needs a laptop or desktop anymore? Not many - only the elite content creators. And here is the problem... I'm not sure Apple wants to hold the PC market given the profitability of iDevices.
Consider this one fact: the iPad has made more revenue for Apple than 20 years of selling Macs. TWENTY YEARS. So why does Apple want to keep creating Macbooks? Beats me.
Probably because it makes money and is growing. It's a $20B+ business with a high profit margin.
Not sure where you get those numbers - lets fact check. Interwebz to the rescue!
I apologize my words were clearly not convincing, I'll let the pictures do the talking.
I'd really love to see the third chart for last year...
Basically my question still stands - why keep dumping money into product innovation on OSX? (Canibalization - not even gonna go there)
Mad Mac Maniac
macrumors 601
I have a couple of things to throw in there.
Firstly, the Mac profits/revenue seem roughly equivalent to, but actually slightly higher than, iPad profit. Surely you wouldn't argue for Apple to ditch the iPad? Yes I realize the mac has been out for over 2 decades to the iPad's 2 years, but still, as stand the Mac is beating the iPad.
Secondly, Apple wants you to buy into the entire ecosystem. If iOS ever one day replaces all functionality for the Mac then maybe the Mac will disappear, but ideally Apple wants their products to feed off each other (i.e. the halo effect). Personally, part of the reason I bought an iPhone was because I had a Mac. This is part of Apples genius. The more you buy into their ecosystem the better.
I mean look at how tiny the iTunes/music sliver is... Maybe Apple should kill off iTunes? Of course not.
because it makes money? and is rising? and is part of 'apple unified and integrated experience?
according to you, they should also dump ipod and itunes, they dont make nearly as much money as ipad and iphone. chill out
I assume you are familiar with the innovation S-curve? They may be similar today, but I (and other investors) would be EXTREMELY disappointed if the iPad didn't follow a similar growth trajectory of the iPhone. We expect iPad sales will do x10 in the next 2-3 years.
This has nothing to do with Apple. Sure... every company wants you to buy every product they make. Duh. But actually iPad cannibalism of Macbook is a very real thing. Windoze is really taking the hit here, but so is Apple.
Read my prior post. I argue that the genius of iPad was to look 90% of potential "computer" buyers in the face and convince them the LAST thing they need is a computer.
C'mon now... your iPhone argument is a bit disingenuous. You bought an iPhone because it's the best smartphone out there. If Android or Blackberry was leaps and bounds above what Apple could deliver guess what - most people won't care they have a Mac, there gonna get the best smartphone they can. I mean... hows that Windows halo effect workin out for MSFT's phones? LOL.
I would not be the least bit surprised if iTunes goes away or becomes VERY small in the next 5 years - especially with pressure from content providers. iTunes is a 2000 product, app store is 2012.
NOTE: I'm actually a bit suspicious to not see app store revenue. I wonder if that is rolled into the iPhone segment.
----------
I guess you are "hard of chart reading". Take another look - the share of OSX revenue has been dropping for FOUR YEARS. An inconvenient truth.
Heck, do a straight-line extrapolation of the last graph... OSX will make up 0.0% of Apple's revenue by 2015.
Joking...
I guess you are "hard of chart reading". Take another look - the share of OSX revenue has been dropping for FOUR YEARS. An inconvenient truth.
Heck, do a straight-line extrapolation of the last graph... OSX will make up 0.0% of Apple's revenue by 2015.
Joking...
learn a difference between relative and absolute. macs are making tens of billions of dollars
again, your concept could be working if we were talking about samsung, but we're not
let me enlighten you, iphone is just a phone if you dont have a mac. but if you do, especially now with mountain lion/icloud its becoming much more. imagine the further releases. its all about integration, every step apple takes is towards better integration. and you cant have integration without a mac. so you can expect them to stay with their mediocre 20-30% rise when all the others fall
facts only tell 50% of the story (i would say 30%). you need to put those facts in context. thats what differentiates people and their capabilities. today, everybody has facts (internet) but not all know what to make of them
cheersand if your so fond of facts, gimme some about macbook cannibalism (i hope youre not talking about macbook pro)
cannibalism is happening, of course, that was the reason for ipads success, an alternative solution for people that dont need a whole computer. now gimme some numbers about macbook air sales and their rise in the past two years
edit: end yeah, what about peripherals, should they stop selling those?
Last edited:
Uh, from the latest Conference Call (direct from Apple) -
- Set new records for desktops and portables, up 26% year-over-year versus 0% growth for entire PC industry
- Mac sales outgrew the market in all geographies, particularly in Asia-Pacific
Chart on Macworld site last January (expect new one in next week). "Mac" here would include Mac software sales, presumably, since it isn't called out separately:
They don't break down profit margin by division, but I wouldn't be surprised if Apple was making more profit on computer sales than all other PC manufacturers combined.
Added -- looking at your charts, the third one shows contribution to gross margin dropping, however it only shows % of total gross margin contribution of Macs is dropping, not that the gross margin is dropping.