

Mountain Lion - raganesh
http://daringfireball.net/2012/07/mountain_lion

======
pyre

      > That mindset and development schedule — “What can we do
      > to make this nicer by next year?” — may well be the most
      > important thing from iOS that Apple has taken back to
      > the Mac.
    

Did they really take that from iOS though?

From Wikipedia:

    
    
        Version         Codename        Release Date
        -------         --------        ------------
        Mac OS X 10.0   Cheetah         March 24, 2001
        Mac OS X 10.1   Puma            September 25, 2001
        Mac OS X 10.2   Jaguar          August 24, 2002
        Mac OS X 10.3   Panther         October 24, 2003
        Mac OS X 10.4   Tiger           April 29, 2005
        Mac OS X 10.5   Leopard         October 26, 2007
        Mac OS X 10.6   Snow Leopard    August 28, 2009
        Mac OS X 10.7   Lion            July 20, 2011
        OS X 10.8       Mountain Lion   July 25, 2012
    

I could just as easily say that Apple was "learning from their early
development," or "getting back to basics."

~~~
kbronson
Aren't a "Puma" and a "Mountain Lion" the same animal?

~~~
thu
I think panther and leopard too.

~~~
riffraff
just FYI, I learned recently[0] that "black panthers" can actually refer to
either jaguars, leopards or possibly other "black" variants of large cats.

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_panther>

------
pooriaazimi
> _How else can they (Microsoft) compete with the iPad but than to switch to
> an Apple-style schedule of annual incremental updates?_

> _That mindset and development schedule — “What can we do to make this nicer
> by next year?” — may well be the most important thing from iOS that Apple
> has taken back to the Mac._

His last couple paragraphs got me thinking... If Microsoft wants to sell
hardware, they'll have a better chance of succeeding if they release Windows
versions faster... Apple sold a ton of 4Ss, because it was faster, had more
ram and a much better camera. But, also because of Siri, a software feature.

And Google/Asus Nexus 7, from everything I hear, is a fabulous 7" tablet. But
much of its greatness is because of Android 4.1. How can Microsoft compete
with these devices if they want to take their time releasing new versions of
Windows every 2-3 years?

~~~
rubberband
I don't think Microsoft can reasonably compete with Apple in the hardware
game. Apple's too good, and they have too much practice. I'm still shocked at
their Surface tablet strategy, as I think a lot of people are. They don't have
a particularly good track record recently, given the manufacturing problems
with the Xbox.

I'm guessing that Microsoft's strategy still lies in software (a healthy
combination of Windows, Office, and Business [Windows Server, SQL Server,
SharePoint, etc]), entertainment (Xbox, Skype), and "cloud" offerings (Azure,
Live, etc).

I think that their release strategy, where they release a "major" update every
2+ years, isn't inheriently _wrong_. It's still viable, and meshes well with a
lot of the corporate money they're chasing. But I do think with the low price
point of Windows 8, they realize that there is less and less money to be made
in the consumer OS space, and more potential money to be made in servers and
services.

~~~
technoslut
>I don't think Microsoft can reasonably compete with Apple in the hardware
game. Apple's too good, and they have too much practice.

MS is good at hardware but the problem is margins and the lack of proper
leadership. Apple has been building this manufacturing advantage for a decade
and can get a cheaper price because of their high volumes of their orders. It
doesn't hurt to have essentially created three new markets as well during that
span.

>But I do think with the low price point of Windows 8, they realize that there
is less and less money to be made in the consumer OS space, and more potential
money to be made in servers and services.

I'd also add that Apple and Google are both splitting the PC market with
tablets which means even far less future revenues from Windows.

------
nathan_long
>> (Facebook integration is not included in OS X 10.8; Apple says it will come
in a software update “this fall”.)

sudo rm -rf facebook_integration && say 'not on MY machine'

~~~
aprendo
If it works like the Twitter integration it won’t be problem. You have to
explicitly enter your name and password in the preferences. It won’t bug you,
it won’t even be visible until you decide to take part. You have to care about
it as much as you now care about the Chinese services Apple integrated.

Though I really do not understand your allergic reaction. Facebook seems like
a tremendously useful tool to me since I always know that everyone is there.
You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to use it – but you should at least
be able to appreciate how valuable such an integration is to a great many
people.

~~~
nathan_long
>> I really do not understand your allergic reaction

Two reasons. 1) I dislike Facebook. They have little regard for privacy and I
see interaction with the site as mostly a cheapening of friendships.
Everything about it - from "friend our company on Facebook and we'll enter you
in a drawing" to the data-mining advertising model - makes my skin crawl. 2)
Why is Apple picking services to integrate? I can install a Facebook app if I
want it. I wouldn't want them pre-installing a pizza ordering app from their
favorite pizza company. Let _me_ pick. If I didn't ask for it, it's backroom-
deal crapware, same as the pre-installed antivirus on cheap Windows boxes.

~~~
bmelton
I have to agree that seems a little petty.

Facebook is a top 2 website on the internet, with ~845 million users last I
checked. Do you really think that it had to be a 'backroom deal' for a
technology company to want to integrate with the second largest internet
company in the world? (First largest if you ignore direct competitors) Does it
really surprise you that they would integrate in such a way?

To put it bluntly, it shouldn't.

------
jarrettcoggin
This has been the first Gruber article I didn't want to claw my eyes out while
reading from blatant fanboyism. I honestly felt like it was a good overview of
what Mountain Lion represents. I (much like Gruber) do not think Microsoft's
$XXX strategy on pricing Windows is sustainable. When you can buy a new
computer for almost the same price as the OS, that's a serious problem. That
then says, "How much should this computer really be?"

I really wish Microsoft would truly and sincerely evaluate the 3-day
redsign/rebranding done by the design student/individual that doesn't work for
them.

------
saturdaysaint
I expect Apple to go "free" with OSX updates sooner than later. Their OS
revenue is barely a blip on their quarterly balance sheet. iOS's _free_ OS
releases have been a coup in terms of both usability and press attention.
People who don't necessarily think of upgrading their OS can still be
lucrative customers and can benefit the most from simplifying usability
enhancements. And of course, it would be a great card to play against
Microsoft, who have a lot to lose if free OS updates become the norm.

------
jmduke
* Apple claims it took Windows 7 26 months — three times longer — to reach 40 percent of the PC installed base, and Windows 7 is the most popular and highly-touted version of Windows in over a decade.*

This seems like a dumb comparison. Snow Leopard sold for $29; 7's base pricing
was -- IIRC -- $120.

~~~
TechNewb
What point are you saying is dumb? They are competing operating systems. The
price difference? Microsoft doesn't think it's dumb, as they are using a
similar pricing strategy this time around in hope for similar results.

~~~
jmduke
Because friction in upgrading is largely dictated by the price of upgrading?

Adoption of a $30 OS upgrade is obviously going to be quicker than a $120 OS
upgrade, just as the iOS upgrades have even larger adoption.

~~~
saturdaysaint
Well, that's part of Gruber's point - he makes the connection between the low
price and the fast adoption rate in the next paragraph..

------
kbronson
Yawn...

