OS X Mavericks adoption pushing past 7% in under 24 hours
gosquared.com
gosquared.com
One caveat: SL provided me with ~6 hours of browsing battery life while M predicts I'll manage only 4.5 on a 2009 15" MBP.
But I can hardly see why that could reduce battery life so much. The new power-saving features in Mavericks shouldn't, in theory, lower the battery life. The OS should act like it did under SL unless lots of RAM is needed (I'm at 50%). I'll let the computer go through a couple of power cycles, maybe that'll fix it.
Safari has had a huge makeover to improve the amount of energy use for things like background tabs/etc.... Or even not running when occluded by another window. Small things like that add up overall.
I think this is the way forward for improving the efficiency of our software in general. I'm glad someone is bringing power use to light alongside cpu/memory/disk/network.
As for the os level stuff, have you tested the actual time under use or just looked at the estimates?
The power drain differences are significant enough for me to swap back to safari.
I was getting ~7 hoursish (hard to tell I tend to compile/browse/etc) before and now it looks more like 5. Which is disappointing to be honest. Though using non "best for retina" seems to kick in the discreet gpu more often now.
I never had any issues with regular multi-monitor setups with any of the recent os upgrades as far as non fullscreen use goes. What was broke there?
But yeah, I see people have strong feelings about this issue, I just personally don’t get it.
Are you using some chart where you can actually see which OS is which ?
EDIT: The chart is broken in Firefox - it works fine in Webkit only. Goodbye open web, was nice knowing you.
Anyway, I see you're right. Lion and Snow Leopard are both roughly where they started. So I change my opinion - the 7-8% who have upgraded to Mavericks are likely the people who follow Apple closely and so were already on Mountain Lion to start with. This might signal that the fast upgrade speed may slow down quickly as it implies only the small part of the OSX population who follows Apple news is upgrading so far?
If you click on the 'Day' view and then 'Show only Mavericks' you can clearly see a rise from 0.20% at 7pm yesterday up to almost 10% at 5pm today. The other lines have had a slight decrease, but yes it does look like Mountain Lion users are upgrading fastest. I'd be surprised if Leopard/Tiger users upgraded quickly as I'm sure they'd be apprehensive of updating their old and potentially fragile kit.
It's more interesting considering what this means as an Operating System developer. If they're giving away copies, it shows that Operating Systems are truly commoditized (as well as the huge profits that Apple is raking in!)
Edit: Web apps (Google Docs/Drive, Spotify, Basecamp, Facebook, etc.) would fit the bill as a force for OS commoditization.
Much the same way Microsoft made the browser a loss leader because it made money on the OS, Apple is making the OS a loss leader because it's making money on the hardware.
What they are doing here is to integrate ongoing support for OS upgrades into the cost of the computer.
I think you could show that by having much larger %'s of its user base being up to date and adopting new releases faster, that it cuts costs in other areas and makes it a more attractive platform. Just spitballing here, but less users on old versions should reduce support costs, create a better user experience for more of its users, and entice developers to take advantage of new features, which may further differentiate the platform from competitors.
I'd have to think that creates more long-term value for the company than making $30 bucks per license. And that's not even calculating the customer goodwill by making the updates free.
No one gets all excited when a new version of iOS is free because that's just "the way things are" in mobile. I think the strongest reasons for paid OS updates on the Mac in the past are because of precedent. When IBM chose to license DOS from Microsoft, they created the operating system pricing model that would define all future operating system pricing models in the consumer market. Apple has always charged for OS updates because that's just how OS updates were done.
Apple has learned a great lesson from the success of iOS and the app ecosystem there. The consumer doesn't want to buy hardware and operating system software, they want to buy a device. That device should fulfill their other wants and needs, which are delivered through software that have been abstracted through the term "Apps".
A lot of people fear a wholesale re-implementation of OS X as a giant form iOS that runs on a laptop/desktop. I don't think that's where Apple is headed. Rather, Apple is going to apply the same broad strategies to OS X, but will maintain a distinction in the actual implementation (tactics, if you will).
When you buy an off-the-shelf PC, you have the same experience. The Windows licence is included in the price of the computer, for which the OEM pays Microsoft. However, subsequent major releases of Windows aren’t included in the price. Given the trend, that might change. I can imagine Microsoft making all future consumer OS releases free for those with a valid Windows 8 licence. For enterprises, little is likely to change, as they already pay for seats, not specific OS versions.
I think this is the key. Last night it took only a few clicks to download and install Mavericks. I walked away, came back a couple of hours later and it was finished. My stuff was exactly where I left it.
When I used Windows only crazy people upgraded. Most people did a clean install of the OS then spent days reinstalling software and putting files back where they were supposed to be. I would have to wait until I had a few days free to make sure it didn't affect my work.
FWIW, yesterday I installed Mavericks on two Macs. On a Late 2009 Mac mini, the installation process took 40 minutes (upgrade from Mountain Lion). On a Mid 2012 MacBook Air, the installation process took 30 minutes (upgrade from Mountain Lion).
People upgrade, because free, simple and better. Go figure.
Other than that...no kinks. It's been a pretty smooth transition...just trying to get used to having menus on both monitors (which is AWESOME)
In addition to being "nice", "free" may have payoffs that at least partially offset supposedly lost revenue from charging for the upgrade.
It's a win for consumers not being stuck with old software, and a win for Apple having to be much less concerned with their old software.
Considering the Apple marketing machine is going full force, it doesn't seem like a jaw-dropping number. But, again, no context.