WWDC 2009: Time for a reality check

Apple is providing its WWDC 2009 keynote address today, providing some interesting info about its Mac and iPhone platforms. But this is Apple we're talking about. So it's time for a reality check.

75 million Mac OS X users. Apple claimed that the OS X user base magically jumped from 25 million to 75 million active users in two years. But it didn't. It jumped to 35 million users. The other 40 million are using iPhones and iPod touches. So if there are 1 billion active PC users (and that's an old figure), than OS X usage share right now is 3.5 percent. Everyone's onboard with the math, right? 3.5 percent. "No wonder everyone is trying to follow in our footsteps," Apple SVP Phil Schiller said. Right.

Macbooks magically become Macbook Pros. Apple rebranded the 13-inch Macbook as the Macbook Pro and added SD slots across the line-up. FINALLY. I've only been asking for this handy little feature for, what, 6 years? The batteries are non-replaceable. I'm pretty sure no one was asking for that feature. And they added Firewire 800. Seriously, how about two more USB ports? Oh, and $1699 to start for a lowball 15-inch unit? To Mac guys, this is big news.

Hypocrisy around Vista/7 and Leopard/Snow Leopard. This year, both Microsoft and Apple are working on revisions to existing OSes. In Microsoft's case, Windows 7 is a nice revision to Windows Vista. And Snow Leopard is a minor revision (service pack) to Mac OS X Leopard. Both Windows Vista and Leopard have had their share of problems, but Vista's are more high profile and thus, apparently, news to the wider world. But look how Apple's Darth Vader, Bertrand Serlet, describes these updates:

Windows 7: "Even more complexity is present in Windows 7. The same old tech as Vista. Just another version of Vista."

Snow Leopard: "We come from such a different place. We love Leopard, we're so proud of it, we decided to build upon Leopard. We want to build a better Leopard, hence Snow Leopard."

Um. They sound the same to me. Jerk.

For the record, Snow Leopard looks just fine to me. It should, after three years of development on a point release.

Exchange support in Snow Leopard. Apple makes fun of Microsoft to comic effect (see above) ... Unless, of course, they need Microsoft. Which they do, to add Exchange support to its products. Oh, wait. "With Exchange support built into Snow Leopard, there is no extra charge for Mac OS users while Windows users usually have to pay extra." There it is.

Safari 4 today for OS X, Windows. Yawn.

QuickTime X for OS X, Windows. Actually, this looks good. I especially like how the UI looks like no other OS X app. Nice consistency there from the HIG.

Mac OS X is not fully 64-bit. While Windows users get 64-bit versions of Windows, Mac OS X users will, in Snow Leopard, get an OS in which most of the system is 64-bit, but many "non-major system apps" are still 32-bit.

Snow Leopard pricing. Apple is finally charging the right price for the latest in a long list of minor upgrades: $29 to Leopard users. This is exactly right, and should serve as inspiration for Microsoft. Seriously.

iPhone 3.0. The iPhone is really popular, and let's face it, it's awesome. iPhone 3.0, which I've been using since February, is a very minor update, and mostly adds things that should have been there in the first place. Biggest disappointment: Apple is adding tethering, but AT&T refuses to allow it. Hey, AT&T. F#$% you. Yeah. Really.

Apple needs to tone down the boring stuff. Look guys, here's another iPhone app. We get it. Move along, please.

iPhone 3G S. Was curious what they were going to call the iPhone 3, since the iPhone 3G was the iPhone 2.0. Now we know. Built in 7.2MBps HSDPA for data. New camera (finally). But same form factor. (Which makes sense, given the add-on market, but lacks a certain pizzazz.) I mean, where could they go with this, really? Anyway: Pricing is $199 (16 GB), $299 (32 GB). Surely there's an upgrade program for existing users. [Cricket chirps.]

Voice Control. (3GS only.) Apple copies Microsoft Sync, no one notices. And by the way, the notion of talking to a smart phone should be obvious. Just saying.

Best live keynote coverage. Engadget, hands down.

Discuss this Article 193

Lindy
on Jun 8, 2009
"Safari 4 today for OS X, Windows. Yawn." I guess if acid 3 test compatibility at 100% is not important.
Lindy
on Jun 8, 2009
"Um. They sound the same to me. Jerk." Hey Paul got your panties in a wad?? There is an app for that:) Oh wait you gave up the iPhone. I am sure the Zune HD will come up with a "un-wad panties app" real soon. 410 Microsoft points it will be!!!!
mherm88
on Jun 8, 2009
"www.macrumors.com their main page auto re-refreshed during the entire event. I just left it open in a space:)" That's nice and all but I'd really like something a little nicer that doesn't need to be refreshed... auto-refresh is kind of the same idea and sucks just as much.
shark47
on Jun 8, 2009
"I guess if acid 3 test compatibility at 100% is not important." Or rather, if having 100% acid 3 compatibility is not more important than having a secure browser.
gfryesc1
on Jun 8, 2009
you know apple has hit it out of the park when it roils paul the-pissant-critic thurrott THIS terribly.
robertsjoe
on Jun 8, 2009
""Um. They sound the same to me. Jerk." Hey Paul got your panties in a wad?? There is an app for that:)" The thing with the internet is that grown-ups that act like kids, throw tantrums and are basically child-like have a much bigger audience. Where it was just close friends and family that saw how they acted, they now have a world-wide audience seeing how childish and stupid they are. Welcome to the SuperSite for "Windows" blog.
robertsjoe
on Jun 8, 2009
Safari and Chrome are changing the browser landscape. WebKit is the important component. This included mobile devices -- both Android and iPhone also using WebKit. Paul doesn't get that.
Lindy
on Jun 8, 2009
"That's nice and all but I'd really like something a little nicer that doesn't need to be refreshed... auto-refresh is kind of the same idea and sucks just as much." Umm if you dont have to do anything how does that suck?? The macrumors site refreshed its self, it was not something I had to do, it was not browser specific.
Lindy
on Jun 8, 2009
"Or rather, if having 100% acid 3 compatibility is not more important than having a secure browser." I so agree. Lets please list the know exploits that actually have succeeded (as in done something to a computer) with all versions of Safari and all versions IE.
Lindy
on Jun 8, 2009
"Exchange support in Snow Leopard. Apple makes fun of Microsoft to comic effect (see above) ... Unless, of course, they need Microsoft. Which they do, to add Exchange support to its products. Oh, wait. "With Exchange support built into Snow Leopard, there is no extra charge for Mac OS users while Windows users usually have to pay extra." There it is." What does this really say? Mac are used more and more in the corporate environment (just google it) where Exchange is the defacto email system. Oh and Entourage sucks and now Mac users at work don't have to use that crap anymore.
DRWAM
on Jun 8, 2009
Believe it or not Lindy, I really like Entourage. It was easier to set up than Outlook 2007, which took several tries. I just preferred it over iCal and Mail. If I get a copy of Snow Leopard [SL] I will give it a try, but you may get the idea by my posts that it's hard for me to change:) Please note that I still use Office 2004, although I have the media version of Office 2008. i just felt no need to upgrade since 2004 works very well for me. I have been told that 2008 has similarities to Office 2007 for Windows, which is on all of my Windows PC's, but I have yet to try it.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jun 8, 2009
tayme In being called a Mac fanboi with a man-crush on me, you were upset by "fanboi"? That's disturbing.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jun 8, 2009
"I guess if acid 3 test compatibility at 100% is not important." Then you'd guess right. Seeing how ACID3 isn't an official test of any official standards done by any official standards body, yeah, I'd say 100% compatibility is pretty seriously unimportant.
Dipsh t Admin
on Jun 8, 2009
"I guess if acid 3 test compatibility at 100% is not important." It isn't important in the "grand" scheme of things. Although I'm happy to see the WebKit engine be as standards compliant as possible. Still, I'm sure their download servers won't be overly taxed today, except for the morbidly curious and robertsjoe. Still, pretty typical Apple, and nice to see the very typical Apple rumor mill be pretty much out of there minds. I saw one prediction that Apple would buy EA. As Paul mentioned, calling out MS for the improvements to Windows from Vista to 7, and then announcing the exact same thing in OS X is hilarious. Also, calling out Palm for their small app store is also funny, since Apple started somewhere too, and I'm sure there weren't alot of apps on it. The cheap shots were also a good indicator that the MS ads are working, and that 7 is a solid product in the eyes of the general computing echo chamber. They never really mention at all why OS X is better, just cheap shots. It's quite telling really. Still announcing 64-bit? Wasn't it like 2-3 years ago when the Moscone Center was littered with big and fanciful "64" signs. Aren't we already there? Why still mention it?
Lindy
on Jun 8, 2009
"Believe it or not Lindy, I really like Entourage." Call Microsoft and let them know, you could be in a TV ad. At my place of work, the marketing and advertisement departments wont touch it, they use webmail even in basic format. Exchange 2010 will support full feature webmail that only IE users see today. The recent SP2 update for Sharepoint fixed the remaining Safari and FF quirks in Sharepoint.
robertsjoe
on Jun 8, 2009
@miguelgalos: " I'd say 100% compatibility is pretty seriously unimportant." That's the attitude that resulted in the crap browsers that came out of Microsoft.
panache1023
on Jun 8, 2009
@RobertsJoe: MikeGalos will start loving the acid test and standards compliance as soon as MS makes it a priority. Isn't that right Mike? You are your beard looooove anything MS tells you to love, right Mike?
robertsjoe
on Jun 8, 2009
@panache1023: "MikeGalos will start loving the acid test and standards compliance as soon as MS makes it a priority." That is true @panache1023. Both Mike and Paul run according to the memos that come from Microsoft. They are sheep blindly following the Borg.
hamiltonstallings
on Jun 8, 2009
iPhone 3G Sucks (See what I did there?)
panache1023
on Jun 8, 2009
Totally off topic, I have been seeing a commercial on TV for Bing.com ....actually pretty good commercial....kind of funny. I wonder how effective the commercials are....I don't remember seeing any TV commercials for Google...but hey..... personally, not really a fan of Bing so far...but the commercial was good!
RunTimeError
on Jun 8, 2009
Wow. 105 comments as of my reading of this. Nice to see Windows 7 doesn't really get this much attention in one post ;) mikegalos and waethorn take up the most defending ... uhhhh ... whatever. (roberstjoe was in third place but he doesn't count because no one really pays attention to him anyway). Nice to see the Supersite blog truckin' right along :)
robertsjoe
on Jun 8, 2009
OS X Server is just $499. Look at Windows Server: Windows Server 2008 Standard $999 Windows Server 2008 Standard $1,199 Windows Server 2008 Enterprise $3,999 The Microsoft tax at work.
anonymous
on Jun 8, 2009
Leopard : Snow Leopard :: Vista : Windows 7
robertsjoe
on Jun 8, 2009
A point upgrade of OS X, to Snow Leopard is only $29. A point upgrade from XP to Windows Vista (and it will be similar from Vista to Windows 7) $219!!! Microsoft tax at work, yet again.
hamiltonstallings
on Jun 8, 2009
Kia Rio is just $6000. Look at Corvette: c6 is $50,000. z06 is $70,000. ZR1 is > $100k. The Chevy tax at work.
robertsjoe
on Jun 8, 2009
@panache1023: "I wonder how effective the commercials are....I don't remember seeing any TV commercials for Google...but hey....." There are no commercials for Google because they have the best search engine out there and the most users. People google for things, they don't "live" them or "bing" them. Hence why Microsoft has to buy users via commercials. Or when they were paying them to use their inferior search. Bing stands for "Bing is no good"
robertsjoe
on Jun 8, 2009
@hamiltonstallings: Chevy? Are they still in business?
robertsjoe
on Jun 8, 2009
New MacBooks with even better battery life. Something Windows can't get even close to. Bad battery performance is a trademark of Windows.
clindhartsen
on Jun 8, 2009
Overall, thanks for the great review of this "revolutionary" event Paul. The voice dialing is even possibly on my piece-of-junk Samsung, I mean, come on! Either way, I still think 7 is reasonable at a 50/100 dual price point, I mean, isn't that pretty much repeating the XP era pricing to an extent.
hamiltonstallings
on Jun 8, 2009
@robertsjoe, I hope so. I don't want to have to use an inferior product like a small niche of people do.
wlow3
on Jun 8, 2009
Paul, can't you ever tell the truth? Here is the REALITY CHECK: Apple did not claim that the OS X user base *magically* jumped from 25 million to 75 million active users in two years, as you put it. He speaks plainly about where the numbers come from. This is the exact quote from the keynote: " ... And this is what's happend: With iPhone, with iPod touch, we've tripled, tripled the number of active users of OS X across these products. We've tripled installed based customers to run all of your amazing applications. It's just astounding. No wonder everyone's trying to race behind us and follow in our footsteps. No wonder there's so much excitement around what's happening." At no point does he try to obfuscate where the numbers come from. He states they come from the iPhone and the iPod touch. But he is making the point to developers that they now have triple the number of customers than they did just did two years ago BECAUSE of the new iPhone/iPod touch platform. That is true. And for those developers it IS exciting. And yes everyone wants their own app store. Microsoft should have done this years ago but they didn't, and yes everyone IS now following in the footsteps of Apple because of the APP store. Seriously, Paul? You didn't understand what he was saying?
robertsjoe
on Jun 8, 2009
@hamiltonstallings: "I hope so. I don't want to have to use an inferior product like a small niche of people do." Or as in the case of Windows, a much inferior product used by the majority of uneducated and tasteless people.
tayme
on Jun 8, 2009
@mikegalos - no, I wasn't upset by any of it...I had fun with it and I felt young again. You see, its you liberals that are homophobic...not me! --tayme
shark47
on Jun 8, 2009
Wow, panache, the fact that you seem to have a huge problem with mikegalos, but not with robertsjoe, seems to indicate that the problem is with you.
Lindy
on Jun 8, 2009
"Wow, panache, the fact that you seem to have a huge problem with mikegalos" honestly who does like Mike? His 4th wife?
Lindy
on Jun 8, 2009
"The batteries are non-replaceable." I guess this one hit home with Paul. I mean he is running Vista on Macbook. Vista is HORRIBLE on battery life (compared to XP and Leopard) on a PC and that is from a vendor trying to tweak their drivers to make Vista look better. I am going to go out on a limb and say the bootcamp Vista drivers dont have the same goal. So yes Paul in your case I bet having a non-replaceable battery on the new Mac would be a bad thing for a non-OS X user.
mherm88
on Jun 8, 2009
"Umm if you dont have to do anything how does that suck?? The macrumors site refreshed its self, it was not something I had to do, it was not browser specific." The point I'm making is that I don't want to have to have a page load over and over again, especially like Engadget with all its pictures... I want something that shows up in real time (aka Google Wave).
hamiltonstallings
on Jun 8, 2009
All the Apple users listened to the WWDC, then thought to themselves, "Off to the Win supersite to defend my loyal corporation". Wooooooooooo! No but really. I would like to have an iPhone if it wasn't for At&t's insane monthly fee. I just don't understand why data is 30 bucks a month - for any smartphone. Once upon a time when I was on Verizon, I felt that I used my BB quite a bit, yet when I went online to check my data usage it was very low. So low in fact that I could have gone without the data plan and saved money - BUT THEY WON'T LET YOU. Why people!
mherm88
on Jun 8, 2009
"All the Apple users listened to the WWDC, then thought to themselves, "Off to the Win supersite to defend my loyal corporation". Wooooooooooo! No but really. I would like to have an iPhone if it wasn't for At&t's insane monthly fee. I just don't understand why data is 30 bucks a month - for any smartphone. Once upon a time when I was on Verizon, I felt that I used my BB quite a bit, yet when I went online to check my data usage it was very low. So low in fact that I could have gone without the data plan and saved money - BUT THEY WON'T LET YOU. Why people!" Although that may be bad, it doesn't COMPARE to the text message rates these companies charge! Text messages are limited to 160 characters typically so that they are able to piggy-back on cell signals and use little to no footprint on bandwidth for the cell company, yet they still charge outrageous fees. I pay $30 a month for unlimited text on my family plan (which is 2 phones) for something they could do for FREE. Also, have you ever seen the data prices for international? I don't understand why rates should change international data, you're still access data as if you were sitting at home. Its understandable to charge for international minutes, but not data. It's like the world's infastructure of a little thing called the web doesn't exist... This is what BACKBONES are for, jesus...
robertsjoe
on Jun 8, 2009
@shark47: "Wow, panache, the fact that you seem to have a huge problem with mikegalos, but not with robertsjoe, seems to indicate that the problem is with you." I think that would actually indicate that the problem is with the @miguelgalos, not anyone else. The Borg's top drone is on quite a rampage these days. It s quite obvious that he has gone back in to Microsoft for further brainwashing and re-programming.
hamiltonstallings
on Jun 8, 2009
"Although that may be bad, it doesn't COMPARE to the text message rates these companies charge! Text messages are limited to 160 characters typically so that they are able to piggy-back on cell signals and use little to no footprint on bandwidth for the cell company, yet they still charge outrageous fees. I pay $30 a month for unlimited text on my family plan (which is 2 phones) for something they could do for FREE." Yes I forgot about the crazy text rates also. Seriously how much does it cost to send a text? Also some AIM, ICQ etc on phones use text messages instead of data. That is a slap in the face right there.
shark47
on Jun 8, 2009
"A truly pathetic poster, you are. "Maybe you can help pick out and eat some of the knits from MikeGalos's sexy beard!" "You are probably the biggest douche on this board." That confirms my suspicions. The problem indeed is with you. What's with all those personal attacks? And what's with your obsession with mike's beard? Geez.
mherm88
on Jun 8, 2009
"Yes I forgot about the crazy text rates also. Seriously how much does it cost to send a text? Also some AIM, ICQ etc on phones use text messages instead of data. That is a slap in the face right there." This is fun: http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/07/01/atts-text-messages-cost-1310-per-me... and this is where I read it originally: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=2&partner=rss&... So sad... I've always been a strong believer in "Pay what it costs". Doing web development over the years, in much of my free time I enjoy making little scripts or improving upon things under GNU that help me, that doesn't cost me anything, so why shouldn't I offer it up for free? This is a horrible practice in the cell phone realm, hopefully it'll end soon with cell towers planned to be completed by 2013 with 100 mbps rates...
robertsjoe
on Jun 8, 2009
@shark47: "And what's with your obsession with mike's beard?" He obviously has a man crush. :)
mherm88
on Jun 8, 2009
To get back on topic though... http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/06/09/marshymellow-apples-hypocrisy-i... I don't see problems with the way Apple or Microsoft behaves with each other, but in the neowin post i found this point rather interesting: "No, I don't expect Apple to support "old" hardware forever. Except, it's really not that old. The first Intel Macs were released in January 2006. The last Power PC Macs were sold in August 2006. That wasn't even three years ago. The switch happened in between version 10.4 and 10.5 of Mac OS X and right around the same time Windows Vista was released." I think it is EXCEPTIONAL on Microsoft's end that Windows 7 is so usable on older hardware, hell I've used it on 800mhz, if it was possible it could probably be used on some older smartphones even... Don't bash me for the point on Microsoft's side, I have an iPhone and love it and really want a Mac to do some dev on, but you must admit, 7 has some incredible benefits over OSX.. and vice versa.
robertsjoe
on Jun 8, 2009
Paul, you're yawning over Safari 4? Yawning is what you'd be used to with the much slower IE. Safari is the fastest browser out there.
truffoo0
on Jun 8, 2009
@robertsjoe: "Safari is the fastest browser out there" Fastest to be dumped by users? Fastest to need security patches? Fastest to meet 'standards' that no actual user cares about? Surely you'd realise by now (but probably not) that the performace of all the major browsers is pretty much even. Who cares if there is a one second difference in rendering a page anyway (not that there would be that much between browsers). Each will outperform the others in certain tests, that's what marketing does ... pick a test that makes their numbers look best and claim that they are the fastest. All browser companies have done it. A large percentage of Mac users replace Safari with Firefox, so pre v4 obviously wasn't that great. It'll be interesting to see if that trend continues even with Safari 4.
Lindy
on Jun 8, 2009
"I think it is EXCEPTIONAL on Microsoft's end that Windows 7 is so usable on older hardware, hell I've used it on 800mhz, if it was possible it could probably be used on some older smartphones even..." Crack ruins yet another life. it's amazing what that drug will make people believe. I have an old IPAC with Pocket PC on it. You can have it for you next triiiiip. Then you can come back here and tell us how great 7 was on it.
robertsjoe
on Jun 8, 2009
@truffoo0: The one with the leas security vulnerabilities. The one that is actually the fastest (plain and simple) in the world. All those seconds and milliseconds add up. Then again, when you're used to such inferior products like IE, you wouldn't know what fast is. And most importantly, the standards which IE never cared for, totally trashed or ignored, until the rest of the world shouted at the bad ass job they'd done. The thing they now have to get right because people DO care about standards.
mherm88
on Jun 8, 2009
"Crack ruins yet another life. it's amazing what that drug will make people believe. I have an old IPAC with Pocket PC on it. You can have it for you next triiiiip. Then you can come back here and tell us how great 7 was on it." Really? Exactly how well does OSX run on it? let me know, thanks

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use