Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!heksterb From: heksterb@Apple.COM (Ben Hekster) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: It's off until first half of '91 Message-ID: <45256@apple.Apple.COM> Date: 28 Sep 90 21:24:18 GMT References: <1027@mdavcr.UUCP> <45231@apple.Apple.COM> <1990Sep28.013709.15682@athena.mit.edu> Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA Lines: 79 I commented on a posting by writing: > Regarding the postponed release of System 7.0, a posting reads: > > > Personally, I think this is a rather offensive practice. If I want to > > bitch about it, I will go right ahead. If they stop talking to me, > > maybe I will buy someone else's product. > > Let's not forget that we are all getting this particular product free of > charge, though. mjwargo@athena.mit.edu (Michael J Wargo) responds to my comment: > I guess I'm getting confused. Many have commented that a > primary reason for high Apple CPU prices is the cost of R&D. > Haven't we really paid for this development by purchasing > systems from Apple? Well, in a sense, perhaps we feel that we have. All I meant to say is that it would seem there is a fundamental difference between paying $x for a product to be delivered to you at a certain time, or sitting back and simply waiting for the upgrades to reach you. Some of us have used System Software since 1.1g up to 6.0, and have benefited greatly from the additional function- ality provided by the upgrades. Also, Mike remarks: > One more comment. It has been opined > that since the developers don't know what the system software > will look like before it is written, there is a lot of > uncertainty in delivery dates. A simple question: Why not > delay the announcement *until* enough development has been > accomplished to bring some believability to it? Yes, but `believability' is not an easily-calculable on/off quality. Unfortunately it is not possible, given a set of design goals and some development time, to come up with an accurate measure of the `believability' of a delivery date. As development proceeds, the targeted completion time becomes less uncertain, until the time of the actual delivery, when the uncer- tainty by definition reaches zero. How does one determine when an estimated delivery date is accurate enough to publicize? I would suppose that the powers that be decided that it might be useful to the developer community and users in general to have an indication of when they might expect to receive the next release. However, it appears that no matter how strongly one qualifies such information there is a tendency to regard is as an absolute commitment that said product will definitely be ready by that time. I also said: > It's easy to forget, sometimes--but remember that behind the image of > a large company it really comes down to a lot of individuals working very had > on System Software development. If it could have been released now, it would > have--they don't like delaying it any more than you do. to which Mike responded: > *But*, Apple decided to make the announcement when they did! Yes--and as I said, I'm sure that at the time it was the most accurate estimate that could have been made. Don't forget that we always have the option of not listening to, or at least not relying too much on (as perhaps we should not) such estimates. Look, I'm sorry, I really didn't intend to get into a discussion about semantics here--all I was trying to say was that you will get System 7.0 as soon as it is finished--noone is trying to spite anyone by slowing down development. Believe me, there are a lot of people working *very* hard to get it to you as soon as possible. -- ________________________________________________________________________________ Ben Hekster | "Plans made in the nursery Installer dude | can change the course of history AppleLink: heksterb | Remember that! Internet: heksterb@apple.com | --Shouldn't Have Done That, BITNET: heksterb@henut5 | Depeche Mode [A Broken Frame]