My understanding is that Apple has this culture of we must ship things by this date no matter what. They really should slow down and make sure things are fully baked before they get out to the final RC.
Does it really? When systems get 5+ years of supported OS upgrades, it doesn't seem like the annual OS release cycle is driving users to upgrade hardware in any meaningful way. If anything, the hardware update cycle is driving the software update schedule, because there needs to be an OS to run on the new hardware when it ships. This is especially apparent for the iPhone.
> My understanding is that Apple has this culture of we must ship things by this date no matter what.
It used to be very different. Apple was known for missed OS deadlines. They were sometimes compared to Blizzard back in the day; now both of them lost their reputation for polished releases. The cycle was closer to 2 years and they promised several times a tighter release schedule before ending on a yearly cycle.
I don’t think one is necessarily better than the other. Back in the day it was frequent to have a major update fail in some way and require reinstalling from scratch (though loss of data was rare). Now that releases are not that different from their predecessor, it’s much smoother. Longer cycles meant that features took much longer to get into a release. And then major fixes took more time on top of that. Now they can iterate faster, which is both a blessing and a curse.
For those who complain that we are saddle with Liquid Glass for another 2 years while they tweak it, keep in mind that it took several 2-year long release cycles to get rid of pinstripes and brushed metal.
Apple used to do that and it didn't work. Once there was a guy named Steve, who had a lot of wise quotes; you can take them or leave them but "real artists ship" was a good one.
samgranieri · · focus · HN ↗
Golden Gate works pretty well so far for me.
drooopy · · focus · HN ↗
yborg · · focus · HN ↗
em500 · · focus · HN ↗
wtallis · · focus · HN ↗
eviks · · focus · HN ↗
They could've shipped a smaller list of bug fixes by a given date rather than a bigger list of bugs
kergonath · · focus · HN ↗
It used to be very different. Apple was known for missed OS deadlines. They were sometimes compared to Blizzard back in the day; now both of them lost their reputation for polished releases. The cycle was closer to 2 years and they promised several times a tighter release schedule before ending on a yearly cycle.
I don’t think one is necessarily better than the other. Back in the day it was frequent to have a major update fail in some way and require reinstalling from scratch (though loss of data was rare). Now that releases are not that different from their predecessor, it’s much smoother. Longer cycles meant that features took much longer to get into a release. And then major fixes took more time on top of that. Now they can iterate faster, which is both a blessing and a curse.
For those who complain that we are saddle with Liquid Glass for another 2 years while they tweak it, keep in mind that it took several 2-year long release cycles to get rid of pinstripes and brushed metal.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
astrange · · focus · HN ↗
hobo123 · · focus · HN ↗
Yes, they do it, but apparently the quality isn't good enough.
smm11 · · focus · HN ↗