DailyTech - Apple Gifts Golden Master of Snow Leopard on Entire Developer Community

Submit News

Blog: Software Apple Gifts Golden Master of Snow Leopard on Entire Developer Community
Jason Mick (Blog) - August 13, 2009 12:00 PM

E-mail

del.icio.us

38 comment(s) - last by InsaneScientis.. on Aug 18 at 1:26 AM

Steve Jobs gifts a new OS to the loyal developers

Among the Apple loyalists one of the most eagerly awaited fall events is the release of OS X Snow Leopard. Bringing updated 64-bit versions of many popular Mac programs, and other updates, the operating system also comes at a wallet-friendly price point of $29 for one license.

Apple's Golden Master build (Apple's fancy way of saying RTM build) is typically delivered to company employees and a handful of developers. With the delivery of the Snow Leopard Golden Master, Apple has reportedly ditched the exclusivity and given all registered Mac OS X developers a chance to get in on the action.

The build is numbered 10A432 and it will be copied and released to customers on optical media in about a month. Also included is Snow Leopard Server, build 10A433, and potentially the final release of QuickTime 7, version 7.6.4. The client image is 6.1GB, while the server image weighs in at 5.5GB.

The OS's installation process recently went public this Wednesday, with few surprises. With no official release date exists for the OS, other than a tentative "September" target, it is unknown when Mac enthusiasts can get their fingers on it. However, given that the Golden Master build has aired, it appears headed for an early September release.

As evidence of the OS's popularity, a pre-order on Amazon was the site's top selling software product a week ago.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Correction

By rs1 on 8/13/2009 12:22:37 PM , Rating: 5

quote:
Bringing updated 64-bit versions of many popular Mac programs, and other updates, the operating system also comes at a wallet-friendly price point of $29 for one license.

Should read:

Bringing updated 64-bit versions of many popular Mac programs, and other updates, the service pack also comes at an extortionary price point of $29 for one license.

RE: Correction

By Mojo the Monkey on 8/13/09, Rating: -1

RE: Correction

By rs1 on 8/13/2009 1:00:45 PM , Rating: 4

Meh. Because I dislike Apple due to their aggressive, manipulative, heavy-handed, and just plain not-very-nice business practices that automatically makes me a MS fanboy? You fail at logic

quote:
How is the new Mac OS any more of a "service pack" than windows 7 after vista?

Let's see:

1. You do not have to buy $1000+ worth of hardware from Microsoft to run Win 7/Vista.

2. The EULA for Win7/Vista has no stipulation about where it is and isn't legal to install it.

3. OS X is completely useless as a standalone product. Without dedicated hardware purchased from Apple, it cannot (legally) run.

...and even if you want to ignore those points, the fairly minimal amount of changes included in the new OS X release provide the basis for an entirely separate argument. I don't think that's necessary however, because the way the OS X license ties it only to Apple hardware makes it more like a driver or a firmware than an operating system.

quote:
He is calling it what the company is calling it.

While the company can call it whatever it wants, I would expect a tech journalist/blogger to have more integrity and more intelligence than that.

Parent

RE: Correction

By Murst on 8/13/09, Rating: -1

RE: Correction

By Screwballl on 8/14/09, Rating: -1

By Screwballl on 8/14/2009 4:32:50 PM , Rating: -1

quote:
by Murst
quote: 1. You do not have to buy $1000+ worth of hardware from Microsoft to run Win 7/Vista.
You don't have to buy $1000+ worth of hardware to run OSX either...

1) look at the words: in order to run OSX in any form, you need to buy a computer. This computer is required to use Apple hardware. The cheapest Mac hardware (Mac mini) starts out around $500 new elsewhere, or around $1000 from Apple themselves. Using the low end hardware from Apple means you have a very slow and almost useless computer.
The point is that you do not buy a computer from Microsoft, you can buy it OEM, or at a computer shop, or build your own to your own specs, but Microsoft does not control what hardware it can be run on (except outdated legacy hardware which they just drop support for, but they do not make it illegal). According to Apple, it is illegal for you to buy your own parts, assemble them, and install OSX on that computer.

Yet if you build/buy a computer the exact same specs using Windows XP or 7, it runs fast and very well. So for Windows you only need to spend $500 to match the same specs as a $1000 Mac.

quote:

quote: 2. The EULA for Win7/Vista has no stipulation about where it is and isn't legal to install it.
OEM versions of windows actually do have this restriction. Considering that OSX is OEM also, it would be a pretty fair comparison.

Wrong, OEM versions do NOT have that restriction. Go buy an OEM version from Newegg or any online retailer. The only restriction is if you buy an OEM computer, and that license is required to stay on that original computer. This is the manufacturers requirement, not a Microsoft requirement. A large percentage of licenses sold for any version of Windows has been Retail.
Say your Mac crashes, does Apple allow for you to use build your own computer using your same license key from the dead computer to transfer it to a newer Mac? NO, Apple is the OEM so therefore controls what hardware it is allowed on, so therefore you buy a new computer with a new license and your old one is wasted, dead and gone. With Windows, if your computer dies (as long as it is not an OEM brand), you can use your same disc and same key and install it on another newer computer, without the requirement to pay some large cost to Microsoft for the OS.

quote:

quote: OS X is completely useless as a standalone product. Without dedicated hardware purchased from Apple, it cannot (legally) run.
Windows is also useless as a standalone product. Without hardware, it can't do much either.
I prefer Windows to OSX... I just don't see why you would use these faulty comparisons when there's so many more valid reasons why Windows > OSX

Again, READ the words: " without dedicated hardware purchased from Apple ". Yes any disc of any type is useless without a computer or hardware to install it on. The point is that OSX is useless because of their hardware restrictions, not because it comes on a disc. With a Mac, you can't build your own computer, you can't choose to upgrade your computer without first consulting Apple to see if it is approved hardware, you cannot install OSX legally unless you have a computer assembled and (initially) sold by Apple.

Parent

RE: Correction

By Mojo the Monkey on 8/14/2009 1:37:00 PM , Rating: 3

but your points do not address the underlying argument at all. what i said had absolutely nothing to do with your numbered arguments. I am asking why this incremental step, being called derisively a "service pack" is any different than the incremental step between Vista and 7?

Do you get that argument? I am not pro-mac, but wondering why other OS's can pull the same behavior of minimally updating (basically a facelift) and call it a new OS and thats ok...

Parent

RE: Correction

By web2dot0 on 8/17/2009 2:35:15 AM , Rating: 2

What exactly does Win7 do so much better than Vista as what Snow Leopard does to Leopard?

They both improve performance, and robustness features. Enhancements to all aspects of the OS. What exactly does Win7 do so evolutionary that warrants its elevated status?

You may not be pro-mac, but you're also not logical. Name me some cold hard facts, not personal opinion.

Parent

RE: Correction

By Mojo the Monkey on 8/17/2009 12:47:13 PM , Rating: 2

You are misunderstanding my post. I never took the position that Snow Leopard was not worthy of the title if a "new OS". I think that both the Mac and Windows new operating systems are in comparable positions.

I took issue with singling out Mac, when the update is analogous to what MS is doing with Vista --> 7. Whether you want to call "worth of being a new OS, vs just an update" is up to you.

Parent

RE: Correction

By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 11:25:10 AM , Rating: 1

Isn't a snow leopard an endangered species ?
roflmao

Parent

RE: Correction

By harmaton on 8/13/09, Rating: 0

RE: Correction

By rs1 on 8/13/2009 1:05:09 PM , Rating: 5

quote:
You believe it should be for free?

Yeah, it should be, because in order to use it, you have to buy $1000+ worth of hardware from Apple. Given that the product cannot be used without an associated hardware purchase, Apple should not be charging users for it.

You believe that nvidia should charge for its driver updates? Or that Asus/MSI/Gigabyte/etc. should charge for their BIOS updates?

If a piece of software can only be used if you've purchased a piece of hardware from the same manufacturer, then that software should not be charged for. That's the model that pretty much everyone but Apple follows. But of course, if you really think that that is what "communism" is, then you have bigger problems.

Parent

RE: Correction

By SiliconDoc on 8/13/2009 4:12:44 PM , Rating: 1

Good reply, I see that shut them up entirely.
lol
+1 time

Parent

RE: Correction

By KWRussell on 8/13/2009 5:17:59 PM , Rating: 2

When Microsoft introduces architectural changes to the core of Windows, and releases them free of charge in a service pack, then your point about the nominal price of Snow Leopard will be valid. Until then, keep chugging the haterade. The old "OS X is tied to Apple hardware" whining is just changing the subject.

Parent

RE: Correction

By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 7:00:07 PM , Rating: 3

No, he actually made a very good point, and explained it sufficiently that one can easily guess even you comprehended, and that point you have failed to counter.
--
You merely argued in defeat that the changes are a worthy upgrade to pay for - that doesn't negate his rock solid and substantial point, no matter how much BS you spew about chugging anything.
You should have tried " $29 is cheaper than the $99 msft charges for an OS upgrade ".
Then at least you'd have made an argument or a point, instead of a fool of yourself, while you spewed the blind fealty and stupidity lines calling someone else a hater - who obviously ISN'T - he had a logical and solid EXPLANATION, you doof.

Parent

RE: Correction

By KWRussell on 8/17/2009 12:26:01 PM , Rating: 2

I quote the original post...

quote:
Bringing updated 64-bit versions of many popular Mac programs, and other updates, the service pack also comes at an extortionary (sic) price point of $29 for one license.

Now take your corporation worship and shove it up your ass.

Parent

RE: Correction

By InsaneScientist on 8/18/2009 1:26:14 AM , Rating: 3

quote:
When Microsoft introduces architectural changes to the core of Windows, and releases them free of charge in a service pack, then your point about the nominal price of Snow Leopard will be valid. Until then, keep chugging the haterade. The old "OS X is tied to Apple hardware" whining is just changing the subject.

That's exactly what XP SP2 was... a significant architectural change to the core of the operating system.
Now, that was the exception, not the rule, and they haven't done it since... but you asked. :D

And no, I don't consider it a service pack, and I don't think the price is unreasonable. (even though I get Win 7 for free. :D )

Parent

RE: Correction

By harmaton on 8/13/09, Rating: 0

RE: Correction

By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 7:03:11 PM , Rating: 2

They shouldn't charge to experience the next higher level of the church of spiritual gui - I mean keeping this experience from the masses by charging for it must be a specially damning sin.
* I LOVE MY MAC !

Parent

RE: Correction

By Flunk on 8/14/2009 1:01:07 AM , Rating: 2

Mick has also neglected that $29 is only the upgrade price, the full price is significantly higher.

Parent

RE: Correction

By HrilL on 8/17/2009 12:00:06 PM , Rating: 4

Shouldn't every legal copy be an upgrade? It won't work on non Intel MACs so all of those should already be in the upgrade window. You can only use their OS on MAC hardware and that would already have OS X running on it. Why would anyone get a retail non upgrade version unless

1. They are a complete moron and like to get ripped off more.
2. They are breaking Apple's EULA by installing on non apple hardware.

Really though if I missed something please enlighten me.

Parent

Rumors!

By dagamer34 on 8/13/2009 12:06:57 PM , Rating: 4

Rumors of a GM seed != Apple declaring a GM seed. And since they have a month of leeway left before the needed 2 weeks for manufacturing and shipping, if a showstopper were to be found, then this "GM seed" would be pushed back and development would continue.

Last thing Apple needs is something like the 10.5 Finder bug.

RE: Rumors!

By ksherman on 8/13/2009 12:21:47 PM , Rating: 2

Just about to say the same thing. This build was only rumored to be the Golden Master build.

Parent

LOL @ typical apple.

By Smilin on 8/13/2009 5:08:40 PM , Rating: 3

Microsoft offers Windows 7 RTM on technet.

-or-

His Lord Highness Steven Jobs doth bestow upon his most faithful the blessed Golden Master copy of the holy service pack of antioch.

RE: LOL @ typical apple.

By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 11:18:43 AM , Rating: 2

I have indeed genuflected before the OSX wrappers digital image, in supine obesiance to the gloriously pleasant and secure journey that we will soon embark upon in our furthering spiritually fufilled computing lives.

Lord Steven J,

Excuse your humbled servile user

Parent

Totally not relevant

By William Gaatjes on 8/14/2009 1:10:18 PM , Rating: 2

But it sure is a laugh...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3-3mqcJ3uo&eurl=ht...

I removed the DT RSS feed a few months ago...

By fri2219 on 8/13/09, Rating: 0

Daily Tech Down the $@$#ter

By elmikethemike on 8/16/09, Rating: 0

Anand, please get rid of these idiots

By TETRONG on 8/13/09, Rating: -1

RE: Anand, please get rid of these idiots

By ksherman on 8/13/2009 12:23:35 PM , Rating: 2

Agreed. Usually I'm not hot and bothered by articles around here like many, but this is certainly a special one.

Parent

RE: Anand, please get rid of these idiots

By BrandtTheMan on 8/13/2009 12:27:44 PM , Rating: 1

If that makes you hot and bothered you have issues.

Parent

RE: Anand, please get rid of these idiots

By FITCamaro on 8/13/2009 12:36:23 PM , Rating: 2

Given that it's Mick saying it, it was probably a joke. Since he is one of the drones. ;)

Parent

RE: Anand, please get rid of these idiots

By Murst on 8/13/2009 12:40:32 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I, like many other people use apple products because of the third-party software and the fact that the hardware typically holds up in unusual environments(sweaty clubs, bow of ship, etc). That hardly makes me a "drone".

So you use apple products b/c of the third-party software developer tools? Or you develop apple software because apple hardware holds up in unusual environments?

Clearly, Mick called the apple developers who actually received the free software "drones". Do you still qualify?

Personally, I've developed software for OSX, and I don't find the comment insulting. I also wouldn't find it insulting to be called a MS drone when writing windows apps ( which is what I generally do anyways ). I find it kind of amusing, actually. Makes me think of Star Wars...

Parent

RE: Anand, please get rid of these idiots

By JasonMick

(blog) on 8/13/2009 1:06:37 PM , Rating: 5

Sorry to offend you, it was just a tongue-in-cheek reference to "The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs" -- I'll remove it since you found it so onerous and hurtful.

"Plus you make a big deal of only hiring these super-high-IQ kiddies and the fact is that most of them truly are smart, but then you put them into this horribly dull and easy drone work on AdWords and AdSense and they're all bored to tears and totally disappointed because they really really really thought they were going to do something meaningful with their lives and now they're just worker bees -- pampered worker bees, sure, but still -- and maybe they should have taken that offer from McKinsey but they really thought Google was going to be so cool and blah blah blah."
-- The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs

Parent

RE: Anand, please get rid of these idiots

By amanojaku on 8/13/2009 1:28:36 PM , Rating: 3

Anand? You mean Kristopher Kubicki.

http://www.dailytech.com/blogs/bio.aspx?user=14

Parent

Not a verb

By Danger D on 8/13/09, Rating: -1

RE: Not a verb

By MrBlastman on 8/13/2009 12:16:27 PM , Rating: 4

Not so fast.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gifts

It is a verb when used with an object.

*gasp* Did I just defend Jason Mick?

Parent

RE: Not a verb

By ogreslayer on 8/13/2009 12:21:09 PM , Rating: 2

gifts is a transitive verb...

Parent

RE: Not a verb

By Mojo the Monkey on 8/13/2009 12:23:49 PM , Rating: 2

Gift; (verb)
1 : to endow with some power, quality, or attribute

Merriam-Webster ftw

Parent

"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken