Itunes 10 needs at least OSX 10.5, costumers crying foul

Source
For those who are too lazy to read, the title of this thread sums it up pretty nicely.

I don't own a iPhone, iPod or another Apple product that requires the latest itunes to do stuff but I found this to be incredibly hilarious. considering how everyone used to say how Microsoft is evil for not letting users install the latest windows live software(but who would want to install it?). But in a turn of events, it appears that some Apple devotees are starting to see how crippling their computer choice was, thinking they would never have to upgrade since Apple "loves" them. While Leopard is like 4 years old, Windows XP is much more ancient but it can still use the latest itunes.

What are your thoughts on this PC?

I think they're just playing the market shares. More people probably still use XP than there are Mac owners for every kind of Mac. Not building one for Leopard is Apple's way of getting people to upgrade so they make some money off of their Macintosh line, which could boost their stock value.

I also don't see the problem here, Apple has been removing code and support for machines for years, it's only been the last couple years that they've really been pushing for less support of the old PowerPC architecture. With Snow leopard they dropped support completely. the reason Leopard is not supported is because they cut support for PowerPC processors and Leopard still runs on them. $29 is not a big deal if you've bought a mac in the past 4 years, because more likely than not it came with an intel CPU and Snow leopard will run just fine. I don't really get why Apple doesn't fess up and state that you can easily jump from Tiger to Snow other than loss of sales of their Box Set. In the end though I don't really see how this is a problem unless you're using a PowerPC processor that have been out of support* since 2005.
* Apple hasn't shipped a PPC machine since 2005 and even if you bought the last machine they made with PPC CPU even the extended applecare warranty would be expired by now, so in all legal sense, Apple has fulfilled its obligation to support those systems and has moved on to support it's newer contracts.

Hybrid Trainer said:

I comploetely agree with you here, this is a brand that bumps up their prices pretty much because it has a shiny silver apple on the back. Yea sure it might be awesome and such but there are pretty much the same thing that is a lot cheaper.

Click to expand...

Without turning this into an Apple debate, you aren't paying for a brand of computer. The OS is exclusive and you won't pay much less for the same thing in the business line for a PC. The consumer line of PCs are mostly cheap and nasty (read: this is not Microsoft's fault). It's only because Apple doesn't have a budget line that the consumer market is exposed better quality Macs than PCs in stores.

But anyway, the point is. what were you expecting? People's excuses for buying an apple product is that its 'durable' and will last them a long time. If people only splash out on a single product and not bother to buy the latest version because they don't want to spend the money eventually apple is going to feel the sting. If you think about it it makes sense, even if it is unfair.

Click to expand...

Anyone who is still running Tiger is running an OS that is over 6 years old. They don't deserve to be supported. Neither do people using XP. Supporting old gear comes at a price (both in terms of performance and cost), and when the people that require it are obviously not the ones contributing to paying for this - it doesn't make sense.

People are free to continue using what they have; there's nothing to stop them. They shouldn't, however, expect to be supported on old hardware well past its use-by date.

This doesn't just apply to Apple, at all. I strongly believe that Windows should drop 32-bit support for Windows 8 (and XP support for the next Office). This should stop people from installing it on what are clearly outdated systems (Pentium 4s, early Atoms, Pentium M/Core Series {Yonah}), which was part of the reason Vista copped a bad wrap. It runs quite well on a 2GHz C2D/1GB ram, which was mainstream at the time, so it's not like they had an excuse.

It's not unfair until they stop people using OSX 10.4 with older versions of iTunes and older devices.

archer pretty much summed up my thoughts on this. though, i have to say, people crying foul over leopard... i really don't understand. upgrade to snow leopard? it's like 30 bucks... and anyone who's running tiger really needs to get a new computer anyway. complaining about support for tiger is like complaining about the lack of support for windows 2000. outdated, irrelevant, etc. naturally, a company (apple, windows, etc) is going to eventually stop supporting dated systems. that's just the way it is. building the same application specifically for an operating system more than six years old seems like you're being picky. i find it strange how the people who haven't had experience using an apple os (for more than fiddling around at the store and judging it on a windows vs mac basis) need to stop being so judgmental, i'd say.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, I guess. But then you have to take into consideration that most of the general populace isn't as computer-literate as most of us are, and don't realize that you need to upgrade the hardware every two or three years in order to run new stuff. Hence, it doesn't just work.

I don't give a crap, because I know how to Hackintosh, and PC parts are far less expensive than Mac parts.