One wonders if the yearly release schedule has something to do with this. It's got to be a constant rush to tick off the new feature boxes, and then we don't get the period of bug fixing and stability before the engineers all rush off to start implementing next year's new additions.
For a long time it was effectively on a two year clock; they had releases in 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011. Now it's half that.
I once saw a very nice chart about the number of users for a great, cool start-up everyone knows about. The CEO illustrated: "You see that inflexion point on the release day? That's what happens for every release. If we postpone it by 3 months, we not only lose 3 months of new customers (painting the 3-months area between lower and higher sales). We also miss on the offset." and he painted the unlimited area between the lower sales and higher sales. And he talked about the recurrence of the inflexion for each release, and he talked about the immobilized capital inventory.
But their growth primarily comes from hardware, how much would OS X updates influence that growth?
Their hardware from 2008 is running El Capitan, so there isn’t much persuasion for existing customers to upgrade. It seems like if someone is going to switch to Mac, they would do it regardless of any features introduced in the last 3-4 OS X releases.
I don’t know, I’m not a sales guy. But it seems like the tradeoff of losing your customer base due to unreliable software isn’t worth it.
OSX updates are driven by iOS updates, which are the main revenue generators. Apple must release iOS every year to follow phone releases; OSX has to follow suit in order to support iOS "integration" features (Handoff, Photos etc etc).
Because release cycles are so short, test cycles are shorter as well; and of course new hardware is tested first (and foremost), so updates to older hardware will see more bugs, and updates are always buggier anyway (because it's harder for developers to predict the state of your system pre-migration).
I certainly see the yearly release cycle for OSX as being a big factor for the perceived fall in quality. In addition, there is probably a glut of "peak Air", people who switched to Mac when the Air was unrivalled and have not bought anything since. Their hardware is less and less tested with each update, so they're feeling the pinch. Apple don't care, because they want new money from them.
Are they really losing a significant percentage of their customer base due to unreliable software though? I doubt it. I expect that most people who use OS X and care about bugs probably have a negative perception of Windows (whether that's still warranted or not). So that leaves Linux. And as good as desktop Linux has become, it's still not the OS for people who don't want to spend time dealing with strange computer issues. So what's left to switch to?
Mac Mini is 1.5 years old, Mac Pro is >2 years old, 13" Macbook Pro is 1 year next month (and conspicuously absent from rumors of Apple's upcoming announcement event, gotta release those watch bands though).
The iPhone is definitely on a 1-year cycle, but it's not really something they put effort into maintaining on their computers. MacBook Air and iMac are probably the closest.
I blame iOS/Mac features tie-in like Continuity. OS X definitely gets the short end of the stick from that.
For a long time it was effectively on a two year clock; they had releases in 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011. Now it's half that.