Computer Update (www.stickycomics.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 70 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Huh, never had to pay for a Mac update.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    That's because Apple hasn't charged for OSX/MacOS updates since 2013 with OSX 10.9

    Edit: I also don't think they were ever $99. I upgraded from 10.5 to 10.6 back in 2009 and I think it was only like $30, and they had to ship me a disc with the update so it's not like they didn't have any overhead they had to pay for

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    They were more expensive in the early 2000s.

    See, for example, this MacRumors thread from 2003 entitled β€œMac OS X 10.3 Panther. Why Is it still $129?”

    Jaguar (10.2) was also $129 in 2002.

    10.1 was free.

    Going up from 2003,

    • 10.4 Tiger was $129 in 2005
    • 10.5 Leopard was $129 in 2007
    • 10.6 Snow Leopard was $29 in 2009
    • 10.7 Lion was $29 in 2011
    • 10.8 Mountain Lion was $29 in 2012
    • 10.9 Mavericks was a free update in 2013
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Ah! Shoulda done more research, my bad. My first MacBook came with Leopard on it and I eventually upgraded it to Snow Leopard. I think that computer eventually died before I could upgrade it any further than that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    I bought my first MacBook in '07, which came with Tiger installed. A couple of months later they released Leopard for Β£130, or free if you bought your Mac within the last month. So I contacted them and asked whether I'd had mine too long to get the free update. They said I had, but that they'd send me the disc for the cost of postage anyway.

    So I paid Β£5 for Leopard.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)