Apple may have just dealt us the bad news about Leopard, but already reactions are pouring in from across the web and even on our own comment thread. This announcement is huge, and it'll take a while to unpack it all, but I've had some early thoughts and reactions on what this all means, and I wanted to respond to some comments left at our original post of the news. There is quite a bit to deal with, but here are some ideas in no particular order:

1) I agree with sentiments that some sort of OS upgrade time frame would be a great idea, especially since October is way too late for the EDU sales rush. Microsoft did it, and Apple makes their money from hardware sales, not boxes of Mac OS X. It would speak volumes and make - or break - a lot of customer loyalty. No word on whether Apple might actually do this - AFAIK, they never have before. Then again, they've never been this popular, and I don't think such a highly anticipated product has been delayed in light of another even more anticipated product before, either.

2) I also agree that I would rather have it this way than a craptastic release in June that's full of more holes than swiss cheese. Tiger is a damn fine piece of software and I'm happy to keep using it for a few more months.

3) We have to face that fact that the iPhone is likely going to sell more units than Mac OS X. In all likelihood, many more units. Mobile handsets sell in the billions each year; last year I think Apple sold around 6-10 million Macs. They sold double that in iPods over the 2006 winter holiday season alone. The iPhone is likely to be big - even bigger than we feel Mac OS X is.

4) With #3 out of the way: don't worry about the future of Macs or Mac OS X. Product launches like the iPhone are a tremendous effort for any company, but they typically herald in a period where many of that products resources can go back to their regularly scheduled focus. This certainly isn't always the case, but what I'm trying to say is that, in all likelihood, most of the engineers Apple said they had to commandeer from the Leopard wing at Cupertino for the iPhone will go back to Mac OS X development and, for the most part, stay there. The Mac isn't going anywhere.

5) In a few days, maybe a week or two, John C. Dvorak is probably going to pen part 2 of his 'Apple to trash Mac OS X for Windows' article, a concept which he loves to push our buttons with. I recommend you don't bother reading it, and highly recommend that you don't submit it to us as a tip. We're not linking to good ol' Johnny until he shows us some TUAW love for once first.

Someone. Please. Help Dvorak find his meds. He's lost them again, resulting in yet another shock-value crackpot theory article that I chose not to link to on general principle. This time around, Dvorak has once again put inaccurate facts on the table and drudged up baseless speculation that Apple could - and already is - dropping Mac OS X to simply run Windows on their Macs.

No, that wasn't a typo. Dvorak thinks Apple is going to trash Mac OS X for Windows in what could be "the most phenomenal turnabout in the history of desktop computing," whatever that's supposed to mean (search for the article at PC Magazine, if you really want to read it). Most of his 'evidence' is based on claims that no one's switching over to the Mac, despite all of Apple's buzz over the last couple years and the (disputed) "iPod halo effect." Apparently, John didn't notice that Apple doubled its U.S. market share last year to 6.6%. While that isn't a monumental number, the fact that it doubled in barely a year is a significant factor I think John simply missed in what I'm sure was highly methodical research. Let's also not forget that Dell more or less asked Apple if they could sell OS X on their computers - what better way to cut down on customer service expenses?

The rest of his argument cites Apple dropping FireWire in the iPod, Apple's switch to Intel and the fact that large vendors like Adobe weren't ready when the new Intel machines landed. It seems that through his impeccable research, Dvorak also missed previous discussion about FireWire and its high-bandwidth, largely pro purpose, as well as the iPod's mass-market target. Let's also not forget that Adobe can't simply flip a switch and make CS hop over to the Intel side of the Mac CPU fence.

Poking holes in Dvorak's ideas aside, I'm starting to wonder if his articles are becoming not much more than thickly-veiled calls for help. Clearly, he's beginning to lose it, and I wonder if he's just having a hard time asking for the help he so clearly needs. Who's up for a "save John C. Dvorak" fund-raiser?

[thanks David Anasco. Image courtesy of John C. Dvorak's Wikipedia entry]