Apple used to brag that its products just work. Now your expensive Mac comes with a bloated AI experiment you didn’t request, can’t fully remove, and are expected to thank Tim Cook for. When customers start writing tools to delete your flagship feature, that’s not innovation.
What’s really crazy is that apple had this obnoxious attitude that “they know what users really want”, the users would disagree, they’d complain loudly, then they’d use the software and say “damn… Apple was right, this is better.”
But… That was all before 2010. I can’t think of a single software innovation the company has had since then. Apple used to deliver overpriced, outdated hardware and they only managed to sell it by packaging it with the slickest OS on the market. These days the situation is reversed, Apple is developing their own silicon, they have some of the fastest consumer chips around, and they need it, because their software is nothing to write home about and their prices are still high.
I think you’re right about that. Apple’s policies around user privacy and security from authorities are generally pretty good, certainly better than average for tech companies.
And… Apple has kind of always been monopolistic, and that hasn’t changed a bit.
The slowing down phones was also “Apple knows what’s best for you”. They were doing it to phones that had seen battery degradation, so that the phone battery would still last the whole day even with the reduced capacity.
The lack of AI was actually a huge selling point for me with the Neo (even though the price was already a huge sell). It’s a shame that they’re now falling for the same trick as the rest of the industry.
No, for two reasons. First, there are already two Steve Apples, from the same time, no less. Second, because we don’t really want one of those Steves back. Great marketer, shit person.
Apple used to brag that its products just work. Now your expensive Mac comes with a bloated AI experiment you didn’t request, can’t fully remove, and are expected to thank Tim Cook for. When customers start writing tools to delete your flagship feature, that’s not innovation.
Wasn’t it always Apple’s position: “We know better what users need and if we don’t have some feature it just means that users don’t need it”?
What’s really crazy is that apple had this obnoxious attitude that “they know what users really want”, the users would disagree, they’d complain loudly, then they’d use the software and say “damn… Apple was right, this is better.”
But… That was all before 2010. I can’t think of a single software innovation the company has had since then. Apple used to deliver overpriced, outdated hardware and they only managed to sell it by packaging it with the slickest OS on the market. These days the situation is reversed, Apple is developing their own silicon, they have some of the fastest consumer chips around, and they need it, because their software is nothing to write home about and their prices are still high.
They did some commendable things involving locking phones when lost/stolen/seized by cops.
They’ve also done some typical tech monopoly things with os bloat, slowing down old hardware and poor support for older hardware.
I think you’re right about that. Apple’s policies around user privacy and security from authorities are generally pretty good, certainly better than average for tech companies.
And… Apple has kind of always been monopolistic, and that hasn’t changed a bit.
The slowing down phones was also “Apple knows what’s best for you”. They were doing it to phones that had seen battery degradation, so that the phone battery would still last the whole day even with the reduced capacity.
The lack of AI was actually a huge selling point for me with the Neo (even though the price was already a huge sell). It’s a shame that they’re now falling for the same trick as the rest of the industry.
I think you mean Tim Apple
It’s John Apple now!
(Tim Cook resigned. John Ternus is the current CEO of Apple)
I like the idea of Apple’s leadership working on a princess bride model. Tim Apple is simply a title that gets handed down
Tim didn’t really resign/retire. They promoted him to Chairman.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/10/11/tim-cook-visits-china-for-the-third-time-in-2026
What if it’s a Dread Pirate Roberts situation, and every subsequent Apple CEO automatically becomes “Tim Apple”?
Then they should definitely all be Steve Apple.
No, for two reasons. First, there are already two Steve Apples, from the same time, no less. Second, because we don’t really want one of those Steves back. Great marketer, shit person.
Ah woops you beat me to it!
*Tim Apple