Fuck Tim Apple and his gifting of trinkets to a shit demon.
Fuck this guy give the gross pedo gold gifts, what an absolute piece of fucking shit.
OK but what about the profits? Isn’t that the only important thing?
Tim was great for the shareholders and not so much the customer.
I feel like most services got worse, hardware got worse before the M series, but post M I haven’t seen much innovation — just a lot of recycled parts for peripherals like Studio Display, which is premium price but sub premium quality (camera, panel itself, and ports/support).
Phones have massively homogenized under Cook
And software has taken a massive nose dive. As much as I try to like swift, it sucks. And it was a mistake to lose Chris Lattner, because without him Swift has had basically no focus or direction other than boosting SwiftUI.
Nobody has ever managed building production software with Swift outside of app dev, which I think says it finds a poor compromise on real performance vs ergonomics vs safety. I do not think Rust is better, I think Swift makes it too hard to do the right low level things.
AI/Siri has been embarrassing. Shipping cadence is worst in the business, there’s no reason so many updates are tied to OS updates, it’s simultaneously too rapid for trans to build robust software, and too slow to fix bugs and make QOL adjustments.
So when I look back on the last several years of Apple I kinda just see a bunch of departments duct taped together and drifting away from each other, and then the finance team driving all the decisions.
Having tried both Swift and Rust - you can hardly compare them. For me Rust is in a different league. Swift is a modernization and a step forward compared to ObjC, but Rust is a different paradigm altogether. Swift has IMO done a great job for Apple as a platform, but has not achieved universality and had not transcended the platform. Rust has achieved universality, but has not captured any platform in particular yet. Both have not and may never replace C/C++, though my biased opinion is rust may have a chance (at least with C++)
I pick on Rust because of the “write everything in Rust” crowd and just personally I don’t like how the language feels.
I don’t think rust has found fit in the GUI sphere, though it’s getting some adoption from tools like zed, and hopefully some native gui tools get better with it. Swift has some fit there, but it’s not a fair comparison because it’s forced. Swift has nice ergonomics though with callbacks and lib dispatch plus combine that work well for GUIs.
Swift also suffered from poor versioning tools, and platform code differences which have hurt it even if they’ve been patched over.
I agree on everything you’ve said. Rust hype is a bit annoying and can be off putting. AI bros seem to have amplified the effect and I strongly dislike it. GUI is probably the worst area of Rust, but given the universality of Rust, I think it’s expected. I found egui easy to use, though, but far from swift ui, still.
simultaneously too rapid for trans to build robust software
Multiple assumptions here.
That is a typo
I think you underestimate the power of the socks.
Honest question: how can you make your mark on a product that is already perfect? At some point, software goes from meeting the needs of its customers to meeting the needs of the egos in charge.
You have low standards if you think Apple products are perfect.
I’m speaking theoretically about the software cycle. At some point, the product does what it’s supposed to do as best as it can. Then what happens? People in charge feel they need to make their mark, so things just kind of drift around for no solid design reason worth customers getting used to.
Thanks for explaining the downvotes, though.
There’s always a bundle of people in threads like this that are eager to downvote even vaguely pro-Apple sentiment
That’s a different thing though. It is driven by marketing people, they want each iteration look different to give people impression that they aren’t purchasing the same product every year.
Apple does that too for example each release of their phones has a bit different look.
As an aside:
There will be some quick tells as to whether incoming new Apple CEO John Ternus is more of the same, including seeing whether or not Apple follows Google’s lead and buckles to our mad king’s obsession with trying to rename large bodies of water to feed his gargantuan ego.
John Apple is a spineless fuckwit and immediately capitulated
I heard they are hiding behind explanation that their maps update data automatically from USGIS databases, though that is lame explanation as they can easily override it, like MapQuest did.
When he was changing name of Gulf of Mexico they didn’t have problem to make it show only four US audience.
like MapQuest did.
MapQuest didn’t really do anything, it uses OpenStreetMaps which is a community effort and doesn’t have localized place names the way Google and Apple maps do. E.g country names for me in google maps aren’t their local names, nor the GNIS names you’d see in the US, they’re names in my own language. In Google on particular, there’s literally no “United States” on the map, only “Ameerika Ühendriigid” for me, Apple has fewer localizations but still shows many things in Estonian to me. There’s a large degree of automation there for them to do this in I’m assuming 100+ languages for anything they can (i.e country names and large bodies of water as well as many cities are in Estonian for me, but most other places are just global defaults). Once you start adding manual overrides, shit like this gets way too difficult to manage for little reason.
When he was changing name of Gulf of Mexico they didn’t have problem to make it show only four US audience.
So same as Lake Ontario. Because when you’re in the US, it pulls names from GNIS as far as I know, and in other places it has other sources or just static datasets of their own. I still see Ontario, the global default, in both Google and Apple maps.
you’re mostly right, but OSM does have local overrides.
official_name:en-US="Lake AmericaHa, didn’t know that. Interesting then that it shows me neither Lake America, nor any of the Estonian localized names anywhere. Perhaps it’s an opt-in somewhere on the OSM website.
I never owned an apple product because of their “killing batteries from afar” fiasco. Once I saw Tim Apple giving trump little golden trinkets on television I knew my decision was right. It reminded me of putting money in the collection plate.
For me it was “forced integration of your music library with Apple music” when the ipod was all the rage.
That was the death knell for me as well. I think it was around when I had my last iPod, the… Nano?
Don’t forget the further entrapment in subscription hell with Apple one.
RIP Tim Apple. You embarrassed a once innovative brand but at least you made a lot of money.
Cook diversified Apple’s product lineup, overseeing the introduction of many new products such as the AirPods, Apple Watch, Apple Vision Pro, AirTag, Apple silicon in its Mac lineup and expanding its services business.
His tenure is that of a businessman, not an innovator or visionary. Good or bad, Jobs was all three.
jobs was not an innovator, hes good at marketing, he as ruthless as a business as any other.
Vissonary maybe but innovator?
IPhones & MacBooks were well built & marketed but neither was really innovative.
iPhones literally were visionary. The whole industry was trying to imitate blackberry and overnight apple made them completely irrelevant. Android changed to what it is from what was originally a blackberry interface.
MacBooks, yea, it’s a laptop. They had some really good ideas in there, sure. MagSafe and touchpads that didnt royally suck ass were welcome features. The M-series lighting a fire under intels ass was exactly what the entire industry needed. Love them or hate them, even when Apple is bad, they create good trouble in an industry that needed to be proven wrong from time to time.
What was the innovation in the iPhone?
It was worse in almost every way except marketing than the n900.
The technology had reached the point where you could have smartphones by then, I don’t see what was innovative about iPhones.
You can call it visionary, sure because he spread his vision for a locked down phone, but where is the innovation in the iPhone?
the n900 was released two years after the iphone. it was modeled on the iphone from the start, like the entire industry was. (and the n900 still didn’t support multi-touch, which Apple patented.)
The n900 was an interation in the n800, but sure how that can be modeled on the iPhone without time travel.
Is the iPhones invocation patenting things?
the n900’s changes to the n800 were modeled on the iPhone. the n800 is completely different: for one, the touch screen is activated by pressure, not touch. Are you arguing that the n800 is better than the iPhone 1?
No I’m pointing out that the n900 with it’s full keyboard was not modeled of the iPhone.
And the apple mac, the iMac, iPod, and the iPad, and cofounding apple. Even the concept of iLife and the market targetting strategy. Yes, innovator.
A computer, an MP3 player, a tablet, starting a business.
How are any of those innovations?
I’d say killing yourself by ignoring medical advice for an easily treatable desies or pretending your daughter isn’t yours were innovations, but royals have been doing that for centuries.
Like what did he do that was innovative?
Apple found that existing digital music players were either “big and clunky” or “small and useless” with user interfaces that were “unbelievably awful”.[10]
The iPod wheel is pretty iconic.
The Apple Macintosh wasn’t innovative. Here’s how you “innovate” an Apple Mac: Take an existing product of your company, the Apple IIGS. Make that worse by reducing the processor clock speed so your new product will be superior in some way, because your new product is going to lack backwards compatibility, internal expansion card slots, color graphics or multi-channel audio.
The iMac wasn’t innovative. It was an evolution of their existing product line in trendy packaging.
The iPod wasn’t innovative. Even the UI was taken from Creative. Rio beat them to the market by several years.
The iPad wasn’t innovative. I was handed a Dell tablet PC a full decade before the iPad hit the market.
Apple was innovative twice in its very long history: The Apple II was the first microcomputer that combined color graphics with internal expandability, and the iPhone had a capacitive touch screen. The most innovative thing Steve Jobs ever said in his life was “You can just use your finger.”
The [Creative] Zen patent (6,928,433) covers the aspect of the user interface where a user can select at least one track in an MP3 player using at least three screens to browse for that track in a hierarchical method. As the Creative press release states: “One example would be the sequence of screens that could display artists, then albums, and then tracks. When the user selects an artist, the player displays a list of albums for that artist. Selection of one of the listed albums then displays a list of tracks on the album.”
I don’t think Apple stole UI from Creative.
No, I’m pretty sure they licensed it, and so did Dell. Go look at Dell’s MP3 players, damn near identical interface.
Being able to browse songs by album/artist (the sole focus of the Creative patent dispute) doesn’t seem to be a major factor for the iPod (or its success, disregarding marketing). The innovations were elsewhere.
Elsewhere as in the companies and idividuals not employed by Apple that actually invented the things Apple sold? Correct.
The Apple II was the first microcomputer that combined color graphics with internal expandability
The first computer I ever used (not counting punch cards or the VIC-20) was an Apple IIe, and I can confidently say that color was green. Later versions of the Apple II had full color, but that wasn’t “innovation” by Steve Jobs, it was just the technology for it becoming affordable.
That was a limitation of the monitor you were using, not the computer. All models of Apple II to include the Plus, e and c had color graphics. But it was common practice to pair them with monochrome monitors, first because they’re cheaper than color monitors, but also…the way the Apple II achieved a 16 color palette was through NTSC artifacting. It only ever tried to send something like six colors over the cable, but when you put two dissimilar colors next to each other, they get smeared together somewhere in the analog domain and they come out some other color. It allowed them to achieve 16 colors, but it had a drawback: Text that was supposed to appear black and white would have green and purple fringes, which made it blurry and hard to read. So if you were using the machine for business or something you might choose a monochrome monitor to get sharper, easier to read text. Apple’s first party monochrome monitors were indeed green.
Demoscene groups CRTC & Hornet recently got 1000 colors out of the original IBM CGA card using this technique.
The CGA card used that technique anyway. The IBM CGA card had a 9-pin RGBI digital output and an RCA analog NTSC output. There was a 16 color text mode, rarely used. Color graphics were usually done via the 4 color mode, which chose between four awful pallettes: light and dark variants of white black magenta and cyan, or yellow black red-orange and yellow. So they appeared kinda terrible on an RGBI monitor, but by dithering the colors together and using the analog output, you’d get other colors.
Huh, interesting to know. Ninth grade me didn’t give a shit about things like that.
I’ve kinda known that most of my life because my elementary school had a lab of IIes, most of which had color monitors, a couple of them had monochrome monitors. So there were a couple of them that were inexplicably “just green.” Most of the rest of that I learned from The 8-Bit Guy on Youtube.
That Wozniak guy’s a good electrical engineer. Clever dude.
capacitive touch screen
The first phone with a capacitive touch screen was the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada the iPhone was built with the technology that was around at the time.
People credit the iPhone with creating smartphones but much like Tesla’s the tech was ready and they launched at the right time. I guess Apple patented multitouch slowing down adoption of multitouch on laptops by decades, but I’d credit Apple with that not Jobs.
Yes and no, the first iPhone was innovative, but after that, it just became refinement.
It wasn’t innovative. They took existing products, and polished and marketed them. Apple has always been a lifestyle brand.
What was the innovation in the iPhone?
It was worse in almost every way except marketing than the n900.
The technology had reached the point where you could have smartphones by then, I don’t see what was innovative about iPhones.
There were way more than 2 things that Apple produced under Jobs…
Ok and none of them were innovative.
Timothy Donald Cook (born November 1, 1960) is an American business executive who served as the chief executive officer (CEO) of Apple Inc. from 2011 to 2026, and has been the company’s executive chairman since September 2026.
https://www.macrumors.com/2025/08/07/tim-cook-gift-to-trump/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Cook
s/gift/bribe/
Applle is…cooked
Willing to bet $10 the next guy drives it straight into the ground harder and faster.
Agreed. The new CEO isn’t off to a great start, either. Bending the knee in your first few days is not a good look.
MacOS was so much better when Steve Jobs was in charge.
Tim Cook REALLY made it worse. Steve Jobs made sure the user experience was generally good, although admittedly there were many times when he was pigheaded. On a personal level, Steve Jobs was a terrible person, but he made the operating system very good and very consistent.
And Tim Cook didn’t care about any of that, and macOS is now SUPER inconsistent and much less user friendly. It’s still better than Windows, but MAN is it so so so much worse.
It’s still better than Windows
The problem there is that Windows has been lowering the bar for a decade now.
I like the word inconsistent. It’s been over a decade since I stopped using macs — so I don’t remember exactly what it was that bothered me — but one of the biggest reasons why I stopped using macs was the inconsistency. Within the OS, between apps, between iOS and macos, etc…
Engineers made the OS good. Steve didn’t do shit.
Well that’s not correct.
Engineers are great at developing a product.
But having someone at the end who’s using the product and insisting on consistency because he’s anal-retentive and a pain in the ass will mean the product is consistent with the evaluator’s goals.
macOS used to have a lot of underlying features that worked consistently no matter which app you were using, and Apple destroyed that.
Either Jobs was having an effect, or it’s a damned strange coincidence that the severe reduction in consistency in macOS started just at the point that he died.
Yeah, Apple were doing so great with their engineers until 1997, and then Jobs came back and ruined things.
At least he gave us some basic window management features. It’s still miles behind what Windows and Linux has unfortunately.
15 years later and the Photos app on iOS is still the same nearly useless pile of shit.
That is absolutely untrue. Apple has spent tons of time and money in ruining that app and it is a pinnacle of useless trash today thanks to those efforts. Respect.
It exists to sell iCloud subscriptions, and by that measure (the only one that matters in this world) it’s a huge success.
Opinion? That’s a fact. We use androidified version of iOS just because the guy was just after profiting.
The fuck is that last sentence supposed to mean?
i think it means ios is basically Android software with less features
Android features with a UI as dumb as facebook so they can slap their proprietary mix of stupid gestures and menus and where the fuck are my files located and how are my photos on the cloud already I didn’t want to do that, who the fuck made this shit, why is my phone facetiming my boss on accident wtf is going on, why does everything feel like a Tim Robinson skit. Ya but if I don’t have the checkmark then I’m the loser or something.
