3 ms·

This is nostalgic bias. Early OS X was a mess. Doing basic tasks like resizing a window was laggy and slow. There were most definitely bugs and issues. What e

by dangus 4y ago

This is nostalgic bias. Early OS X was a mess. Doing basic tasks like resizing a window was laggy and slow. There were most definitely bugs and issues. What evidence do we have that today's corporate-employed developers are less competent than before? You're blaming annual releases but Puma, Jaguar, and Panther were all a released year apart. My take on it would be that the early OS iterations were more impactful and exciting, but now macOS is mature and "complete," so of course all the additions are going to be convenience and consumer features rather than things that make the core OS better.

dmitriid 4y ago
> This is nostalgic bias. > Early OS X was a mess. The OS was steadily and visibly improving. However, once it reached maturity, Apple decided to throw all care (and its own HIGs) out of the window. And now the OS has moved from stagnation to steady degradation.
- dangus 4y ago
  This discussion reminds me of the technology adoption curve: https://ondigitalmarketing.com/learn/odm/foundations/5-customer-segments-technology-adoption/ https://ondigitalmarketing.com/learn/odm/foundations/5-custo... The truth is, HIG is a guideline. That’s the G. It’s a living document that changes, like language. A lot of changes that happened to macOS and Apple software looked bad at first release, like Final Cut Pro X. Many of those decisions were the right move in the long term. Don't mistake early iteration deficiencies of rewritten component with an overall trend of degradation (again, see Final Cut Pro). If you’re a late majority adopter or laggard, you might just not be comfortable with change at first or ever, and that’s perfectly okay. And sure, not all change is good, but bad software doesn’t make Apple money, either.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    Apple's HIGs were carefully researched and validated. The original HIGs from the 80s even had an extensive bibliography linking to and citing extensive user research. What are the current changes except "we don't understand how desktop OSes work, and we've only worked with iOS, so there"?

by dangus 4y ago

dmitriid 4y ago

> This is nostalgic bias. > Early OS X was a mess. The OS was steadily and visibly improving. However, once it reached maturity, Apple decided to throw all care (and its own HIGs) out of the window. And now the OS has moved from stagnation to steady degradation.

dangus 4y ago
This discussion reminds me of the technology adoption curve: https://ondigitalmarketing.com/learn/odm/foundations/5-customer-segments-technology-adoption/ https://ondigitalmarketing.com/learn/odm/foundations/5-custo... The truth is, HIG is a guideline. That’s the G. It’s a living document that changes, like language. A lot of changes that happened to macOS and Apple software looked bad at first release, like Final Cut Pro X. Many of those decisions were the right move in the long term. Don't mistake early iteration deficiencies of rewritten component with an overall trend of degradation (again, see Final Cut Pro). If you’re a late majority adopter or laggard, you might just not be comfortable with change at first or ever, and that’s perfectly okay. And sure, not all change is good, but bad software doesn’t make Apple money, either.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  Apple's HIGs were carefully researched and validated. The original HIGs from the 80s even had an extensive bibliography linking to and citing extensive user research. What are the current changes except "we don't understand how desktop OSes work, and we've only worked with iOS, so there"?