4 ms·

Just a few of my opinions regarding why there’s so much low-quality software: 1. No culture of craftsmanship in software outside of niches such as native Mac

Just a few of my opinions regarding why there’s so much low-quality software: 1. No culture of craftsmanship in software outside of niches such as native Mac software development. “Move fast and break things” was supposed to mean embracing iterative development practices and not being afraid to make changes when necessary, but this philosophy has been stripped of its original context, which has resulted in recklessness. 2. Unrealistic deadlines that favor slapdash, “get it out the door as fast as possible” solutions instead of taking the time to deliver quality software. 3. UI/UX designs that serve business priorities over users’ needs. Egregious examples include dark patterns and annoying ads. Less egregious examples include design for branding instead of design based on the platform’s UI guidelines. Unfortunately the Web lacks UI guidelines, and so each website has its own UI/UX. 4. What’s the incentive for quality? Market dynamics such as network effects and lock-in that prevent competition from gaining a foothold or even from existing in the first place. Why would a company improve its software if people are required to use that product and there are no alternatives? A lot of people, for example, complain about Microsoft Teams, but if their job requires it, they can’t use an alternative platform. Some of my favorite customer-facing software includes The Omni Group’s Mac software such as OmniGraffle and OmniOutliner, ClarisWorks, the classic Mac OS (less for its underpinnings, which weren’t the most reliable, and more for its interface), Mac OS X (especially the Tiger, Leopard, and Snow Leopard era), and late 1990s and early 2000s Microsoft software (Windows 2000, Office 97 and 2000, Visual Studio 6, Visio).

chrisjj 3y ago
> "Move fast and break things” was supposed to mean ... not being afraid to make changes when necessary I wonder how much of today's world of broken apps can be attributed to that unfortunate wording. Necessity of change should be no impediment to healthy fear of the consequences.
lambdaba 3y ago
I keep seeing this about OS X, what was special about those versions? And what are the problems with recent versions?
lambdaba 3y ago
I keep seeing this about OS X, what was special about those versions? And what are the problems with recent versions?
- karmakaze 3y ago
  Snow Leopard was the pinnacle of Mac OS that was "for the user". After that, macOS was a means to Apple's end. e.g. discontinuation of Front Row with no replacement.
  - saurik 3y ago
    Oh wow, I'd forgotten about Front Row... presumably named after how if you say with a Mac in the front row of an auditorium the people behind you could pull out any Apple remote and use it to make your laptop fade to black and enter some crazy UI you didn't recognize ;P. (It took them way too long to come up with any kind of security model for that feature...)
- linguae 3y ago
  This is all opinion, but for me, it’s not that modern macOS has severely regressed from Snow Leopard, though I don’t like notarization and I also don’t like the flat design and iOS influences that have made its way to macOS in the past decade. However, it seems to me that macOS hasn’t improved substantially since Snow Leopard, at least from my point of view. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing; even with the iOS UI elements that have made its way to macOS, somebody from 2009 using Snow Leopard would easily navigate a 2024 Mac running Sonoma; the macOS interface hasn’t changed substantially since 2001. Other than integration with the rest of Apple’s ecosystem, most of the macOS features I use were present all the way back in Tiger, such as Spotlight. Another issue I have with modern Apple software is the removal of features (I still miss iPhoto; Photos.app is inferior) and the loss of the perfectionism that once defined Apple; I feel Apple’s software has gotten buggier. Of course the Mac today is much more stable than it was in the classic era (no memory protection and cooperative multitasking made for an unstable environment that meant needing to reboot in the middle of getting work done), but it seems like a regression from the 2000s when Steve Jobs had tight control. There’s also the context of when Tiger, Leopard, and Snow Leopard were released. I believe these releases of macOS were far better than contemporary Windows releases (XP, Vista, 7) and compared to KDE and GNOME of the time. In fact, if somebody made a Linux desktop environment today that was a clone of Tiger and if enough software was written that conforms to Apple’s human interface guidelines of the era, this would be heads and shoulders better than current versions of GNOME and KDE, but this is my opinion and everyone has different tastes.

chrisjj 3y ago

> "Move fast and break things” was supposed to mean ... not being afraid to make changes when necessary I wonder how much of today's world of broken apps can be attributed to that unfortunate wording. Necessity of change should be no impediment to healthy fear of the consequences.

lambdaba 3y ago

I keep seeing this about OS X, what was special about those versions? And what are the problems with recent versions?

lambdaba 3y ago

I keep seeing this about OS X, what was special about those versions? And what are the problems with recent versions?

karmakaze 3y ago
Snow Leopard was the pinnacle of Mac OS that was "for the user". After that, macOS was a means to Apple's end. e.g. discontinuation of Front Row with no replacement.
- saurik 3y ago
  Oh wow, I'd forgotten about Front Row... presumably named after how if you say with a Mac in the front row of an auditorium the people behind you could pull out any Apple remote and use it to make your laptop fade to black and enter some crazy UI you didn't recognize ;P. (It took them way too long to come up with any kind of security model for that feature...)
linguae 3y ago
This is all opinion, but for me, it’s not that modern macOS has severely regressed from Snow Leopard, though I don’t like notarization and I also don’t like the flat design and iOS influences that have made its way to macOS in the past decade. However, it seems to me that macOS hasn’t improved substantially since Snow Leopard, at least from my point of view. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing; even with the iOS UI elements that have made its way to macOS, somebody from 2009 using Snow Leopard would easily navigate a 2024 Mac running Sonoma; the macOS interface hasn’t changed substantially since 2001. Other than integration with the rest of Apple’s ecosystem, most of the macOS features I use were present all the way back in Tiger, such as Spotlight. Another issue I have with modern Apple software is the removal of features (I still miss iPhoto; Photos.app is inferior) and the loss of the perfectionism that once defined Apple; I feel Apple’s software has gotten buggier. Of course the Mac today is much more stable than it was in the classic era (no memory protection and cooperative multitasking made for an unstable environment that meant needing to reboot in the middle of getting work done), but it seems like a regression from the 2000s when Steve Jobs had tight control. There’s also the context of when Tiger, Leopard, and Snow Leopard were released. I believe these releases of macOS were far better than contemporary Windows releases (XP, Vista, 7) and compared to KDE and GNOME of the time. In fact, if somebody made a Linux desktop environment today that was a clone of Tiger and if enough software was written that conforms to Apple’s human interface guidelines of the era, this would be heads and shoulders better than current versions of GNOME and KDE, but this is my opinion and everyone has different tastes.