It is UX with the inflection of Apple's Human Interface guidelines, which have always been a mix of technical guidance and branding/marketing guidance (as oppos

It is UX with the inflection of Apple's Human Interface guidelines, which have always been a mix of technical guidance and branding/marketing guidance (as opposed to pure, wonky, research-based, specifically tailored ergonomics, which defines usability relative to specific tasks and audiences, some of which may be highly technical and appreciate complex tools). Apple discovered that words like "usability" and "human" are very powerful ways of framing competing products as unusable garbage not fit for human consumption. And they worked very hard and were very successful at fitting these words to their brand. This cuts the legs off any competing marketing. If you were a competitor the best you could say to this was something like "we have more games" or "we are cheaper" or "we have higher clock speeds" or even "you have more choice." Meanwhile the audience glazed over and felt threatened. Apple told the same audience that actually they were better than those hobbyist losers wasting all their time because they had bigger issues to worry about, they were discerning and frankly they were cooler. Marketing is a high art and Apple is sitting on top of huge mountains of money after fighting Total War for decades. Good for them. When it comes to evaluating libraries and command line tools, invoking the words 'human' and 'usable' still indicates that the developers and users of the old one are losers focused on irrelevancies, with huge amounts of time to waste on tools that are just plain unusable for anybody and unfit for human consumption. Anyhow, there is more to this UX than just what is nice to use.