5 ms·

The Apple of old had a deep respect for their users. We paid for a product that tried its best to sweat the details and deliver the best experience possible. UX

The Apple of old had a deep respect for their users. We paid for a product that tried its best to sweat the details and deliver the best experience possible. UX was king. Apple made hard choices and delivered minimal, thoughtful and delightful products. The motto was "less but better". Today we have an Apple that keeps pushing new poorly thought out features. More and more they don't respect the user. Constant interruptions that don't serve the user, a ridiculous onboarding process with far too many screens, forcing their own products like Apple Music on people, not making design choices and making the user pick an option. We are so far from less but better and it's only getting worse. I wish there was a way forward for Apple, but I think it's just going to slowly die.

pornel 1y ago
Apple has reverted to being a regular company. Everything is a potential revenue stream, and decisions are made based on next-quarter ROI. They needed the movie investment to meet the targets, so they've synergized with the Wallet team.
- komali2 1y ago
  Google too. I wish the fact that every company enshittifies in the end would wake us all up to the fact that rampant unregulated capitalism just doesn't work before it's too late to make any changes at all.
  - _benton 1y ago
    Apple wouldn't exist without "rampant unregulated capitalism".
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      Sure they would, they just wouldn't be as profitable.
    - croes 1y ago
      Why not? I think Apple wouldn‘t exist without cheap labor in authoritarian countries but that‘s a prerequisite for capitalism
      - _benton 1y ago
        Because Apple under Steve Jobs worked because Steve had full control. Zero chance they become successful run by committee or group ownership or whatever. And they also needed venture capital in the beginning afaik. I don't think Apple could have existed as it did under Jobs in any other system.
      - bigyabai 1y ago
        Apple's primary value driver (when it mattered) was luxury margins on mediocre tech. Without rampant demand, you don't have market stratification. If substantial regulation like the DSA existed in 2014, Apple's business model would look radically different today.
    - strictnein 1y ago
      Apple hasn't existed in a time with "rampant unregulated capitalism", whatever that term is supposed to mean. You can argue there weren't enough regulations, but there were massive volumes of business rules regulations in 1976.
      - _benton 1y ago
        That's why I put it in quotation marks. Capitalism is heavily regulated in every western nation, perhaps every nation.
      - komali2 1y ago
        It existed today, so, yes it has. Capitalism describes the global mode of production, not just the United States economy. We haven't already forgotten the anti-suicide nets at Foxconn, have we? Without the margins that cheap foreign labor provides, the insanely high growth target required to please investors in a Capitalist economy can't be achieved. I think we're fixating too much on purity of the word "unregulated." If you'd like to offer a different one I'm open to it - to me, the closest example of "regulated capitalism" is the PRC's State Capitalism, however it's a poor example given the atrocious working conditions there and the massive wealth inequality. "Unregulated" to me doesn't mean "literally no regulations." To me it means, the owners of Capital have a very large amount of power, to the point that every regulation on them is an uphill, nigh-unwinnable battle. See: pushes for 30 hour work weeks in Europe. Or, see: pushes for socialized healthcare in the USA. I think we can both agree that the USA will never have socialized healthcare so long as the health insurance companies wield so much power and influence!
  - FredPret 1y ago
    It's rampant unregulated capitalism that feeds the whole lifecycle: - company started in garage - makes first sales - gets popular - gets investors - becomes huge, changing the world of computing - enshittifies - gets replaced by the next company that was started in a garage somewhere A good system is not one that preserves Apple or IBM or Xerox. A good system is one that allows these companies to come and go, because in the end we want the consumer to keep winning. Apple enshittifying is bad for everyone in the short term, but it opens the door for whatever comes next.
    - mypornaccount 1y ago
      what regulation exactly would you prefer?
      - FredPret 1y ago
        The minimum amount needed to ensure the basic spirit of the law actually happens. The less regulation and tax you have, the quicker the wheel of innovation above turns. OTOH, there are some cheap and easy regulations with a large societal return, like pollution regs. These low-hanging fruit should be picked, as long as the fruit-pickers don’t redirect the whole economy towards ever-taller fruit-picking ladders.
    - strictnein 1y ago
      > "unregulated captialism" Half the news stories about Apple, Google, etc are them being fined or being forced to change their business practices due to regulations. These companies employ hundreds if not thousands of people to make sure they are following thousands and thousands of regulations.
      - FredPret 1y ago
        I was snarkily echoing my parent comment’s criticism (sorry!). Of course there’s lots of regulation especially once these companies grow large. My point is it’s capitalism that grew them from $0 to $3T, and it’s capitalism that’ll take them back down to $0 and recycle those assets into newer, innovative companies.
eviks 1y ago
That's just a myth, they've had way too many obvious flaws with conscious self-interested barriers to users' ability to fix bad UX for this to be even remotely true
karel-3d 1y ago
They put U2 album to all iPhone users
- yowzadave 1y ago
  This is worse. The U2 thing was a "gift", albeit an unsolicited one that many people didn't want and were annoyed by. This is just a crappy ad.
grishka 1y ago
Except the way some system notifications worked on iOS was always disrespectful. The kind where you unlock your device with a clear goal in mind and a modal alert pops up telling you that your battery is low, or that something "important" happened to your Apple ID, or that a system update is available, or asks you to set up iMessage again, or some other shit that of course has no relationship to what you're trying to do this very moment. It's rudely diverting your attention, interrupting your train of thought. That isn't respectful by any stretch of imagination, and they've been doing it since at least iOS 6. Long-time iOS users like to dunk on Android but even Android doesn't do this. All these things are notifications on Android, so you could deal with them on your own time.
- nexuist 1y ago
  This is a legacy design decision all the way back to iOS 1 before notifications existed. SMS messages used to be delivered through the same modal system. I believe the Apple ID and update messages are now banner notifications, and the battery alert gives you an easy way to turn on Low Power Mode, although I agree there should be a way to make that a banner notif as well.
nullify88 1y ago
> The Apple of old had a deep respect for their users The same Apple that tried to convince everyone they were holding their phones incorrectly resulting in Antennagate?

pornel 1y ago

Apple has reverted to being a regular company. Everything is a potential revenue stream, and decisions are made based on next-quarter ROI. They needed the movie investment to meet the targets, so they've synergized with the Wallet team.

komali2 1y ago
Google too. I wish the fact that every company enshittifies in the end would wake us all up to the fact that rampant unregulated capitalism just doesn't work before it's too late to make any changes at all.
- _benton 1y ago
  Apple wouldn't exist without "rampant unregulated capitalism".
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    Sure they would, they just wouldn't be as profitable.
  - croes 1y ago
    Why not? I think Apple wouldn‘t exist without cheap labor in authoritarian countries but that‘s a prerequisite for capitalism
    - _benton 1y ago
      Because Apple under Steve Jobs worked because Steve had full control. Zero chance they become successful run by committee or group ownership or whatever. And they also needed venture capital in the beginning afaik. I don't think Apple could have existed as it did under Jobs in any other system.
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      Apple's primary value driver (when it mattered) was luxury margins on mediocre tech. Without rampant demand, you don't have market stratification. If substantial regulation like the DSA existed in 2014, Apple's business model would look radically different today.
  - strictnein 1y ago
    Apple hasn't existed in a time with "rampant unregulated capitalism", whatever that term is supposed to mean. You can argue there weren't enough regulations, but there were massive volumes of business rules regulations in 1976.
    - _benton 1y ago
      That's why I put it in quotation marks. Capitalism is heavily regulated in every western nation, perhaps every nation.
    - komali2 1y ago
      It existed today, so, yes it has. Capitalism describes the global mode of production, not just the United States economy. We haven't already forgotten the anti-suicide nets at Foxconn, have we? Without the margins that cheap foreign labor provides, the insanely high growth target required to please investors in a Capitalist economy can't be achieved. I think we're fixating too much on purity of the word "unregulated." If you'd like to offer a different one I'm open to it - to me, the closest example of "regulated capitalism" is the PRC's State Capitalism, however it's a poor example given the atrocious working conditions there and the massive wealth inequality. "Unregulated" to me doesn't mean "literally no regulations." To me it means, the owners of Capital have a very large amount of power, to the point that every regulation on them is an uphill, nigh-unwinnable battle. See: pushes for 30 hour work weeks in Europe. Or, see: pushes for socialized healthcare in the USA. I think we can both agree that the USA will never have socialized healthcare so long as the health insurance companies wield so much power and influence!
- FredPret 1y ago
  It's rampant unregulated capitalism that feeds the whole lifecycle: - company started in garage - makes first sales - gets popular - gets investors - becomes huge, changing the world of computing - enshittifies - gets replaced by the next company that was started in a garage somewhere A good system is not one that preserves Apple or IBM or Xerox. A good system is one that allows these companies to come and go, because in the end we want the consumer to keep winning. Apple enshittifying is bad for everyone in the short term, but it opens the door for whatever comes next.
  - mypornaccount 1y ago
    what regulation exactly would you prefer?
    - FredPret 1y ago
      The minimum amount needed to ensure the basic spirit of the law actually happens. The less regulation and tax you have, the quicker the wheel of innovation above turns. OTOH, there are some cheap and easy regulations with a large societal return, like pollution regs. These low-hanging fruit should be picked, as long as the fruit-pickers don’t redirect the whole economy towards ever-taller fruit-picking ladders.
  - strictnein 1y ago
    > "unregulated captialism" Half the news stories about Apple, Google, etc are them being fined or being forced to change their business practices due to regulations. These companies employ hundreds if not thousands of people to make sure they are following thousands and thousands of regulations.
    - FredPret 1y ago
      I was snarkily echoing my parent comment’s criticism (sorry!). Of course there’s lots of regulation especially once these companies grow large. My point is it’s capitalism that grew them from $0 to $3T, and it’s capitalism that’ll take them back down to $0 and recycle those assets into newer, innovative companies.

eviks 1y ago

That's just a myth, they've had way too many obvious flaws with conscious self-interested barriers to users' ability to fix bad UX for this to be even remotely true

karel-3d 1y ago

They put U2 album to all iPhone users

yowzadave 1y ago
This is worse. The U2 thing was a "gift", albeit an unsolicited one that many people didn't want and were annoyed by. This is just a crappy ad.

grishka 1y ago

Except the way some system notifications worked on iOS was always disrespectful. The kind where you unlock your device with a clear goal in mind and a modal alert pops up telling you that your battery is low, or that something "important" happened to your Apple ID, or that a system update is available, or asks you to set up iMessage again, or some other shit that of course has no relationship to what you're trying to do this very moment. It's rudely diverting your attention, interrupting your train of thought. That isn't respectful by any stretch of imagination, and they've been doing it since at least iOS 6. Long-time iOS users like to dunk on Android but even Android doesn't do this. All these things are notifications on Android, so you could deal with them on your own time.

nexuist 1y ago
This is a legacy design decision all the way back to iOS 1 before notifications existed. SMS messages used to be delivered through the same modal system. I believe the Apple ID and update messages are now banner notifications, and the battery alert gives you an easy way to turn on Low Power Mode, although I agree there should be a way to make that a banner notif as well.

nullify88 1y ago

> The Apple of old had a deep respect for their users The same Apple that tried to convince everyone they were holding their phones incorrectly resulting in Antennagate?