El Capitan: Does this mark the death of OS X as a serious OS?

[kissmo]

Since Steve died, the SW - both iOS and OS X along with removal of some nice Apps like Aperture - feels a little bit demoralising.

I know that the company has still the same mentality, and I do know that Apple is not all about Steve Jobs.
But you cannot ignore the impact he had on the final released products.

But the truth is that every piece of HW is in the end as good and useful as the SW that runs on it.
Look at Samsung for example - produces some high end nice phones too but the experience of working on the depends on Android.

I do feel that OS X is coming from a strong Background and I do like it. The thing is that I do not LOVE it that much anymore.
Maybe too many expectations, maybe the colours used (Pokemon OS J. Ive Style), I do not know.
It's still a solid OS, skinned differently and clearly more Saturated interface.

El Capitan is not an innovative OMG OS at all.
It may be under the hood - Metal and some security things, it's just a Service Pack from Yosemite.
It's better than Yosemite - it's an improvement in terms of speed and usability.
But it's not a revolutionary OS.

OS XI will probably be when it will come out...

 

[leman]

Since Steve died, the SW - both iOS and OS X along with removal of some nice Apps like Aperture - feels a little bit demoralising.

I still don't understand why it feels demoralising. They have been constantly adding new features and streamlining the user experience. For me, the current OS X is more user-friendly and efficient than it was back in 10.6 days. Sure, some might be put off by the new visual theme that Apple is going for. Thats an aesthetic thing, which are known to be subjective. Personally, I prefer the new Aqua to the previous Aqua. I like minimal, aesthetic appearance and I believe that the new style is more dynamic and alive due to the interactions of colours.

El Capitan is not an innovative OMG OS at all.
It may be under the hood - Metal and some security things, it's just a Service Pack from Yosemite.
It's better than Yosemite - it's an improvement in terms of speed and usability.
But it's not a revolutionary OS.

Sorry, but which OS X ever was revolutionary? I find it difficult to comprehend that over a decade has passed and people still don't realise that each OS X release is essentially a service pack. Every version brings some changes, either visible or not. Some releases focus more on UI, some focus more on refinements. It has always been that way. The widely beloved (still don't understand why) Snow Leopard was even less revolutionary.

 

[kissmo]

I still don't understand why it feels demoralising. They have been constantly adding new features and streamlining the user experience. For me, the current OS X is more user-friendly and efficient than it was back in 10.6 days. Sure, some might be put off by the new visual theme that Apple is going for. Thats an aesthetic thing, which are known to be subjective. Personally, I prefer the new Aqua to the previous Aqua. I like minimal, aesthetic appearance and I believe that the new style is more dynamic and alive due to the interactions of colours.

First of all - everything we say here - are opinions based on preferences.
So for me Yosemite was demoralising because of its WIFI issues, GUI - was not my personal favourite change.
To me this minimal change - simply is an eye straining experience.
I feel like Steve would have fine tuned it more.



Sorry, but which OS X ever was revolutionary? I find it difficult to comprehend that over a decade has passed and people still don't realise that each OS X release is essentially a service pack. Every version brings some changes, either visible or not. Some releases focus more on UI, some focus more on refinements. It has always been that way. The widely beloved (still don't understand why) Snow Leopard was even less revolutionary.

Revolutionary was OS X when it appeared. I did not say or expect El Capitan to be revolutionary at all.
El Capitan is a nice improvement over Yosemite - I would not expect anything of that scale - Until an OS 11 or something naked different would come out.

Try to understand that my comments were also related to people complaining or criticising the OSes Apple Released.
I am stating that if Steve would have been alive I am inclined to believe Yosemite and El Cap would have different changes in terms of UI and probably would have had some of the existing ones.

In the end - I still love OS X. I really do!

 

[dyn]

Since Steve died, the SW - both iOS and OS X along with removal of some nice Apps like Aperture - feels a little bit demoralising.

Just about any Lightroom user would disagree with that I think that Apple's decision for discontinuing Aperture and iPhoto and do a completely new app (Photos) is a good decision. You are correct that Photos still needs some time to mature when it comes to features and layout so yes, the decision might have been a bit too early. That said, we can't deny the problems with both Aperture and iPhoto when it comes to photo management. With all those competitors out there I doubt iPhoto/Aperture would have survived. The plus side: we now have a similar experience for Photos on OS X and iOS. Both Apple and Microsoft are creating a platform, they both do it quite differently. Only time will tell which approach will succeed.

Sorry, but which OS X ever was revolutionary?

The one that came with your very first Mac of course!

 

[Ebenezum]

The widely beloved (still don't understand why) Snow Leopard was even less revolutionary.

I am fairly certain it has something to do with these points:

1. Very solid and fast by the time last version 10.6.8 was released. In my opinion best OS X version ever released.
2. It had no pointless iOS features unlike newer OS X versions.
3. Old slogan "It just works" is very much the epitome of 10.6, I used it over 5 years as my main OS and had 2 kernel panics during that time. Software crashes were very rare, especially when compared to newer OS X versions.
4. Nostalgia might be part of it but I would gladly use 10.6 over any newer OS X version any day of the week! Only reason I upgraded to Mavericks was need for software that did´work in 10.6.

 

[fisherking]

I am fairly certain it has something to do with these points:

1. Very solid and fast by the time last version 10.6.8 was released. In my opinion best OS X version ever released.
2. It had no pointless iOS features unlike newer OS X versions.
3. Old slogan "It just works" is very much the epitome of 10.6, I used it over 5 years as my main OS and had 2 kernel panics during that time. Software crashes were very rare, especially when compared to newer OS X versions.
4. Nostalgia might be part of it but I would gladly use 10.6 over any newer OS X version any day of the week! Only reason I upgraded to Mavericks was need for software that did´work in 10.6.

10.6.8 was a great OS; but i've found a similar joy using mountain lion, and now el capitan. i had no issues in yosemite, for that matter. not sure what the problem is...(and this is a beta), but, overall, 10.11 seems fast, light. stable. useful... all the elements of a good, modern OS...

 

[kissmo]

Just about any Lightroom user would disagree with that I think that Apple's decision for discontinuing Aperture and iPhoto and do a completely new app (Photos) is a good decision. You are correct that Photos still needs some time to mature when it comes to features and layout so yes, the decision might have been a bit too early. That said, we can't deny the problems with both Aperture and iPhoto when it comes to photo management. With all those competitors out there I doubt iPhoto/Aperture would have survived. The plus side: we now have a similar experience for Photos on OS X and iOS. Both Apple and Microsoft are creating a platform, they both do it quite differently. Only time will tell which approach will succeed.

Well Apple WAS more than it IS now also a great APP producer.
FCP X, Aperture, and the whole iLife suite (which has no match) - are a few examples.
I just feel sad that they do not push more on that.
I believe that Photos needs also improvements and they do have a long journey.
Aperture was Sexy! It was the reason that I had my first Hackintosh which drove me to buy a Mac and go fully legit with Macs and OS X

I guess I am being also nostalgic. I will hit the 35 years old point - maybe I am getting old.

Soon I will be screaming: Darn you El Capitan kids! Get off my lawn!...
I hope not though.....

The one that came with your very first Mac of course!

You nailed it! The moment I made the switch I felt it was revolutionary.
I did feel SL was a huge step ahead at that point because it was blazing fast and stable.

 

[dyn]

2. It had no pointless iOS features unlike newer OS X versions.

You mean like the Mac App Store? It just seems half baked compared to what we get on FreeBSD and Linux (an actual package management system that installs and removes software; some Linux distros actually have a store that goes with it).

I'm not sure about those iOS features though. The interface has grown with it and now we can do rather nice stuff with gestures and force touch. With all the touchscreen devices that reversed scrolling now actually starts to feel normal, it didn't back then because we were too much used to the ordinary mouse.

Launchpad is a bit of mixed feelings tbh. You can organise the apps to your liking but it isn't that easy or quick. At least you can now organise the apps without breaking them (or the updater) due to the app not being in the expected (default) location. Wish they would combine the Mac App Store, Launchpad and an app uninstaller to create one universal package management system for installing, managing and deleting apps. As it is now it seems more useless than useful.

Btw, personally I like the Tiger and Leopard days more. It even went up to 10.4.11, after that the amount of updates went down and the amount of updates requiring a reboot of the system increased to a point where it surpassed Windows. Luckily they managed to decrease it again as of 10.7 to a state where we now have to reboot once and only with the rather large updates (point releases like 10.10.5). And at least with 10.4/10.5 there were no problems with colour profiles. They successfully broke it in 10.6 and never managed to fix it in 10.6. IIRC even 10.7 came with the issue. Luckily I no longer have the issue: blue in Terminal is blue instead of purple. No longer do I need iTerm2 just for that. And as of 10.11 Terminal also has the ability to use the mouse inside the shell (you can click the buttons in mc) which you can enable or disable by default and enable/disable in a session whenever you need it. I actually like these small changes much more than the bigger ones. They make the workflow just a little bit easier and that makes all the difference.

 

[CTHarrryH]

The OS on my Apple II was great also, as was the one on my first Macintosh but I'm sure if we wanted to use one of those today for anything real we'd give up in an hour.
People who are technically proficient (or think they are) forget that modern Apple OS's are designed by people who want things to just work. And just work is very different than it was 2 years ago - people's demands are constantly changing which is the reason that software has gotten so complex and hard to write and debut.
Do you think Kim K can even spell Apple/

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

that's probably the most juvenile post i've seen on the macrumors forums in some time; congrats!

No, it is the truth, and it hurts.

 

[fisherking]

No, it is the truth, and it hurts.

am sure your pain will pass...

 

[Surfheart]

The problems with this OS starts with the name. It's terrible. Maybe the next OS will be called El Presidente?

 

[mikecwest]

The one that came with your very first Mac of course!

My very first mac came with something like System Software 5.0.3 or something....No OS-X existed... It looked almost identical to GS-OS...

 

[KALLT]

Revolutionary was OS X when it appeared.

Even OS X wasn’t that revolutionary, it was a lot more orthodox. It was also not made from scratch, much of the innovation happened long before it, the reason why OS X and Linux systems are so much alike. The first major releases were predominantly transitory to bring Mac OS users to OS X while building upon technological changes that brought Mac OS to its knees, ergo Classic applications. OS X was a step that needed to happen with the rapid changes in hardware, including the whole switch from PowerPC to Intel that happened a couple of years after. OS X was a work in progress for many years and Snow Leopard mostly completed that process when the Intel switch was over and transient components were removed. Lion was a new etappe that has been going on as Apple branched out into mobile computing.

The thing about OS X is that Apple seems to do a lot more stuff behind the scenes which it doesn’t disclose until a use case arises or is completed. They used to be a lot more open about that stuff in the past and provided outlooks for the future. They don’t seem to do that anymore, you never really know what Apple is building towards.

 

[JeremyAndHisCat]

You can hold down the Option key when you click on Calibrate and it will give you advanced options. It's strange that they made this change because calibrating a display would be considered advanced anyway. I noticed a lot of people on here judging the OP without taking in consideration of a number of circumstances that may result in one to have these needs. I for one have an old projector without a remote and it's far easier to adjust the display settings via OS X... that way I don't have to stand on my couch and reach on top of my projector where I can't see and fiddle with the settings with buttons that I have to feel for. Anyway, if you don't have an answer, maybe some of you should keep your opinion to yourself? Cheers.

 

[Ritsuka]

Did you try the new calibrate window (from Yosemite or Mavericks)? You can open it from the menu extra icons with two monitors that appears when you connect an external monitor.

 

[BradHatter]

Because it doesn't cause issues like you've highlighted... asking for a switch for app nap is like asking for a switch for Metal or something... it's designed to be an intelligent battery saving feature. The reason people are not aware of it is because it was designed to be transparent to the user and work intelligently to save power; 99% of people will be completely unaware of the core technologies in OS X. As I said, it will not pause a download (or any other active background process), because its smarter than that - it's nothing to be afraid of and any issues you've had to blame on it are almost certainly caused by something else going wrong.

That answer is almost 100% incorrect. The only thing you got right was that App Nap was designed as an energy saving feature. If an application has been developed using one of the Xcode's that's App Nap aware, it can be configured properly, but a lot of people don't do it.

Examples from experience as an ACN member:

1. Customer upgrades from Snow Leopard to Mavericks and starts screaming that their database is "locking up" for no reason.
2. Customer that uses spreadsheets to run fairly lengthy calcs on a database screams that the spreadsheet is locking up for no reason.
3. Customers network connection locks up.

The horrific mistakes you're making is that you're ASSUMING everyone is using standard and basic configurations and applications. GASP!!! Some people actually use Macs to do real work, and often that means non-standard apps and configurations.

The perfect example of this is item 3 above. Has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, someone might be using a service provider or perhaps a specialized VPN connection that interfaces to the network via it's own proprietary software? Has it occurred to you that perhaps, because of Apple's low saturation into the market place that third party upgrading and updating their own applications is a low priority? And how about open source based applications? What's their priority to accommodate App Nap.

Sorry, buddy. ZVH is right. The problem with App Nap is the same problem the OP posted about the non-existent problem with display configuration - namely, no one knows about the modifications. Apple is one of the richest companies in the world and there's no excuse for this sort of thing.

 

[leman]

1. Very solid and fast by the time last version 10.6.8 was released. In my opinion best OS X version ever released.

I have to work with Snow Leopard on daily basis on our legacy internal server. I don't see a single reason to prefer it over Mavericks, Yosemite or 10.11. The standard software was less convenient and the system overall is sluggish.

2. It had no pointless iOS features unlike newer OS X versions.

I have no idea what you mean by this. The only thing that remotely comes to my mind is Launchpad. It doesn't bother me though.

3. Old slogan "It just works" is very much the epitome of 10.6, I used it over 5 years as my main OS and had 2 kernel panics during that time. Software crashes were very rare, especially when compared to newer OS X versions.

I experienced constant crashes with Safari and Mail that were only fixed as of Mavericks. That was across different laptops, fresh installs and routers.

The perfect example of this is item 3 above. Has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, someone might be using a service provider or perhaps a specialized VPN connection that interfaces to the network via it's own proprietary software? Has it occurred to you that perhaps, because of Apple's low saturation into the market place that third party upgrading and updating their own applications is a low priority? And how about open source based applications? What's their priority to accommodate App Nap.

You are technically right, but Apple was always very clear that they expect the developers to catch up. OS X is not a super-stable platform software-wise! And this is by design. New things are introduced constantly. Apps are expected to grow together with the OS. If you need to use legacy (often badly coded) applications — OS X is simply not the right platform for you.

 

[Planey28]

That answer is almost 100% incorrect. The only thing you got right was that App Nap was designed as an energy saving feature. If an application has been developed using one of the Xcode's that's App Nap aware, it can be configured properly, but a lot of people don't do it.

Examples from experience as an ACN member:

1. Customer upgrades from Snow Leopard to Mavericks and starts screaming that their database is "locking up" for no reason.
2. Customer that uses spreadsheets to run fairly lengthy calcs on a database screams that the spreadsheet is locking up for no reason.
3. Customers network connection locks up.

The horrific mistakes you're making is that you're ASSUMING everyone is using standard and basic configurations and applications. GASP!!! Some people actually use Macs to do real work, and often that means non-standard apps and configurations.

The perfect example of this is item 3 above. Has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, someone might be using a service provider or perhaps a specialized VPN connection that interfaces to the network via it's own proprietary software? Has it occurred to you that perhaps, because of Apple's low saturation into the market place that third party upgrading and updating their own applications is a low priority? And how about open source based applications? What's their priority to accommodate App Nap.

Sorry, buddy. ZVH is right. The problem with App Nap is the same problem the OP posted about the non-existent problem with display configuration - namely, no one knows about the modifications. Apple is one of the richest companies in the world and there's no excuse for this sort of thing.

What I said was not "100% incorrect" at all. It WAS designed to be transparent to the user, and it will NOT pause a MAS download. Because you may have experienced issues with it, it does not negate those statements.

Mavericks came out 2 years ago - if a specialised piece of software has still not been updated to work nice with the latest software, it is not Apple's problem - new versions of operating systems always add and remove frameworks. You should be blaming software developers for not taking the time to update their apps. Especially if this is a proprietary piece of software supplied by an ISP.

Besides, app nap CAN be disabled with a terminal command. That's as much as you're going to get, it's there as a hidden option for the 0.000001% of cases like that.

There's an underlying tone of "I do REAL work and NOBODY but me does! If anyone dares to like OS X they are below me and don't do real work." in this thread.

 

[HenryDJP]

I am stating that if Steve would have been alive I am inclined to believe Yosemite and El Cap would have different changes in terms of UI and probably would have had some of the existing ones.

In the end - I still love OS X. I really do!

Why do people always say this silly line about "If Steve had have been alive......"? Sorry, but that's the usual cop out line to put down Tim Cook. Sounds like either you do not know or you and most others conveniently ignore the fiascos Steve put out when he was alive. Let me go down the list:

1) iTools. A very fine system for storage. Such a fine system that Steve felt that it was worth collecting $99/yr from his customers for the same service with zero added features, but changed the name to Dot Mac to make it seem like we were getting more but we weren't. But why stop there Steve? He felt that the name needed to be changed AGAIN so he changed it to Mobile Me. The worlds biggest fiasco in online storage. There were so many problems that essentially never got ironed out while Steve was alive. Then before he stepped down he changed the name once again to iCloud, which also wasn't great.

2) iPhone 4. AntennaGate. A bit blown out of proportion from social media but nonetheless it was oversight in design while Jobs was the CEO, leading him to give bandaids to wrap around customer's phones to avoid drop calls, because the signal dropped without the bandaid.

3) iMac G4 Flat Panel. While it was certainly a revolutionary design it had one major flaw that Steve Jobs never fixed. The screen wobbled and tilted. It was not only widespread but it was the #1 complaint about this machine.

4) While OS X Tiger was the best version of OS X that Steve put out. No software updates needed. It was the first point zero release that worked perfectly out of the box. Then he had to go screw up OS X with Leopard. Then fixed it with Snow Leopard (which still had problems until point 3 release) and after it got solid Steve messed up OS X again with Lion.

I can go on. Because according to you Apple turned out much better products when Steve was alive. I beg to differ.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Why do people always say this silly line about "If Steve had have been alive......"? Sorry, but that's the usual cop out line to put down Tim Cook. Sounds like either you do not know or you and most others conveniently ignore the fiascos Steve put out when he was alive. Let me go down the list:

1) iTools. A very fine system for storage. Such a fine system that Steve felt that it was worth collecting $99/yr from his customers for the same service with zero added features, but changed the name to Dot Mac to make it seem like we were getting more but we weren't. But why stop there Steve? He felt that the name needed to be changed AGAIN so he changed it to Mobile Me. The worlds biggest fiasco in online storage. There were so many problems that essentially never got ironed out while Steve was alive. Then before he stepped down he changed the name once again to iCloud, which also wasn't great.

2) iPhone 4. AntennaGate. A bit blown out of proportion from social media but nonetheless it was oversight in design while Jobs was the CEO, leading him to give bandaids to wrap around customer's phones to avoid drop calls, because the signal dropped without the bandaid.

3) iMac G4 Flat Panel. While it was certainly a revolutionary design it had one major flaw that Steve Jobs never fixed. The screen wobbled and tilted. It was not only widespread but it was the #1 complaint about this machine.

4) While OS X Tiger was the best version of OS X that Steve put out. No software updates needed. It was the first point zero release that worked perfectly out of the box. Then he had to go screw up OS X with Leopard. Then fixed it with Snow Leopard (which still had problems until point 3 release) and after it got solid Steve messed up OS X again with Lion.

I can go on. Because according to you Apple turned out much better products when Steve was alive. I beg to differ.

This is the post of the thread. I, like you could see past the reality distortion field that still seems to affect some people.

Apple was not perfect then, isn't perfect now, it's just people resistant to change.

The release of OS X 10.0 made people severely criticise the OS, not just because of the obvious faults (10.0 was as buggy as hell! and operated at a speed that make running Yosemite with 2GB of RAM look fast, even on the fastest G4 of the day) but because of the user interface change from Platinum to Aqua. People said that the interface was dumbed down...

 

[Ebenezum]

You mean like the Mac App Store? It just seems half baked compared to what we get on FreeBSD and Linux (an actual package management system that installs and removes software; some Linux distros actually have a store that goes with it).

I have no idea what you mean by this. The only thing that remotely comes to my mind is Launchpad. It doesn't bother me though.

Mac App Store, LauncPad, Gestures etc. Basically I couldn't care less about most of things Apple borrowed from iOS. I see no good reason to combine them to desktop operating system. I want Mac to work like a computer, not tablet! I hope Apple gives users option to select what to install on their systems, I have no idea why Apple decided to merge Photos into OS X and it can't´t be removed without Terminal...

I do agree with dyn on App Store, Apple should provide easier way to manage/ remove software.

 

[kissmo]

Why do people always say this silly line about "If Steve had have been alive......"? Sorry, but that's the usual cop out line to put down Tim Cook. Sounds like either you do not know or you and most others conveniently ignore the fiascos Steve put out when he was alive. Let me go down the list:

1) iTools. A very fine system for storage. Such a fine system that Steve felt that it was worth collecting $99/yr from his customers for the same service with zero added features, but changed the name to Dot Mac to make it seem like we were getting more but we weren't. But why stop there Steve? He felt that the name needed to be changed AGAIN so he changed it to Mobile Me. The worlds biggest fiasco in online storage. There were so many problems that essentially never got ironed out while Steve was alive. Then before he stepped down he changed the name once again to iCloud, which also wasn't great.

2) iPhone 4. AntennaGate. A bit blown out of proportion from social media but nonetheless it was oversight in design while Jobs was the CEO, leading him to give bandaids to wrap around customer's phones to avoid drop calls, because the signal dropped without the bandaid.

3) iMac G4 Flat Panel. While it was certainly a revolutionary design it had one major flaw that Steve Jobs never fixed. The screen wobbled and tilted. It was not only widespread but it was the #1 complaint about this machine.

4) While OS X Tiger was the best version of OS X that Steve put out. No software updates needed. It was the first point zero release that worked perfectly out of the box. Then he had to go screw up OS X with Leopard. Then fixed it with Snow Leopard (which still had problems until point 3 release) and after it got solid Steve messed up OS X again with Lion.

I can go on. Because according to you Apple turned out much better products when Steve was alive. I beg to differ.

Friend.
I have not said that under Steve mistakes were not plenty because... there were many!
I am saying that Steve had a different filter on what ends up in the final experience for the customer.
Most of the stuff were not even his ideas - they were the ideas of the people at Apple - most of them are still there.

All I am saying that he was filtering and allowing different things to end up in the final product.
I have the feeling that Yosemite and El Capitan would have had a slight different feel to them under Steve.

I may be wrong but... Death does not gives us a chance to see how things would have been.

I am not crying after Steve.
It's hard to explain ideas when ENG is not your native language...

 

[leman]

Mac App Store, LauncPad, Gestures etc. Basically I couldn't care less about most of things Apple borrowed from iOS. I see no good reason to combine them to desktop operating system.

With all due respect, gestures is one of the best thing that ever happened to desktop operating systems. It (and things like the new pressure sensitive touch) adds a truly useful dimension to computer interaction, unlike nonsense such as touch screens and the like. I don't even want to remember how it was to read PDFs before gestures. Also don't understand what's bad about App Store. Its a very convenient and user-friendly way to purchase and install software. Not to mention a secure one. Certainly beats using dozens of web stores or physical media. It doesn't have an uninstaller because uninstalling applications on OS X is as simple as deleting a file in Finder

 

[dyn]

The only thing you got right was that App Nap was designed as an energy saving feature.

App Nap is not an energy saving feature and never meant to be one; there is no link whatsoever between App Napp and energy at all. App Nap is one of the many features that were meant to improve resource management without requiring any action or input from either the user or the programmer. It allows the OS to better manage the available resources. What it does is free up resources by putting (running) apps you haven't used for a while into a lower state or even close it. This is one of the features that came from iOS which is run on devices with very low resources.

In some cases App Nap has a negative effect. When running simulations you want to do this in the background while you do something else. Unfortunately due to the simulation being in the background it may get less resources appointed to it which means the simulation will take longer. That's why some apps don't use App Nap and why you can disable it (select the app in /Applications, Get Info, "prevent App Nap").

Or in other words: you are no better than the person you are accusing. Both of you have some homework to do!

I want Mac to work like a computer, not tablet!

I wouldn't want it to work like a computer or any other sort of device. What I want is an OS that allows for an efficient workflow suited for that device. In some ways the gestures do just that because I can now do a bit more with the mouse. When you use a tablet from Wacom the added gestures make things a lot easier and quicker to do. You can now easily switch between pen, scroll and zoom modes. Still, you can use the keyboard for these things as well so if you are only typing (or are typing for the most part) then this makes navigating things easier. There is a very good reason why a lot of modern advanced text editors (Atom, Brackets, Visual Studio Code, Sublime Text, etc.) use the very same mode we've come to known from the old and famous advanced text editors vi/ViM and Emacs.

Btw, most of the iOS features can be disabled so it's not that much of a problem either.