Has Apple Silicon made you reconsider the Mac platform?

[thunng8]

Why does someone have to have an "agenda" to theorise whether or not Apple will change course on macOS (or anything for that matter)? If @maflynn hated Apple so much, I don't think he'd be a Mod on MacRumors.

Look, I've been an Apple customer for over 25 years and I've been burned by them many, many times. Switching from PowerPC to Intel (when I'd just bought a G5 Mac Pro), killing off Aperture, gutting the iWork suite, the appalling butterfly keyboards, iPad "touch disease". Those are just ones that spring to mind.

Despite that, I'm still a customer as they make better products than the competition for the most part IMO. That doesn't mean I can't question their business practices or future intentions without having an "agenda". It's part of healthy debate. Criticism can be constructive and doesn't mean you "hate Apple" - and if you did, so what? They're an enormous multinational whose only concerns are shareholder profit and self-preservation. Their practices and intent deserve to be scrutinised by their very nature as a profit-making company.

I do agree that there should be a healthy debate, but i do take issue with saying things that are flat out wrong. One of macs os‘ greatest strengths is being a great developer machine - just look at how many people are using macs for data science, medical research, programming for cloud with AWS and Azure, web applications, middleware, backend and of course making Mac OS and iOS applications. Make it locked down will kill most of that in an instant.

Without a great developer community, the Mac will go into a downward spiral IMO. It won’t be any better than iPadOS.

 

[I7guy]

[...]Make it locked down will kill most of that in an instant[...]

Nobody saying as a matter of a fact that it will be locked down, only Apple, in the past, has said one thing and done another (with examples cited).

The point maflynn was making is that its' within the realm of infinite possibility Apple could change direction on the Macs...but probably not a likely occurrence.

 

[grmlin]

I do agree that there should be a healthy debate, but i do take issue with saying things that are flat out wrong. One of macs os‘ greatest strengths is being a great developer machine - just look at how many people are using macs for data science, medical research, programming for cloud with AWS and Azure, web applications, middleware, backend and of course making Mac OS and iOS applications. Make it locked down will kill most of that in an instant.

Without a great developer community, the Mac will go into a downward spiral IMO. It won’t be any better than iPadOS.

I saw so many people leaving Macs over the last years already (including me)... developing in Linux or even in Windows with WSL 2 is the better option for many already. I'm not talking about the OS itself, MacOS is still much nicer than Windows imo. But if you live in a terminal and use stuff like Docker etc. man did I boost my dev environment by switching sides.

 

[mi7chy]

It makes no sense from a development perspective. It's Unix which has a completely different philsophy and macOS is use a lot as a development platform in a lot of companies. With a wide variety of development tools. The ability to write a program quickly and then try it out is part of the history of Unix.

On the contrary, unix is the underlying OS for iOS/iPadOS and it's the most locked down mobile OS. MacOS is also the most locked down desktop OS since, for example, it's the only one that requires login to cloud account just to download Safari browser extensions that others like Windows, Linux, BSDs, ChromeOS, etc. don't. Apple has all the mechanisms in place with T2 chip, device activation, etc. to flip the switch to remove the freedom of side loading apps and force monetizing everyone through app store.

 

[c0ppo]

So you are saying Apple is lying in all those sessions?

Apple also said 3.5" iPhone is ideal size, bigger phone were called phablets and not great for one handed use.
How did that go out for them? Did they blatantly lie in multiple sessions?

Craig Federghini is on record saying it won't happen.

That guy also said that slowing down iPhones is a 'feature' that helps users.

I would trust them more than your "opinion".

I personally don't trust any corporation. And by any, I do mean any.

 

[maflynn]

I personally don't trust any corporation. And by any, I do mean any.

No question, Apple does have a history of saying one thing and then doing another.

They're no worse then any other corporation. Any and all corporations will craft their statements carefully to convey a specific message that is only valid for that specific point in time. Tomorrow, next week, next month, etc, they can and many will change their message as conditions change.

I don't knock apple for doing this, they're free to do what ever they want. I don't trust any multibillion dollar corporation, they do not have my vested interest at heart, but rather they're looking to please their shareholders.

 

[I7guy]

Apple also said 3.5" iPhone is ideal size, bigger phone were called phablets and not great for one handed use.
How did that go out for them? Did they blatantly lie in multiple sessions?

It sometimes signals a shift in the market and companies get smarter. Bigger phones, stylus, tablets etc.

That guy also said that slowing down iPhones is a 'feature' that helps users.

Clearly a slow alive phone is better than a fast dead phone. So a remark like that isn't off base, but I don't think the remark was delivered as described above.

I personally don't trust any corporation. And by any, I do mean any.

I don't know in this context what trust means. Do I trust Apple so that I believe the alerts on my apple watch with respect to the heartbeat it's monitoring? Do I trust Apple when they say they aren't selling my PII? Do I trust Apple not to send my credit card information to the dark web? Do I trust Apple not to send any health related information with personally identifiable information to some insurance related clearinghouse of information? Trust in this context can mean different things to different people.

 

[c0ppo]

It sometimes signals a shift in the market and companies get smarter. Bigger phones, stylus, tablets etc.

Indeed, that's true. So if tomorrow Apple decides it's in their interest to lock down MacOS, they will do so.
Will that make them liars again?

Clearly a slow alive phone is better than a fast dead phone. So a remark like that isn't off base, but I don't think the remark was delivered as described above.

It was clearly a way of Apple to make their customers purchase a new phone. If it was 'saving' their customers, Apple would just notify them that their batteries are dead. And Apple wouldn't be punished by those actions, and they wouldn't change their direction.

Their defense was that they cared about their customers. Now that statement is a pure lie.

I don't know in this context what trust means. Do I trust Apple so that I believe the alerts on my apple watch with respect to the heartbeat it's monitoring? Do I trust Apple when they say they aren't selling my PII? Do I trust Apple not to send my credit card information to the dark web? Do I trust Apple not to send any health related information with personally identifiable information to some insurance related clearinghouse of information? Trust in this context can mean different things to different people.

Read my post again. It's not so hard to understand it

 

[I7guy]

Indeed, that's true. So if tomorrow Apple decides it's in their interest to lock down MacOS, they will do so.
Will that make them liars again?



It was clearly a way of Apple to make their customers purchase a new phone. If it was 'saving' their customers, Apple would just notify them that their batteries are dead. And Apple wouldn't be punished by those actions, and they wouldn't change their direction.

Their defense was that they cared about their customers. Now that statement is a pure lie.



Read my post again. It's not so hard to understand it

I don't think any of this is black and white.

If at the age of 20 you declare you will never get a dog and at the age of 25 you get your first dog...were you a liar? That is equivalent to what you are calling Apple. To me there is a fine line between a direction at the time and changes in the business strategy, which doesn't mean they were lying.

While Apple could have handled some things in the past better, I do not believe in the conspiracy theory of planned obsolescence. If it were ever proven that apple purposefully engaged in that practice it would ruin their reputation to the masses imo.

As far as trust, my comments stand. What really does "trusting a corporation" mean?

 

[c0ppo]

If at the age of 20 you declare you will never get a dog and at the age of 25 you get your first dog...were you a liar? That is equivalent to what you are calling Apple. To me there is a fine line between a direction at the time and changes in the business strategy, which doesn't mean they were lying.

Of course not. That's my whole point. Someone in this thread said Apple claims they won't lock down MacOS.
I said I tend not to believe corporations. I made a few examples where Apple said one thing, and then did the opposite a few years later. My whole point is that things change, and that you shouldn't take anyones word for granted, especially from a big trillion $$$+ company.

While Apple could have handled some things in the past better, I do not believe in the conspiracy theory of planned obsolescence. If it were ever proven that apple purposefully engaged in that practice it would ruin their reputation to the masses imo.

Conspiracy theory? Calling something a conspiracy theory doesn't make the point irrelevant.
Did Apple slow down phones on purpose? Yes
Have they informed their users on why they slowed down their phones? Nope
Has Apple been caught? Yes
Has Apple been fined for slowing down users phones on purpose? YES!
Apple even settled in court.

So please tell me, what's the conspiracy part here?

 

[maflynn]

I do not believe in the conspiracy theory of planned obsolescence. If it were ever proven that apple purposefully engaged in that practice it would ruin their reputation to the masses imo.

I don't think its planned obsolescence in terms that it will fail after 2 years, but rather Apple has made moves to try to reduce what can be repaired and also slow devices down with newer updates

Don't forget the time that Tim Cook told investors that they'd miss the targets because people bought fewer new iPhones because they repaired their old ones

Also As c0ppo mentioned, they ahve purposely slowed down their older phones to perform worse, presumably for consumers to get frustrated and buy new oners.

 

[thunng8]

I don't think its planned obsolescence in terms that it will fail after 2 years, but rather Apple has made moves to try to reduce what can be repaired and also slow devices down with newer updates

Don't forget the time that Tim Cook told investors that they'd miss the targets because people bought fewer new iPhones because they repaired their old ones

Also As c0ppo mentioned, they ahve purposely slowed down their older phones to perform worse, presumably for consumers to get frustrated and buy new oners.

You are purposely leaving out relevant details. Apple should have been much better communicating on what they did and were fined for that, but it was a case of either slowing down the phone or spontaneous shutdown.

my friend had spontaneous shutdown (before they did the patch) and he went and got a new phone because it was a serious issue. IMO spontaneous shutdown would prompt a user to buy a new phone more than slowing down a phone.

 

[CMMChris]

Funny how everyone still fears locked down Macs when Apple just introduced official support for booting unsigned custom kernels on Apple Silicon with macOS 11.2.

 

[c0ppo]

You are purposely leaving out relevant details. Apple should have been much better communicating on what they did and were fined for that, but it was a case of either slowing down the phone or spontaneous shutdown.

That's nice and dandy.
But if Apple wanted to help customers, simple pop-up saying their battery is dying would do. Those customers would replace the battery, and everyone would be happy.

But the harsh reality is - Apple didn't do that.
They slowed down users phones on purpose, and they reversed their decision only when they got caught. They also settled in court.

I simply don't get it. What is it that you guys are defending here? Apple is a trillion dollar company. They cheated and tried to manipulate their customers into purchasing new phones. They got caught. They payed the fines. They reversed their decision.

Now if that isn't an admission of guilt, I simply don't know what is.

 

[thunng8]

Of course not. That's my whole point. Someone in this thread said Apple claims they won't lock down MacOS.
I said I tend not to believe corporations. I made a few examples where Apple said one thing, and then did the opposite a few years later. My whole point is that things change, and that you shouldn't take anyones word for granted, especially from a big trillion $$$+ company.

You can look at what they are doing to get an idea of their direction. They are not doing anything about further locking down the OS. They just opened up unsigned kernels and they are actively helping (providing hardware and engineering resources) alternate ways of installing software on Mac OS eg. homebrew, macports

I am not saying it won't change in the very distant future, but the likelihood is very low. It seems like some people are promoting particularly in this forum that it is a foregone conclusion that this will happen - and most likely happening soon.

That's nice and dandy.
But if Apple wanted to help customers, simple pop-up saying their battery is dying would do. Those customers would replace the battery, and everyone would be happy.

But the harsh reality is - Apple didn't do that.
They slowed down users phones on purpose, and they reversed their decision only when they got caught. They also settled in court.

I simply don't get it. What is it that you guys are defending here? Apple is a trillion dollar company. They cheated and tried to manipulate their customers into purchasing new phones. They got caught. They payed the fines. They reversed their decision.

Now if that isn't an admission of guilt, I simply don't know what is.

I admit they could have handled things much better. But in your situation, if they did a pop-up saying the battery is dying, they would also face a lawsuit on why are their batteries dying so quickly. The root cause was they were clocking their chips too high for the battery to handle.

And there is contrary evidence of Apple always looking at the bottom line e.g. iphone 6s from 2015 is still getting the latest OS updates which is the best in the mobile industry and also for unsupported devices for ios 14, but they are still providing security patches.

 

[I7guy]

Of course not. That's my whole point. Someone in this thread said Apple claims they won't lock down MacOS.
I said I tend not to believe corporations. I made a few examples where Apple said one thing, and then did the opposite a few years later. My whole point is that things change, and that you shouldn't take anyones word for granted, especially from a big trillion $$$+ company.



Conspiracy theory? Calling something a conspiracy theory doesn't make the point irrelevant.
Did Apple slow down phones on purpose? Yes
Have they informed their users on why they slowed down their phones? Nope
Has Apple been caught? Yes
Has Apple been fined for slowing down users phones on purpose? YES!
Apple even settled in court.

So please tell me, what's the conspiracy part here?

I don't think its planned obsolescence in terms that it will fail after 2 years, but rather Apple has made moves to try to reduce what can be repaired and also slow devices down with newer updates

Don't forget the time that Tim Cook told investors that they'd miss the targets because people bought fewer new iPhones because they repaired their old ones

Also As c0ppo mentioned, they ahve purposely slowed down their older phones to perform worse, presumably for consumers to get frustrated and buy new oners.

While, this is a bit off the topic of Apple locking down Macs and do you "trust" Apple, us mere consumers, at least at this point in time, do not know the entirety of the story of the power management.
- The conspiracy theory is apple purposefully slowed down phones to push sales to unsuspecting customers.
- Whether or not they did the above to sell phones we don't know.
- We do know there appeared to be a lack of communication to the stores from HQ. That was deliberate, but why was it deliberate? To sell phones, or to keep quiet and assess the situation so they knew what action to take?
- My guess is Apple knew there would be fallout but they did it this way anyway.
- In my opinion, Apple slowed down phones to stem the tide. My guess is they figured a slow working phone, is better than a dead fast phone. I do not think Apple slowed down phones to sell new phones to suckers.
- Based on the events and how they unfolded, this blew up in Apples' face, but I don't think there was anything nefarious or underhanded afoot.
- I don't contest they slowed down phones purposefully. But I disagree with some of the rational presented in the posts as to the why part of it.

 

[KPOM]

I don't think its planned obsolescence in terms that it will fail after 2 years, but rather Apple has made moves to try to reduce what can be repaired and also slow devices down with newer updates

Don't forget the time that Tim Cook told investors that they'd miss the targets because people bought fewer new iPhones because they repaired their old ones

Also As c0ppo mentioned, they ahve purposely slowed down their older phones to perform worse, presumably for consumers to get frustrated and buy new oners.

However, they don’t appear to be locking down macOS. They have said they wouldn’t do anything to prevent Windows on ARM from running in virtualization and said Microsoft has all the tools needed to make it run. Parallels sure thinks Microsoft will let them license Windows on ARM to its Mac customer base. If Apple were looking to “lock down” macOS they wouldn’t let people virtualize other OSes that most certainly are not “locked.” They even showed off Linux running in virtualization when they announced the move to M1 back in June.

 

[c0ppo]

I am not saying it won't change in the very distant future, but the likelihood is very low.

Now that's a rational way of thinking. (I'm not being sarcastic)
Neither am I claiming they will lock it down. This entire thread all I'm saying is that I won't take Apple word as gospel, and that there is a chance that in future they will lock things down. Will it happen? I don't know, I hope not.

 

[LeeW]

My guess is Apple knew there would be fallout but they did it this way anyway.
- In my opinion, Apple slowed down phones to stem the tide. My guess is they figured a slow working phone, is better than a dead fast phone. I do not think Apple slowed down phones to sell new phones to suckers.

Did Apple Intentionally slow phones? Yes.
Did they tell consumers why? No.

The simple fact is that people discovered their phone was not running as well as it did or could, many did upgrade as a result leading to the sale of new phones. We know this because so many complained at the time and did upgrade as they thought something was wrong.

Apple intentionally deceived consumers by altering their phone, not explaining why. As you say, Apple knew there would be fallout, don't use that as a reason to justify their actions.

Consumers had a right to know that their device, that they paid for had a limitation forcefully applied and it should have been explained why.

 

[I7guy]

Did Apple Intentionally slow phones? Yes.
Did they tell consumers why? No.

The simple fact is that people discovered their phone was not running as well as it did or could, many did upgrade as a result leading to the sale of new phones. We know this because so many complained at the time and did upgrade as they thought something was wrong.

Apple intentionally deceived consumers by altering their phone, not explaining why. As you say, Apple knew there would be fallout, don't use that as a reason to justify their actions.

Consumers had a right to know that their device, that they paid for had a limitation forcefully applied and it should have been explained why.

The why is important. I had an affected phone, the 6s. I honestly couldn’t tell the difference. I read about the battery replacement program and brought the phone into apple for a replacement.

The ulterior motive of how and/or why this happened matters, at least imo.

 

[maflynn]

Apple intentionally deceived consumers

That's the salient point, and no matter how many logical backbends various apple enthusiast do to explain the issue, the fact remains they implemented a change to purposely slowdown devices. Couple that with Tim Cook's statement to investors bemoaning the fact that consumers are repairing over buying shows exactly the mindset of Apple.

We're a bit off the bunny trail, as it stands, Apple's move to ARM has not caused me to reconsider the Mac platform, but I will revisit the state of Macs (if you will) once the MBP hits the streets - I can't see myself replacing my Razer but I won't close the door.

 

[grmlin]

Problem is, that I don’t see How Intel or even AMD can compete with this architecture/platform anytime soon. Having a silent, extremely powerful mobile workstation that runs for a full day at work on battery is amazing. I want that lol

 

[SteveJUAE]

No question, Apple does have a history of saying one thing and then doing another.

They're no worse then any other corporation. Any and all corporations will craft their statements carefully to convey a specific message that is only valid for that specific point in time. Tomorrow, next week, next month, etc, they can and many will change their message as conditions change.

I don't knock apple for doing this, they're free to do what ever they want. I don't trust any multibillion dollar corporation, they do not have my vested interest at heart, but rather they're looking to please their shareholders.

I think if Apple if ever decide on some form of App store lock down it would be more likely in the form of sandboxing or partitioning off non approved apps

Where app store approved apps will reap the full benefits of ECO etc etc and non approved will be poorer siblings

We already know that pro users of pro apps are a tiny subset of owners and the mass of users are amateur's and hobbyist who would be least impacted and probably welcome the change under the banner of security/privacy no doubt

 

[LeeW]

Where app store approved apps will reap the full benefits of ECO etc etc and non approved will be poorer siblings

Indeed, this is the kind of approach I have been suggesting, 'lockdown' in terms of Apple can come in many different forms. They can have a big impact by simply restricting or sandboxing apps that don't give them a cut.

the mass of users are amateur's and hobbyist who would be least impacted and probably welcome the change under the banner of security/privacy no doubt

Absolutely, anything that Apple does, affects the least amount of users.

 

[Motti Shneor]

I'd react to the base question like this: Mac wasn't ever about hardware capabilities, as about the HUMAN capabilities enhanced. There were plenty of years when Intel PC's had much faster CPUs and busses (someone remembers the Motorola 6040 era, with "Quadra" Macs) ? and still a Mac USER would be 10 times faster in accomplishing their tasks than PC users. Now it's getting the other way round. Apple almost completely lost its way with human-interface (and breaks its own rules in pretty much every new release of any of its OS versions). Apple completely retreated from the "Pro" arena, dragging the Mac to be less and less a "Computer", more and more a "Device". Apple focuses on Fashion (not to say SF Gay Fashion) and life-style, and no more on function and production. Not a single productivity app from Apple (or 3rd party) in years and years now. Bugs are just overflowing the Apple ecosystem (After 35 years on this platform, both as user, power-user, supporter, developer, senior developer and development team leader - this is not a personal observation - it is fact). In many areas, lots of functionality has been REMOVED that was much loved and used by users. The MacOS serves more and more Apple business initiatives and cares nothing at all about the Mac users. We are almost forced into upgrading repeatedly the OS and all apps - without any evident useful enhancements. We are forced into authenticating countless times a day, for purposes only Apple knows (I still remember Apple's ad joking about windows repeated authentication schemes). Indeed the M1 is an electronic marvel and leads the hardware market - but the Mac is not only in decline, it is (for me at least) on the verge of un-usable. Everything is broken (from Time-machine, via Finder, Disk-utility, Text-Edit, multilingual support, Calendar, Photos (oh bloody photos) down to the "Windows Server" and "CoreGraphics" OS Frameworks and unix daemons), nothing is performing as expected. Eyes are sore with the terrible and cluttered graphics. UI is buggy and inconsistent. Personally, I would move to another platform 5 years ago already, only I am knowledgable and fluent with the Mac, and not with other OS's and that barrier holds me. Also - I still remember how bad were other OS's when I did use them, to the point I'm afraid to try. If Apple has any lead on computing - it is only the "vapour" of Steve Jobs's ideas that half-exist within the completely broken business called Apple. I guess this is the price for having an accountant leading such a huge organisation. The best people would work like crazy at Apple, and would fight all the time - but there was always someone to decide, and lead the ship. Now what's left is a very superficial "eye-candy" level of decision, without any technological vision. Sorry for the sad note - but I'm afraid these words need be said.