Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 11, 2013, 10:15 PM   #1
zephonic
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: LA
Core Rot at Apple

I just found this blog post and it sort of voices a few of my own gripes. Thought I'd post it here so as to get a discussion going and hoping that Apple will somehow take notice.

http://macperformanceguide.com/AppleCoreRot-intro.html

Excerpt:

Quote:

General working theory


All this is not all right, but not all of it is wrong either. There is room for disagreement, but there are general rotten spots at Apple that cannot be denied.

OS X is degrading into a base for an entertainment platform. As it stands, the trend is entirely downhill for serious work (albeit a mild grade so far, but steadily downhill nonetheless).

OS updates are fast and furious— a lot of hype but little of real value and a lot that degrades value, improvements to stability running in reverse, core performance stagnating, followed by a scattershot approach to fixing new bugs introduced in the new haphazard and hurried release that was made to match the next model, not to provide serious deeply considered benefits.

Core operating system quality is declining as resources are diverted to software development in more profitable lines: iPhone, iPad, iHaveNoRealWorkToDo products. Apple forgets its history and leaves it core professional base twisting in the wind.

We begin to tread in dangerous territory: potential data loss in some cases due to haphazard design and apparently no testing in key areas outside a very narrow scope of usage (“who would make any changes to the awesome setup for novices that we Apple Geniuses provide?”).

Developers are forced without recourse (by API changes and Apple Store requirements) into costly and arbitrary updates which themselves carry the risk of new bugs.

Apple, a leader in pro graphics, still has no 10-bit video card drivers. This was an issue 3-4 years ago, but the joke has now worn thin . PC users are laughing at Mac users.

Useful functionality is prohibited in the name of security. No choice— comply or you’re not in the Apple Store and it doesn’t matter if your users demand the features or not.

Outright removal of an API in a minor release. Deprecation with threat of removal of robust long-standing threading APIs with rewrite required. This is a major burden on some developers, a pure cost, and every such change carries the risk of new bugs.

Censorship is the wrong term (censorship applying only to the state against its citizens), Apple’s iron hand over what constitutes a “right and proper” application leaves no room for disagreement— Apple is lord and master and final judge on what is “acceptable”, both in design and content.

Hardware for professional use is released in 3-6 year cycles (Mac Pro), or is dropped entirely (XServe and related). My MPG Pro Workstation (based on Mac Pro) gets the job done every day, but I want current chips, not 2.5-year-old performance which is little different from performance 4+ years ago.

The trend to a new breed of “shallow” features: those useful only for beginners and entertainment, coupled with serious bugs or workflow impairments for everyone else. Makeup over pimples.

The general dumbing-down of features in every Apple OS X program. Arbitrary removal of functionality such as keyboard shortcuts, or simply removal of features entirely.

The general trend to introducing stupidly inappropriate iOS-isms into OS X (e.g., Mission Control).

The OS X donkey cart is getting loaded with ribbons and flyers and decorations and marching band, but getting real work done is getting harder due to having to work around “improvements”.

So-called OS X “upgrades” now consist largely of ill-conceived dilettante eye-candy features that reduce usability, clutter the user interface and introduce scads of new bugs. No true upgrades have occurred for at least two major releases.

The real talent at Apple has probably been diverted away from OS X to iP* development, leaving incompetent and truly reckless programmers working on areas they have no business touching.

Existence proofs

As of early 2013.


iTunes — a nightmarish kitchen sink design cluttered with dozens of tabs and modes and animations and clutter, all mixing highly variant purposes Fortunately, Walter Mossberg likes it (but it’s time for him to hang up his jockstrap).

iCloud — a organization-destroying bug-ridden unreliable disaster.

OS X Finder — damages the system, can’t copy files reliably, can’t do useful things it ought to do at all, hides key files, rife with bugs.

iPhoto — arbitrary removal of keyboard shortcuts and similar made a slightly useful program into a useless toy.

Aperture — so full of display bugs on dual-display systems as to be unusable.

Time Machine — auto-excludes critical data from backup, silently.

Disk Utility — under some conditions, destroys arbitrary numbers of volumes, no real upgrade for years, took two minor releases to fix RAID support.

File system — continued use of HFS Plus instead of robust ZFS.

That’s just for starters, OS X Lion had its share of hairballs, many of which still exist.
__________________
"the irony of the information age is that is has given new respectability to uninformed opinion." - John Lawton
zephonic is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 12:19 AM   #2
Mr. Retrofire
macrumors 601
 
Mr. Retrofire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: www.emiliana.cl
Quote:
Originally Posted by zephonic View Post
I just found this blog post and it sort of voices a few of my own gripes. Thought I'd post it here so as to get a discussion going and hoping that Apple will somehow take notice.
Apple does not go to user2user forums and looks for possible problems. If you find a bug, report it here:
http://www.apple.com/feedback/macosx.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by zephonic View Post
This is more or less, unfounded nonsense.

Here are a few examples:
Quote:
Originally Posted by macperformanceguide.com
OS X is degrading into a base for an entertainment platform. As it stands, the trend is entirely downhill for serious work (albeit a mild grade so far, but steadily downhill nonetheless).
You can still do all the serious work on Macs. And btw, It is not the fault of the manufacturer, if the customer uses the wrong tool for the wrong task.

Quote:
Originally Posted by macperformanceguide.com
Developers are forced without recourse (by API changes and Apple Store requirements) into costly and arbitrary updates which themselves carry the risk of new bugs.
APIs on the OS-level change from time to time. The other choice is: No new APIs, no new functions, no development of the platform. All large software developers and a lot of small software developers (see MAS), have no big problem with the API changes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by macperformanceguide.com
Apple, a leader in pro graphics, still has no 10-bit video card drivers. This was an issue 3-4 years ago, but the joke has now worn thin . PC users are laughing at Mac users.
Apple is NOT “a leader in pro graphics”. And btw, only a handful of people need 10-Bit/channel, and have the appropriate equipment (supported displays, for example).

Quote:
Originally Posted by macperformanceguide.com
iTunes — a nightmarish kitchen sink design cluttered with dozens of tabs and modes and animations and clutter, all mixing highly variant purposes Fortunately, Walter Mossberg likes it (but it’s time for him to hang up his jockstrap).
I use iTunes since v1.0, and used SoundJam MP before iTunes. The only thing which is buggy in the current version (and previous versions) is the MP3 encoder. The GUI is much better, than in previous versions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by macperformanceguide.com
iCloud — a organization-destroying bug-ridden unreliable disaster.
No one forces you to use iCloud. Use the countless alternatives, if you really must use cloud-based services. The world works also without cloud-based services.

Quote:
Originally Posted by macperformanceguide.com
OS X Finder — damages the system, can’t copy files reliably, can’t do useful things it ought to do at all, hides key files, rife with bugs.
It is unlikely, that the Finder damages a system, because he runs with the access privileges of the current user. In many cases it is a hardware issue (cable problem, SATA problem), if a user can not copy files reliably.

Quote:
Originally Posted by macperformanceguide.com
iPhoto — arbitrary removal of keyboard shortcuts and similar made a slightly useful program into a useless toy.
iPhoto is a tool for non-pro users. That is not new.

Quote:
Originally Posted by macperformanceguide.com
Aperture — so full of display bugs on dual-display systems as to be unusable.
Use Adobe Lightroom! :-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by macperformanceguide.com
Time Machine — auto-excludes critical data from backup, silently.
Such as!? Time Machine should not be your only backup solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by macperformanceguide.com
File system — continued use of HFS Plus instead of robust ZFS.
ZFS is robust on the Mac platform!?
__________________

“Only the dead have seen the end of the war.”
-- Plato --
Mr. Retrofire is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 01:01 PM   #3
freejazz-man
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2010
ZFS issues had to do with licensing from Sun/Oracle, in that that's why we can't have it. ZFS is a way better filesystem than HFS+, even if the current OSX implementation isn't fantastic. His complaint is valid because apple isn't advancing it's filesystem like it can be.

I'd have to think you must live on another planet if you don't see where the OP is at least coming from.

As a professional working with macs, apple isn't doing me too many favors by rapidly releasing OS upgrades that provide very little in the way of features, but kill software compatibility and arbitrarily restricts older hardware. Want to run server 10.7? Too bad!!

Your line-by-line quoting is a bit much. It's kinda hard to respond to as I don't want to get myopically out of context, but you kinda prove his point with many of your responses. "Use a different tool?" - well, none of them integrate with OSX well because apple didn't release a useable API for 3rd party developers. Nothing integrates with OSX the way iCloud does and everything else requires a bit of manual labor - there is no comparable other product.

Time machine shouldn't be your only backup solution? Ok - what does Apple recommend? I'm sorry guy, but you are kinda full of it
freejazz-man is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 03:11 PM   #4
freejazz-man
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2010
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...ia-and-hp.aspx

Red giving up on Apple
freejazz-man is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 05:12 PM   #5
Mr. Retrofire
macrumors 601
 
Mr. Retrofire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: www.emiliana.cl
Quote:
Originally Posted by freejazz-man View Post
No real loss, because brightsideofnews.com lied:
Quote:
Originally Posted by brightsideofnews.com
While Apple is a powerhouse in eyes of consumers, the company decided to give a silent treatment to its core audience, designers and content creators.
Designers and content creators are not the core audience of Apple. Proof:




----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace View Post
There was more to it than licensing.
Yeah. ZFS or other “new” file systems require updates for the EFI, the kernel and other OS parts. Not likely.
__________________

“Only the dead have seen the end of the war.”
-- Plato --
Mr. Retrofire is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 05:12 PM   #6
freejazz-man
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2010
you seem to be missing the point

you know... it used to be called Apple Computers, right?

I don't think measuring the amount of iPhones they sell does anything but prove the point the OP was trying to make.

And yeah, no duh you'd have to update the kernel to handle a new filesystem - that's what OS upgrades used to have, changes to the kernel. That's the point. Apple isn't willing to do anything that isn't rolling out a new product, limiting access to an older one, or arbitrarily changing a GUI.

I work in the photography and printing industry and these guys have been using Macs since day one. These are the people that are complaining about not receiving the kind of support, or attention, from apple that they used to. Clearly Apple has moved onto other things. That's the exact point of the OP.

What don't you get?

Last edited by freejazz-man; Feb 12, 2013 at 05:20 PM.
freejazz-man is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2013, 02:01 AM   #7
jameslmoser
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire View Post
Designers and content creators are not the core audience of Apple.
Without content creators (at least developers) iPhones and iPads wouldn't be very useful. And the iPhone would be no where near as much revenue for them if it wasn't subsidized by the phone companies.

I wonder how many professionals are waiting for a REAL update to the Pro before upgrading. Also, I know a number of Mac fans that won't give up Snow Leopard, and have to this day put off buying another Mac. They used to upgrade regularly. Snow Leopard seems to still be the favorite OS Apple has released to date.

Eventually iPads will reach market saturation. That 10% CPU Sales is going to grow. It might not ever be like it was, but I think there are a number of things Apple is doing (or not doing) to itself thats preventing that number from growing. You can't even create an iPhone or iPad app without a Mac right now. It would be a shame if Apple neglected the Mac platform for too long, as it will affect their iPad and iPhone business eventually.
jameslmoser is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2013, 05:15 PM   #8
MattInOz
macrumors 68030
 
MattInOz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire View Post
Designers and content creators are not the core audience of Apple. Proof:
You know the content creators that not only buy a substantial proportion of the iPad,iPhone and Mac Sales. Are the ones buying Apple creation software in other. But are one producing the content that then move not just more iPads, iPhones, iPods that make up the bulk of the revenue, but the 7% iTunes is what Apples split of the 30/70 for sales of the content produced.

That makes Designers and content creators look pretty important. Ok sure more as a supplier group than customers. So yeah not "core audience", but as a strong attractor to that "core audience".
__________________
There is no such thing as "Collective Wisdom"
[ iPhone 5s, iPad Mini, 13" MacBookPro 2.7Ghz, 27"Al iMac i7, Black MacBook 13"]
MattInOz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2013, 03:07 PM   #9
rhett7660
macrumors 604
 
rhett7660's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sunny, Southern California
Quote:
Originally Posted by freejazz-man View Post
Read the article and then read some of the comments from other readers. Seems the author is being called out on his article and there are links that prove he is wrong about RED ditching Apple. Very interesting to say the least.
__________________
"It's quite an experience to hold the hand of someone as they move from living to dead."
"Times are looking grim these days, holding on to everything, it's hard to draw the line"
rhett7660 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 03:15 PM   #10
Peace
macrumors P6
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Space--The ONLY Frontier
Quote:
Originally Posted by freejazz-man View Post
ZFS issues had to do with licensing from Sun/Oracle, in that that's why we can't have it. ZFS is a way better filesystem than HFS+, even if the current OSX implementation isn't fantastic. His complaint is valid because apple isn't advancing it's filesystem like it can be.

I'd have to think you must live on another planet if you don't see where the OP is at least coming from.

As a professional working with macs, apple isn't doing me too many favors by rapidly releasing OS upgrades that provide very little in the way of features, but kill software compatibility and arbitrarily restricts older hardware. Want to run server 10.7? Too bad!!

Your line-by-line quoting is a bit much. It's kinda hard to respond to as I don't want to get myopically out of context, but you kinda prove his point with many of your responses. "Use a different tool?" - well, none of them integrate with OSX well because apple didn't release a useable API for 3rd party developers. Nothing integrates with OSX the way iCloud does and everything else requires a bit of manual labor - there is no comparable other product.

Time machine shouldn't be your only backup solution? Ok - what does Apple recommend? I'm sorry guy, but you are kinda full of it
ZFS wasn't just about licensing. I know because I tested it for almost a year.

There was more to it than licensing.
Peace is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 03:53 PM   #11
freejazz-man
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2010
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2009/10...ensing-issues/

the licensing issues are what prevented apple from continuing development on the project - obviously there were issues

unless... are you referring to secret rumors I haven't heard? Do tell!
freejazz-man is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2013, 08:45 AM   #12
Irishman
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by freejazz-man View Post
ZFS issues had to do with licensing from Sun/Oracle, in that that's why we can't have it. ZFS is a way better filesystem than HFS+, even if the current OSX implementation isn't fantastic. His complaint is valid because apple isn't advancing it's filesystem like it can be.

I'd have to think you must live on another planet if you don't see where the OP is at least coming from.
Well, hang on. Let's talk about this a little more in-depth.

What happens if Apple changes their file system from HFS+ to ZFS? What does that do to backwards compatibility? What does that do to third party utilities? How big of a change is it?

Secondly, what are the potential performance gains by making the change?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by freejazz-man View Post
And yeah, no duh you'd have to update the kernel to handle a new filesystem - that's what OS upgrades used to have, changes to the kernel. That's the point. Apple isn't willing to do anything that isn't rolling out a new product, limiting access to an older one, or arbitrarily changing a GUI.

What don't you get?
So, what file system changes have happened to Darwin apart from that used by Apple since 2000? Is it using ZFS?
Irishman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 09:49 AM   #13
freejazz-man
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
Well, hang on. Let's talk about this a little more in-depth.

What happens if Apple changes their file system from HFS+ to ZFS? What does that do to backwards compatibility? What does that do to third party utilities? How big of a change is it?

Secondly, what are the potential performance gains by making the change?

----------



So, what file system changes have happened to Darwin apart from that used by Apple since 2000? Is it using ZFS?
Is there a reason why an operating can't use more than one filesystem? OSX supports HFS, HFS+, fat16, fat32, and many more with fuse (NTFS, ext3/4). So I fail to see your point.

If you don't know what ZFS is look it up, there are a number of advantages to using a next generation filesystem.

Not changing the filesystem since 1998 is my exact point, thanks.
freejazz-man is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 10:31 AM   #14
Irishman
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by freejazz-man View Post
Is there a reason why an operating can't use more than one filesystem? OSX supports HFS, HFS+, fat16, fat32, and many more with fuse (NTFS, ext3/4). So I fail to see your point.

If you don't know what ZFS is look it up, there are a number of advantages to using a next generation filesystem.

Not changing the filesystem since 1998 is my exact point, thanks.
Hey, I'm not trying to bait you or be disrespectful, as I wouldn't know one file system from another.

So, when I ask those questions, I'm sincere in my ignorance of the answers.
Irishman is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 06:18 PM   #15
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by freejazz-man View Post
If you don't know what ZFS is look it up, there are a number of advantages to using a next generation filesystem.
There are significant advantages in using a proven, reliable file system, designed with the requirements of the end user in mind. It's very easy to read about all the advantages of the next great thing; but only as long as you are not the one who needs to implement it, who needs to make it absolutely bullet proof, and who needs to make sure that all the existing software works.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
Secondly, what are the potential performance gains by making the change?
I'd ask: What is the cost? Development time by Apple, development time by third party developers, and cost of data loss when things go wrong? What is the upside? How many Macs will Apple sell more because of ZFS? My estimate is: Close to zero.
gnasher729 is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Digiloyd - Apple Core Rot egis Digital Photography 3 Feb 1, 2013 04:50 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:17 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC