Core Rot at Apple

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by zephonic, Feb 11, 2013.

  1. macrumors 6502a


    Feb 7, 2011
    South Bay, Los Angeles
    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.


  2. macrumors 601

    Mr. Retrofire

    Mar 2, 2010
    Apple does not go to user2user forums and looks for possible problems. If you find a bug, report it here:

    This is more or less, unfounded nonsense.

    Here are a few examples:
    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.

    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.

    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).

    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.

    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.

    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.

    iPhoto is a tool for non-pro users. That is not new.

    Use Adobe Lightroom! :)

    Such as!? Time Machine should not be your only backup solution.

    ZFS is robust on the Mac platform!?
  3. macrumors regular

    May 12, 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
  4. macrumors regular

    May 12, 2010
  5. macrumors P6


    Apr 1, 2005
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    ZFS wasn't just about licensing. I know because I tested it for almost a year.

    There was more to it than licensing.
  6. macrumors regular

    May 12, 2010
  7. macrumors 601

    Mr. Retrofire

    Mar 2, 2010
    No real loss, because lied:
    Designers and content creators are not the core audience of Apple. Proof:



    Yeah. ZFS or other “new” file systems require updates for the EFI, the kernel and other OS parts. Not likely.
  8. freejazz-man, Feb 12, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2013

    macrumors regular

    May 12, 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?
  9. r0k
    macrumors 68040


    Mar 3, 2008
    I can't blame any company for following the money. There are a lot of historical examples of companies that were loyal to their little itty bitty niche markets and went down when others came along and outdid them.

    Apple is part of that history. Palm buried the Apple Newton then sat on its laurels while RIM and Windows Mobile softened Palm up for the knockout punch delivered by... Apple iPhone.

    My most useful computer right now? It's a bit of a toss up between my iPhone and my iPad mini. The best camera in the world is the one you have with you. The same is true for computers. I'd love to see Apple take better care of its long loyal creative professionals customers but I don't blame Apple for neglecting the source of 10% of their revenue to lavish attention on those users that are providing 83% of their revenue (iPhone + iPad + iTunes Store). That is the way the free market is supposed to work and happily for those of us that want to see Apple succeed, it's working at Apple quite well.
  10. macrumors regular

    May 12, 2010
    Do you think that the concepts are mutually exclusive?

    Apple isn't going to maintain it's outrageous mobile share for very long, and certainly not if they don't provide the other products for the life of the device.

    If you think 10% of Apple's revenue is insignificant, then I don't know what to say
  11. macrumors 68020

    Nov 2, 2006
    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?
  12. macrumors 6502

    Sep 18, 2011
    Las Vegas, NV
    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.
  13. macrumors 68020

    Jun 15, 2012
    I'm pleased to see Apple bringing in these new initiatives like CoreRot™, CoreStorage, CoreAudio and other APIs. They really help programmers write exciting new code for innovative products.
  14. macrumors 68030


    Jan 19, 2006
    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".
  15. macrumors regular

    May 12, 2010
    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.
  16. macrumors 68020

    Nov 2, 2006
    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.
  17. macrumors 68000

    Oct 17, 2011
    Yet all current video/audio pros use Mac Pros or high end iMacs. They laugh at PCs.
  18. macrumors 603


    Aug 5, 2010
    A lot of that in the past has taken place on Linux, so I'm not sure about laughing at PCs. Some 3d apps aren't even made for OSX.
  19. macrumors G5


    Nov 25, 2005
    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.

    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.
  20. macrumors 604


    Jan 26, 2008
    Isla Nublar
    What a poorly written article. The author I doubt has even ever used a Mac.
  21. macrumors newbie

    Jan 20, 2011
    What a dumb article... Obviously the easiest measure to see whether Apple is heading in the right direction is to ask yourself "Who is making the money?".

    As for the criticisms that Apple has dropped it's professional market, there is definitely a bit of dumbing down going on, for sure, but 10-15 years ago the video production market was very different... The equipment needed to shoot, import, edit and produce a professional looking final product was much more complex and expensive then which meant that Apple made tools that were available for the limited market that could afford it (and consequently, because the size of the market was smaller, they charged a lot more for it to cover their R&D costs).

    Today, people are happy with the concept of "video for the masses"... Today, the cost of equipment required to produce something of even a slightly professional looking result costs many many times less than it did 10 years ago. As a result, more people are getting into the game and can do so only because vendors like Apple have dumbed it down enough so that even people with only moderate skills can produce something that at least looks reasonably presentable. There is nothing wrong with this and Apple is simply filling a market of which there is huge demand. In fact if anything, the market for that ultra-high-end solution that Apple traditionally had is declining and is best left to specialist companies... Why? Because today, Apple is a brand for the masses, not a brand for the niche like it used to be.
  22. macrumors 601


    Jul 3, 2011
    This is a poor compass for direction.
  23. freejazz-man, Feb 19, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2013

    macrumors regular

    May 12, 2010
    Right - and we don't have ZFS because of a licensing issue - so figure that out for yourself

    Apple had ZFS developers, they contributed code to the open source project. They couldn't secure a deal with sun/oracle to include it in OSX, in the end.

    You guys clearly don't even know what you are talking about if you think that ZFS would be incredibly difficult to implement in an OS. It isn't. It runs on production servers all over the world (which have much more stringent requirements for 'costly' data loss, and everything else you've mentioned). ZFS does what timemachine does except in much less time and with much less storage requirements. This is exactly what apple had in mind when they first tried to get ZFS in OSX. So I don't think the idea that it would or wouldn't sell more computers is irrelevant when they ended up with a less advanced solution to the same problem simply due to corporate license judo.

    Is there a place to have this discussion without people chiming in about how their iPods are great so therefore Apple (formerly computers), is doing well? I'd love to debate this, but it's kinda worthless if people are going to make nonsense points like "changes to the OS cost time and money" and "buuuut the iPhone sells reaaally well". None of that touches on the premise in the article which is that that's the problem.

    Of course changes to the OS cost time and money - that's why they charge you for 10.8. That's why it takes time to come out. The point is that these OS updates have been coming out more and more often with fewer updates to anything that isn't some sort of skeuomorphism or other graphical frill.
  24. macrumors G3


    Jan 9, 2008
    Sunny, Southern California
  25. macrumors 68020

    Nov 2, 2006
    In this case? Please explain how.


    Why does ZFS matter?

Share This Page