Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I disagree with most of this. Microsoft famously had a lot of bugs, but they spent years untangling the OS, and now it's rock solid. You may disagree with their design choices and shoehorning AI everywhere, but the fact is that they can without it disrupting core OS stability or requiring a re-branding of version numbers or moving to a tick-tock release cadence.

Apple needs to untangle their mess. It doesn't matter if it's a paid upgrade or not. Someone at the top is more concerned with yearly feature releases than stability and it shows. Period. End of topic. They need to prioritize stability. Once they do that, there will be fewer death by 1000 papercuts.


Actually I think it's worse; the Apple Silicon is really really ridiculously fast. So fast that tasks that could take 8+ minutes on an Intel i7, were taking under 30 seconds on the M1. The M5 is about 50% faster than that, or 15 seconds.

That also means developers are no longer concerned about optimization. When you're encouraged to move fast and not worry about speed, it encourages devs to do things because they work, not because it's deliberate. All of these non-deliberate choices add up to rot.
Windows Rock solid? Something as simple as Microphones regularly failing to work, connecting to multiple monitors or an office conference room system - problems, problems, problems. Midday updates? Bloatware and ads, the most vulnerable system to hacks, viruses and randsomeware? ASIO drivers are a disaster, still after decades issues with Graphics card drivers working correctly with certain games/configurations. If you do anything more than check email, browse the web - Windows fails in many areas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BKDad and schnaps
So I’ve read through a lot of this thread. Nowwhere is anyone specific about the software they are complaining about. If it's the OS, even 25 years ago I never bought into the new system until it was on the .6 derivative.

I don’t have any software that doesn’t work. Please be specific. I started with an apple II. I’m currently using a Macbook Pro M4Max 48gb.
People have made hundreds of comments and posts about Apple's software when it isn't working right. This isn't the thread for that. People have generally come to accept the reality that Apple's software quality has declined. If you're interested in finding out why, go back to those many posts. Read blogs by Michael Tsai and others. It's not hard to find that information

This thread isn't about the what, it's about the why. Trying to figure out why things have gotten this bad
 
How does referring to the version that is presented and released in 2025 as "macOS 26" simplify things?
Wild take. Just because it’s not perfect you’re going to say that it’s no better than “unique case per platform based on god knows what”?

What’s up with this attitude of “if it’s not perfect, it’s no good at all”? I feel like it’s a very American thing to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G5isAlive
Wild take. Just because it’s not perfect you’re going to say that it’s no better than “unique case per platform based on god knows what”?
Incrementing the major version number for every major version felt natural to me.
What’s up with this attitude of “if it’s not perfect, it’s no good at all”? I feel like it’s a very American thing to do.
I'm not American. Using next year's number for this year's release feels very American.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maxoakland
Incrementing the major version number for every major version felt natural to me.

I'm not American. Using next year's number for this year's release feels very American.
Natural, perhaps, but “simpler”? Can you from the top of your head recall the version numbers of macOS, tvOS, visionOS and watchOS for a given year before 2025?

Maybe it’s just an English-language-internet thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G5isAlive
Natural, perhaps, but “simpler”? Can you from the top of your head recall the version numbers of macOS, tvOS, visionOS and watchOS for a given year before 2025?
I really liked Snow Leopard! For anything not the Mac I don't really care. Perhaps it's more of a problem if you do need to reference old versions more frequently.
 
Natural, perhaps, but “simpler”? Can you from the top of your head recall the version numbers of macOS, tvOS, visionOS and watchOS for a given year before 2025?
Why would we need to? I can recall that iOS 7 came with a huge UI refresh for example. I don't care too much about which year it came out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BillyJoeJimBob
That is also the power button. Just use a finger that isn't set up for Touch ID and hold it there till the Mac turns off. Aside from that, touch Id is rather helpful imo

well, I don't use touch ID, and not only is the button useless without it, but you can turn off your machine any way you like, and it will start up by hitting any key, so wtf.
 
Incrementing the major version number for every major version felt natural to me.

I'm not American. Using next year's number for this year's release feels very American.

There are a million products out now, all with different version numbers tied to them. I, personally, love the trend of moving to year numbers rather than version numbers. I don't care which version I'm using of any given product, but I do care about how old it is when I purchase or use it. It also unifies software and product numbers. I wish the current iphone was the 26 lineup instead of the 17. AW is a good example. The AWU2 is launched along side the AW11 and the iphone 17. Doesn't that just muddy the water?

As for "next year's number", this is a pretty common practice. It helps marketing, especially during the majority of the year that product exists in the "next year" (macOS 26 came out in mid September, so after just 4 months it might feel dated if it were named '25').
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bungaree.Chubbins
To extend my point a bit, here are some current apple products:

Apple Watch Ultra 3
Apple Watch Series 11
Apple iphone 17
Apple airpods 4
Apple airpods pro 3
 
As for "next year's number", this is a pretty common practice. It helps marketing, especially during the majority of the year that product exists in the "next year" (macOS 26 came out in mid September, so after just 4 months it might feel dated if it were named '25').
Counterpoint, we have had "MacBook Air (Late 2020)" and similar for the Mac for a while now...
 
Counterpoint, we have had "MacBook Air (Late 2020)" and similar for the Mac for a while now...
But that's not anything official. There were two macbooks released in 2020, so the media and consumers took to calling them the "late" and "early" 2020 models. And I think the official names do include '2020' somehow, but that's not included at all in marketing or labeling from Apple. It's definitely a little bit different.
 
But that's not anything official. There were two macbooks released in 2020, so the media and consumers took to calling them the "late" and "early" 2020 models. And I think the official names do include '2020' somehow, but that's not included at all in marketing or labeling from Apple. It's definitely a little bit different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacCheetah3
I'll chip in here. I have a fairly large and long amount of experience on software team management on quite large products. I get told this a lot. But really the software quality is not declining at all. It's far better than it ever has been.

There are a few other compounding problems that make people's perception worse. Those are roughly:

1. The product is finished. There isn't a lot more you can do apart from change the UI a bit. A layer of turd polish like Liquid Ass is exactly what people do when they have run out of ideas. That makes you hypersensitive to the existing bugs they haven't fixed because they are really jarring when things are moved around.

2. Fixing bugs is hard. So really big ones rot in the queue for years. No one wants to fix them when you can do some new shiny thing like change the UI. This is a kick in the balls for the end user.

3. It's really hard to get engineers who can actually fix stuff these days. The population hasn't grown that much and quite frankly most people you can't just train to be decent software engineers. We don't have many more decent people on the market than we did 20 years ago but the number of products on the market they are spread across got bigger. When stuff does go wrong it takes forever to fix it.
Interesting points about fixing flaws. I worked at an aerospace company for a few years that had large one-of-a-kind systems engineering and integration projects for organizations like NASA. These systems had to work right. They had a seperate career path for folks who did testing. Interestingly, they often progressed to be the best project managers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cjsuk
Interesting points about fixing flaws. I worked at an aerospace company for a few years that had large one-of-a-kind systems engineering and integration projects for organizations like NASA. These systems had to work right. They had a seperate career path for folks who did testing. Interestingly, they often progressed to be the best project managers.

That was my background as well. I wish commercial/consumer software engineering learned something from that industry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BillyJoeJimBob
The problem is that doing things properly like that makes it hard to compete with the prevailing IT culture of 'ship it as soon as it looks sorta close enough, the users will find the bugs'. The mission critical level of development and testing is expensive.

That's not going to stop me dreaming about it though...
 
3. It's really hard to get engineers who can actually fix stuff these days. The population hasn't grown that much and quite frankly most people you can't just train to be decent software engineers. We don't have many more decent people on the market than we did 20 years ago but the number of products on the market they are spread across got bigger. When stuff does go wrong it takes forever to fix it.
What's the best way to show this off. I'm better at fixing existing stuff than greenfield development, but I have no idea how to explain that on a resume.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BKDad
[...] As for "next year's number", this is a pretty common practice. It helps marketing, especially during the majority of the year that product exists in the "next year" (macOS 26 came out in mid September, so after just 4 months it might feel dated if it were named '25').
FWIW, regardless of how it might feel to you, it really is only common practice in the US (and Canada).
 
  • Like
Reactions: SalisburySam
FWIW, regardless of how it might feel to you, it really is only common practice in the US (and Canada).
I can believe that. USA is the king of capitalism and marketing and trying to get every red cent possible out of consumers. I'm sure some study in 1945 showed that people found it more desirable to have a car identified with a future year rather than a current year and the practice stuck.

I know this is a common practice with video games too. I assume games are branded and marketed the same internationally. Isn't the current EA soccer game known as EA FC 26 everywhere?
 
So I’ve read through a lot of this thread. Nowwhere is anyone specific about the software they are complaining about. If it's the OS, even 25 years ago I never bought into the new system until it was on the .6 derivative.

I don’t have any software that doesn’t work. Please be specific. I started with an apple II. I’m currently using a Macbook Pro M4Max 48gb.
Stability isn't the sole attribute of quality (e.g. consistency, usability, utility, interoperability, to name a few). Where the software and experience are losing their edge is, metaphorically, at the edges.

For whatever reason, I became self aware to—in my opinion—a lacking of attention to these attributes throughout my Apple experience four years ago or so. And quite honestly, the list of examples I encountered unwittingly started to become so big that to sit down and document them all would be a waste of time. I've thought about starting that list 100 times, every time I re-encountered an old inconsistency that I had been experiencing for who knows how long. And for what? As a single user, raising a concern about edge cases will have little impact.

But in service of your prompt for discussion, here are just a couple from a mental list that has gotten a new entry every week or two for the last four years:
  1. Opening your list of Hide My Email addresses in iCloud settings is painfully sluggish on any Apple device.
  2. Finder's side-scrolling Columns view does not persist "autofit" of column widths for each level in folder hierarchy.
  3. Clicking any OS-native menu bar provides a link to its respective settings pane, but not for Clock.
  4. Safari not supporting multi-select of open tabs for drag/drop management until 10+ years after Google Chrome.
  5. The intuitiveness of iOS home screen app icon arrangement: still wonky in the "widget" era.
    • Example: How auto-arrange will work for other app icons in light of you trying to position a specific icon is completely unexplainable. Dragging into or out of a folder, or to subsequent home screen pages sucks.
  6. MacOS window position persistence when transitioning between single and multiple-display environments.
  7. Siri. Full stop.
There's seven I could remember after thinking on this for 30 minutes. Consider for a moment that it took recognition of a pattern on my part, at the beginning of those four years, to even conceive of the possibility of a decline. There are probably 50 more I can't think of right now that have existed since years prior.

The best and most mainstream example, is one where the company put business before its users: iMessages. Whether or not one fancies the elitism fostered by blue text bubbles and the respective rich interactions supported by iMessages (before RCS), remember who Apple hurt most by refusing interoperability with Android or by slow-tracking SMS-fallback improvements: Apple users.

And this pattern is not just in software.

In fact, I remember the first Macbook I got with a TouchID button. While logged in almost right out of the box, I intuitively depressed it thinking it would lock the screen. Even though it had a physical detent action, it didn't lock the screen. It would be a several years before that got that worked out.
  • How about the inability to use your own iPad as a true external display? What does Apple truly gain by introducing latency in the Sidecar implementation, over supporting direct cabled hardware input to an iPad? This would make iPad's attractive to not just Mac users. I wanted to get onboard with Sidecar, but it was never reliable for me.
  • There was a time I remember non-creative organizations standardizing on Apple Intel hardware—to run Windows by default—because it was the hands-down most well-engineered and reliable hardware. What does Apple have to lose by preventing alternative OSes being installed on its devices? Easy: unit sales. And the opportunity to have an Apple logo staring into the eyes of a bunch of Linux users from their desktops. Or in the corporate offices at Microsoft HQ. Granted, this verges more on the side of "strategic" quality and consistency in a protectionist scheme, but even business decisions can be seen as low quality "design" decisions or ignorance.
Anyway. While I don't see Apple as a $h¡tsh0w (I still think it has the best experience), the ecosystem of software and hardware has begun to expose its cracks.

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
I've experienced issues with the following areas. Unless otherwise noted, this is on the latest iOS/macOS version. Siri, Airdrop on nearly unusable on iOS 16 and iOS 17, Siri, Homepod Mini wifi, Siri, Re-arranging icons, Siri, Time Machine backup, Siri, the Wifi menu, Siri, the login screen, Siri, resizing windows on iPadOS, Siri

And Siri.

I'm pretty sure my favorite Siri bug is asking Siri to find my phone. "I'm sorry, you'll need to unlock your phone to do that"!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Lioness~
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.