My theories on why Apple's software quality has degraded so much.

[johannnn]

I don’t even think the software quality has degraded. There were TONS of bugs even during the Jobs era.

We sometimes dream back to Snow Leopard. But that was just one release. It was buggy before SL, and it was buggy after SL.

 

[cateye]

The old men yelling at clouds energy is strong here.

Which is not a criticism of anyone here or the premise of the conversation—as a fellow old man, I agree that there are elements to Apple's software stack and approach that reflect resources stretched thin and muddled priorities. The comment earlier than the pace with which Apple Silicon advances forces software development to "keep up" in a way that's proven difficult to sustain is really intelligent, I think. The cycle of "we need to have something new" plays a role as well. But the things were better back in the old days is disingenuous hindsight and doesn't reflect the reality that Apple's audience has evolved and grown ten-thousand fold. They're a very different company now, primarily selling iPhones and services, than they were even 10 years ago when the mix between Macs, iPhones, iPads, and other hardware products was more focused and balanced and the marketplace demanded different outcomes.

Apple continues to sell tens of millions of products successfully. There is no demonstrative swell of unhappiness with the mix of software and hardware. Pining for something that cannot and will not exist again is not reasonable.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

This is a fantastic post and I completely agree. It used to be that real upgrades came with that DVD that you had to buy. Good job @michaelgavriel!

 

[GioGiusi]

I believe Apple should release OS upgrades when they are ready, not once every year. Microsoft does it occasionally, and it takes years for a new OS to appear. Debian releases a new distribution when it's ready—Debian is 32 years old, but its latest distribution number is 13. As Apple is a hardware company, they can release new devices every year, or even at shorter intervals, but the stable OS releases should take a longer time, at least two years. However, we must remember that there is never a completely stable OS; it evolves.

I believe Apple should release an update every year. Because I believe Apple has more than enough resources to button up a stable release every year. There is this imagined issue with them not having enough "time" to polish up a release but that's not the case. The truth is that they don't have the management talent right now, and don't know how to plan a release of this size adequately. Plus, upper management no longer cares. They want their annual release, and don't care at all if its half baked and takes until the following Spring before its stable.

 

[canukstorm]

My theory is simple.

They are huge, bloated, rich beyond belief and worrying about software quality finer points hasn't yet impacted their bottom line in a way that's noticeable (or readily identifiable) to the C-Suite.

Even on the forum we have folks who laud the financial results, while we all comb through thread after thread about the issues on macOS, iOS and iPadOS ... oh and even WatchOS now too.

It will affect them in other ways. Fish rots from the head down

Apple is losing many hardware engineers to OpenAI's Jony Ive AI device efforts

OpenAI is aggressively recruiting talent from Apple’s hardware engineering team. While Jony Ive’s design firm LoveFrom has long been…

macdailynews.com

 

[klasma]

The major reason, at least on iOS/iPadOS, is the technical debt that has piled up, I suspect. The API surface area, UI complexity, hardware feature set, and online services integration are orders of magnitudes larger then 15 years ago. Technical debt doesn’t grow just linearly with that, but superlinearly by the degree of interconnection. Every shortcut taken, every internal misdesign, every dependency on implementation details is likely to take its toll sooner or later. Implementing changes and adding new features becomes ever more error-prone, requires dealing with more friction, takes more time and money. Even just keeping things from getting worse requires significant effort and care, but doesn’t get you promoted in the company hierarchy. I’m therefore not too optimistic about substantial improvements in the future.

 

[splifingate]

It was buggy before SL, and it was buggy after SL.

Before we were wise;
After we were wise.
In-between, we were otherwise.

 

[chmania]

I believe Apple should release an update every year. Because I believe Apple has more than enough resources to button up a stable release every year. There is this imagined issue with them not having enough "time" to polish up a release but that's not the case.

I installed the macOS developer beta as soon as it was released, on 9th June 2025, and it became "stable" on 15th September 2025. Strangely enough, from a few days ago, I now have macOS Tahoe beta 26.2. macOS never truly becomes stable!

 

[turbineseaplane]

It will affect them in other ways. Fish rots from the head down

Apple is losing many hardware engineers to OpenAI's Jony Ive AI device efforts

OpenAI is aggressively recruiting talent from Apple’s hardware engineering team. While Jony Ive’s design firm LoveFrom has long been…

macdailynews.com

I agree with you totally.

The direction of things is alarming, and if one is simply touting the existing "X number of satisfied customers", they are missing the broader picture here.

 

[leman]

I think what you are observing has to do with the fundamental Apple culture. Apple is not a monolithic company - it consists of hundreds and hundreds of teams, each with their own culture, secrecy, and work style. What Apple lacks, plain and simple, is quality assurance. Back in the day it was Jobs’ obsession with detail that kept things polished, because he could exert pressure on the teams from the top.

My opinion is that Apple could benefit from introducing transversal teams with focus on coherency, quality assurance, and documentation. Unfortunately, I this would create a cultural conflict with the secrecy and segregated teams. It’s a tough nut to crack.

I am also sceptical about “they should release the OS when it’s ready”. What does it mean to be “ready?” That’s not a way to do business. Apple is very good at executing, the issue is with communication more than anything else.

And finally, while the critical attention is on bugs or incomplete/immature features (like Liquid Glass and its inconsistent applications), let’s not forget that there is also substantial work on the OS foundation that often gets unnoticed. In particular, 26 release introduced some significant changes to the security model and to the kernel. And this stuff works rather well.

 

[leman]

It will affect them in other ways. Fish rots from the head down

Apple is losing many hardware engineers to OpenAI's Jony Ive AI device efforts

OpenAI is aggressively recruiting talent from Apple’s hardware engineering team. While Jony Ive’s design firm LoveFrom has long been…

macdailynews.com

This already happened to their ML division. It’s definitely worrying.

 

[canukstorm]

I think what you are observing has to do with the fundamental Apple culture. Apple is not a monolithic company - it consists of hundreds and hundreds of teams, each with their own culture, secrecy, and work style. What Apple lacks, plain and simple, is quality assurance. Back in the day it was Jobs’ obsession with detail that kept things polished, because he could exert pressure on the teams from the top.

My opinion is that Apple could benefit from introducing transversal teams with focus on coherency, quality assurance, and documentation. Unfortunately, I this would create a cultural conflict with the secrecy and segregated teams. It’s a tough nut to crack.

I am also scriptural about “they should release the OS when it’s ready”. What does it mean to be “ready?” That’s not a way to do business. Apple is very good at executing, the issue is with communication more than anything else.

And finally, while the critical attention is on bugs or incomplete/immature features (like Liquid Glass and its inconsistent applications), let’s not forget that there is also substantial work on the OS foundation that often gets unnoticed. In particular, 26 release introduced some significant changes to the security model and to the kernel. And this stuff works rather well.

Under Jobs, the culture was quality + user experience above profit. Under Cook, it definitely feels like the script has flipped (Wall Street above user experience).

 

[HouseLannister]

I believe Apple should release OS upgrades when they are ready, not once every year. Microsoft does it occasionally, and it takes years for a new OS to appear.

Microsoft makes one OS every 5-6 years. It is hardly bug free at launch and usually takes a year or two before it is a recommended update. It does get two big updates each year, but most of the changes are not noticeable by the majority of users. It's a pace that works well and most people say the OS is mature and doesn't need a ton of new features every year.

Apple makes 5+ OSes, so annual updates are just constant crunch and bad quality no matter how many people you hire or companies you acquire. It's just too much to manage.

Apple announces new products, services, and features before they fix the existing ones. App Library came out in iOS 14 and hasn't changed since. Apple Intelligence "fully" launched with 18.2 and hasn't improved since. Entire apps get developed and launched and then never get a version 2.0. They never go back to old things because they are always pushing forward.

Apple needs to scale back and specialize to be successful a good steward to a stable, modern OS. My unlikely hope is the folding phone causes them to re-merge iOS and iPadOS into one OS and then stop development on tvOS and visionOS altogether and then have just macOS and iOS to focus on.

 

[splifingate]

I think what you are observing has to do with the fundamental Apple culture. Apple is not a monolithic company - it consists of hundreds and hundreds of teams, each with their own culture, secrecy, and work style. What Apple lacks, plain and simple, is quality assurance. Back in the day it was Jobs’ obsession with detail that kept things polished, because he could exert pressure on the teams from the top.

Jobs were hard to come-by...

 

[MacMorrison]

I agree that Apple software is in obvious decline.

It's not just about the bugs, it's not just about Liquid Glass.

Software like Keynote, Pages, Numbers, GarageBand, iMovie, Mail, etc. have clearly not seen much attention in a while. I don't have enough expertise in Final Cut Pro or Logic Pro to speak for them, but I suspect a similar problem affects them as well.

Apple needs a new head of software and a new head of operating system development.

And yes, the major operating system updates can now be spread out to every 2 or 3 years. I think the Apple Silicon hardware and driver model is mature enough that they can backport new features into an existing operating system.

 

[canukstorm]

Software like Keynote, Pages, Numbers, GarageBand, and iMovie have clearly not seen much attention in a while.

This is a great point. When Jobs was in charge, there was a separate SVP in charge of software applications. Might be wise to go back to that.

 

[michaelgavriel]

The old men yelling at clouds energy is strong here.

Which is not a criticism of anyone here or the premise of the conversation—as a fellow old man, I agree that there are elements to Apple's software stack and approach that reflect resources stretched thin and muddled priorities. The comment earlier than the pace with which Apple Silicon advances forces software development to "keep up" in a way that's proven difficult to sustain is really intelligent, I think. The cycle of "we need to have something new" plays a role as well. But the things were better back in the old days is disingenuous hindsight and doesn't reflect the reality that Apple's audience has evolved and grown ten-thousand fold. They're a very different company now, primarily selling iPhones and services, than they were even 10 years ago when the mix between Macs, iPhones, iPads, and other hardware products was more focused and balanced and the marketplace demanded different outcomes.

Apple continues to sell tens of millions of products successfully. There is no demonstrative swell of unhappiness with the mix of software and hardware. Pining for something that cannot and will not exist again is not reasonable.

Here's where I disagree passionately, when you look at Microsoft it has historically suffered with software fragmentation because of their complete lack of control of the vertical stack (software+hardware etc) they have to collaborate with countless manufacturers for every single part that comprises any PC at any given time in order to make sure that Windows "sings" on every single configuration of cpu+gpu known to man (that's including peripherals too). It's expected that by inherent nature that there will be fragmentation because of this, and with that fragmentation would come volatility and instability across all platforms because there is no "one size fits all" approach. Alan Kay famously said “People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.” Microsoft took their shot at this with their Surface line of computers and it yielded them positive results. Google with Android eventually created their own hardware with the Nexus/Pixel line and it too yielded them positive results. The positive results are that when you control both the hardware and software you don't have to be burdened with the QA testing of countless device configurations all running the same software with the expectation of having the software run exactly the same on every single configuration from low end to high end. With all of this in mind Microsoft and Google have managed to improve the quality and stability of their software significantly over the years while Apple despite controlling the entire vertical stack has had a degradation of quality and stability on their OWN hardware. If Microsoft and Google despite having to take into account countless configurations from countless vendors and manufacturers have been able to achieve even in the smallest degree an improvement in their quality of software, there is no reason as to why Apple has gotten to the state that it has with regards to their software quality and stability. Microsoft and Google operate at a scale far larger than Apple does and yet, they have shown improvements in their own respects despite their inherent complex circumstances. No software is perfect, bugs will always exist, bugs will arise, yada yada yada, that in my opinion is a lazy response and is a "avoid the conversation and confrontation for free card" (like a get out of jail free card).

 

[splifingate]

their complete control of the vertical stack (software+hardware etc)

I was under the impression that MS was perpetually herding cats specifically because there was no coherent verticality?!?

 

[canukstorm]

Google with Android eventually created their own hardware with the Nexus/Pixel line and it too yielded them positive results

I have a Pixel 10 and the version of Android for that device is excellent; user-friendly, smooth, and fast. Even with a processor that's doesn't come close to matching Apple's A18 or A19, I don't feel the performance suffering at all.

 

[whatnot]

as far as OS is concerned, the trinket hordes now dictate the direction, cue rampant iOSification and emojification. more generally, it's only natural for everything to peak, and if not fizzle out, then just rumble on at some point. witness all the recent drip-fed 'innovation' - thinner trinkets, trinkets in more colours, more emojis in your trinkets - which seems to be running on inertia by now.

 

[antiprotest]

One factor that has allowed the decline to continue is that consumers have failed to punish Apple for it. There are various indications of this. For example, on this site if you were to complain about Apple, you'd always get responses like: "Are you Tim Cook?" "Tim Cook made it a trillion dollar company!" "Are you an Apple engineer?" "Do you think you know better?" "It's a beta! Do you know what beta means?" All such responses miss the point entirely. Tim Cook made it a trillion dollar company by building it ON THEIR MONEY AND SUFFERING -- THEY are the ones who made it a trillion dollar company -- and consumers happily dance off the cliff to his song.

 

[rappr]

This already happened to their ML division. It’s definitely worrying.

Right….but it not like Apple isn’t replacing people that leave. Attrition is part of the game.

 

[michaelgavriel]

I was under the impression that MS was perpetually herding cats specifically because there was no coherent verticality?!?

I fixed my typo lol relax, I was on a roll but by the time I posted my response I was like DOH!

 

[canukstorm]

Right….but it not like Apple isn’t replacing people that leave. Attrition is part of the game.

There's a fine line between attrition and bleeding talent

 

[leman]

Right….but it not like Apple isn’t replacing people that leave. Attrition is part of the game.

Are they? To me it sounds like they are scrapping the internal ML development efforts and purchasing the model from Google instead. Which might make sense, as they were unsuccessful training their own foundational model.