Jobs' Apple created technologies which have rooted deeply in POSIX standards and standard UNIX* conventions. If you knew UNIX(Linux/BSD/whatever), you can find the same data streams on the same places.
OS was obscure but, predictable. Different but, familiar. It had kernel extensions, logs and devices. Nothing was extremely obfuscated. It was a UNIX device but, shinier.
Now it feels like a glorified iOS box with more transparent walls. You can see some gears but can't touch them. There are only limited interfaces to some of those, which you can touch remotely but, not alter completely.
I wonder what will happen to my EXT drivers from Paragon though.
It's perhaps worth noting that iOS and all of its restrictions were created under Steve Jobs. And Jobs absolutely expected iOS devices to eventually replace full computers for most people; as he put it, everyone needs a car but only a few need a truck.
Where I absolutely agree with you is that under Jobs, there were no attempts to make macOS behave more like a car. Lion did borrow a handful of visual elements from iOS, but it was mostly aesthetic. Jobs was also on medical leave for much of Lion's development cycle, so I wonder if he was less involved.
Indeed. I think for all his faults, Jobs was still himself a "power user". He understood why people wanted to be able to tweak things like this because he wanted to be able to this himself (even if most of the time he used an ipad).
It’s been documented how irate he would get over small details. Those small details are really only seen by someone who is a power user and has a vision for what it _should_ be. Not to make excuses for his behavior but he understood technology and wanted to make it simple for everyone. That drive towards simplicity makes you have to make a choice as to what features are left to the user and what features are managed by the system. Increasingly under Cook it’s been the later.
The argument that most of this started under Jobs is valid. True. But like it was commented he was dealing with an illness and it’s unknown just how much involvement he had. This is obviously just my view of the land and my perspective is my own. YMMV.
I intend this with kindness: normally I don’t nitpick on grammar and punctuation, but you’ve got a repeated error here that’s easily corrected. Generally, you want to break your sentences with commas _before_ usage of “but”: “He wanted to buy a pen, but the store had run out.”
If you’re a native speaker, the comma goes where you’d naturally have a brief pause in speech.
If you’re not a native speaker, it may be helpful to remember that the clause with “but” should be able to be removed & what remains should still be a valid sentence: “He wanted to buy a pen.”, not “He wanted to buy a pen but.”
If you’re a native speaker, the comma goes where you’d naturally have a brief pause in speech.
Some speech styles use pause after "but". You can hear it from news reporters and on tv shows in general, when actors read partial sentences from paper or screen. It is not exclusive to english, and it is a common mistake to use punctuation with respect to own/technical intonations and delays instead of correct ones.
"X but, Y" likely means "X, but... Y" here, i.e. the first pause is much less pronounced than the second.
Hey, thanks for your comment. There are no hard feelings and I really appreciate that. I'm not a native speaker but, I try to write and talk as correctly as possible.
I used to put commas before, however some grammar checking tools like grammarly marked them as wrong, and I changed my ways.
Comma rules are complex in both in my native language and English and a good, definitive guide would be really helpful.
I read this as a poetic choice by GP—it evoked Apple's "Think different" tagline in my mind, although now I'm not actually sure why. I could be wrong though!
Don't worry, your instincts are correct. The only time a comma should follow a conjunction is if there is an interrupting phrase that breaks up the sentence. Example:
"He's a nice guy but, to be honest, he smells like a hippopotamus."
Without taking a position on OPs value judgement, the difference between Steve's Apple and Tim Apple's is that services have come to the fore.
Apple has historically always considered itself a hardware company, and now it is a hardware and services company. Small but concrete examples are the Settings page's "Activate your free trial of AppleTV+ today!" and their constant pitching of Apple Card. This is the thin edge, more than likely, of them moving to a model not of monetizing your hardware but rather capturing your data and selling you on a subscription bundle of services.
This transition is in a way necessitated by their declining revenue growth, so they're looking at new ways of monetizing their existing users.
