This is not the first time this has happened in Apple’s history. The transition from the 68k architecture to the PowerPC brought major performance improvements, but Apple’s software didn’t take full advantage of it. If I remember correctly, even after the PowerPC switch, core elements of the classic Mac OS still ran in emulation as late as Mac OS 9. Additionally, the classic Mac OS lacked protected memory and preemptive multitasking, leading to relatively frequent crashes. Taligent and Copland were attempts to address these issues, but they both faced development hell, culminating with the purchase of NeXT and the development of Mac OS X. But by the time Mac OS X was released, PowerPC was becoming less competitive than the x86, culminating with the Intel switch in 2006. At this point it was Apple’s software that distinguished Macs from the competition, which remained the case until the M1 Macs were released five years ago.

Software is very easy to bloat, expand scope, and grow to do more than really needed, or just to release apps that are then forgotten about.

Hardware is naturally limited in scope due to manufacturing costs, and doesn't "grow" in the same way. You replace features and components rather than constantly add to them.

Apple needs someone to come in and aggressively cut scope in the software, removing features and products that are not needed. Pair it down to something manageable and sustainable.

Well besides software that runs in data centers/ cloud most other software is turning to crap. And people who think this crap is fine have now reached to position of responsibility at lot of companies. So things would go only worse from here.

I don't think it's the modern Apple, I think that's just Apple.

I remember using iTunes when fixing the name of an album was a modal blocking function that had to write to each and every MP3, one by one, in the slowest write I have ever experienced in updating file metadata. Give me a magnetised needle and a steady hand and I could have done it faster.

A long time ago they had some pretty cool design guides, and the visual design has often been nice, but other than that I don't think their software has been notable for its quality.

Apple has always been a hardware company first - think of how they sell consumers computers with the OS for free, while Microsoft primarily just sells the OS (when comparing the consumer business; I don’t want to get into all the other stuff Microsoft does).

Now that they own the SoC design pipeline, they’re really able to flex these muscles.

I dunno, didnt they already crack the 400GB/s memory bandwidth some years ago? This seems like just another small bump to handle latest OS effects sludge.

Now the M1 range, that really was an impressive 'outperform' moment of engineering for them, but otherwise this is just a clock-work MBA driven trickle of slightly better over-hyped future eWaste.

To outperform during this crisis, hardware engineers worth their salt need to designing long lived boxes with internals that can be easily repaired or upgraded. "yeah but the RAM connections are fiddly" Great, now that sounds like a challenge worth solving.

But you are right about the software. Installing Asahi makes me feel like I own my compter again.

What I would do for Snow Leopard on the M class hardware.

> The modern Apple feels like their hardware teams way outperforming the software teams.

There aren't a lot of tangible gains left to be made by the software teams. The OS is fine, the office suite is fine, the entertainment apps are fine.

If "performance" is shoving AI crap into software that was already doing what I wanted it to do, I'd rather the devs take a vacation.

Yup. And the marketing department is ahead of both of them.

This seems to be pretty true in general. SBC companies are not competing with Raspberry Pi because their software is quite a bit behind (boot loaders, linux kernel support, etc). Particle released a really cool dev board recently, but the software is lacking. Qualcomm struggled with their new CPU launch with poor support as well. It sometimes takes a while for new Intel processor features to be supported in the toolchains, kernel, and then get used in software.

Aside from that, I think of Apple as a hardware company that must write software to sell their devices, maybe this isn't true anymore but that's how I used to view them. Maintaining and updating as much software as Apple owns is no small task either.

There are talks of the hardware head replacing Cook.

Hopefully that will bring whatever they’re doing right to other teams.

There has to be a whole different mindset with hardware though. Every change has to necessarily be more considered, cross-checked. And I don't say this in any way to disparage software engineers (hold up hand) but I suspect there's a discipline in hardware design that is ... less rigidly adhered to in software design. (And a software update containing a revert, though undesirable, is always a solution.)

It does feel like Apple is firing on all cylinders for their core competencies.

Software (iOS26), services (Music/Tv/Cloud/Apple Intelligence) and marketing (just keep screaming Apple Intelligence for 3 months and then scream Liquid Glass) ---- on the other hand seem like they are losing steam or very reactive.

No wonder John Ternus is the widely anticipated to replace Tim Cook (and not Craig).

Apple have always been a hardware company, like Google have always been a software company even if they're doing hardware too now.

For Vision Pro, software team has been impressive. And arguably outperformed the hardware team.

But this is the exception.

I want this hardware available for other systems.

It must be observed that the Apple enterprise is, above all else, a purveyor of fine physical contrivances and apparatus.

Furthermore, they do also engage in the traffic and sale of digital programmes wrought by the hands of other, independent artisans.

The hardware team has always shined, but how about one example of this:

The PowerBook from the mid 1990’s were hugely successful, especially the first ones, which were notable for what we now take for granted: pushing the keyboard back allowing space for palm rests. Wikipedia says at one time Apple had captured 40% of the laptop market. All the while the ’90s roared on, Apple was languishing, looking for a modern OS.

Doing good job is rewarded.

Apple's Hardware Chief, John Ternus, seems to be next in line for succession to Tim Cook's position.

In a sense, hardware's job is easier, because the goals are more clear. Make it faster, and more power efficient. Vast amounts of complexity within those goals. But try to summarize the north-star vision for a complex software project like an OS in terms anywhere close as simply as this.

As a FW engineer, i can say i have been in both sides. The thing is, many time software has to do some nasty hacking just to work around hardware bug. But i've never seen hardware does the same thing.

So give the software some slack.

I pretty much see the Macbook as some fancy toys with mediocre software. Maybe the kernel is solid but other software are very meh, even comparing to Windows. But I'm definitely biased as a Windows/Linux user, and my hobby is system programming so naturally a Linux box is more suitable.

Biggest grief with MacOS software:

- Finder is very mediocre comparing to even File explorer in Windows

- Scrollbar and other UI issues

Unfortunately I don't think Asahi is going to catch up, and Macbook is so expensive, so I'll probably keep buying second hand Dell/Lenovo laptop and dump a Linux on top of it.

I've been thinking whether it could be a reasonable move for Apple to launch a cheaper secondary brand, one that offers devices capable of running Linux or Windows to reach a broader market without cannibalizing its own.

From my vast experience with MacOS, Apple is notoriously bad at the most basic software, like notes or calculator

Their software is literally falling apart. ios26 was the biggest trash ive ever experienced from a company this big

Yes. And their consumer teams are way outperforming their business teams.

Apple relies heavily on H1-B slave labor. They don’t pay their software teams enough to be competitive and they run with only about a third of the headcount they need to polish the software. Thus, they have mediocre talent and not enough of it. Penny-wise, pound foolish.

Been like that since 1977

That's been the vibe for a while now

Apple is a hardware company. This has always been the case. It's not just the modern Apple.

i was about to write exactly that.