Apple is making it more difficult to ignore update notifications

[krs]

I find it hysterical when people say things like that about Steve Jobs. I knew Steve Jobs. He didn't give a flying fig about what users wanted. When he returned to Apple he almost immediately came out with the first iMac which had USB ports and nothing else. Users screamed and he said "F-them".

Under Steve Apple jettisoned SCSI, ADB, LocalTalk, Ethernet, Hypercard, AppleWorks, etc. etc. And users cried and kicked their feet.

Steve Jobs couldn't care less about what users said that they wanted, and how upset they were. His motto was "get used to it."

I didn't know Steve personally, what I remember at the time that he seemed to be a perfectionist driving his staff to exhaustion.
But Apple must have done a lot of things right after he came back - at that time Apple was about to go under and, the perception at least, was that he was very instrumental in turning that around.
I have never used an iMac or many of the capabilities you mentioned Apple jettisoned, so my perception is probably different than many other Mac users.

 

[krs]

If you are running Mojave, and you don't want to keep on seeing upgrade notices:

Apple menu --> System Preferences --> Software Update --> deselect Automatically keep my Mac up to date

You can also click on Advanced and choose from:

- Check for updates
- Download new updates when available
- Install macOS updates
- Install app updates from the App Store

Thanks,
I actually thought that option was turned off because it showed a minus sign in the check box against "Automatically keep my Mac up to date". But that obviously means something different.

 

[usagora]

I knew Steve Jobs.

In what capacity?

 

[Slydude]

It seems to me that each time there is a major shift in the Mac ecosystem the general conclusion is that pale has lost its customer-centered focus. Remember the storm when the shift was made from Apple II to Mac? I guarantee you there were loyal customers who felt that the folks in Cupertino had lost focus. There certainly was that kind of a reaction in the PPC to Intel transition.

As far as the whole 32-bit message is concerned I have a suspicion why some people seem to be seeing that message once while others see the same message more than once. I haven't researched it yet but here's what I think happens once that message was introduced:

1. The first time a 32 -bit app was run the message appears. This may date to High Sierra but I'm sure it happened in Mojave. On subsequent launches of an app the message didn't appear but reappears if another 32- bit app is run.

2. If an app had previously triggered the 32 - bit warning, the warning doesn't appear again unless there has been some minor update to that program (e.g. bug fixes that don't necessarily bring things to 64 - bit operation).

It's part two that I haven't researched yet.



×

 

[ferrarr]

It seems to me that each time there is a major shift in the Mac ecosystem the general conclusion is that pale has lost its customer-centered focus. Remember the storm when the shift was made from Apple II to Mac? I guarantee you there were loyal customers who felt that the folks in Cupertino had lost focus. There certainly was that kind of a reaction in the PPC to Intel transition.

As far as the whole 32-bit message is concerned I have a suspicion why some people seem to be seeing that message once while others see the same message more than once. I haven't researched it yet but here's what I think happens once that message was introduced:

1. The first time a 32 -bit app was run the message appears. This may date to High Sierra but I'm sure it happened in Mojave. On subsequent launches of an app the message didn't appear but reappears if another 32- bit app is run.

2. If an app had previously triggered the 32 - bit warning, the warning doesn't appear again unless there has been some minor update to that program (e.g. bug fixes that don't necessarily bring things to 64 - bit operation).

It's part two that I haven't researched yet.



×

Another thing that may affect the reappearance is if someone does a NVRAM or an SMC reset? Or maybe even certain "cleaner" apps?

 

[pm-r]

In what capacity?

Probably in some sort of American capacity, considering the Americans weren't and still aren't into the metric measurements system.





- Patrick
======

 

[chscag]

Probably in some sort of American capacity, considering the Americans weren't and still aren't into the metric measurements system.

- Patrick
======

What? English translation please? And what does the metric system have to do with any of this?

 

[krs]

It seems to me that each time there is a major shift in the Mac ecosystem the general conclusion is that pale has lost its customer-centered focus. Remember the storm when the shift was made from Apple II to Mac? I guarantee you there were loyal customers who felt that the folks in Cupertino had lost focus. There certainly was that kind of a reaction in the PPC to Intel transition.

That wasn't my perception at the time when the move from PPC to Intel was made.
On the one side, yeah, it seemed the Mac was moving closer to Windows PCs and Mac Users generally didn't like that, but on the other hand Macs could now use more generally available components that were less expensive than the equivalent made especially for Macs.
This was definitely a benefit for the Mac User.

Dropping support for 32-bit applications is a benefit all around for Apple; no direct benefit for the end user except that one might argue less coding, less testing etc. with a 64-bit only system could/should mean lower cost to Apple, but that doesn't seem to get reflected in their pricing.
In any case, moving to 64-bit only for the future is the right decision, the transition just wasn't handled nearly as well as the transition from PPC to Intel.

 

[pm-r]

What? English translation please? And what does the metric system have to do with any of this?

Not to worry Charlie, it was just a bad joke in reference to the inquiry: "In what capacity?"

ie: capacity = as in a volume measurement...






- Patrick
======

 

[krs]

:d:d:d

Weird - trying to just post a smiley doesn't work

gets changed to
:d

Oh well....

 

[pm-r]

Dropping support for 32-bit applications is a benefit all around for Apple; no direct benefit for the end user except that one might argue less coding, less testing etc. with a 64-bit only system could/should mean lower cost to Apple, but that doesn't seem to get reflected in their pricing.

+1!!!

I came across an interesting tidbit:

Roberto Santocho, Linux Maintenance at Consultants (1992-present)
Answered June 24, 2019

Originally Answered: Why is Apple dropping support for 32 bit apps on MacOS Catalina?
32 bit apps are old and outdated, and need to be recored so that all apps can make use of all the memory, and other features, that macOS delivers to the users.

What happened was actually all Intel’s fault. Intel convinced Steve Jobs that IBM was not going to be able to reach 3 GHz clock speeds on the PowerPC CPUs meant for all of Apple’s product line, and that Intel was going to break through the 3 GHz barrier imminently, so Steve switched Apple products to Intel CPUs.

Apple was already on a 64 bit version of macOS, but the big surprise was that the very first CPUs that Intel delivered, that met Apple’s power envelope specs, were 32 bit Intel Core2Duo CPUS.

Apple had no choice, there was no time to go back to IBM and get the production line ramped back up so Apple just had to accept the 32 bit CPUs, go back and downgrade macOS to a 32 bit OS, and then have two sets of libraries to create, manage and maintain. For years Apple did warn developers to switch over to the new libraries (which were 64 bit safe) so we a;; had a very long lead time to the transition to a purely 64 bit operating system. Its frankly a surprise that anyone still is producing any 32 bit software at all.

Once the transition to 64 bit OS is complete, then it will be much easier for Apple to clean up all the code, streamline and upgrade it as time moves on.

Will there really be much macOS code for Apple to clean up if there isn't any code to even run 32-bit apps???





- Patrick
======

 

[Randy B. Singer]

...
But Apple must have done a lot of things right after he came back - at that time Apple was about to go under and, the perception at least, was that he was very instrumental in turning that around....

When Steve was first ousted from Apple it was clear that he really didn't understand business and that he was hurting the company. It was really the right thing for Apple to do to get rid of him.

After Steve returned to Apple, Apple recovered by doing all sort of sophisticated things business-wise. They off-shored their manufacturing, they moved their money to different countries to avoid taxes, etc.

My impression is that Steve didn't save Apple, my impression is that he hired a number of very savvy people who did some very smart things...and he finally learned to get the heck out of their way.

 

[Randy B. Singer]

In what capacity?

About a decade ago Apple had recovered to the point that they were looking again to expand the Mac into more markets than just the Mac's core markets. Apple had totally ignored all vertical markets (specialized business markets such as medicine and architecture) while clawing back to health, concentrating on creative markets and later the home users market; markets in which Apple had a natural following.

During the time that Apple ignored vertical markets, I almost single handedly kept the law office market for the Mac alive. I created a Web portal to support law office software developers, I created and moderated a huge discussion list for Mac-using attorneys, and I wrote a huge number of articles for publication about using Macs in law offices.

I approached Apple with the idea of writing a book about using the Mac in law offices. Steve liked the idea and he would e-mail me about it. It was funny, his e-mails were never more than two or three sentences, and they were almost always commands. It seemed as if he thought that I worked for him. Or that everyone and anyone was his to command.

To make a long story short, I visited the Apple campus a number of times, worked with their marketing centers doing seminars, communicated with Steve, Phil Schiller, etc. a number of times, and eventually the American Bar Association published a book that I wrote that Apple sponsored:

Robot Check

Now, before you begin to think that I was living the dream...let me tell you, Steve and Apple lied to me, screwed me, and severely wasted my time. Steve, Phil, and Apple in general were/aren't nice folks. In fact, they are huge as_hats.

Under Steve Jobs (the first time), Apple was well known for doing stupid things and shooting themselves in the foot. Even the second time around for Steve, I think that's what Apple's inclination was. At least when he was directly involved with anything. Apple didn't listen and they botched their huge opportunity with the law office market (and other vertical markets) because they were too stubborn/stupid to listen to the very consultants that they brought in to help them. To this day Apple sucks in vertical markets, which is so disappointing, because they should OWN them.

 

[Randy B. Singer]

...Dropping support for 32-bit applications is a benefit all around for Apple; no direct benefit for the end user...

No, that's not accurate.

Apple has done a really terrible job of explaining the move to 64-bit, and why it's a good idea.

There is a lot of helpful discussion about it here:

What are the benefits of Apple dropping support for 32-bit apps and requiring 64-bit only in Mac OS X? - Quora

The upshot is that a Mac that is 64-bit only can address way more physical RAM (something that professionals have been clamoring for for ages), it allows Macs to perform better (more data can be moved into RAM at once, rather than in chunks), it allows Apple to concentrate on only one set of libraries instead of two, it allows your Mac to support modern technologies such as Metal graphics acceleration, and finally it will ultimately allow both iOS and the Mac to run each other's software (a similar feature to that of the Microsoft Surface, which can run Windows software, that Apple needs to be able to match). There is also reason to believe that eliminating all 32-bit support will make the Mac more secure; always an important selling feature for the Mac.

As always, Apple is a more progressive computer company than any other. Apple has removed older technology from newer computers a bunch of times in their history (e.g. SCSI, floppy drive, LocalTalk, ADB, Ethernet, etc.). Each time users had fits and said that Apple was making a mistake, they were out of touch with their users, they were greedy, and that they will surely go out of business as a result, and go straight to ****. And each time users soon totally forgot the older technology and realized that Apple made the right move. In short order most other computer companies made similar moves.

 

[MacInWin]

To this day Apple sucks in vertical markets, which is so disappointing, because they should OWN them.

Randy, while I do agree with you that if Apple chose to it could dominate vertical markets of it's choosing, the challenge with vertical markets is that if you become TOO known for that vertical market, the broader general market starts to dismiss you as being just a specialist. I think Apple in the Jobs1 period got caught in that trap where the company and the associated computers were seen as being for the "artsy" side of computing--graphic artists, designers, etc. But IBM was the "serious" business machine, which led to the PC being the "serious" machine by extension. Not true, but perception is, most of the time, reality. I think Jobs2 learned that lesson, but then threw the baby out with the bathwater by avoiding pretty much any vertical market other than what already existed (and exists today).

 

[usagora]

Thanks for sharing your perspective, Randy. I did enjoy Steve's public face when he was in sales mode, but I knew it wasn't all sunshine and roses behind the scenes based on various documentaries and interviews I've seen, and your experience confirms this.

 

[krs]

My impression is that Steve didn't save Apple, my impression is that he hired a number of very savvy people who did some very smart things...and he finally learned to get the heck out of their way.

Yes, I would agree with your impression.
But that makes a good CEO, hiring the right senior people.

 

[Randy B. Singer]

...I think Jobs2 learned that lesson, but then threw the baby out with the bathwater by avoiding pretty much any vertical market other than what already existed (and exists today).

No, it's nothing like that.

Apple made a renewed stab at vertical markets a decade or so ago (once again, after Steve Jobs had returned and Apple and the Mac were back to viability). They identified experts in several fields who already used Macs and they (actually I should say "we") were all mostly stupid enough to work with Apple for free.

The problem was that Apple didn't listen to any of us. They had a set formula for attacking vertical markets that apparently worked ONCE in some vertical market, like engineering, and they insisted on following that formula even as their consultants jumped up and down and told them that their vertical markets were very different and the approach that Apple insisted on wouldn't work.

And, of course, it didn't work. Did Apple then decide to listen to their consultants? Nope. They blamed the vertical markets themselves, thew up their hands and decided that the market couldn't be cracked.

It's hard to believe that a company that has been so wildly successful could also be so utterly stupid...but that is the case.

 

[MacInWin]

t's hard to believe that a company that has been so wildly successful could also be so utterly stupid...but that is the case.

Not hard to believe at all. I worked as a consultant for the last 14 years of my work time, working with companies who paid large dollars for folks to come in an help them improve, only to then disagree with what we recommended and ignore what we suggested. None are so blind as those who will not see.

 

[pm-r]

It's hard to believe that a company that has been so wildly successful could also be so utterly stupid...but that is the case.

Not hard to believe at all.

Unfortunately, i have been witness to some similar actions and behaviour, but at a good arms length but many a time i just shook my head in disbelief, but eventually just referred to it as a disease that i called RCI (Rectal Cranial Inversion).

The really unfortunate part is that it's the consumer who actually suffers in the long run, and all due to their stubbornness.

I would hate to think how much money has been lost over the years from such actions...

It's interesting to read some of the first hand accounts that some of you experienced, as well as being a bit upsetting.





- Patrick
======