Yes, it's called "older people". Just kidding… :-)
TBH, I've never understood this kind of post. Nobody cares if you (or I for that matter) are "excited" about an OS upgrade. It's an OS upgrade!!!
And actually, I think you're expressing something very mainstream, not a "dying demographic" at all. Tech fatigue is a thing.
Haha... that is such a wishful thinking these days... Jobs nearly made me feel that's actually possible, but lately, it became a dream again.
iOS is where all the cash is but for people who both use iOS and macOS, both are equally important but Apple is no longer good at keeping mind shares.
Perhaps what Apple did in the last 5 years could've been done in a few years with Jobs with "a few more things" .
If they truly wanted to provide useful integration, they would make Android and Windows Phone devices first class citizens just as much as the iPhone. They're first and foremost a hardware company. Even their Mac's OS is free! Because they get money from the Mac, not the OS.
There's plenty of useful innovations they could still make that doesn't require them to focus on up-selling me new hardware, if innovating was still their goal. They're using a Star Trek future as their marketing ploy, and it's working scarily well.
I guess the one upside you could say is that they're probably not selling your data and/or profile to advertisers. So at least they have that going for them.
Obviously, but offering better integration (even if only with their own ecosystem) is how they are trying to sell more right now.
> There's plenty of useful innovations they could still make that doesn't require them to focus on up-selling me new hardware
I didn't say there weren't, just that it's not likely to advance beyond a certain level in a certain time period. This is about feedback and learning what ideas survive in the market. To their credit, Apple is fairly good at coming up with radical leaps (or, at least implementing those leaps on a mass scale)[1], but they are fairly bad IMO at listening to whether they are working out well in practice (Google has the opposite problem, they so aggressively remove failed ideas that the few people that liked them feel betrayed, and express it loudly). Throwing a few hundred million dollars right now at word processing, or the browser, or any particular thing and then ignoring it is probably not as efficient as a few tens of millions spread out over years, just because there's only so much you can do to advance a field in a short period.
> I guess the one upside you could say is that they're probably not selling your data and/or profile to advertisers. So at least they have that going for them.
Apple ran (runs?) their own advertising service for mobile apps, iAd. I'm not sure the status currently.
That said, Google isn't selling your profile or data to advertisers. That makes zero sense for them to do, and they probably have quite a lot of safeguards to make sure absolutely the bare minimum of information about an individual an ad is served to makes it back to the advertiser (preferably nothing). This isn't because they are stalwart defenders of privacy, but because it's in their best interest to not give away the data that they make their money from. I trust them to act in their self interest.
They shut it down quite a few months ago.
Before that iAd was pretty restricted because of Apples privacy stance: https://9to5mac.com/2015/07/14/iad-user-data-privacy-policy/
"Former iAd exec leaves Apple, suggests company platform is held back by user data privacy policy"
Yeah, I looked it up before I posted because my information was fairly old, but I found some conflicting info when I did. Some sites state it was just the developer integration that allowed developers to advertise their own apps (as an update to the story). I'm not sure if Apple still runs an advertising framework or not, and wasn't willing to dive much deeper when the first few sources seemed ambiguous and nothing official seemed to clarify.
Fine, but why are you posting on a forum principally made of developers?
Nope, I'm still using OSX Mavericks and will keep on using it as long as it is useful for me. I may eventually upgrade if I start developing for iOS, and only because you can only install the latest XCode versions in the latest OSX versions.
Why do we have to update the entire OS just to get a new version of the photos and messages app?
The new apps drive adoption of the rest of the OS. This reduces the support cost of the old OS and spreads security updates.
Once upon a time apple.com advertised their OS by showing off what you could create with it and how it was based on open technology. Now it's just about how the computer and its flock of gadgets can entertain and do your thinking for you, if only you give in to the mothership.
Sounds good to me!
But I'm also not willing to spend large amounts of money to buy cool new gadgets that don't actually improve my quality of life at all, despite whatever Apple's keynotes will say.
Literally none of the new features[1] are useful to me, considering:
Am I really the only one who hits all these bullet points? Am I part of a dying demographic, who doesn't use/need/want any of this fancy Star Trek futuristic life, who's okay with using a credit card and organizing photos via folders, and manually typing stuff into google, and taking notes on a physical note pad with a physical pen?[1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/macos-sierra/id1127487414?mt... (click "...More")