> Supplied no visual feedback of progress

That's kind of a trademark of Apple, they absolutely hate showing progress and detailed information about what's going on (maybe for design reasons? Who knows). When it does not work, there's generally no way to know what's happening and why.

This is my only complaint about apple really, give me more info, logs, real error messages ect.

Not that windows is much better

Windows used to provide hex error codes with nearly every error message that couldn't be translated manually. Very often, these error messages can be traced to a generic error message if you look in the MSDN docs. Helped me solve quite some annoying Windows issues back in the day.

Since Microsoft went the UWP route, these nice error codes have been starting to vanish. Probably because when end users see an error they don't understand, their mind goes blank and their instinct is to click whatever button that makes the error go away, leading to confusion. A simple "try again later" will be a much more enjoyable experience for non-technical people than "Could not update your computer. The foobar failed to parse the widget tree (0xc0000005). Try again later."

When I did customer service, this trend had always irked me about Apple devices. I've had to tell a lot of people to contact Apple (which they never did of course, silently blaming us for their device not working) because all Apple's software said was "try again later".

And now it's spreading to other devices as well. Even if error codes are available, the error messages have been simplified and most error codes aren't documented. I wish there was some kind of generic standard shortcut or gesture that copied the stack trace of any fancy exception to your clipboard so people with technical know-how can actually solve the problem instead of getting told to "try to reboot my router" by a vague, generic help page when Netflix can't find a video stream that matches my video decoding hardware.

A few weeks ago I scanned the Windows 10 BSOD QR code for the first time, out of curiosity. Since the BSODs no longer show any useful information other than the terse STOP description, I expected both that, the STOP code and the four parameters, perhaps also a link to that code's web page. Nope. Just a link to https://windows.com/stopcode

The problem (I think) is that as soon as a detailed error message is given (or some error code), sites will pop up all over the place telling you to download their software to fix “error code 0x80000008” or whatever. It’s so annoying searching a Windows error code only to have 9/10 of the results be generic SEO spam for some garbage software that (1) doesn’t fix the problem and (2) costs $40+.

Here's a compromise: "Something went wrong, try again later. Click here to see more details."

I would like to see more details. Sometimes I won't be able to interpret them, often I will be able to, and I'd rather be able to see why something failed so I can fix it.

Apple used to. I can't remember if/when they stopped but they used to be a regular occurrence at least in Mac OS 7

you can open the console and see all sorts of logging, its just often not useful or helpful or hard to find what your looking for in the deluge

Tangentially-related:

So we were looking at smartwatches available, and we were deciding between the Apple Watch and fitbits. I was surprised to learn the fitbits give you incredibly detailed data on the quality of your sleep but Apple watch doesn't... and I was thinking huh, that's strange, certainly the Apple Watch has the sensors to be able to produce the data and Apple has the engineering talent to make sense of the data and present it to the end-user in a meaningfully appropriate manner.

I can't find the article now, but apparently it came out from Apple engineers that they ultimately chose not to disclose detailed data to the user because burdening the end-user with this information can cause a mental overload... so instead Apple opted to focus on developing habits (hence the 'go to sleep' notifications and the clever sleep-hour alarms).

I've had some time to reflect on this since I was having these conversations with my acquaintances... and I've gotta say, I think I agree with Apple's approach.

If you wish to use an Apple Watch to collect sleep data until your head explodes, there are apps such as AutoSleep that will fill that hole for you. Until you arrive at the conclusion that all those data aren’t making you sleep any better, then you’ll just use Apple’s built-in.

They're inconsistent too. macOS updates have progress bars that give you an estimate for completion. iOS updates just show you a progress bar with no estimated time. And this is what I worry with macOS becoming more like iOS.

on the other hand, hold down 'v' at boot time on a mac and see all the error messages that have been there for YEARS and ignored the whole time.

> maybe for design reasons? Who knows

Maybe they care how the user feels about getting stuck at "99% complete" for long periods, caused by uncertainties. Seriously.

Yea, don't give them sudden uncertainty at the end of the process. Provide uncertainty the whole time, for consistency. Design Thinking!

Hah, sure seems weird, but for example tell a kid something will take a given amount of time, the kid will constantly ask if its ready ignoring the original estimate, and will get really anxious if you tell him it's taking way more time than expected. Then you will learn the easier way is to tell the kid "leave this to me, don't bug me, go play with your toys and I'll tell you when it's ready". That's the kind of psychology Apple is using here, from my perspective.

So, Apple views clients as petulant children?.

Also, I don't treat my kid that way.

That's probably how mass-market clients are seen for some companies... are they succesful? The answer points to a trend that should scare us. As a parent I also want my kids to be smarter than this.

The lack of transparency around this transfer process is weird.

It’s also aggravating that the device to device transfer acts like an iCloud Backup and doesn’t bring over files tagged to not cloud backup.

As far as I know, the only way to get a mirror of your original device that includes these configuration or data files from things like 2FA or wallets is still lighting cabled encrypted backup / restore.

> data files from things like 2FA or wallets

do you have example apps? Authy and Mozilla Lockwise (iOS integration with Firefox password store) both copied over to my new device seemlessly: I only needed to give an "OK" to allow them to use Face ID to unlock and that was it. I didn't have to sign in or do any authentication other than biometric.

I'm pretty sure the initial restore from iCloud when setting up a brand new device gives you the option to pull down everything or transfer stuff stored on the other device locally if you still have the old device nearby. If you restore from an iCloud backup later, you can't get other stuff, just the stuff in iCloud.

I’ve even tried filing Feedback bug reports on lack of progress or inadequate progress displays and it always comes back as “working to spec” or “as designed” or some similarly-insulting thing.

Frankly, “designers” have way too much power at Apple. There seems to be no way to convince them that these things are ranging from poorly-designed to just plain broken.

Yes and what's worst some of these problem are not new.

Restoring a Backup from iOS 13.x to iOS 14.3 caused infinite reboot loop with the white Apple screen. And since Apple stopped signing iOS 13.x there was no downgrade possible. Apple Store refuse to help, which caused a bit of rage in Taiwan.

Corrupted iTunes Backup on Windows is still a thing. They didn't even bothered look into it after they introduced iCloud Backup. ( May be it is also a Mac thing but I have never seen or heard anyone having iTunes backup problem on Mac )

Yes, Not good enough, for a company with billions of cash and record profits.

I did this for someone recently too. It's was a mess, with a bunch of 2 factor authentication nonsense and timeouts to add to the drama.

And if that wasn't enough, this was all complicated by a broken screen on one of the devices. Turning on reachability helped since the smash was at the top of the screen.

If in your opinion the set up process was that disastrous, take it back? It sounds like you encountered a few minor issues during setup that was resolved with a restart. Not exactly the end of the world, nor unique to Apple devices. The process seems a little bit error prone but it’s still miles ahead of any competitor out there.

In my view, a manufacturer should work on software quality until they can state on the box "If there is ever one glitchy weird thing that requires a reboot to fix, we'll give you a full refund".

Error dialogs should say "An error occurred. Do you want the refund for your phone to be sent to the credit card you purchased it on? [Yes] [No]"

> In my view, a manufacturer should work on software quality until they can state on the box "If there is ever one glitchy weird thing that requires a reboot to fix, we'll give you a full refund".

As a developer, I fall very near the total perfectionist end of the spectrum in my preferences, but what you’re asking for would probably mean ~nothing ever ships.

It’s not that provably correct code is impossible, it’s that the economies of software (even free/open/labors of love) and physics (time) impose tradeoffs for the vast vast majority of software people write outside a research context.

I too wish software quality was substantially better. I put a lot of effort into not only making it better, but making it easier to make better software in the first place. But the level of perfection you’re describing is unrealistic.

There are plenty of other branches of engineering with similar reliability goals. When I eat my lunch with a fork, I expect the prongs of the fork not to fall off... And so far, in my whole life of using forks, the prongs have never fallen off. The fork has been 100% reliable. It has always worked.

And before you say a fork is unrealistically simple, a metal fork is still the result of centuries of metalworking, casting, mining, etc. I'm sure some early forks did fall apart. But now, we have it refined, and they're close enough to bug-free.

I think the way to achieve it is to have a fixed feature set that you never add to.

I don’t think even your proposed solution would yield the results you’re seeking. Even if the software were provably correct and never updated, it has to operate on hardware. Hardware will fail. Battery life will degrade, screens will crack, power cables will fray. Even other (real) engineering disciplines don’t guarantee 0% failure, they guarantee tolerances.

Metal forks don’t lose a prong, but their prongs do bend. They do get scraped in garbage disposals. They do get hot when left too long on a heated surface. Some (silver) forks are considerably softer, amplifying those failure modes. And while I’m sure there must be fork vendors who offer solutions with guarantees against those failure modes—there are niche products for nearly every imaginable niche—the vast majority of people knowingly buy forks with these known limitations, trading some reliability for economy and utility. If everyone had the expectations you seem to have, very few people could afford forks at all, and they very well may not have been developed because the market would be so small.

That is probably true, but a zero vision is a very nice goal to aspire to (and perhaps not too unrealistic, who knows the potential of languages, hardware and new developments?).

In any case, tying quality to some tangible, bold measurement like refunds is not a bad idea.

Not necessarily a refund, but some sort of compensation could be in order. “A reboot has occurred. For this inconvenience, we have credited the CC associated with your AppleID $2, (or $5 Applebucks or a free coffee).” Design out the potential for gaming the system for infinite coffees.

If you impose a cost on a user, you compensate the user for that cost. I think that is the basic idea behind tort law. To keep lawyers and associated expense out of the system, do it voluntarily.

But if voluntary compensation of users is being ignored, a change in liability doctrine for software might be in order. Start with the biggest players who can afford the legal costs to resolve the doctrinal issues.

The target isn't zero errors. It's low enough that offering a refund to any user who sees one is financially viable.

You already offer a refund to users where the hardware fails. Why not the same for the software?

For me as a consumer, it feels like it would be far less effort to just reboot the device and get on with my life.