Apple is unique in that their product marketing has a big role in the product design process. If you step back and look at what they do objectively, there are a few journey mapped “happy paths” that Apple designs to. They actively remove features that distract from the true paths.
It’s noticeable with them as Apple has no sympathy for legacy. But you can see it with other companies. An easy one is Google Drive/Docs - they make it easy to find a file, but didn’t consider that you may want to see the folder context of where the file is.
They wrecked the UI completely. Which makes sense - I imagine that the program management of iTunes Match is probably a low priority. Basically, i use search history as a sort of playlist.
I could see it playing out like this, incompetence causes the problem, incompetence fails to identify the problem, incompetence fails to fix the problem.
I think we are on an unproductive tangent, but these are quite important questions. An institution doesn't have its own free will, so I don't think I can claim it can have "intent to cause harm", but it can certainly cause harm.
An institution is not just a collection of people, it is also the business processes and policies. While these are created by people within the institution, they stick around over time. As the world changes around the organization, well intentioned policy can begin to harm.
Individual employees following policy and normal business practice (i.e. just doing their jobs) can behave maliciously without their own intent to do so (sorry, my hands are tied).
An institution needs not only non-malicious members, it needs to constantly re-evaluate its practices. Importantly, when harmful outcomes are observed the institution must re-evaluate and adjust, otherwise the harm will continue.
It's not enough for members to conduct their own behavior without malice, they must also observe outcomes and actively fight against the inertia of existing policy.