2024-11-14 23:46:45
I have been a very happy Spotify Premium subscriber since 2010. While I don’t necessarily like or agree with certain decisions and stances the company took in the past, from a mere customer experience standpoint, I have had nothing to complain about. Last year I took advantage of a coupon I got at a local electronics store and tried Apple Music free for three months. But I only lasted four weeks before cancelling and keep using Spotify. While I think Spotify’s app UI could be improved, the music selection, the seamless experience of streaming what I’m listening to any other connected device, and especially the fact that Spotify doesn’t mess with my iTunes libraries, all this makes Spotify the superior choice for me.
The only, truly irritating thing with Spotify has happened to me three times in the past few months.
So, when you log into your Spotify account from a new device or a modern-enough device you’ve just installed the Spotify app on, the login is usually successful, but Spotify sends you an email message that looks like this:
This kind of practice is rather common today. Steam, Dropbox, Box, other cloud services and other companies do this — and it’s good. It’s a good approach to security. You’re told that a new login happened, and if it was you, all is fine, proceed as usual. If it wasn’t you, here’s a link to secure your account.
But back in October I was checking a few things on my fourth-generation iPod touch running iOS 6, and since I wanted to take some screenshots of Spotify’s older interface, I opened the app and (predictably, I’ll admit) I couldn’t log in or load anything. Apparently, Spotify took this as some kind of ‘suspicious activity’ and unilaterally decided to reset my account password and force me to create a new one.
I hate changing passwords for no reason. Especially when I have Spotify installed on several different devices and I have to update the login credentials on all of them. What I just don’t understand is, why not send me the same kind of email reserved for logins on ‘new’ devices, as seen above? Or send a similar message but with a slightly different wording, like: We noticed you tried to log in from an unsupported app or device. If it was you… etc.
Of course, having no other choice, I begrudgingly changed the password. Only to have the same exact thing happen again earlier this month. I was using my 2008 black MacBook running Snow Leopard, and in late 2023 or early 2024 I managed to download and install a version of the Spotify app that could be used on Macs running Snow Leopard and Lion, and I remembered using it successfully as recently as maybe March or April 2024. So I launched it, and everything seemed normal; it of course prompted me for my account credentials because I had changed the password in October. But after entering my credentials, I got a login error and — you guessed it — an email message telling me my password had been reset due to ‘suspicious activities’ and I had to change it. Again.
One thing I’ve always praised Spotify for is their fairly extended app support, giving me the ability of listening to music even from older Macs and iOS devices. For example, I just logged in from my 2017 iMac running High Sierra and the operation was successful. When opening the app, I did get a warning that “my operating system is out of date”, but the app technically still works. But at this point, it’s a guessing game. One day I might open the app on this Mac again, or on my old iPhone 5s running iOS 12, and the app might not work, and I will have to change my password yet again, against my will, just because Spotify considers this ‘suspicious activity’.
There’s nothing else to do here except venting my frustration, I know. But I wish these kinds of processes failed more elegantly.
2024-10-21 01:36:07
On October 15, via press release, Apple announced the introduction of the new, 7th-generation iPad mini. The following day, Amazon announced the new Kindle lineup, comprised of:
Saying that I was ‘in the market’ for a new iPad mini and a new Kindle is stretching it a bit, because these aren’t primary or even secondary devices for me. I have an 8th-generation iPad, which is almost overkill for what I use it for. Recently I also purchased a used second-generation iPad mini for €30, and after updating it to its maximum supported iOS version (12.5.7), I found it to still be a surprisingly capable device.
As for the Kindle, I have an older Kindle Paperwhite (7th generation, a.k.a. Kindle Paperwhite 3), plus a 9.7‑inch Kindle DX Graphite, which was the best and last of the big Kindle DX line, released in 2010. Despite the Paperwhite being much more advanced and more portable, I tend to enjoy the bigger DX more, which is still a great device for reading and perusing PDF documents, magazines, typeface catalogues, and any digital publication that takes advantage of the larger format.
So, despite me not needing a new iPad mini or Kindle, I was keeping an eye on both products. The iPad mini has intrigued me since the major redesign introduced with the 6th-generation model. I have extensively handled it several times in various stores, truly astounded by its lightness, size, and display clarity, and especially by its potential of being a really handy digital sketchbook/notebook.
On the Kindle front, I’ve been tempted to get an Oasis, due to its form factor, which I’ve found very nice to hold and operate, and especially due to it having physical buttons for navigation. My Paperwhite is nice and compact and all, but when it comes to touch interaction it’s no Apple device (credit where credit’s due) and it’s a bit awkward to use.
So, as time passed, I was telling myself that I should wait for the introduction of the next generation of both of these devices before making decisions or impulse purchases I would end up regretting.
Now that the new iPad mini and the new Kindles are out, I can tell you that they both have one thing in common: they have sold me on the previous generation of their respective models or product lines.
The 7th-generation iPad mini is essentially a gentle speed bump of the previous model, and little more. By comparing it with the 6th-generation iPad mini on Apple’s site, the only differences I’ve found are these:
| iPad mini 6 | iPad mini 7 |
|---|---|
| A15 Bionic chip | A17 Pro chip |
| Does not support Apple Intelligence | Supports Apple Intelligence |
| Wi-Fi 6 | Wi-Fi 6E |
| Supports Apple Pencil (2nd-gen) and Apple Pencil (USB‑C) | Supports Apple Pencil Pro and Apple Pencil (USB‑C) |
| Capacity: 64GB, 256GB | Capacity: 128GB, 256GB, 512GB |
| Does not support Apple Pencil Hover | Supports Apple Pencil Hover |
| Camera has Smart HDR 3 for photos | Camera has Smart HDR 4 for photos |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 5.3 |
The rest of their tech specs are identical: same camera technology, same display, same size and weight, same battery life. And as you can see, the differences are actually nothing to write home about. I suspect that the iPad mini 7 has also more RAM than the 6, given that it supports Apple Intelligence and the 6 doesn’t. So I guess the biggest difference — for those who absolutely care — is the chip and Apple Intelligence support. The ‘problem’ is that today’s iPads are all fast enough for normal use, and from what I hear, even Pro iPads are more than fast enough for pro users. Their speed and performance differences can only be appreciated by looking at artificial benchmarks. I still have to try an iPad mini 7 in person, but I suspect I won’t be saying, Oh, it’s noticeably faster than the previous model, because when I picked up the older iPad mini 6 in a store three days ago, everything I was doing with it felt instantaneous and lag-free.
The only two practical advantages of choosing the newer iPad mini over the previous one that I can see are:
Given that I still use older iOS devices with older iOS/iPadOS versions, and that they’re still working great, advantage №1 is somewhat tempered for me. My iPhone 7 Plus is updated to its maximum supported system, iOS 15.8.3, and all the apps I use are still working fine. When it comes to app functionality, in day-to-day use I virtually see no difference between this phone and my main iPhone, an SE 3 running iOS 17.6.1. My iPhone 8, purposefully left on iOS 12 (long story), still works fine for the most part — there are a few apps I can’t update anymore because they require later versions of iOS, but the core functionality is still there; if it weren’t for work and for the fact that the battery has severely deteriorated, I would probably still be using this iPhone today.
As for advantage №2, in my case it’s not significant, either. If I think of what I would use an iPad mini for, 64GB are plenty. Both my iPhone SE 3 and iPad 8 have 128GB of storage: on the iPhone I still have about 50GB free, while on the iPad I still have almost 90GB free. On the iPhone, most of the storage is taken by thousands of photos, and that’s the only reason why I have ‘only’ 50GB left.
But at this point, the most appealing feature that makes me prefer the iPad mini 6 over the 7 is the fact that it doesn’t support Apple Intelligence. Even if Apple Intelligence appears to be an opt-in feature on supported devices, its complete absence gives me a special kind of peace of mind, you know? Call me old-fashioned if you like. I’ll take that as a compliment.
As for the new Kindles, I’m not saying they’re bad devices. The Colorsoft looks nice enough, and I’m sure the Scribe has improved over the first iteration. But when it comes to personal preferences, I’m with Michael Tsai:
Sadly, the Kindle Oasis was not updated and is, in fact, discontinued. This was my favorite design, as it had physical page-turn buttons, a more comfortable shape to hold, and the lightest weight (131g without the cover).
I imagine that, from a manufacturing standpoint, devices with physical buttons may be annoying because they have parts and components that are subject to stress and wear. But physical buttons in ebook readers — especially when well placed — are crucial and make for a much more pleasant experience; they’re exactly where your thumbs rest while holding the device, and turning pages becomes a frictionless action; you click the button instinctively, without having to constantly move your hand away from holding the device to tap on the screen (hopefully in the right place). Amazon should have kept at least one Kindle with physical buttons instead of going touch-only across the whole lineup. Last week, at the local second-hand electronics shop I frequently visit, I’ve seen a Kindle Oasis at a good price, so I guess I’ll go with that.
2024-10-04 22:11:24
I have loved the concept of the iPhone SE since the beginning. The introduction of the first-generation iPhone SE back in March 2016 managed to surprise me in a way that later iPhone introductions did not. At the time I remember thinking it was a very un-Apple move to make. Not because it didn’t make sense; quite the contrary — it felt like an unusually user-friendly decision. Having a phone with (most of) the capability of the then flagship iPhone 6s and 6s Plus models, but in a smaller package that retained the iPhone 5/5s size and design (what I consider the best iPhone design) and at a more affordable price range — the 16GB iPhone SE cost €250 less than the 16GB iPhone 6s in my country — felt like Christmas in March. And for those users who weren’t thrilled about the size of the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus the year before, and the 6s and 6s Plus now, the iPhone SE truly was a Christmas gift delivered in spring.
That first-generation iPhone SE for me really embodied the idea of a ‘Special Edition’ iPhone. The classic, iconic design of the iPhone 4/4s/5/5s, was being relaunched with a more modern engine under the bonnet. The different timing (March, not September) immediately suggested a different pace, a separate timeline. Moving in an eccentric, inclined orbit, the Pluto of iPhones. One of the first things my nerd friends and I chatted about some days after the iPhone SE was available, was whether there was going to be a second-generation iPhone SE. Our first impression, our gut feeling about that iPhone was that it was going to be one of a kind. A Special Edition iPhone. Maybe Apple would not discontinue it after just one year; maybe it would last a bit more. Different timeline, different orbit, remember?
It did last two years. In March 2017, the iPhone SE was refreshed with new storage sizes, more reasonable storage sizes for the time. Instead of the initial 16 and 64GB capacities, now it was available in 32 and 128GB.
The iPhone 6 and 6 Plus introduced in 2014 were a huge success for Apple. It’s been a while since I bothered to look at statistics and graphs, but I believe that these iPhone models are, to this day, the most sold in the history of the iPhone. Oh, apparently Wikipedia has a List of best-selling mobile phones and indeed, the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus are the best-selling iPhone models, with a total of 222.4 million units.
Yet that didn’t mean people stopped liking smaller phones. I remember crafting a cardboard mockup of the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus to see how they would fit in my hand. I had an iPhone 5 at the time, and was considering an upgrade, but I found the sizes of the bigger iPhones difficult to handle, especially the Plus model, which felt heavy, awkward, and unpleasant to use one-handed. A lot of friends and acquaintances found the sizes of the iPhone 6 and 6s off-putting. And it’s interesting to see on that list of best-selling phones that, while there’s no trace of the first-generation iPhone SE, the iPhone 5s is actually the third Apple best-seller (164.5 million units sold), after the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus (222.4 million), and the 6s and 6s Plus (174.1 million).
After a while, that question came up again: would there be a second-generation iPhone SE? And if so, what would it look like? I remember an email from one of my readers, back in late 2019: they were hoping Apple would maintain the iconic design, maybe simply making the SE a bit bigger, and giving it the specs of the previously-released iPhone XS, like the A12 Bionic chip, and the same camera array. And this reader wasn’t alone in their hopes; many others — perhaps thinking I had some kind of special access to otherwise secret product information, or could talk to someone at Apple to let them know my readers’ wishes — wrote me expressing their idea of the iPhone SE. That it should either be a once-in-an-iPhone-lifetime model, or an iPhone that essentially remained the same on the outside while being updated on the inside. Again, a Special Edition, a constant iconic presence along with the new iPhones on the block.
But Apple had less ambitious, more pragmatic plans in mind. In April 2020, the second-generation iPhone SE was revealed and it was, more mundanely, an iPhone 8 on the outside, with the internals of the iPhone 11 for the most part. At that point, us fans of the iconic design (and size) of the iPhone 5 and 5s, realised that the iPhone SE had very little ‘Special’ in its ‘Edition’. The pattern seemed to be more like, The SE is just last-generation design integrating modern-enough tech specs. Or perhaps Apple’s executives were underwhelmed by the sales of the first-generation iPhone SE and didn’t want to risk re-proposing something with the same design or with the same size.
When the third-generation iPhone SE was expected in spring 2022, then, I anticipated a product with the internals of the iPhone 13 line and with the design of the iPhone X. On the one hand it made sense considering the previous two iterations, on the other that would have been a bummer for me, because in 2022 I found myself needing to upgrade from my iPhone 8, and didn’t want an iPhone with a notch and without a Home button with Touch ID (that was the reason why I purchased an iPhone 8 instead of an X when both models were released in 2017). So imagine my surprise when the third-generation iPhone SE came out and it featured the same exact design of the second-generation iPhone SE (and the iPhone 8).
And imagine my joy: the last time I was like, Shut up and take my money! had been when I purchased the iPhone 4 more than ten years prior. Well, in all honesty, I would have been happier if the iPhone SE line had preserved the size and look of the iPhone 5/5s/SE1, because that’s what had been feeling more comfortable and with a big-enough screen for me. But ever since purchasing the iPhone 8 I had grown accustomed to its physical size over time. Anything bigger still didn’t work for me: for work-related reasons (testing the UI of localised iOS apps on a bigger iPhone screen) I also bought a second-hand iPhone 7 Plus, and while I could see why smartphones this big may appeal to many people, I also couldn’t see myself rocking such a big phone on a daily basis and when out and about. The only articles of clothing with pockets big enough to accommodate a ‘plus size’ iPhone were my winter jackets and my raincoat. Considering how little it rains where I live, and considering that I may be wearing my winter jackets only occasionally over the course of one month and a half in a whole year (because that’s how long is the ‘cold’ season here, typically), taking the iPhone 7 Plus with me when not at home was a rather awkward affair and had to put it in my backpack or laptop bag. Even in the biggest pockets of my cargo pants it was uncomfortable to carry. As for the handling, it’s always been a two-hands phone for me.
But I digress. I was happy to upgrade to a third-generation iPhone SE in 2022, but I was also puzzled by Apple’s decision to keep the previous design without any external change. The ‘pattern’ I seemed to have identified two years before went straight out of the window. Was Apple reconsidering the concept of a ‘Special Edition’ iPhone and settling on a definitive design, deciding to keep offering a ‘small’ iPhone with Touch ID and a proper Home button for all those users who preferred this solution over Face ID and a no-Home-button iPhone?
Or, less imaginatively, was Apple more satisfied with the sales of the second-generation SE — which did sell respectably according to that afore-linked Wikipedia page, 24.2 million units — that they decided to play safe and keep the previous design? Not that risking an upgrade to the iPhone X look would have been such a risk, however, given that the iPhone X has sold 63 million units (source: that same Wikipedia page). Was it simply a matter of having lots of parts available for manufacturing, and therefore not changing the SE design was the path of least resistance?
I don’t know, but looking at how the main iPhone lineup’s design has evolved over the years, I was starting to like the idea that Apple had made a more ‘conceptual’ choice and settled on the older, ‘new classic’ design of the iPhone 6/7/8 to keep offering a reasonably-sized phone, with a classic, properly rectangular display unmarred by dreadful notches, and with a reasonably reliable Home button with Touch ID. If Apple released a fourth-generation iPhone SE that looked like this while featuring most of the internals of the iPhone 16, I would, for the first time in my life, camp outside the local Apple Store the night before the official release and be among the first to buy it. (Yeah, I can hear your snark from here — It wouldn’t be such a long queue, Rick, don’t worry).
However, since the fourth-generation iPhone SE was expected in spring 2024 but didn’t materialise, with some even speculating that maybe it was the end of the line for the SE spinoff, the rumour mill has been active for a long time by now, and it would seem that the most likely scenario for the next iPhone SE is that it will probably feature the internals of the iPhone 16 and the outer design of the iPhone XR.
Pragmatically speaking, it would make some sense. If the pattern for the iPhone SE line is indeed, The SE is just last-generation design integrating modern-enough tech specs, then an iPhone SE with the size and design of the XR would fit such pattern. Given the current sizes of the main iPhone lineup (6.1 inches for the regular 16, 6.3 inches for the iPhone 16 Pro, 6.7 inches for the iPhone 16 Plus, and 6.9 inches for the iPhone 16 Pro Max), the iPhone SE 4 would still be a small-ish iPhone by current standards. And it would feature the new notched look introduced with the iPhone X back in 2017, marking a decisive departure from the iPhone 6 look. This notched look is apparently considered ‘iconic’ by Apple and many fans (who have no design taste at all, but that’s a flame war for another time), so, again, in many ways an iPhone XR-looking fourth-generation iPhone SE would make sense.
Would it really, though?
At the time of writing, the iPhones Apple is still producing and selling are the current iPhone 16 line, the non-pro iPhone 15 and 15 Plus (starting at $799), the non-pro iPhone 14 and 14 Plus (starting at $599), and the third-generation iPhone SE (starting at $429).
This is exactly the same situation we had when the third-generation iPhone SE was introduced in spring 2022. At the time the lineup was the then-current iPhone 13 line, the non-pro iPhone 12 and non-pro iPhone 11 offered at slightly lower prices than when they were new.
And rewinding a little more, in April 2020, the lineup was the then-current iPhone 11 line, the iPhone XR, and the second-generation iPhone SE.
Of course, back in 2016 things were a bit simpler: the first-generation iPhone SE only shared the spotlight with the then-current iPhone 6s and 6s Plus, and discounted iPhone 6/6 Plus models. Keeping the 5s still in production made no sense, obviously, given that the SE looked exactly the same.
The iPhone SE has historically been positioned as the most affordable iPhone, and engaging in a sort of trade-offs battle with the oldest regular iPhone model still on offer.
For those wanting a smaller, more affordable iPhone with a powerful-enough CPU, the iPhone SE 3 remained an interesting pick. And given that the iPhone 14 still retains the A15 Bionic chip of the 13 Pro and the iPhone SE 3, and is currently offered at $599, the $429 iPhone SE 3 still remains a viable solution for those with a tight budget.
Now, imagine a hypothetical fourth-generation iPhone with an A18 Bionic chip (or perhaps a specially-designed A17 Bionic, sort of a nerfed-A18?), the single-camera setup and technology of the iPhone XR, and of course the external design of the iPhone XR, featuring a 6.1‑inch screen (maybe with a slightly updated display technology), Face ID, etc. Let’s say it would replace both the third-generation iPhone SE and the iPhone 14 in Apple’s current offering. Its trade-offs battle would be against the regular iPhone 15. And it would be a tough one. Yes, it would have a better chip, but given how recent performance gains in iPhones have become basically imperceptible in everyday use, would such an iPhone SE 4 be a better proposition over the 15 when all it had would be same or better CPU speed and a lower price? The display would have the same size, the display technology would be worse, it would feature a notch while the iPhone 15 has a dynamic island, it would feature a decidedly worse camera setup… Sure, $429 would be a bargain compared to the $699 of the iPhone 15. But its form factor is too similar and, apart from the CPU, all the rest would be the same stuff but worse in all respects. Unless Apple is planning to do some unexpected changes, like offering a single-camera setup but with a better camera than the XR’s 12-megapixel affair, to make the next iPhone SE more appealing, I don’t see anything particularly special or worth considering in it.
Sure, the iPhone XR has been an unexpected hit — the combined total sales of the XR, XS and XS Max have been 151.1 million units (source: that same Wikipedia page) — so it’s understandable that its design and form factor would be a good candidate for the iPhone SE 4.
But you know what I think would make more sense? I know I come from a biased position, but to me it would make more sense if the design and form factor of the next iPhone SE would be those of the iPhone 12/13 mini. Maybe the 13 mini, since it has a smaller notch on the front and a better battery performance.
It makes more sense for me because the trade-offs against the iPhone 15 would be more interesting. You would have a better display technology compared to the iPhone XR’s, but on the other hand you would have a smaller 5.4‑inch display. Those who are happy with bigger iPhone screens could choose the 6.1‑inch iPhone 16 or 15, while those who still love smaller iPhones could see in the SE 4 the long-awaited refresh of their beloved iPhone 13 mini. The camera array could be the same as the 13 mini, too: worse than the one in the iPhone 15, but not that comparatively bad as the one in the XR. Overall, it would still feel like a ‘Special Edition’ phone: compared to the mainstream iPhone lineup, it would be different/special enough, appealing enough, modern enough, all the while maintaining that classic, truly iconic design that harks back to the lines of the iPhone 4 and 5. Apple could even sell it at $499 instead of $429. Heck, I could even put aside my long-standing deep-seated distaste for the notch if I could buy a smaller iPhone with current tech specs.
I’m too cynical to really hope Apple would make such a design choice, though. Oh well, one can dream.
2024-09-26 19:43:44
The day before yesterday, I got a message from my brother-in-law: Want to know something? My iMac has developed a series of horizontal lines all over the screen, more noticeable at the bottom.
And he shared a link to a discussion in the Community forum on Apple’s website. His iMac is the 24-inch M1 iMac model released in 2021. Apparently this issue is not uncommon. I’d like to quote the ‘Top-ranking reply’ in that forum thread in its entirety because it explains the issue with clarity; then I’ll add a couple of personal remarks. (Emphasis is the original poster’s.)
“Jotap62”:
According to the Apple support team I contacted, it’s an LCD malfunction and the only solution is to replace it.
What they didn’t say was why this problem is occurring after two years of using the iMac on so many computers.
So, as Apple hasn’t yet assumed that it’s their fault, what I did, given the lack of concrete answers from Apple, was to take my iMac to a technician and ask him to assess the problem to see if it’s a construction problem or just a random fault.
The explanation I was given was as follows:
In terms of circuitry, everything seems to be working properly.
The problem, apparently, lies in a cable that also powers the LCD, which is located on one of the tops of the screen, and which, in order to be replaced, requires detaching the screen glass from the LCD itself, which is a very sensitive operation and almost impossible to carry out without damaging the LCD.
So the only option is to replace the entire LCD (LCD + main boards + screen glass).
Also, according to the technician’s explanation, this cable (of the FFC/FPC type or Flat Flexible Cable / Flexible Printed Circuit) has to sustain a very high voltage (around 50V) to power the LCD (this despite the iMac’s power supply being 15.9V), and it heats up a lot!
So, what happens after a while (in this case after about 2 years) is that it starts to burn out and degrade at the connector, to the point where it lets the signals leak between the various connectors and short-circuits some of them, which ends up causing those lines that we are all unfortunately familiar with.
The level of brightness makes a fundamental contribution to this problem. Thus, the higher the brightness used, the sooner the problem occurs.
This is easily understood by measuring the difference in temperature at the top of the screen when it is at its lowest brightness level, compared to when it is at its highest. It’s quite a big difference!
When it’s at its lowest brightness, it’s practically room temperature; when it’s at its highest, you can almost “fry an egg”!
I think that as soon as Apple recognizes that there is a problem with these computers, the first thing it will do is make a change to the OS that reduces the maximum brightness limit allowed (to less than 500 nits). Time will tell…
Why does this happen?
For at least one of three reasons:
- A design flaw — so this problem is likely to occur in a large number of devices;
- A defect in components — the problem is limited to a few cases;
- Use of components below Apple’s standards — the problem may be limited, or more widespread.
This was the explanation I was given. I’m not a technician. Only Apple will know the exact reason(s).
If I had to guess, I’d say that I don’t believe it’s a design fault, because Apple has an obligation to be very careful about that; I also don’t think it’s a fault with the component(s) because it seems to be happening all over the planet and doesn’t seem to be localized; so I think it’s due to the use of component(s) below, or at the limit of, Apple’s standards which, when put under extreme stress (higher brightness), end up failing.
I think it’s already clear to everyone that this is a design or manufacturing defect in this Apple model.
So let’s hope that Apple takes on this construction problem and repairs it or at least contributes part of the cost of the (overly expensive) repair of our computers.
If it were a car, surely all our computers would be called into the workshop to replace the component that has broken down or is in the process of breaking down.
As it’s a computer… let’s hope that Apple will behave in a way that suits its customers, who believe in the above-average Apple standard…
So keep presenting your cases to Apple.
Since I’ve been out of the tech loop for a few months this year, maybe this issue has already been discussed. Anyway, here are a few scattered thoughts.
My first reaction was to add this to the series of duds in Tim Cook’s Apple (see my previous post to better get what I’m alluding to). It’s true that Apple is not new to this kind of problems. Several iterations of past MacBook Pros were plagued by graphics card issues that rendered the computer basically unusable. And some Intel iMac generations met the same fate, unfortunately. (I really feel for my brother-in-law, because his previous iMac — a 21.5‑inch 4K iMac from 2013 or 2014 — was exactly one of those with graphics card issues).
But while “Jotap62” above says that they don’t believe it’s a design fault, I’d say this is very much the case. Apple wanted to redesign an already-slim-enough iMac to produce something that was strikingly thin for a desktop computer. The space inside such a thinned down chassis is so tight that Apple had to make the power supply external to the iMac, just like a laptop’s AC adapter. When you work within tight spaces and with strict tolerances, things can go wrong. 13- and 15-inch models of MacBook Pro manufactured between 2016 and 2017 presented an issue with the display flex cable. As explained here, in those MacBook Pro models, the flex cable connecting the display to the board is now wrapped around the hinge and is a spring-ed ribbon cable. This makes it even more susceptible to breakage over time due to the constant tension and relaxation when opening and closing the lid, unlike the previous design, where the wire connecting [the display] was tucked inside the hinge cover and never moved.
This issue also surfaced in the ultra-thin 12-inch retina MacBook models, as if the butterfly keyboard was not enough of a blunder.
Now, back to the iMac display issue, as the technician contacted by “Jotap62” explains, if the iMac’s display flex cable “has to sustain a very high voltage (around 50V) to power the LCD (this despite the iMac’s power supply being 15.9V)”, I find it hard to believe that none of the hardware gurus at Apple didn’t know that. I’m not an engineer, nor a hardware guru, but what I suspect is that those responsible of designing and assembling the innards of the 24-inch M‑series iMac were given the daunting task of fitting everything into that super-thin chassis, and something got to give. And this kind of flex cable was a compromise, the ‘okay-enough’, ‘it’ll last enough’ solution.
What infuriates me is that this is the kind of problem the manufacturer certainly knows about, but they also know it won’t trigger immediately. Customers then are faced with a costly out-of-warranty replacement, where the right thing to do would be to treat this as a known manufacturing issue and offer a free replacement. (Especially considering that — and this is the other infuriating bit — even after a replacement the issue is likely to reoccur). Maybe it’s also a case of components that are below Apple’s standards or requirements, but the outcome is the same — customers shouldn’t pay for these mistakes.
But this would be very costly for Apple, I already hear some say. Well, no one asked them to make this stupid, unnecessarily thin iMac redesign in the first place.
2024-09-19 06:24:00
I don’t read Daring Fireball as diligently as I used to do time ago. It has always been a Mac- and Apple-oriented blog, implying a natural built-in bias, but I always appreciated Gruber’s balance in most of his critiques and stances. And I always maintained that he was a big influence on me, and one of the main reasons I wanted to start a tech blog of my own all those years ago.
But in recent years I haven’t particularly liked Gruber’s more and more apparent bias towards Apple and the company’s politics and behaviour, something I attribute to him having more access to the company’s higher executives. And I’ve found his position towards the EU and the way EU legislation is affecting Apple operations to be misguided, disingenuous, and borderline offensive.
Unlike other people, and despite all this, I haven’t stopped reading Daring Fireball for now, partly out of curiosity, partly because, when it comes to technology insights and observations, Gruber can still provide some interesting food for thought.
And in fact, when I started reading his latest long-form article on Apple’s September 9 event It’s Glowtime, titled The Things They Carried, I was intrigued and interested in reading his take. But a few paragraphs in, my eyebrow started to raise:
Last week’s “It’s Glowtime” event was very strong for Apple. It might have been the single strongest iPhone event since the introduction of the iPhone X.
Wh… What? Have I watched a different event? Has Apple broadcast a shittier event for us viewers in the EU out of spite? The iPhone X — while I hated that it introduced the notch in the iPhone design — wasn’t exactly as iterative a product as the iPhone 16 (and the Watch, and the AirPods that have been presented along with it). I don’t see anything particularly groundbreaking to make me consider It’s Glowtime “the single strongest iPhone event since the introduction of the iPhone X.” This quote sounds like a blurb you’d find in one of Apple’s press releases.
But this is just a quibble. Later on, we encounter more… fascinating observations:
But the biggest difference is that Apple, under Jobs, was quirky, and I think would have remained noticeably more quirky than it has been under Cook. You’d be wrong, I say, to argue that Cook has drained the fun out of Apple. But I do think he’s eliminated quirkiness. Cook’s Apple takes too few risks. Jobs’s Apple took too many risks.
I agree only in part with this, and it’s a small part. I want to clarify some things about that ‘quirky’, but I have to add more context first.
After the debatable remark that “Jobs was driven to improve the way computers work. Cook is driven to improve the way humans live”, with which I simply disagree, Gruber makes an excursion to illustrate aspects of Apple’s quirkiness under Jobs, and talks about the third-generation iPod nano.
It’s quite possible you don’t remember the fat Nano, because it wasn’t insanely great, even though it replaced 2nd-gen iPod Nano models that were. And so a year later, with the 4th-gen Nanos, Apple went back to the tall-and-skinny design, as though the fat Nano had never happened.
That fat Nano was quirky. It was also, in hindsight, obviously a mistake. I’m quite sure that inside Apple there were designers and product people who thought it was a mistake before it shipped. Steve Jobs shipped it anyway, surely because his gut told him it was the right thing to try. Tim Cook’s Apple doesn’t make mistakes like that. That’s ultimately why Cook’s Apple is more successful[.]
I don’t know where this singling out of the third-generation iPod nano comes from. First of all, each of the first five generations of the iPod nano was in production for just one year, whether it was successful or not, a mistake or not, a dud or not. Some specific nano generations might have been more successful than others, but Jobs was keen on keeping things fresh by trying new designs and not dwell too much on the older ones. But, importantly, he often tried new designs almost exclusively on consumer Apple products. Pro or premium products had a different treatment. This is a crucial point I’ll elaborate further on.
The third-generation iPod nano was the first to feature video capabilities — its ‘fat’ look was due to its bigger 320×240 display, made bigger and brighter to watch videos more comfortably (the second-generation iPod nano’s display was a mere 176×132 pixels). The fourth- and fifth-generation nanos did return to a taller shape, but they weren’t less quirky, since to watch videos (and browse music albums in Cover Flow view) you had to rotate the iPod in landscape orientation. At least in the fifth-generation nano this quirk was partly justified by the fact that it had a camera and you could capture video, and some argue that holding the iPod in landscape orientation was better ergonomically.
But the point is, the design of the iPod nano kept changing year after year, no matter what. Personal assessment: the 6th-generation nano was the most daring from a design standpoint, and I liked that it was ‘clippable’ like the iPod shuffle, but from a manufacturing standpoint, it suffered from having tiny, fragile buttons that tended to break after a few months of continued use, and the touch interface, while cool, was applied to a display too small for its own good. If there’s a dud among the iPod nanos, it’s probably this one more than the ‘fat’ nano. And this iPod stayed in production for two years.
The same can be said in the unfortunate case of the 3rd-generation iPod shuffle. It was absolutely minuscule, and that’s because it had almost no physical controls, which were relegated to the included earphones. Clearly a product made to amaze — I purchased one many many years later, in 2017, and I liked it more than I did when it first came out — but still, we may consider this another ‘true’ dud.
But then Gruber considers duds the iMac G4, the Power Mac G4 Cube, and the iSight camera. While I don’t disagree about the Cube (a product whose failure I still think has to be attributed to bad pricing and positioning — and perhaps even to being the right product at the wrong time — more than anything else), the iMac G4 and the iSight were more successful products. The iMac G4, in various display sizes and processor speeds, stayed in production from January 2002 to July 2004, and during that time — at least in my part of the world — I saw it everywhere: offices, graphic studios, shops, dental clinics, you name it. The iSight was produced between June 2003 and December 2006, it underwent three revisions, and again, as more and more people took to videoconferencing at the time, the more I was seeing iSight cameras propped on top of Cinema Displays or aluminium PowerBooks. It wasn’t a quirky dud.
Let’s get back to the last bit of the quoted part above. Gruber says: Tim Cook’s Apple doesn’t make mistakes like that. That’s ultimately why Cook’s Apple is more successful .
Selective memory is amazing. Shall we talk about a few duds that happened under Tim Cook’s Apple? Like the 2013 ‘trash can’ Mac Pro? Like the impregnable 2014 Mac mini? Like the 2015 12-inch single-port retina MacBook? — A dud in itself containing yet another dud in the form of the infamous keyboard with butterfly mechanism, one of the biggest blunders in Apple’s history that took the company four years, four years to acknowledge and fix it. Shall we talk about the Touchbar? Or the gold Apple Watch Edition? Shall we talk about the slow but assured deterioration of Mac OS, the user interface and Apple software in general?
Tim Cook’s Apple is more successful because Cook, on the one hand, has done what he did best in his previous position: he’s expanded Apple’s reach and scale of operations; and on the other he’s been extremely effective at taking advantage of a consolidated brand and reputation. A lot of people today purchase Apple products in part because they take for granted that it’s a reputable premium brand. They don’t (always) question whether each Apple product is demonstrably, indisputably better than the competition. You buy a Rolex watch first and foremost because it’s a Rolex; you don’t make a fuss or start carefully comparing it to other brands and evaluate which is the better manufactured, the most precise timepiece, etc. And even if other high-end watch brands make products just as good as a Rolex, you still choose Rolex. It’s the brand you ‘know’ best. (Not the greatest parallel, perhaps, given the different order of magnitude of money involved, but hopefully you get the idea).
And a lot of other people today purchase Apple products because they’re well entrenched in Apple’s ecosystem. They prioritise that convenience over other considerations — like the worsened UI across Mac OS and iOS, like the worsened software quality, like certain atrocious design decisions such as putting a notch in iPhones and, worse, on MacBooks.
And let’s don’t forget how a lot of Apple products today, from a sheer outer design standpoint, haven’t dramatically changed since they were first produced under Jobs. And where they have changed, the new design is an obvious remix of past tried-and-true designs we first saw under Jobs. Unibody MacBook Pros stayed the same between 2008 and 2015, and have changed very little since 2015. They’ve got thinner, then thicker; they’re available in other colours and not just silver, they’ve acquired a stupid fucking notch, but their form factor, their essence, is unchanged.
Same goes for the iMac: same essential design from 2007 to 2020(!), then Cook’s Apple — in a momentary lapse of quirkiness — decided to redesign it with the M1 iMac in 2021, and basically forgot about it apart from a mild refresh in 2023.
Same goes for the Mac mini. The Mac Studio can be seen either as a taller mini or a G4 Cube cut in half.
The Mac Pro had to be returned to its ‘tower of metal’ design after the fiasco of the 2013 model. (But I won’t waste any more of your time talking about how the Mac Pro today has actually become the quirkiest professional product ever made by Apple, again thanks to Cook’s ‘vision’ and ‘sage leadership’).
But let’s get back to Steve Jobs’s ‘quirky Apple’.
From the picture Gruber is painting in his piece, Steve Jobs’s Apple was characterised by a continued series of highs and lows, a tidal ebb-and-flow tied to the whims of its impulsive leader. And I concede that Jobs had an impulsive side. But I want you to pay close attention to which products were always the testing ground for design ideas and solutions; which products featured the more fun and whimsical side of Jobs’s Apple — they were the products aimed at the consumer segment. Risks were taken, but they were calculated risks, given that consumer Apple products in Jobs’s era were more affordable than ‘Pro’ products. (To go back to the iPod nano, if the design chosen for a particular generation turned out to be unsuccessful, Apple wouldn’t have gone bankrupt for selling fewer nanos).
Under Jobs, consumer products and professional products were more clearly separated; not just in price, but also (and more importantly for the sake of this argument) visually, in their design and their building materials.
But if we look at all the professional and higher-tier Apple products under Jobs’s tenure, there isn’t much quirk, fun, or whimsy to be found:
Jobs knew exactly where and how to direct the most fun and whimsical designs in Apple’s product lines. And fun and whimsical they were. And they were a joy to own and use, also thanks to their well-designed operating systems.
Gruber says:
You’d be wrong, I say, to argue that Cook has drained the fun out of Apple. But I do think he’s eliminated quirkiness. […]
The delight is still there, but there’s less amazement. It’s by design. They’re not trying but failing to reach the heights of the Jobs era’s ecstatic design novelty, because those peaks had accompanying valleys. Apple today is aiming for, and achieving, utterly consistent excellence. Quirkiness no longer fits.
If arguing that Cook has indeed drained the fun out of Apple is wrong, then I don’t want to be right. One thing that I feel has been noticeably reduced is the ‘something special’ factor I once found in Apple products with much more frequency. It’s more than just the amazement. It’s that urge to get that Apple computer or device because it feels special. I’ve rarely been an early adopter of Apple products, but that was mostly due to budget. But after many keynotes, after many product announcements, I always thought, I can’t wait to get my hands on this. Believe it or not, the only products out of Cook’s Apple that have brought back that kind of feeling have been… the sixth-generation iPad mini and, briefly, the M1 MacBook Air.
The ‘utterly consistent’ excellence of Cook’s Apple is achieved through masterful levels of iteration. We’re seeing, for the most part, the same computers, devices, peripherals we’ve been seeing since they were introduced under Jobs, but continually refined and perfected. The brand and related recognition must be maintained. And before you jump at me and tell me that iteration in tech isn’t necessarily a bad thing, I’ll tell you that you’re right, it’s not. But when it patently goes on for this long and for every product line, I’m starting to question Apple’s ability to come up with something truly original and groundbreaking (and sorry, but the goggles are not that — they are stereoscopic iPads with iPadOS floating in 3D).
In eliminating quirkiness (not completely though, see the examples I made earlier), Cook has also eliminated that once clear distinction between entry-level Apple products and products aimed at professionals. There isn’t a ‘just MacBook’ anymore. The MacBook Pro / MacBook Air lines have different names, but now the design language and form factor are almost indistinguishable (even more indistinguishable than they were under Jobs, yes). There isn’t a truly compact Apple laptop anymore, now MacBook Pro and MacBook Air models are all crowding the space between 13-inch and 16-inch sizes. You want a compact laptop, get an iPad, seems to be Apple’s answer. I think there is still a market for a sub-$999 11- or 12-inch Apple laptop, maybe made of more rugged and ‘youth-proof’ materials. I don’t think it would be too much of a risk given current Apple profits and resources. But it would probably contaminate what Cook considers the Ideal Apple Brand. Ferrari doesn’t produce economy cars under their brand, are you crazy?
Gruber also misses the mark when he talks about Cook being passionate and giving as example that infamous 2014 shareholders meeting and Cook’s angry “I don’t consider the bloody ROI” retort, but instead of doing the nitpicking myself, I’ll link to Michael Tsai’s observations, with which I agree.
I have made a lot of digressions and excursions, and perhaps that has diluted the point I was trying to make. So I’ll try to summarise it in my conclusion. The main thing I didn’t appreciate in Gruber’s piece was the narrative about Steve Jobs’s Apple being quirky, impulsive, very risk-taking, versus Tim Cook’s Apple with Cook apparently saving the brand by removing quirkiness and uncertainty, and bringing Apple on a spotless path of constant excellence and success, free of mistakes and quirks. I hope to have demonstrated how Jobs actually and purposefully chose where to play the quirky/fun/whimsical card and where to play safe, design-wise.
And while I don’t deny Cook’s ability to make Apple an even more successful company, I would like to remind you of the state Apple was in when Jobs returned at the helm in 1997 versus the state Apple was in when Cook took control in 2011. In 14 years, Jobs literally built a company worth billions of dollars from the ashes of 1997 Apple. Cook has been an excellent asset manager, an excellent brand cultivator. He consolidated what was already successful and made everything greater and on an even bigger scale. And that’s undeniable. But he hasn’t built all this from scratch. He came into a very good inheritance. So while Gruber says,
I can’t prove any of this, of course, but my gut says that a Steve-Jobs–led Apple today would be noticeably less financially successful and industry-dominating than the actual Tim-Cook–led Apple has been.
my gut isn’t so sure about that. And I wouldn’t be this quick in selling Jobs short. If we’re talking about gut feelings, I’d say that if Steve Jobs were still around, we would have a differently successful and a differently industry-leading Apple. A company that wouldn’t feel so ‘corporate tech’ as other giants in the field. A company that probably wouldn’t be this greedily pushy when it comes to the App Store and its bloody 30% cut. A company that probably wouldn’t want to be involved in everything, everywhere, all the time in all the markets but would instead choose specific markets and bloody excel at those. A company that would probably know what to do with the iPad. A company that would still make excellent software — especially when it comes to the Mac. And that would be capable of differentiating itself in more meaningful ways than just being a giant tech powerhouse.
Gruber:
Jobs was driven to improve the way computers work. Cook is driven to improve the way humans live.
Steve Jobs:
It’s not just a job, it’s a journey. Let’s never forget that. … Your customers dream of a happier and better life. Don’t move products. Instead, enrich lives.
