Post-holiday miscellanea

Tech Life

1.

I’m finding it a bit hard to write about technology, lately. My decreasing enthusiasm has to be age-related: I’ve been interested in technology for many years now, always nurturing a curious eye and attitude towards new hardware, new devices, new solutions, new software, and at the same time trying not to make such excitement linger on a specific innovation, but rather attempting to look at it against the big picture. The big picture being progress, technological advancement and how it affects humans and everyday life. My current general feeling of disappointment towards the tech world could perhaps be summarised this way: I’m liking that big picture less and less. Why? Just read the news, or open Twitter, to get a taste.

2.

In possibly the best article I’ve read this summer (or this year so far), Absolute scale corrupts absolutely, Avery Pennarun writes:

The Internet has gotten too big.

Growing up, I, like many computery people of my generation, was an idealist. I believed that better, faster communication would be an unmitigated improvement to society. “World peace through better communication,” I said to an older co-worker, once, as the millenium was coming to an end. “If people could just understand each others’ points of view, there would be no reason for them to fight. Government propaganda will never work if citizens of two warring countries can just talk to each other and realize that the other side is human, just like them, and teach each other what’s really true.”

[Wired.com has an excellent article about this sort of belief system.]

You have a lot to learn about the world,” he said.

Or maybe he said, “That’s the most naive thing I’ve ever heard in my entire life.” I can’t remember exactly. Either or both would have been appropriate, as it turns out.

I used to share this sort of belief system. The disappointment that ensued came slowly but steadily. My exposure to Usenet in the late 1990s-early 2000s gave me a relatively hard lesson on how much people can communicate online and how little that helps to understand one another. But also on how people can weaponise the communication tools they have at their disposal to twist narratives, spread false notions, hurt others. My idealism was curbed, but not completely defeated. I remember thinking that Usenet was just an environment, an enclosed (cyber)space people treated as a sort of communication playground, just like how it was at school. Fast forward to now, however, and the playground is everywhere. The virus has breached containment.

3.

Every day I stumble onto some kind of obstacle or problem that makes me think, This could be easily solved with the level of technological progress we have today — but the tech world is still dominated by a certain strain of nerd mindset that makes too many people focus on less important stuff, like how many cameras, megapixels, and what kind of low-light performance the next wave of smartphones are going to have; or how we can improve Siri so that it can understand simple commands we’re still faster to execute ourselves in the first place; or when the stupid self-driving cars are finally coming. An immense amount of resources spent on trying to solve the wrong problems, or the non-problems, or the problems tech companies have created in the first place. We obsess on what the artwork on the Apple invitation for their September 10 event may imply, while the public building I’m in now completely lacks any solution to help blind and otherwise disabled people navigate its various floors.

4.

I clearly have iPad fatigue. The other day I tweeted, I really can’t explain why, but my enthusiasm/excitement for the iPad has been decreasing as the device has actually, progressively become more powerful. I suspect this ‘iPad fatigue’ comes from too much exposure to stupid tech debates like “Can iPad become your only device?”

I knew from the start that the iPad wouldn’t stand a chance at becoming my only — or my main — computing device. When it comes to personal tech choices, I’m too intellectually curious to be a minimalist. The iPad for me has been, still is, a fantastic computing wingman; the perfect consumption solution; the perfect platform for quick checks and fast tasks. When it wants to act like a pro, it can, but there’s too much friction; so much as to make the device utterly unappealing. I’m faster on a Mac. I’m faster on a Windows 10 laptop. Or even on the older Windows 8.1.

And it took me less time finding my way around Android on the Xiaomi Mi A2 I’ve recently purchased (for work and personal UI research) than fully mastering the beta of iPadOS 13 on a borrowed iPad.

In 2012, I couldn’t wait to spend my hard-earned money on the upcoming third-generation iPad, the first with a retina display. I truly made the most out of it in the following years, and it’s still my main iPad, together with a first-generation iPad whose simplicity (and beloved pre-iOS 7 user interface design) still makes it a joy to use. 

In 2018–2019, I started considering the idea of getting a regular, entry-level iPad, to keep up with the latest iOS releases on a tablet, and maybe have a more powerful portable machine when I’m out and about and don’t exactly need a workstation. But the purchase of a second-hand 11-inch MacBook Air made me realise that I didn’t really need a new iPad or iPad Pro. I had found the perfect power+portability package I was looking for, for much less money. From then on, I really had a tough time justifying the purchase of an iPad, so I kept prioritising other stuff, like photographic equipment, an Android phone, and my next investment is very likely going to be a pair of Sony noise-cancelling Bluetooth headphones, which cost just like a regular, entry-level iPad. My 5‑minute experience when I tried them out has been comparatively more life-changing, I kid you not.

5.

So, rumour has it that the next iPhone line-up will have a naming scheme that’ll give us an “iPhone 11 Pro” model, and while Gruber keeps nodding and saying that it makes a lot of sense, I find that using the ‘Pro’ moniker on iPhones is just silly and ridiculous. I know that with Apple, ‘Pro’ doesn’t always necessarily mean ‘professional’; that in many cases it’s just a way to indicate a premium or deluxe device. But I think it’s a poor choice of label, one that makes ‘Pro’ become more and more meaningless. Imagine if Apple introduced an improved version of the AirPods and HomePod, kept selling the original models, but called the new ones “AirPods Pro” and “HomePod Pro” respectively. Yes, that’s how “iPhone Pro” sounds to my ears.

6.

This summer, my wife and I didn’t travel by plane or train, but by car. We went to Italy passing through France, and we made a couple of stops (Nice and Montpellier) on our way back. Our car is a bit old, and doesn’t have a GPS or an integrated satnav. Previous car trips had seen successful navigation by simply relying on our iPhones and Google Maps’ suggested routes and turn-by-turn navigation. This time things worked flawlessly… 96% of the time. And the 4% when things didn’t work, we actually found ourselves in stressful situations for which we had to quickly improvise a way out. In crucial moments — like taking the right turn to properly go back to the autoroute — Google Maps on my iPhone 8 seemed to briefly lose or miscalculate our position; the arrow representing our car would start wandering off; the map would start drunkenly rotating; and Google Maps would start ‘rerouting’ just when we had to decide whether to turn right or proceed straight for another 200 metres. 

We lost ourselves a couple of times. And when you’re too focussed and too reliant on a navigator, and it fails you, you get startled and feel you’re suddenly in the middle of a jump and the safety net has vanished beneath you. Once Google Maps mistakenly thought we had arrived at our destination, when we were actually driving a few parallel streets away, so it triumphantly displayed the ‘You’ve reached your destination’ screen and obviously stopped giving directions. And we had a brief, panicky What now!? What now?! moment. (You might find this funny, but when it’s late evening, you’re driving for the first time in a city you’ve never been before, you don’t speak the local language fluently, you’re near the historic centre and you really need to find parking… Well, amused is definitely not what you feel.)

I still wonder what happened, though. So far, Google Maps has truly been 100% reliable for me. My brother-in-law suggested it might have been something with my iPhone’s GPS or compass — but before trying the silly 8‑shaped calibrating gesture, I switched to Apple Maps, and it was locking on our position without straying unexpectedly. I still prefer Google Maps’ interface, but admittedly Apple Maps came to the rescue at least on one crucial occasion.

7.

A few days ago, I finally decided and bought an Android smartphone. I’ve had this idea for months — not to switch from iOS to Android, but to get a modern Android device to give the platform another close look, among other things. The last time I tried Android it was late 2014, on a 2011 smartphone running version 4.0.4. Of course my experience was a bit meh. What can I say? User interfaces are probably one of the few areas of interest keeping my tech fireplace burning, and I’ve been following Android’s progress by watching a lot of Android smartphone reviews. Many phones have surprised me for their capabilities, and I would really be a fool fanboy if I didn’t recognise that — when it comes to hardware design, features, and software polish — the gap between iPhones and Android phones has been drastically reducing in the last few years.

For my purposes, investing in a flagship Android headset was frankly overkill. Especially now, that brands like Nokia, Xiaomi, Oppo, OnePlus, Huawei, are making very good midrange products, with respectable tech specs and affordable prices. Additional preferences were: a notchless phone, a sufficient amount of RAM and horsepower (so that the phone doesn’t get obsolete too soon), a phone included in the AndroidOne initiative (so that I could have the ‘pure Android’ experience), and finally a smartphone that wouldn’t hit my wallet too hard. 

I found a good deal in the Xiaomi Mi A2. Yes, it’s a model from 2018, but it ticks all the items in my wishlist. After considering buying it second-hand in a local shop, I actually saved money by purchasing it directly online at Xiaomi’s website. I got the variant with 4 GB of RAM and 64 GB of storage, in black, for less than €150. I will share my observations in a dedicated post at a later date, but for now I’ll go ahead and say that after two days with the device, I had virtually no trouble getting used to Android. The Mi A2 is a nice, capable performer, with a very iPhonish design (with the screen turned off it could be mistaken for an iPhone 7/8 Plus when looked from across a room). For being a phone with a 5.99-inch display, it’s surprisingly manageable, and the fingerprint sensor on the back is as fast as TouchID on my iPhone 8. 

My very first impression of modern Android is that it has matured a lot as a mobile operating system and, at least in its ‘pure’ form, it feels way more stable and much more visually consistent than it was just a few years back.

8.

Hotel Wi-Fi offerings are still mediocre. Case 1: Wi-Fi worked, but we had to create a free account to use it (and relinquish some personal data; nothing major, but it really felt unnecessary). Case 2: Wi-Fi worked, connection seemed reliable but not particularly speedy (let’s say acceptable for most tasks) — but WEP encryption!? Really!? Case 3: Wi-Fi didn’t work; credentials were entered correctly, devices connected to the network, but no traffic whatsoever. Maybe that router goes to sleep after 2 AM?

9.

Games I’ve recently played (and still playing) that I recommend: Stories Untold, GRIS, and Kona. I’ve been enjoying them a lot. Your tastes and mileage may vary.

Speaking of games, there are two game-related YouTube channels I’m subscribed to, and both deserve many more subscribers than they currently have:

  • Nick930 — Nick produces terrific game reviews and game comparisons. He’s very honest and balanced, and keeps his reviews pleasantly short (8–12 minutes on average); but he also makes very nice documentaries about the histories of various game franchises. The material is well-researched and well-presented. I stumbled on his channel by chance while looking for videos about Tomb Raider, and found his great History of Tomb Raider (1996–2018). You’ll see that Nick has currently more than 146,000 subscribers, and while it’s a respectable audience, I still think his channel is very underrated and that he deserves at least 5 times that number.
  • Tench Froast — Now, here’s a truly criminally underrated channel. I already talked about Lady Tench Froast (no real name given) back in January, and I still stand by what I said then:

    She’s a smart, witty, genuine, sarcastic, entertaining woman. She loves trying out indie games for the most part, and when you follow her in her playthroughs, you have this feeling of really being there too. She’s engaging, completely direct and spontaneous, and whether you like the game she’s playing or not, you’ll certainly gain a few good laughs from the experience. But I also like the fact that she’s not just in for the jokes and the lulz, she also makes smart observations and criticism during the gameplay, explaining what she likes and why, and what she thinks doesn’t work and why. 

    I also like her “No Commentary” series, where she just shows gameplay without commentary, so that you can focus on a particular game; and the “Toast Bites” series, little compilations of ‘bites’ taken from 5–6 different indie games, with a brief review for each of them. This series is perfect to discover indie titles you may not have heard about, and which could be interesting to try out.

    At the moment, she only has 347 subscribers(!), and it’s a damn shame. She’s a fun, intelligent person producing good quality material only three hundred people will see, while there are a bunch of idiot YouTubers doing idiotic things who have hundreds of thousands of subscribers. It just isn’t fair. She hopes to reach 1,000 subscribers by the end of the year. Really, check out her channel!

Security Monitor

Handpicked

This excellent article by Paulo Andrade (found via Michael Tsai, of course) got me thinking. It’s titled The Alert Hammer and discusses “the increasing number of security alerts Apple has been adding to macOS, both with Mojave (10.14) and the upcoming Catalina (10.15)”.

I’m still on Mac OS 10.13 High Sierra on both my main Macs, and the more I read about the annoying barrage of security prompts in Catalina, and the amount (and kind) of bugs still present in Mojave, the less I feel the urge to upgrade to either.

I fondly remember a time when I used to upgrade to a new version of Mac OS X as soon as it was released, due to the implicit trust I had in Apple to deliver a better, improved Mac OS X version over the previous one. This went on until 10.9 Mavericks. I skipped 10.10 Yosemite entirely (and I still feel I’ve dodged quite the bullet with that one). Then it was 10.11 El Capitan (but I still waited at least until 10.11.3 before upgrading). Then another jump to 10.13 High Sierra (here I skipped Sierra for technical reasons — my 2009 MacBook Pro didn’t support it, and the new iMac I purchased in 2018 came with 10.13 preinstalled). 

Now I’ve switched to ‘active distrust’ mode towards Apple. I don’t feel 10.14 Mojave brings anything particularly useful to me, and 10.15 Catalina even less so. Nothing really worth leaving High Sierra and its general stability behind. Everything I’m reading about Catalina, the experiences of those valiant people trying out the beta, and the technical observations of the more expert users and Mac developers, gives me the impression that Catalina is perhaps the first version of Mac OS that is more useful to Apple rather than their users, if you get my drift.

But I’m digressing as usual. Back to Andrade’s post, I especially agree with him here:

Apple started adding user consent alerts way back in High Sierra. The first time an app would try to access your location, contacts, calendar, reminders or photos a system alert would prompt the user for consent. Mojave expanded these prompts to automation, camera and microphone. And now Catalina adds screen recording, keyboard input monitoring, access to folders such as Desktop, Documents and Downloads, user notifications and Safari downloads…

These alerts are just another step on a long path Apple has been taking to protect user’s data. Previous steps include code signing, sandbox, gatekeeper, the “curated” Mac App Store and notarization.

But security features are most useful when they’re invisible. All previous steps were mostly invisible. This last one… not so much.

[…]

Note how on one end of the spectrum alerts are useless for users that don’t understand the implications of allowing such access and on the other end experts want to turn them off.

So for the benefit of a few power users in the middle of the spectrum that feel more secure with these, every one else gets to be annoyed.

In short, alerts can be useful but they really must outweigh the cost of having them in the first place. And this is where I think Apple is failing badly. They are so excited with this new found hammer that they can’t help themselves but to hammer on.

This made me think about an alternative concept that could bring back some invisibility when it comes to security features. Before proceeding, a disclaimer: this is just an ‘off-the-top-of-my-head’ idea, and I don’t have enough programming expertise to claim that what I’m suggesting is feasible. At an empirical, logical level it should be. Still, I’m a terrible chess player, and perhaps the tool I’m suggesting could be fooled or circumvented by a malicious-enough software/attack.

Here’s my humble proposition: Security Monitor. It would be an application you find in your Utilities folder, and it would behave in a similar way as Activity Monitor. Maybe its interface could be made a bit more user-friendly, so that it could be readable by non-geek users as well. In its main window, you would see all active processes from a security perspective: what they are accessing in your system and, more importantly, whether their behaviour complies with the permissions they have been given — by the system and by the administrator user account. 

The user would still receive alerts to allow apps to access basic sensitive stuff like location, contacts, photos, camera, microphone, etc. but the system would have a more ‘innocent until proven guilty’ approach with the installed software. When checking the main window of Security Monitor, there could be a semaphore colour-coded way to show problematic behaviour. You would see green dots next to apps and processes that are behaving as they should. A yellow dot could indicate an app or process that is trying to access parts of the system that are off-limits to it (the app is trying to do so without explicitly asking permission to the user, and the system is actively preventing access to it). A red dot would mean a security concern requiring additional action on the user’s part.

Of course, in case of a ‘red dot’ situation, Mac OS would alert the user in a very prominent way, with a persistent notification the user can’t just dismiss by clicking OK. A dialog box would appear saying, for example: Keylogging detected — The app ‘Awesome Markdown Editor’ is recording your keystrokes without your knowledge or permission. The only button the user could click is Open Security Monitor. From the app, the user could see additional clues like Awesome Markdown Editor’s attempts to use the network to contact an external server. Security Monitor could give the user the option to quarantine the app and its documents; to quarantine the app but keep its documents accessible; but also to allow the app to record keystrokes because, say, it’s necessary for a certain feature to work (e.g. the app offers a predictive typing option and needs to ‘see’ what you usually type, etc.). The latter would be a risky choice, and Security Monitor could provide an additional confirmation dialog informing the user about the risks involved. But it ultimately would be the user’s choice, and the user’s intelligence wouldn’t be insulted in the process.

As I said, this is a rough idea, and I’m sure there are all kinds of issues with it. My reasoning is, just like Activity Monitor constantly monitors CPU usage, memory usage, energy impact, etc. in a way that is invisible to the user and that doesn’t burden the user, while alerting the user when something out of the ordinary happens, security in Mac OS could be treated the same way. Instead of the paranoid approach — All this area of the system is read-only! You have to authenticate every time an app wants to write something in a folder! App A can’t talk to App B! Alert, alert, alert! — we could have a more reasonable approach where everything is allowed to work normally (the user still needs to grant specific permissions manually, of course, especially when access to sensible locations is involved) but it’s constantly monitored. The system could deal with those apps and processes subtly trying to stray from expected behaviour in the background (yellow alert), and only interrupt normal operations in case blatant violations are detected (red alert). When the user accesses Security Monitor, they could also have the opportunity to review previously-handled yellow alerts.

I’d love to hear your thoughts about this.

The Mac’s next transition: further considerations

Tech Life


 

In a couple of months or so, Mac OS 10.15 Catalina will be released, and so the next Mac transition will begin — perhaps slowly, but surely. I’m trying to put together some pieces to pre-visualise a picture of how things will go. So far I’m not really thrilled by what I’m seeing, but I’m doing my best to stay mildly optimistic.

Howard Oakley, talking about SwiftUI, observes:

The real sting comes in system requirements: the moment that you choose to use SwiftUI, your app can’t run on Mojave or earlier, it’s committed to Catalina. macOS users are generally rather slower to upgrade to the latest operating system than are iOS users. Read the comments to articles on this blog and you’ll find that there are plenty of advanced users here, with Macs perfectly capable of running Mojave, who are still running High Sierra or Sierra, and a few who are back on El Capitan or earlier. This isn’t because Mac users are stick-in-the-muds, but because many are in complex situations which have to wait for key software and other requirements to change before they can upgrade.

Assuming that half of you here were to upgrade to Catalina by the start of 2020, which could be optimistic, would I want to invest my time and effort into building apps which the other half couldn’t run until they too had upgraded?

If there were other compelling reasons to upgrade, as there are in Mojave’s much-improved APFS, maybe. But for most users, the major trade-off coming with Catalina is going to be whether its better security and speed outweigh the loss of all 32-bit software. I’m not convinced that will lure many to upgrade early. Are you?

On the hardware side, it’s worth sharing Pierre Dandumont’s observations. The original post is in French, but I did my best in translating and summarising the essential parts as follows:

  • To release a Mac of this type in 2019 [the new Mac Pro] implies at least one thing: even if ARM-based Macs arrive soon, the two architectures may coexist for a while.
  • Currently, Macs seem to be at a technological stalemate for a variety of reasons. First, because Intel has big problems: the architecture has not really changed since 2015 with Skylake. A 2019 MacBook Pro has more cores and higher CPU frequency than a 2016 Mac, but these are just superficial adjustments — it’s the same processor, with just a slightly better graphics part. To offer better performance, you either increase the number of CPU cores or the processor’s frequency, or both, and in all these cases you end up with increased power consumption, which is bad. Typically, Apple can’t offer a really competitive MacBook because Intel doesn’t have a really better CPU than it had in 2015.
  • Macs also suffer from a GPU problem, but here it’s Apple’s fault. The company keeps using AMD GPUs that evolve little and consume a lot of energy. Nvidia makes chips that are faster and consume less, yet Apple stays with AMD. I don’t know why this is (we will surely discover the reason one day); we can assume that Nvidia is part of the problem, but the fact is that staying with AMD limits a lot of things. Even with the work that Apple does on the drivers and the custom cards that AMD makes for Apple, that’s still a problem. From what we know about Navi (RDNA, Radeon RX 5700, coming out soon), the new architecture is not the solution.
  • Finally, Macs suffer from some of Intel’s choices, especially when it comes to memory support. Some Macs still use LPDDR3 or DDR4, whereas they should use LPDDR4. It’s Intel’s fault. Some developments that seem natural on the iPad do not happen on the Mac because Intel can’t (or won’t) do it. Things such as variable refresh screens, high definitions, native USB support at 10 Gb/s, etc.
  • The transition to ARM would solve some of the problems. Even if we consider just the Apple A12 (from 2018), Apple could offer a faster CPU (and in some cases, noticeably faster) with the same frequency as the Skylake CPUs, with a year-over-year evolution that would bring significant gains and the integration of modern technologies (LPDDR4, etc.). All this on consumer platforms, with a much lower consumption than what Intel offers.
  • The only unknown currently is the scalability of chips. An A12X consumes much less than a MacBook Pro CPU for an at least equivalent performance (and higher in many cases), but it’s a CPU with four cores (the low-power cores are negligible) and an awesome GPU with regards to power consumption, yet limited in absolute terms.

    I don’t know if the same chip with eight cores and a GPU at least doubled — to reach the level of the Radeon Polaris 15-inch MacBook Pro — would maintain the same power consumption advantages. I also don’t know whether Apple can easily provide a version with many more cores. Because an A12X has the downside of being rather big: 122 mm² in 7 nm, for four cores (eight in reality, but again in this case the low-consumption cores can be ignored) and a GPU, when a modern Core i7 has the same size in 14 nm.

    In any case, from a consumer standpoint, we can perfectly replace the components of a MacBook Pro or Air while maintaining a comparable performance and gaining autonomy significantly.

  • The biggest downside of a transition to ARM architecture is software compatibility. Changing architecture involves recompiling all programs (Apple seems to be working on this) and being able to run all old programs efficiently. Switching to ARM wouldn’t allow this. The example of laptops under Windows ARM speaks volumes: if it is vaguely usable with ARM software, it is horrible to use with x86 software. In addition, switching to ARM effectively eliminates virtualisation and the ability to install Windows, which remains a thing that reassures many people and is very useful to many others.

If we put together both these software- and hardware-related concerns, we can see how the appearance of a new Mac with an ARM processor and running Mac OS 10.15 Catalina would effectively represent a point of reboot for the Mac platform. (The 12-inch retina MacBook could be an excellent candidate, by the way, and it would be an interesting reappearance). On the outside, it would be Apple’s wet dream: an extremely power-efficient Mac with decent performance, instant operation like an iOS device, ridiculously long battery life, and a tightly controlled software environment, because only new ARM-compatible apps, or older-but-updated apps would run on it.

The PowerPC-to-Intel transition was announced in mid-2005, and Macs with Intel chips started appearing in 2006. By the end of 2006, all product lines were updated with Intel chips. Software-wise, things went gently and smoothly, from what I remember. Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger shipped in April 2005, officially for the PowerPC platform only (but at the WWDC 2005 in June, in revealing the transition to Intel, Jobs said that they had been developing and testing an Intel version of Tiger internally). When the first Intel Macs were introduced, they were running Mac OS X 10.4.4, and Tiger went on until its final minor update 10.4.11 being available for PowerPC and Intel Macs.

Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard shipped in October 2007. Despite appearing more than a year and a half after the official switch to Intel, it still supported both architectures, and 10.6 Snow Leopard — the first Intel-only Mac OS X version – would appear at the end of August 2009, and it would still support PowerPC software via an internal emulator called Rosetta. The PowerPC platform was ultimately left behind with Mac OS X 10.7 Lion, introduced in July 2011. If you think about it, it was an extremely generous grace period. This way, people who purchased a new PowerPC Mac in 2005 could at least use it with sufficiently updated software until 2009, and those who purchased expensive PowerPC software could use it at least until 2011.

I have the feeling that with the Intel-to-ARM things will go differently. Assuming Apple will develop custom ARM chips that deliver optimal performance for Macs, it’s likely the hardware transition will happen like a wave, starting with more consumer-oriented Macs (like the 12-inch MacBook and the MacBook Air, maybe even a base configuration of the Mac mini), then the Pro laptops and maybe a base configuration of the iMac. But I expect an undefined period of time where we’ll have all ARM Macs except the high-end Pro machines (iMac Pro and Mac Pro), which will probably still rely on Intel processor for sheer multi-core performance.

If the hardware side of the transition happens this way, perhaps we’ll have a reasonably long grace period, software-wise, with Mac OS running in both x86 and ARM flavours. A period where, while new SwiftUI apps (and SwiftUI-updated older apps) can be properly developed, older x86 (64-bit) apps can still work and be used on Intel Macs with an updated version of Mac OS (just like PowerPC Macs that ran Leopard from 2007 to 2009).

So, keeping the speculation levels high, if we assume the first ARM-based Mac appears sometime in 2020, it’s possible this transition will take at least two years to complete from both a hardware (consumer and semi-pro) and software standpoints. This could mean at least three Mac OS versions supporting the Intel platform (10.15, released in 2019; 10.16, released in 2020; and 10.17, released in 2021), where by ‘supporting’ I mean that they can be installed on all Intel machines available now and introduced from now on, and that can run existing, traditional 64-bit Intel applications.

At the same time, those same versions of Mac OS could also run on ARM-based Macs, and be the future-facing side of the transition.

This is sort of a best-case, hopeful scenario. I hope the next transition can be carried out this smoothly, and as smoothly as the previous one. What I fear is that today’s Apple could turn out to be much more impatient, and rush things in a way that backwards compatibility isn’t going to be retained for very long. Today’s Apple seems very focused on the future-facing side of things, even more than before. In a sense, the official introduction of the Mac Pro this autumn is my one hope that the next transition can happen at a reasonable pace for all users and can be handled thoughtfully by Apple.

Addendum: The future of Mac OS, security, and new problems

As I was finally about to publish this piece, Pierre Dandumont wrote another very interesting article on his blog. Translating from the French, its title should be The future of Mac OS, security, and the problems that will emerge. Here are the essential points:

  • Mac OS Catalina, the next Mac OS, will bring a lot of changes under the hood, and for Pierre (someone who likes to tinker and hack), things look pretty annoying.
  • Catalina completely drops support for 32-bit apps, and this poses two problems: first, obviously, all your 32-bit-only apps will no longer work. It may be an old application, like iPhoto, or even EyeTV. Second, and perhaps a bit less obvious, all those applications that rely on 32-bit software will no longer work either, or only partially work. Pierre makes the example of apps that still use QuickTime 7 frameworks to decode video or audio. “In fact, a lot of old codecs (and old software) depend heavily on QuickTime 7, unfortunately”, he writes.
  • Catalina also drops support for HFS (aka “Mac OS Standard”), so if you, like me and Pierre, still need to access old read-only media like CD-ROMs, it’s a bit of a hindrance (my workaround here is to use an older Mac, of course). Support for AFP file sharing should also be dropped in Catalina (according to Pierre it still works for now).
  • The most annoying changes are related to security. Pierre emphasises a key distinction: “Let me be clear: these are more annoying for an advanced user who likes to hack. For a normal daily use of macOS, such changes shouldn’t be a nuisance and will actually improve security”. And then he adds: “But it makes macOS closer and closer to iOS, and from my point of view it’s not necessarily the macOS I want”. And oh yes, I feel the same.
  • Changes in Gatekeeper: in early versions, when it came to allow software to run on your machine, it was possible to choose between unsigned apps (no protection), signed apps, or Mac App Store apps. With Yosemite, the first option got disabled periodically (and automatically). With Sierra, it was hidden. In a future version of Mac OS, it is going to disappear entirely. The wording [see the screenshot on Pierre’s blog, taken from the presentation Advances in macOS Security (701)] indicates that it should still be possible to enable the option to launch unsigned applications, “but that by default macOS will prevent it… like iOS”.

    Pierre then observes: “This is frankly a problem: it will become impossible to develop (or compile) a program without paying [an Apple developer’s fee] and with anything other than Xcode (as I’m told, Xcode signs programs for the user), and many open (and not open) source applications will not launch anymore. Sure, this is clearly a security advancement, but it’s not flawless: there is signed malware, you know”.

  • Another annoying thing is that in Mac OS Catalina, the system will be read-only. “Catalina uses APFS to separate a data volume from the volume containing the system, in a completely transparent way. The volume containing the system will be read-only, which will prevent modification of the OS. Again, this is interesting for security, but not for all the different macOS hacks”. Pierre also notes that, for now, disabling the SIP (System Integrity Protection) removes this function, but Apple’s presentation (What’s New in Apple Filesystems — 710) is very clear on this point: it will be impossible to do it permanently. Disabling the SIP will mount the write partition until the next restart. And that’s it. It will then go back to being read-only.
  • Finally, another change Pierre finds potentially problematic is related to the new driver format (System Extensions and DriverKit — 702). He writes: “Specifically, Apple is pushing a new generation of drivers for certain types of devices: HID devices (in general), USB devices, serial devices (more specifically USB-to-serial adapters), and everything network-related. I’m simplifying a bit, but basically, if you have a device that communicates via serial with a built-in controller (for example an Arduino), a Thunderbolt or USB network card or a USB device like a TV card, the drivers will have to be rewritten. Not in the very short term, since Catalina is still going to support kexts, but in the short term nonetheless, as Catalina’s successor will leave them behind for devices that fall into these categories.”

    Pierre observes that “Quite frankly, seeing how keeping track and maintaining drivers is often pretty bad under macOS when a new version changes little things — if you have a Wacom tablet, you’ll understand — I think it’s going to be a nightmare for the users. And I see only one solution for now: trying to use only devices with macOS native drivers. It’s not that easy, unfortunately: in the case of serial adapters, for example, Apple natively supports only FTDI models, and they are expensive. Same thing for network cards: hopefully, manufacturers will follow suit, but it’s not a given.”

If we go back to the now-trite analogy Steve Jobs made when he talked about the Post-PC era, about traditional computers as trucks, and mobile devices as cars, I think this could keep making sense, but only if trucks are allowed to continue carrying out their truck duties, so to speak. Putting all these pieces together is a tedious task, but when it comes to the future of Mac OS and the Mac platform, the picture I’m starting to make out here is of a severely locked-down, exceedingly streamlined system. And if you start transforming trucks to make them behave more like big cars, then what’s the point?

Yes, Mac OS is not the bulletproof platform it once was, security-wise, but it’s still far more secure as it is today than most of what’s out there. And while aiming for a bulletproof system is a good thing nowadays, I believe it shouldn’t be done at the expense of the inherent and historical flexibility of such system. Why have UNIX underpinnings to then utterly dumb down whatever is built over them? And it also shouldn’t be done at the expense of third-party developers of such platform, who are expected to jump through increasingly narrow hoops to create software that works as it should and simultaneously complies with Apple’s progressively stifling demands. This is the part that keeps me apprehensive as this next excruciating transition approaches.

 

The little MacBook that couldn’t

Tech Life

MacBook

In April 2015, Apple introduces the 12-inch MacBook with retina display. It’s a marvel of thinness and lightness. It’s also a display of ‘courageousness’ that predates the headphone jack removal in the iPhone 7. Because this laptop, while indeed retaining the headphone jack, has only one other port, and it’s USB‑C. And it’s for everything, including charging. But the pressing question is, Is this the MacBook Air killer?

No, not really. For about one year and a half, until October 2016, Apple still features both the 11- and 13-inch MacBook Air models together with the 12-inch MacBook in the lineup. But the only good thing this MacBook has to win people over is essentially the retina display. The MacBook Air is the better proposition for literally everything else. More ports, MagSafe, better keyboard, better performance, equally great battery life, negligible difference in size and weight (especially the 11-inch model), more affordable.

The 11-inch MacBook Air gets discontinued in October 2016. But not the 13-inch model. The 13-inch model gets discontinued today, in 2019. But so does the 12-inch MacBook.

 

But as far as compact laptops with retina display go, surely the 12-inch MacBook is the best proposition?

Not really. When first introduced in April 2015, the 13-inch retina MacBook Pro (introduced one month earlier) is a better machine for the money. The little MacBook wins in thinness and lightness. But the 13-inch retina MacBook Pro is better in every other regard. Better screen resolution, more ports, better keyboard, much better performance, even better battery life (at least on paper), and the base model costs $1,299, exactly like the 12-inch MacBook (for that price you only get 128 GB of storage in the 13-inch retina MacBook Pro, versus the 256 GB in the MacBook, but still).

In 2016, even the redesigned 13-inch MacBook Pro (without Touch Bar) is an overall better choice than the 12-inch MacBook.

 

The 12-inch retina MacBook hasn’t been an iPad killer, either. Not that it was ever meant to be, mind you, but for regular people who don’t need specific Mac OS software for their work, a 12.9‑inch iPad Pro of the same vintage as the 12-inch MacBook was an overall better value than the little laptop. Even that iPad Pro’s Smart Keyboard is probably better than the MacBook’s butterfly keyboard.

If anything, the 12-inch MacBook has lost to the iPad Pro. By removing the 11-inch MacBook Air first, and the 12-inch MacBook now, if you’re looking for an Apple ‘ultrabook’, today Apple has made sure that you take a good look at the iPad Pro. Not that the new 13-inch retina MacBook Air is a giant heavyweight, but the 11-inch iPad Pro is svelter, more compact, and some people will no doubt rush to add that it’s also more versatile and the future of everything. 

Neither fish nor flesh

When I think about the 12-inch MacBook, it’s really an odd one. With Apple devices, my reactions have historically been very clear-cut: I’ve either loved them or hated them. This little MacBook is perhaps the first really ‘meh’ device, if you’ll forgive the highly technical jargon here. More seriously, I find it rather representative of Apple’s vague product focus under Tim Cook’s guidance. The 12-inch MacBook is a proof-of-design machine. The more I look back at it, the more its sole raison d’être seems to be: We made this because we could or, This is how much thin and light we can go. Strategically, though? I’m sorry to say, but it’s been little more than luggage.

(On a last personal note, this MacBook was remarkably useful to me for one thing: when I tested one for a few days back in 2015, it made me realise just how bad the then-new keyboard design was, and has spared me a bunch of unnecessary headaches ever since, as I’ve carefully avoided all MacBooks with that terribly-designed keyboard.)

Post-WWDC thoughts

Tech Life

The WWDC 2019 keynote was interesting and juicy. For once, it felt well organised and with an enjoyable pace. I liked a lot of what was showcased. I hated the audience, seemingly cheering for whatever was said on stage, but I actually cheered myself when they presented the Sign in with Apple initiative[1]. And the new font management features in iOS made me blurt a Finally! as I was watching the event.

The Mac Pro

The Mac Pro introduction made me happy. Apple could have screwed up the Mac Pro redesign in hundreds of ways. The company — whew — did the Right Thing.

Of course, according to many, Apple screwed up one aspect of the redesign: the redesigned price. I have only two complaints here: one, 256 GB as base storage, for such a machine, and for the entry price of $6,000, is insultingly ungenerous. It’s not a MacBook Pro, Apple. Two, $999 for the Pro Display stand is ludicrous. Okay, you’re a premium brand, but even, say, a battery conditioner for a Rolls-Royce Phantom doesn’t cost that much (it’s about $580 if you’re curious). As other have said, it would have been better to mask that price by including it in the total price of the Pro Display.

As for the rest, no, I don’t believe the 2019 Mac Pro is an expensive machine. And neither is the Pro Display XDR. For their intended audience, they’re priced quite reasonably. Check out this video by Jonathan Morrison about the Pro Display for an informed perspective on the matter.

A lot of words have already been spent about putting the Mac Pro pricing in context, but just look at this progression:

  • In 2012, an eight-core Mac Pro cost $3,499 (and a twelve-core was $4,999 by the way).
  • In 2013/2014, an eight-core Mac Pro configuration wasn’t available, but the six-core variant cost $3,999.
  • In 2017/2018, an eight-core iMac Pro cost $4,999.

Honestly, I was expecting a price tag of $5,999. Maybe a sweeter pill to swallow (especially with that meagre 256 GB SSD) would have been an entry-level Mac Pro priced at $4,999 and an iMac Pro reduced at either $3,999 or $4,499. I still think Apple should make the iMac Pro a little bit more affordable now that there’s also a new, powerful Mac Pro back in the lineup. As for the display, I agree with those who’d like to see a standalone version of the iMac’s 27-inch 5K panel. That would be an excellent complement to any kind of desktop setup, in conjunction with a MacBook Pro, a Mac mini, or even a Mac Pro for those who don’t need the esoteric performance of the Pro Display XDR.

Mac OS

As you may recall, in the days preceding the WWDC, I was still apprehensive about the Mac. After the WWDC, I’m… conflicted. And I realise my conflict is directly related to what’s happening to the Mac platform: hardware and software are becoming two very different beasts. Apple is still capable of coming up with impressive hardware (the Mac Pro and the Pro Display XDR are obvious examples) — and that’s what’s making me a bit more optimistic. But on the software side, things couldn’t be more disappointing — and that’s what’s still fuelling my pessimism. Whatever few new features are introduced in Mac OS 10.15 Catalina, in my eyes they are outweighed by what’s being taken away (or locked down, or made unnecessarily complicated):

  • Scripting language runtimes such as Python, Ruby, and Perl are included in macOS for compatibility with legacy software. In future versions of macOS, scripting language runtimes won’t be available by default, and may require you to install an additional package.” [From the XCode 11 beta release notes | Commentary on Michael Tsai’s blog]
  • Notarising command-line tools: I’m no developer, but when I read this piece by Howard Oakley, I almost felt pangs in my stomach. Again, check the associated commentary on the always-excellent Michael Tsai’s blog.
  • From the Mac OS Catalina Preview page:
    • Dedicated system volume. macOS Catalina runs in its own read-only volume, so it’s separate from all other data on your Mac, and nothing can accidentally overwrite your system files. And Gatekeeper ensures that new apps you install have been checked for known security issues before you run them, so you’re always using good software.
    • Data. Apps must now get your permission before directly accessing files in your Documents and Desktop folders, iCloud Drive, and external volumes, so you’re always in control of your data. And you’ll be prompted before any app can capture keyboard activity or a photo or video of your screen.

    I know many won’t agree with me, but these security measures — while understandable on paper — are cumulatively overkill, and there should really be a simple switch for power users to disable at least all the folder authentication madness. The user experience here is starting to resemble Windows and its barrage of confirmation dialog boxes. (For the related discussion, see Security & Privacy in macOS 10.15 Beta on Michael Tsai’s blog.)

These are just quick examples. But my general impression about where Mac OS is going is that Apple wants to turn it into a sort of low-maintenance system. The pretext is security: lock down this and that because it could be exploited; remove this and that because it’s code we can’t be bothered to update or optimise, it could potentially represent a vector for an attack, blah blah. Meanwhile, let’s also use these security measures to make the life of the already stressed-out Mac developers even harder. 

In 30 years as a Mac power user, what I have been appreciating about Mac software was the ability to think and act outside the box, so to speak. In recent times, Apple seems hell-bent on keeping Mac software inside the box. The walled-garden model and paranoid security made and make definitely more sense on mobile systems. I appreciate being able to look for and install apps on my iPhone that won’t mess with my device or present a security risk for the operating system or for me as a user (although Apple hasn’t done a great job at keeping scams away from the App Store); but on the Mac I want to have more freedom of movement. I’m an expert user, I know the risks involved. Let me tinker. Give the option to have a locked-down Mac for novice users who expect to use it like an appliance, or in the same way they use their phones and tablets. Leave the ‘root’ door open for those who know what they’re doing.

iPad and the Mac

You certainly know this rather famous Steve Jobs quote: I think Henry Ford once said, “If I’d asked customers what they wanted, they would have told me, ‘A faster horse!’ ” People don’t know what they want until you show it to them. I look at what iPad is becoming and I see ‘a faster horse.’ 

Many seem happy that now Apple is listening. No doubt about that. But I also see it as kind of a bad thing. This might be completely off the mark, but I feel that today’s Apple pays too much attention to the input from an élite of tech pundits who are also iPad power users. On the one hand it’s nice that Cook’s Apple is more receptive to external suggestions. On the other, lately the company has seemed a bit too keen on pleasing the afore-mentioned élite. Sometimes I even get the feeling that the iPad’s path is pretty much a design by committee. 

Steve Jobs was less receptive to external input, probably because he knew what he wanted and typically had clearer ideas about the path ahead. (Again, no, I don’t think he was infallible. I simply preferred his leading style.) 

Anyway. A lot of iPad fans misunderstand one important thing about where I stand as a Mac user. I don’t want iPad to fail. I want all Apple platforms to succeed. But I don’t believe Apple’s homogenisation plan is a good way of achieving that. It may be a convenient way, for Apple and perhaps for developers too. But the various platforms have their unique strengths and unique strings to pull to make each of them progress healthily. But dedicated differentiation is hard, apparently. A multi-billion dollar company seemingly can’t afford enough resources to develop two major platforms concurrently, prioritising what’s best for each platform and for the users of each platform.

So we have a Mac platform that was doing fine until it was basically put on hold because the iPad had to grow, evolve, be revolutionary. iPad was course-corrected to become more pro. Meanwhile the Mac was neglected and iPad has been too slow to catch up than originally planned. Think about the time that has been wasted for this and because of this. It hasn’t been good for either the Mac or the iPad. Sure, maybe all is well now, and I’m worrying too much; yet I can’t help thinking it could have been different — and better. 

If iPadOS just becomes a Mac OS clone, that’s not progress, however you look at it. And at the moment I’m not really trusting Apple when it comes to having a clear plan to make iOS on the iPad evolve and shine. Adding Mac-like features is the easy way out. What’s next? That’s hard.

I’ve been upset with Apple for all the time the company wasted ‘pushing’ the iPad from a marketing/lifestyle standpoint, instead of concentrating on building a truly ‘pro’ variant. iPad Pro should have been a new device with a different iOS flavour/fork rethought from the ground up at the time iOS 7 came out. Instead they started doing something around iOS 9/10.

Another pain point in some discussions I’ve had with iPad fans is when I mention my general disappointment in the iPad as a system. What they always believe is that I’m making a direct comparison with the Mac, implying that the Mac is better. It’s. Not. That.

My disappointment is in the general lack of evolution at the operating system level. I don’t have any problem recognising the iPad as a ‘real computer’. Of course it is. That’s precisely why it’s also not a groundbreaking innovation. Let’s put aside all its hardware advantages for a moment — extreme portability, instant operation, magnificent display, desktop-class peak performance. The software it runs on is conceptually old. The way things happen when you interact with the operating system and applications and files is the same way we’ve been seeing on traditional computers since the Xerox Alto and Star, since the Apple Lisa, back in the early 1980s. Yes, it got much better visually. Of course. It’s the least that one could expect after thirty years! In the medium term, the iPad will reach a stage where it will be like using a Mac that also has Multi-Touch support. And while cool, it will still be anchored to decades-old paradigms and metaphors. 

The post-PC era I’ve had in mind since Jobs introduced the concept, is something else. From a user-interface, user-interaction standpoint, I expected (perhaps unrealistically) a different plan for iOS on the iPad. Hiding the filesystem in the first versions of iOS made me hopeful: let’s use the iPad as a tabula rasa for the computing experience. Let’s give people a tool to do ‘computery stuff’ on it without even realising they have a computer in their hands. John Gruber had the best insight in all recent history of punditry when he said It’s the heaviness of the Mac that allows iOS to remain light.

Let’s look at the whole paragraph: 

The bigger reason, though, is that the existence and continuing growth of the Mac allows iOS to get away with doing less. The central conceit of the iPad is that it’s a portable computer that does less — and because it does less, what it does do, it does better, more simply, and more elegantly. Apple can only begin phasing out the Mac if and when iOS expands to allow us to do everything we can do on the Mac. It’s the heaviness of the Mac that allows iOS to remain light.

I’ve always thought that a better plan would have been to keep the Mac around (always refining it, always keeping its power up-to-date and relevant), while using iOS and the iPad to push the computing envelope. When I say that the iPad isn’t the future, iPad fans get upset because they think I’m looking down on it, or outright dissing it. I’m not. I look at it, and see traditional computing; maybe done a bit differently, maybe done with a cooler veneer, by touching a screen instead of using a mouse[2], but still pretty traditional. 

Hiding the filesystem and having users interact with applications and documents in a different way — in a fashion that made both applications and documents sort of get out of the way, disappear as constructs because you have a full-screen environment and a series of actions to handle whatever you’re doing with the device — was an excellent starting point, in my book. But then things started to stagnate here, more complex workflows made a lot of collateral friction emerge, and now, in iOS 13, handling files on an iPad is pretty much the same as on a Mac. It’s a practical victory, but a theoretical defeat.

Criticising this stuff is hard, because there comes a point where I’m asked So, what do you propose, instead? I don’t have a clear solution or alternative fully designed and ready to be implemented here. (I recently shared some ideas about a kind of tablet I’d be eager to use). What I would love to see is more research to achieve a different and more evolved computing experience, one that is capable of letting go of old metaphors and paradigms so that people can interact with these tools even more naturally and in more immediate ways, instead of visualising the computer workspace as an eternal office. 

Some observations on iPadOS and its gestures

1.

The new way of selecting text looks simpler and more straightforward than the old way. It’s like you’re pointing at the text you want selected. I currently don’t have the means or opportunity to test this in person, but I’m curious to know about how efficient this method is for selecting large blocks of text, especially when they’re longer than what’s displayed on screen at the beginning of the selection gesture. I’m also curious to know about the efficiency of this new method when you want to make a precise selection of just a couple of sentences or words inside a paragraph. The old method wasn’t necessarily clunky per se; the problem was that it worked inconsistently. Sometimes it worked like a charm in Safari or Mail, but not so much in other text-based apps like RSS readers or PDF viewers.

2.

The 3‑finger pinch to copy, 3‑finger spread to paste, 3‑finger swipe to undo all looked like cool new gestures in the pre-recorded bits Federighi was showing on the big screen, but to me they feel like unnecessary additions to an ever-expanding gesture lexicon, and I also wonder about their precision — copy and paste in particular. What happens when you have selected the text bit you want to copy, and one of your fingers touches the screen and deselects the text (and maybe also re-selects a single word or another unwanted portion of the text) before the 3‑finger pinch copy gesture is completed? And don’t get me started on the ‘cut’ gesture: two consecutive 3‑finger pinches? Come on.

If you think I’m splitting hairs here, rewatch the first moments of the Apple Pencil demo by Toby Paterson (Apple’s Senior Director in charge of the iPad system experience): 

…And then to move the cursor, you’ll just grab it with your finger… whoops… and he tries again. 

And then, shortly after: Now, to select text, just hold your finger on a word… Hold your fing— aah, sorry…

He’s clearly struggling with these gestures, and while I concede he must be nervous given the context, other gestures like dragging out the virtual keyboard to turn it into a compact keyboard are clearly easier and less hit-and-miss.

3.

IPadOS tap drag
Window management and multitasking in iPadOS are clearly borrowing heavily from the Mac, but since the gestures on the iPad have to be keyboard-independent, there is a lot of tapping & dragging involved. Curiously, when there is indeed a keyboard attached to the iPad, there doesn’t seem to be a fallback set of keyboard shortcuts to make things easier. 

And as I was watching Federighi tapping, dragging, moving, and split-viewing on an iPad Pro propped on the table in landscape orientation with a Smart Keyboard attached, I was reminded of what Federighi himself said about not wanting to introduce a MacBook with a touch screen; he brought up usability reasons, and the fact that it’s not a great user experience because having to raise your arm to directly manipulate the screen gets tiring quickly. And it’s true! Yet that is exactly what’s happening when you’re working with an iPad set up this way. And you can tell me But with the iPad it’s different all you want: it is exactly the same experience, but suddenly those legitimate usability concerns have vanished.

4.

IPadOS new Safari shcts
Safari shortcuts on iPadOS

Speaking of shortcuts, I was about to leave this screenshot here without comment, but I have to point out those terrible hybrid shortcuts that involve one or two keys and a tap on the screen. They look unnecessarily counterintuitive, and I can’t believe there wasn’t a better option. There is a keyboard — just make shortcuts that involve only keys. Better yet, use the same shortcuts as in Safari on the Mac. What’s the problem?

5.

In general, if you count the new gestures you do with your fingers, and the new gestures you perform with the Pencil, there isn’t much that can be intuitively discovered without at least a brief tutorial in the Apple Store when you’re purchasing an iPad. And even if all this is well explained in an online guide, or by an Apple retail employee, I wonder how many of these gestures are going to stick with users. This is just an observation, and maybe I’m wrong. Maybe all these gestures end up being far more intuitive than they seem to me at first glance. My worry, of course, is that all this increasing complexity accumulates to a point where there’s a thin, yet persistent layer of friction when using an iPad, which inevitably brings frustration. One of the key differentiators of Apple devices is their software but also the fluidity of their experience. That’s what may convince a prospective customer (with no particular affiliation to a platform) to buy an iPad over a Microsoft Surface.

What about the rest?

The rest was good. I liked it. I don’t have an Apple TV or an Apple Watch, and I’m not really interested in having either, but the new features are nice, and I like where these two platforms are going (though tvOS is the slowest-advancing platform I’ve ever seen). iOS 13 looks like a very promising release and I look forward to upgrade later this year. Apologies for not having been exhaustive regarding everything that was announced at the WWDC 2019, but what’s really capturing my attention at the moment is how Apple is handling Mac OS and iOS on the iPad. 

 


  • 1. During a recent trip in Italy, I had to use the Sign in with Google option on a site (it was the lesser evil), and since then I’ve been getting an average of 20 more spam messages per day in my gmail account. So, unlike others, I don’t really care about the behind-the-scenes of Sign in with Apple, I just want it to see widely implemented as soon as possible. ↩︎
  • 2. Oh, wait… ↩︎