The new Mac mini and MacBook Pro models with M2 processors — observations and rambling excursions

Tech Life

Firstly, let’s leave the boring technical details to someone else. Dan Moren at sixcolors on the new MacBook Pro models:

The MacBook Pro update is basically a speed bump: the base level $1999 14-inch model moves to a M2 Pro 10-core CPU/16-core GPU configuration, with build to configure options for M2 Pro 12-core with a 19-core GPU, or to M2 Max with 12 cores and either 30 or 38 cores of GPU. Options at $2499 and $3099 come with the higher M2 Pro and the M2 Max, respectively. Meanwhile, the 16-inch model’s base configuration, at $2499, starts with a 12-core CPU/19-core GPU M2 Pro, while the $2699 and $3499 models feature the 12-core/19-core M2 Pro and 12-core/38-core M2 Max options. 

On the new Mac mini models:

On the Mac mini side, Apple has finally axed the Intel Mac model and now offers three configurations of mini, starting with the same 8‑core CPU/10-core GPU M2 configuration in the MacBook Air at $599—$100 less than its M1-powered predecessor. While a $799 model features more storage with the same chip configuration, there’s also for the first time an option for Apple’s more powerful M2 Pro chip, in a $1299 10-core CPU/16-core GPU option, with a build to order configuration also offering a bump to a 12-core/19-core GPU M2 Pro. The M2 Pro configuration also offers four Thunderbolt 4 ports on the back, up over just two on the M2 configurations. 

When rumours started circulating about these new machines, I didn’t expect any external redesign for the MacBook Pro, and in fact, as Moren writes, it’s all basically a speed bump. This is great for those who wanted to upgrade their MacBooks and were patient enough to wait for a ‘second-generation’ machine. Upgrading now means having more powerful MacBooks for the same prices as the previous M1 lineup.

Possibly controversial observation on battery life

In the short keynote-like presentation Apple prepared to introduce the new M2 Macs, there is a fun section where three pros are each tasked with completing a project in one day using the new M2 MacBook Pros unplugged, on just a single charge. This is done to demonstrate just how powerful and efficient these machines are. “One-day battery life” is undoubtedly a great accomplishment and a great feature to tout. Don’t get me wrong: having the peace of mind that you can rely on your MacBook for a whole day without needing to use its AC adapter is exhilarating. 

In practical terms, however, when was the last time you’ve found yourself without access to a wall socket for that long? If you mainly use a laptop at home or in your studio, it’s not an issue. If you’re working while travelling, yes, using the laptop unplugged on a plane or train is definitely more comfortable even when these means of transportation offer outlets, as they may be scarce or already in use by other passengers. Hotels have outlets. AirBnB accommodations have outlets. Maybe my imagination is limited, but at the moment the only scenarios where having a laptop with a one-day battery life truly makes a difference is when you have to work from remote locations, outdoors, and your power solutions are precious and can only afford limited charges or one long charge overnight. In many other common ‘working offsite’ scenarios, having a laptop with extremely long battery life is a luxury, a nice-to-have feature, but not strictly a need or requirement.

I’m sharing this observation because battery life is something that gets constantly mentioned in laptop reviews, and I often notice that laptops with a 5–6 hour battery life tend to be treated negatively by most tech reviewers. I’ll probably be misunderstood about this, so I’ll try to be clear — battery life is an important metric for a laptop, for sure, but I think it’s often overrated. In a realistic scenario, a laptop with a battery that lasts ‘only’ 6 hours in actual use and allowing for an unrestricted performance, is not bad as it’s made out to be, because the chances that you have to work continuously for more than 6 hours without finding a wall socket or a charging spot are in most cases rather low.

If you’re thinking this is just an elaborate excuse on my part to find something, anything, to criticise Apple… no, it isn’t. I’d be deranged for criticising Apple for offering laptops that last a whole day on a charge! My point is simply that battery life feels more and more like an overrated feature that is often used as the definitive metric to decide whether a laptop, any laptop, is absolutely good or not. It somehow reminds me of the ‘Megahertz wars’ back when Macs were still using PowerPC processors, and PC manufacturers kept pushing the narrative that ‘more Megahertz equals faster and better machines.’ And sure, today a laptop with just a 3‑hour battery life is best avoided (unless you’re looking at a very powerful gaming laptop). But realistically, anything with an actual battery life that’s over 6 or 7 hours is a good machine overall, and you can’t tell me that it’s worse than another laptop which lasts one hour more but has e.g. a worse CPU or GPU.

On the other hand, give me a smartphone that lasts four days on a charge, and I’ll be unquestionably impressed. That would have more practical sense.

Upgrading my Mac setup: maybe now is the time?

As I already said in recent times, I’m once again at that point where I’m looking to upgrade my Mac setup. The big difference is that, for the first time in all my 30+ years history as an Apple customer, the reason for needing an upgrade is merely work-related. Up to now for me, getting a new Mac has always been a work & leisure experience. It has always been an experience that involved emotion and a sprinkle of non-rationality in my purchase decision process. Getting a new Mac has always felt great until now. 

It’s kind of ironic that the Macs we can buy today are on paper the most qualified for providing a feels great experience, given they’re amazing machines performance- and efficiency-wise; the problem is they’re also the most boring and disappointing when it comes to everything else. This is of course a partially-subjective observation. A lot of people love the latest MacBook Pro design, I do not. While I’m glad Apple has reverted to a chunkier chassis for a better thermal management, and to a more reliable keyboard design, putting a stupid notch at the top of the display is just unforgivable in my book. This was the ‘subjective’ portion of my observation. Less subjective is the matter of Mac OS, which has objectively got worse for at least the past four iterations. Something that won’t really bother the regular user or the die-hard Apple fanboy, yet something that’s painfully apparent to any experienced or veteran Mac user.

Sorry for this little ranting excursion, but it’s once again to emphasise how hard upgrading my Mac setup is for me today. Even if it’s mainly for work purposes, I want something I can comfortably look at while I work, and these MacBook Pros ain’t it, no matter how good their performance is. I know, superficially this doesn’t make sense: if I want a new Mac just for work, and dispassionately so, I should put performance and power before looks. But see, for the kind of work I do, I don’t really need the most powerful Mac or the Mac with the best absolute performance. Now I simply need a Mac with an updated architecture and the latest Mac OS. My current 2017 Intel-based iMac is a fantastic machine, quite versatile, and the one that has turned out to be of great value and reliability over the years, a proud successor of my 2009 15-inch MacBook Pro in this regard. Still running Mac OS 10.13 High Sierra, this iMac is going to remain the machine I most enjoy using. But to be able to test new Mac apps that are written for the Apple Silicon architecture, I need a more modern Mac. I’ve always preferred the flexibility of Mac laptops, but of all the current offerings, only the M1 MacBook Air pleases me. But it’s a 2020 machine by now, without many useful ports. 

That’s why I’m once again looking at desktop Macs. At first I thought the Mac Studio would be the perfect upgrade; then I started thinking that it may be too overkill (and expensive) a solution. So I was waiting for the new M2 Mac mini.

Actually, I was waiting for an Apple Silicon 27-inch iMac Pro, but Apple has decided that we should buy a Mac Studio or a Mac mini with an M2 Pro chip, and their over-priced and underwhelming 27-inch Studio Display, so that we can spend more money to achieve the same performance an all-in-one solution could otherwise provide.

But anyway: the M2 Mac minis are here, and they’re very likely the perfect fit for my current needs. Powerful enough, affordable enough, with just-enough ports. That they retain the same old design was, I confess, a bit disappointing — I had seen very interesting renderings based on early leaks and rumours where the mini looked wider and flatter, almost resembling the first-generation Apple TV. But in the end it doesn’t matter: I’ve always liked the mini’s form factor and compactness.

As for the M2 Mac mini main configurations, Apple is being Apple once again. Again, instead of offering good/better/best variants, they’ve settled for worse/okay/better:

  • $599 (€719 in my country) is very affordable indeed, but offering a computer with just 256 GB of storage in this day and age is a joke. Apple could easily offer 512 GB of storage at this price point (or for little more), with less nickel-and-diming involved.
  • Even more criminal is charging $799 (€949 in my country) for a configuration whose only difference from the base model is the 512 GB of storage. In other words, you pay $200 more (€230 more in my country) just for having 256 GB more in your internal SSD.
  • With those $200/€230 I could easily find a fast-enough external Thunderbolt SSD drive with at least 1TB of storage.
  • Like I wrote on social media, if I customise the base M2 Mac mini with a more reasonably-current configuration — 16 GB of RAM, 1 TB of storage — the price goes from $599/€719 to $1,199/€1,409. It’s still not terribly expensive, but I’m not sure about the ‘value’ proposition at this point, considering that for $1,299/€1,569 I could purchase the base M2 Pro Mac mini, which comes with 16 GB of RAM, 512 GB of storage, and two more Thunderbolt ports.
  • Also, in my case, I have to add the expense of getting a new external display. If I were silly enough to choose the 27-inch Studio Display, I’d have to add another $1,599 (€1,779) minimum to my Mac mini customised configuration, for a total of $2,798 or €3,188. The mini is the most affordable Mac, provided you stick to mediocre specs and you either already have a good display or you choose wisely outside the Apple ecosystem.

For the moment, here’s what I’ve planned to do for my Mac upgrade:

  • Getting the base M2 Mac mini with 256 GB of storage but choosing 16 GB of RAM. Cost: €949.
  • Getting a high-performance external NVMe Thunderbolt SSD of at least 1 TB of storage. Projected cost: about €150.
  • As for the display, for the kind of work I do (mostly testing apps and dealing with lots of documentation), the LG 28-inch DualUp Monitor with Ergo Stand is an excellent candidate. Cost: €600 at the time of writing.
  • The total cost for this setup would be about €1,699, which is €100 or so more than what I paid for my current iMac back in 2018 — for a setup that packs good performance, good overall storage, and a very nice display.

Still, to me the golden era of the Mac will always remain the years between 1998 and 2012. During that time, purchasing a Mac — for me at least — was always a thrilling experience. It never felt something coldly planned beforehand or laboriously calculated by comparing prices and poring over tech specifications. Sure, there were considerations related to costs and needs, but there also was a fun, whimsical component. Macs were fun, powerful enough for their time, with unique designs and quirks, with an amazing operating system that felt truly integrated with and optimised for the hardware it was running on. Today it’s all boring clinical performance, an OS that doesn’t feel capable and as fun to use as it once was, and every purchase essentially feels like writing down a costs/benefits table and little more.

→ Mac OS Ventura issues

Handpicked

Recently, Michael Tsai has compiled quite the list of issues he’s having with Ventura. While reading it, and while reading all the comments where other people chime in with additional problems, I wasn’t really surprised by the amount of issues taken as a whole — I and others have sadly observed the downward trajectory Mac OS has been following since Catalina (I’m being generous here: another popular opinion is that Mac OS has been getting worse since Mac OS X 10.7 Lion); thus, I kind of expected this bugfest from Ventura.

I’m more surprised by the nature of many of these issues, by how ridiculous they are compared with the sheer age and supposed maturity of a 20+ year-old operating system. I mean, take for example the Finder issues:

  • Revealing files in Finder (either from the title bar menu or a command in another app) sometimes doesn’t work, revealing an ancestor folder instead of the actual file, or sometimes doing nothing at all.
  • Finder sometimes loses all of its sidebar items.
  • Finder sometimes forgets which sidebar sections are expanded.
  • Sometimes mounted drives disappear from the Computer view, even though they are still mounted and in use.
  • Finder windows sometimes don’t get focus when I click on them, even though Finder does become the frontmost app.

This stuff shouldn’t be happening in an operating system that’s been around since 2000. These issues — well, all the issues Tsai reported — are regressions. One of my production Macs is still running Mac OS 10.13 High Sierra, and I didn’t experience any of the issues Tsai mentions that I could try and reproduce on my Mac.

The most common reaction I get when I say I’m still on High Sierra is something along the lines of, Are you crazy? What about security? High Sierra hasn’t received a security update since Big Sur came out in 2020. But see, I’d rather deal with the aftermath of a security vulnerability than having to deal with this long list of Ventura bugs and annoyances. Why? Because the likelihood of suffering a catastrophic security event on my Macs running High Sierra is realistically very low. The issues Tsai mentions are way more frequent and would be a constant interruption or disruption of any of my workflows.

To those who maybe are wondering whether Tsai’s issues with Ventura could be specific to his system, keep in mind that, given Apple’s notorious aversion to expandability, Macs are increasingly becoming closed machines hardware-wise. There was a time when one of the first things to investigate while troubleshooting Mac issues was the specific configuration of a machine. Maybe this issue in Mac OS X was happening because there was something wrong with the RAM upgrade installed by the user; or maybe there was an odd conflict with that PCI card added to that Mac Pro; or maybe one of the drives was failing, etc. But in this era of everything-soldered-in and systems-on-a-chip, Macs are getting less diverse inside, troubleshooting is getting less nuanced and, in a sense, much simpler. We’re still at a stage where certain Mac OS issues could happen on an Intel Mac but not on an Apple Silicon Mac, or vice-versa, but soon most of the issues will be general and not really specific to this or that Mac.

By the way, ever since Ventura was in beta, many readers of this blog have reached out and asked why I wasn’t writing about it. I probably mentioned this a few times on social media, but the simple answer is that, apart from my 2017 iMac, none of my current main machines is supported by Ventura. And that iMac is my High Sierra machine, which I’m not going to update to run experiments or to study Ventura’s UI. What I’ve seen on other people’s Macs or borrowed Macs has been enough to make me say, No thanks.

What a strange period of time this is. I’m still drawn to Apple’s products; I have no problem recognising the performance advancements of Apple Silicon Macs, and I still plan to eventually get one. With the sore exception of the notch in the MacBook Pros and M2 MacBook Air, I think this is a great time for Mac hardware. But as I’ve been saying ad nauseam by now, Mac OS and Apple’s first-party applications are a constant letdown. And as I wrote in My next Mac may be the last, “With this (and more) in mind, you can see how difficult and painful upgrading to a new Mac becomes for me. On the one hand, the hardware is great and so is the performance. On the other, getting a new Mac today means it comes with Ventura or Monterey preinstalled, which is unfortunate, and of course there is no downgrade path.”

I’ve also grown tired of something Apple apologists have been constantly repeating like a mantra: that whatever issue the current version of Mac OS may have, things will get better in future updates. That’s bullshit. The truth is that for the past few years, every Mac OS release has felt like a beta release on a loop. Just when the most annoying bugs seem to get fixed in the later stages of one Mac OS release, the beta versions of the next one start coming out. Then the next Mac OS release is officially introduced, and with it newer and quirkier bugs appear. And the cycle repeats. For the past few years, Mac OS has never felt really stable or finished.

I’m dreading the moment when some of the tools I’m still using under High Sierra or Mojave will stop working (Dropbox likely being among the first) and I’ll be forced to use more recent versions of Mac OS for my work. Speaking more generally, I just hate where Mac OS is going. Every release since Catalina seems to make a half step forward and three steps back, where even simple Finder operations become glitchy, good UI and usability practices are forgotten or randomly disrupted, and all this because now Mac OS apparently has to work and behave more and more like its dumber sibling iOS/iPadOS.

 

→ Mac OS Ventura issues was first published by Riccardo Mori on Morrick.me on 30 December 2022.

Surface Pro (5th generation) first impressions

Tech Life

I wanted to write a proper review at a later date, after a more prolonged exposure to the whole Surface experience, but at the time of writing the Surface Type Cover has yet to arrive, and the stylus I ordered on Amazon should be delivered today. Still, I have spent enough time with the device to be able to share at least some initial observations.

I have been interested in acquiring a Surface device for a long time. Mind you, I don’t consider 2‑in‑1 devices to be necessarily innovative; I still maintain that tablets in general have been suffering and keep suffering from lack of vision and originality in hardware, software, and interaction paradigms. All tech companies seem to ignore a great deal of potential that was briefly hinted at with the Newton platform back in the late 1990s — the idea of a tablet that can stand on its own as a computing device, with a ‘tablet interface’ designed from the ground up. But, most importantly, designed around the user with an interaction paradigm that goes beyond doing the same things you’d do with the mouse on a traditional computer, but with your fingers on a screen.

But while I don’t consider 2‑in‑1 devices to be necessarily innovative, I wanted to see if one of the most popular could at least work as designed and deliver on its premise. The ideal Surface device for me would have been a Surface Book. Not only because it’s more powerful than other devices in the Surface family, but also because I was always intrigued by its design and quirky hinge. A fully fledged laptop, but you push a button and the whole screen surprisingly detaches, revealing a fully fledged tablet, and a rather big one at that. But since I have some other stuff to update down the road (and not inexpensive stuff), I couldn’t afford to get a Surface Book at the moment.

Luckily, the Tuesday after Cyber Monday, I managed to purchase a 2017 fifth-generation Surface Pro for a very low price at the local second-hand electronics shop I frequently visit. This Surface Pro was in very nice condition, still with a good battery, and despite being one of the lower configurations (4 GB RAM, 128 GB of internal flash memory, but equipped with the beefier Intel Core i5-7300U CPU and not the entry-level Intel Core m3-7Y30), when I tried it out at the shop I was pleasantly surprised by its speed and responsiveness.

It came, however, without accessories. No keyboard, no Surface Pen. These weeks I have been using it as a tablet, interacting with it with my fingers or a passive Bamboo Stylus for more precise interactions; and when I needed to use it more like a traditional computer at my desk, I connected it to a Bluetooth mechanical keyboard and a Microsoft Bluetooth Ergonomic Mouse (which is a very nice mouse to use, by the way).

Microsoft Surface Pro 5 with keyboard and mouse

Even before being positively surprised by the Surface Pro’s responsiveness, I was positively surprised by how it handles. It feels solidly built, dense, and every bit as premium as an iPad; and just like, say, a 12.9‑inch iPad Pro, while feeling solid and hefty, it doesn’t feel heavy to handle. I knew that the Surface kickstand would have felt sturdier in person than what it looks on photos, and this Surface Pro is by no means the first Surface I ever handled, but still, when it’s your device and you can freely play with the kickstand, you realise that Microsoft is truly good at building hinges.

Then something happens when you turn on or wake up the Surface Pro: you have a tablet in your hands but on its bright, crisp screen you see (in this case) Windows 10 Pro running. Not a dumbed-down version of it, not a ‘Windows Tablet Edition’ OS, or something of the sort. You’re immediately reminded that you’re holding a traditional computer that just happens to come in tablet form. The feeling this conveys, in turn, is: I can do all sort of stuff with this, just like on my ThinkPad. I’m not saying that you can’t do all sort of stuff with an iPad Pro, mind you, but the feeling, the approach, seem different to me.

I think that the ace up the Surface’s sleeve is that it turns certain traits that would be considered weaknesses — it’s boring and predictable — into strengths. Look, it’s Windows on a tablet: how unimaginative, how non-innovative. But it’s also what makes the Surface work. It’s what makes the Surface’s UI work even if you’re not using Windows’ Tablet Mode. Remember what I said before, that I wish more tech companies would create a tablet whose user interaction went beyond doing the same things you’d do with the mouse on a traditional computer, but with your fingers on a screen? I think interacting with Windows on the Surface Pro works surprisingly well exactly because you’re not expected to do more than that. It’s Windows, it works like Windows, and you interact with it in the same way you’d interact with Windows on any other PC. Sure, there may be a few multitasking gestures here and there, or the occasional small target to hit, but the whole predictability and unpretentiousness of the system does really work in its favour.

I still think Microsoft missed a big opportunity with the Metro UI of the Windows Phone 7 and Windows 8 era. A more tile-based UI language would really work well on a Microsoft tablet for touch-based gestures and interactions, in my opinion. I remember playing with a Surface RT a few years ago, and while I agree it was an underpowered device, it was really fun interacting with the live tiles on the Start Screen and navigating the interface.

Functionally, though, I think Microsoft did the right thing in leaving Windows RT behind. Being able to experience Windows fully on tablet-sized well-performing hardware is much better. If your idea is to deliver tablets or convertible devices that are meant to be versatile and useful for both ‘passive’ tasks (reading, enjoying films, videos, music, etc.) and productivity-oriented tasks (or creative tasks), then it’s better that the system running on them isn’t crippled by lack of features or limitations imposed by a UI that can’t handle certain complexities in a seamless way.

iOS is not a bad operating system, but it was designed for a smartphone. It was adapted for the iPad because it made sense at the time. Initially, the iPad wasn’t created to be a device that could be used for the same productive and professional uses as a traditional computer. In Steve Jobs’s view, you had a Mac for that. As I wrote in Yes to everything (March 2020):

The Surface knows what it is. And Surface users know what to expect from it, in terms of functionality and interface. The user interface could be improved here and there, but it’s not ambiguous. The levels of interaction comfort aren’t either. There is a distinctive best/good/okay comfort range as you go from operating a Surface like a Windows laptop, to using it as a tablet with pen input, to using it with touch input with just your fingers. But that feels fine because that’s the experience the Surface is supposed to provide. […]

The iPad, on the other hand, has had a more varied history, and has been more of a chameleon — with regard to both purpose and interface. It was born as a separate device with unique characteristics to fill the perceived void between a laptop and a smartphone. In 2010, when introducing the iPad, Steve Jobs said, In order to really create a new category of devices, those devices are going to have to be far better at doing some key tasks. They’re gonna have to be far better at doing some really important things: better than the laptop, better than the smartphone.

And in its first iterations, the iPad was exactly that; its identity pretty clear — ‘a big iPhone’ that could be just as easy to use as an iPhone, but better at doing certain things due to its bigger display. And better than a laptop because certain basic tasks and operations were simply more intuitive to carry out thanks to the multi-touch interface. That really killed all the remaining netbooks still in use at the time, and many non-tech-savvy people were happy to use a small laptop-sized device that was much less intimidating to use than a traditional computer. All thanks to its user interface and its very operating system, that was not Mac OS X slapped on a touch-based device, but something that felt much more integrated and suitable for such a device. The learning curve was also low because people already knew iOS thanks to the iPhone’s success.

Then, unfortunately, Steve Jobs passed away.

I’m absolutely convinced that the biggest mistake (Cook’s) Apple made with the iPad has been to have waited so long before deciding to branch iOS and give the iPad a dedicated ‘iPadOS’. Apple should have done it the moment they perceived that many users wanted to do more with iPads than just using them as ancillary devices for a series of basic tasks. I’d say the process should have started with the introduction of the third-generation iPad in 2012 (the first with a retina display). Instead iPadOS came as late as 2019, and its differences with iOS are still too marginal to be meaningful and beneficial to the iPad. Today, to truly take advantage of the hardware capabilities of the iPad, iPadOS should look and feel more Mac OS Lite than iOS Pro.

Using good old regular Windows on a Surface device might feel clunky in places (some UI targets are really best tapped on with a Surface Pen or similar stylus rather than with your finger, for example), but at least Surface devices — which are almost as old as the iPad — haven’t really suffered from an identity crisis. I’m as surprised as some of you may be when I write these words, but when it comes to tablet computing, Microsoft seems to have listened and served their target audience better than Apple has with theirs.

Back to my Surface Pro 5th generation — Other miscellaneous things

  • Startup and shutdown times are excellent. In normal conditions, this Surface Pro cold boots in about 8 seconds (from pressing the power button to the appearance of the lock screen). If there aren’t open apps when you shut down the device, shutdown is almost instantaneous.
  • The device delivers good performance, as I already said, but it’s certainly not suitable for gaming. I installed Steam and downloaded a few games my older 2014 ThinkPad X240 can handle, but performance was only acceptable, and I had to choose lower settings to try and make things smoother. The weak point here is clearly the GPU, which is decent for everyday use, but not for running triple‑A games.
  • The Surface Pro has a MicroSD slot, so I decided to purchase a 128 GB MicroSD card with fast performance to use it as permanent additional storage. So, to save space on the internal SSD, I also tried to install Steam and my game library on the MicroSD card. Evidently, despite the good reading/writing speeds of the card, it was not an ideal solution, as games took longer to load and update, and the whole experience was generally worse. Better use the MicroSD card as media storage and little more.
  • The Surface Pro 5 also comes with a USB 3 port (in full USB‑A size), a MiniDisplay port (connecting an external display was really easy and hassle-free), a headphone jack, a Cover Port to connect the Type Cover keyboard, and the SurfaceConnect port where you can connect the AC adapter, a Docking Station or Surface Dock accessories. Not a lot of ports, but absolutely sufficient for my needs. The SurfaceConnect port feels stronger than MagSafe in its magnetic connection, but still passes the cable yanking test. I also like that there isn’t a specific orientation for the connector — you can plug it in with the cable facing either way.
  • Now that the Surface Pen alternative I ordered on Amazon has arrived, I can say it feels better than a Surface Pen for handwriting and sketching. The tip has more grip and when it touches the Surface’s display, it feels more like pencil on paper rather than plastic touching glass. The stylus I chose (based on some recommendations online) is the Renaisser Raphael 530 active stylus. One of the things I like about it better than the Surface Pen is that it doesn’t have an AAAA battery, but an internal rechargeable battery that can be charged via USB‑C. This stylus therefore feels less hollow in the hand. The flip side is that the battery life of a Surface Pen will never degrade over time. You put a fresh AAAA battery when the old one is exhausted, and you’re good to go.
  • The experience of drawing and writing with a stylus in Windows is great. The Ink to text feature works well and Windows’ handwriting recognition had very little problems recognising my longhand. I was able to write search terms and phrases in the browser, and even entire URLs, and again everything was parsed with a surprisingly high degree of accuracy. A few minor corrections here and there (my lowercase ’n’ was recognised as ‘h’ in a few instances) weren’t really bothersome and didn’t detract from the overall seamlessness. But I should have expected this, since the handwriting experience was already good on my ThinkPad X61 Tablet running Windows 7 Pro.
  • A moment of praise for Windows’ virtual keyboard. It’s something I already noticed when I started using Windows Phone 8 on my Nokia Lumia 925 and 1020, and Windows 10 Mobile on my Lumia 830 — I make almost no typing errors when using it. I don’t know if it’s the size and shape of the keys, their spacing and placement, but I’m always more accurate when typing on Windows’ virtual keyboards compared to iOS and iPadOS. Apple’s virtual keyboards were fantastic in the pre-iOS 7 era, and my typing impeccable; the experience has degraded with further iOS iterations — at least for me. I also find Microsoft’s predictive text to be smarter than Apple’s. On iOS I often find that some quite common words suddenly and randomly aren’t suggested or even recognised; for example the other day I was trying to write a quick message, and iOS kept autocorrecting ‘yes’ in ‘yet’ or ‘yield’.
  • Switching back and forth between landscape and portrait orientation is less smooth than on Apple devices. There is a little lag as the Surface ‘prepares’ the interface for the change in orientation, and the process feels like the Surface is a bit reluctant to proceed. Due to its screen’s aspect ratio, the Surface is taller and narrower than an iPad when used in portrait orientation, and that initially feels a bit weird. But it’s great for reading documents and PDFs, or webpages with a lot of vertical content.
  • This Surface Pro also has very nice speakers. They’re stereo and front-facing, and they sound rather crisp. Despite their small size, the bass is noticeable and overall they don’t sound tinny.
  • I haven’t done any meaningful test regarding battery life. The device is second-hand, and if you’re interested in getting a Surface Pro, I’m sure more recent models will have a better battery performance. Still, in the couple of days I used my unit most intensely, starting at 100% charge in the late morning, I was able to work on it all afternoon (sometimes listening to music via Spotify in the background), plus I watched a few videos on YouTube and a short documentary, and in the evening I was in a 2‑hour videochat on Google Meet with my friends (I asked them if they were seeing and hearing me well, and they confirmed). When later in the night I returned to the Surface to check something, battery was at 30% — so I’d say it’s not bad for a day of normal-to-heavy use with a device that’s now five years old.

I think that’s it for now. Maybe I’ll write an update to this article or a separate addendum when the Type Cover also arrives, so I can share further impressions after using the Surface with its characteristic companion, and respond to any interesting feedback I may receive in the meantime. If you have any questions or you want me to elaborate on a particular aspect of the Surface you feel I may have overlooked, you can reach me via email or find me on Twitter and Mastodon.

 

Surface Pro (5th generation) first impressions was first published by Riccardo Mori on Morrick.me on 15 December 2022.

Social paths and detours

Tech Life

(This should probably be titled Assorted musings on social media, part 2)

I have this writing habit where, even when I know what I want to talk about in an article, I first have to come up with a good title. The title for me is like the act of turning the car key and starting the engine. I knew I wanted to talk about Twitter, what to do with it right now, people’s behaviours, Twitter alternatives, but all these things didn’t form a cohesive spot I could shine a comprehensive light (the title) on, so I guess we’re stuck with this somewhat vague Social paths and detours.

Obligatory reference

One of the reasons why I can’t seem to write on this blog as often as I’d like is that certain tech topics I care about routinely resurface and I realise that the debate around them retreads the same ground and points discussed previously, and so I often stare at an article I’d like to respond to, and say to myself, I’ve already talked about this. They’re still talking about this, and nothing has changed or improved since the last time. I would only end up repeating myself. This is why you haven’t heard me talking about the iPad’s identity crisis in a while. It’s the same crisis as before. The iPad got lost around 2013 and it’s still lost in the woods, even if it can run faster now.

With Twitter and social media, I feel I have little to add to my previous piece Assorted musings on social media, written in October 2021. You should go and read that in its entirety. What I’m going to do here is just add a few updated notes and observations based on the most recent debate surrounding the current state of Twitter.

An involuntarily hypocritical position

Elon Musk is a polarising figure, and the questionable way he’s currently managing Twitter has led many people to look elsewhere for their social media needs. Some have already left Twitter for other platforms — mostly Mastodon. Some, like myself, are keeping accounts here and there in a wait-and-see approach. These days, in private, I’ve been asked directly why I’m still on Twitter, given how terrible and doomed and politically unbalanced it’s becoming under the new management. In coming up with a response, I really sounded like those people I had urged in the past to leave Facebook and close up their accounts. Yes, the main reason I’m not leaving Twitter behind at the moment is the network of people that has been building around me in the almost 15 years I’ve been on the platform. 

The similarities between these two paths and dynamics — leaving Facebook behind and leaving Twitter behind — are quite strong. I contend that one important difference I always perceived and still perceive is that, while I think someone leaving Facebook could find solid alternatives to keep in touch with the people they interacted with within Facebook’s walls, I’m not equally sure someone leaving Twitter can find (at the moment) a solid alternative offering the same experience Twitter offers (I’m obviously talking about the positives, not the toxicity and aggravation). 

I realise I’m probably sounding a bit hypocritical here, but the truth is that I’m conflicted. I still feel I was doing the right thing when I tried to evangelise friends and acquaintances against Facebook. (And when one of those acquaintances recently said to me, Now you fully understand how I was feeling when you criticised me for being reluctant to quit Facebook, I reacted by saying that actually even back then I understood how difficult it was). At the same time I’m (hopefully) known to be a man of principle, and given that I’m no fan of Mr Musk or the people he enables, I should just refuse on principle to keep staying on Twitter and I should seek out greener and less toxic pastures.

But it’s not that clear-cut. Especially for someone like me whose experience on Twitter has been consistently exceptionally positive over the years, without the slightest hint of toxicity. 

Interesting behavioural phenomena

There are many points I can agree with in Jeff Johnson’s piece I don’t want to go back to social media, but there are some excerpts where I couldn’t be on a more different page.

He writes:

I’m old enough to have lived half my adult life before Twitter existed, and to be honest, I feel that life before Twitter was better. The untweeted life is worth living! When you become a DAU (Daily Active User), you give up a lot of your time and energy to Twitter. Keeping up with your feed and your notifications becomes a compulsion. Your schedule almost revolves around it. What I’ve found after quitting Twitter is that in some sense I have my life back. I feel less hurried. I can spend hours focusing on some activity without needing a break to check Twitter. I set my own agenda, according to my own interests, as opposed to my Twitter feed setting my agenda, according to the interests of my following. 

Perhaps it’s because I’m not a developer and I haven’t had to use Twitter also as a means to promote a product (though I’m a writer, I’ve published some fiction, and I should promote it more), but my experience as a daily active user has always been and continues to be quite different. Again, perhaps it’s due to some habits I have developed early as a Twitter user, but I’ve never felt Twitter as a negative force that messed up my day-to-day schedule. 

The first thing I learnt back when I noticed I was starting to follow a bit too many people, is Forget about keeping up with your feed/timeline. When you manage to do that, the rest is easy. I always check Twitter when I’m ready to give some of my time to it. There’s never been any sort of compulsion. I’ve never been out and about, or working at my desk, and feeling assaulted by a burning desire to know what’s happening on Twitter, what my network of people is talking about right now, etc. For me there has never been the dreaded ‘fear of missing out’ with Twitter. I pop up there when I can, I check my Mentions and reply to people when I can, and if I have some time to spare I’ll engage in a bit of doomscrolling. That’s it. It’s not that I’m lucky — it’s something I naturally adjusted to time ago and I still think anyone can do it if they really want. Especially if you follow and are followed by more people than in my case. 

Another bit where I felt my experience and attitude to be drastically different than Johnson’s is where he writes:

I’ve felt that at times — many times! — Twitter brought out the worst in me. I struggled to be “my best self” on Twitter. Admittedly, I struggle to be my best self almost everywhere, but Twitter was the worst situation for that. The incentives on Twitter are perverse: the short character limits, the statistical counts of retweets and likes, the unknown followers and readers, the platform and publicity all conspire to corrupt you, to push you toward superficial tweets that incite the crowd. Twitter is an audience, which means that tweeting is a performance, and tweeters are actors. It’s unnatural. If you could design a system from scratch in order to produce the least friendly, least intelligent, least thoughtful “conversation” in the world, you’d probably come up with something a lot like Twitter. 

My approach to Twitter, and the way I present myself on Twitter, are mostly shaped after the previous social environments I used to frequent: Usenet, mailing lists, and LiveJournal. I joined those places at a time when I was younger, less cynical, and fascinated by the ability to get in touch and engage with people from any place on Earth, sharing the same passions, exchanging experiences, discussing books, hobbies, outlooks on life, etc. Therefore my approach has always been to be myself, not some made-up online persona. I’ve always been genuine online, and Usenet in particular taught me how to defend myself and how to develop a thicker skin against trolls and time-wasters. And I’ve always dealt with the consequences of being myself: losing people after misunderstandings or disagreements, but also maintaining very long-time friendships because my being genuine attracted people who wanted to approach the online social space as genuinely. This has built a lot of trust and healthy relationships over time. On Twitter and elsewhere I’m still in contact with people I’ve ‘met’ online more than 20 years ago, and friends I’ve met in real life about 30 years ago.

So, when I joined Twitter in early 2008, and after a couple of false starts needed to better understand Twitter’s vibe and flow (for lack of better terms), the way I started interacting with people on Twitter was no different than the way I’d chosen to interact with people before elsewhere — truthfully and thoughtfully. What I choose to say/respond on Twitter is the same thing I’d say to someone if they were here with me. There is no acting or performance involved. Or premeditation: I’ve always used Twitter organically. I’ve written superficial stuff and bad jokes; I’ve ranted when there was something that upset me; I’ve shared resources, praised other people’s work, supported others, listened to them, kept secrets when told to; in a word, I’ve always tried to be as much transparent as one can nowadays online. And given what I sowed, I’m rather satisfied with what I’ve reaped. (This is the point where you should refer back to my afore-linked piece, Assorted musings on social media, specifically the section titled It’s what you make of it).

While I don’t recognise myself at all when Johnson writes, Twitter is an audience, which means that tweeting is a performance, and tweeters are actors. It’s unnatural, I’ve read others express similar feelings about what Twitter supposedly ‘makes you do’ and the way it reshapes your behaviour. This is fascinating to me — this kind of depersonalisation when dealing with something that, in my view, couldn’t be more personal than Twitter. Like I said in my previous article, I keep hearing people complain about their timeline as if it was some kind of demonic TV set that cannot be turned off and forces them to watch its programmes. And I also hear people talk about Twitter using terms you typically apply to drugs and drug usage. They say Twitter is ‘addictive’, that it works in ways that ‘cloud your judgment’, and so forth. Like alcoholics who blame their worst behaviour on the alcohol. The booze made me do it. These are poor excuses, especially among adults. Who resorted to the booze in the first place? You. Who behaved like a moron on Twitter? You. Don’t blame ‘the timeline’. No one made you behave poorly. It wasn’t the Twitter client what impaired your judgment. And if your last-resort excuse is something like, Well, other people on Twitter do the same shit, then you’re a child and you should go back living with your parents, or consider seeking a therapist, because you need help.

I could go on, but again at this point I would be repeating what I already wrote in my previous article, in the section titled It takes work if you care about your experience. What’s maybe worth reiterating is that I’m aware that Twitter can put you in a foul mood and can be overwhelming especially if you use it as a source to follow what’s happening in the world. The world can often be a shitty place, and even if you do everything you can to shield yourself from learning terrible, horrifying, depressing news, that news may reach you anyway because it gets retweeted and amplified by people you follow. 

No one has full control over stuff like this. Sometimes you access your Twitter timeline and there it is, the aggravating episode of racism, sexism, gender violence, hate crime, and so forth. But as I’ve said other times, what you can do is try to contain this issue, especially if you realise it’s having a severe, cumulative impact on your mental health. You can’t expect this ‘Twitter entity’ you’ve depersonalised to fix itself or fix the problem for you. You have enough agency to carry out the first steps to filter or remove what you perceive as toxic. Just as you decide to unfollow that guy whom you thought you had more in common with but then just tweets about sports all the time, you can stop following that other dude whose tweets and retweets are always about politics, crime, and keeps going on about how shitty this world is. You don’t need to be subjected to such onslaught of negative (or moronic, or uninformed, or bigoted) thinking. That’s why people who just complain about how dreadful Twitter is, and yet do nothing about it, not even leaving it for good, and have this demanding attitude expecting someone else to make the place better, do not have my sympathy.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”

Waiting and seeing

From this little Twitter hill in my little Twitter neighbourhood, I’m keeping an eye on Twitter city, and for the moment what Elon Musk is, does, or whom he enables are all irrelevant details with regard to my experience and my subnetwork of people. Am I minimising the mostly negative impact Musk is having on the platform now? No. But for now I can and will exercise all the control I can to mitigate toxicity if and when it reaches me. And how could it reach me, by the way? I’m wise enough to avoid picking fights with types of people who are way beyond any attempt at recoverability through a calm and rational exchange of views. It’s a waste of time, it won’t do anything good, it would probably end up making me a target of some zealot mob. I don’t need to pick these fights as a way of virtue-signalling. I’m not going to save the world by engaging in verbal guerrilla skirmishes on Twitter.

What would make me decide to leave Twitter or stop being active on it are less philosophical stances and more structural changes to the platform. In other words, I care more about the preservation of the Twitter experience than who owns ‘the building’. If the rules of the game change so dramatically and negatively as to make Twitter work in an unrecognisable fashion compared with the status quo, then I’ll make my decision.

Until then, I’m staying on Twitter — for the people, and for the amazing relationships I’ve developed there over the past 14 years.

You can find me on Mastodon as well

I’m not a ‘Twitter refugee’ on Mastodon. I’ve opened my account there back in 2018, because after App.​Net shut down (the best social network I’ve been in), many of the most loyal members ended up on Mastodon, and I followed suit to avoid losing people on the way. And in fact the instance I’m in — appdot.net — was created by an ex App.​Net member for other ‘App.​Net refugees’. My handle is https://appdot.net/@morrick.

Is Mastodon better than Twitter? I don’t know, honestly. When Twitter was business as usual, Mastodon felt like a quieter spot where I could follow and interact with people who were exclusively on Mastodon after having had enough with other social networks. Now that Twitter is emanating an aura of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and that dozens of people are trying out Mastodon, the atmosphere there is more buzzy. On the one hand, I’m happy to see people reconnecting through new social paths and detours (hey, I managed to use the title of this piece here); on the other, there’s also more ‘noise’, with people boosting other people’s toots (retweeting other people’s tweets, in Twitter parlance) as a means to make new people known across the fediverse. The result is that, despite I only follow 50+ people on Mastodon, my timeline feels messier and slightly more chaotic than Twitter’s at the moment. Things need to stabilise in a way or another before I can say whether one network is ‘better’ than the other for me personally. They are certainly two different animals (no pun intended), and there’s a lot to like about Mastodon, and for the most part it’s about its structure.

The decentralised nature of Mastodon is the core feature I genuinely love. Not being a centralised network, not being owned by a public company or by a billionaire private citizen, is definitely the healthier option in this day and age where every single person seems to have a different concept of ‘free speech’. From a user experience standpoint, however, Mastodon still feels like a ‘nerd-first’ place, and there’s still a bit more friction for the uninitiated, whereas Twitter is seamless immediacy in comparison. Even an experienced netizen like myself has had his Huh? moment — someone I follow on Twitter said they were definitely relocating to Mastodon, and left a clickable link to their profile. I clicked on it, and was taken to a Mastodon-formatted webpage with the profile of this person. I instinctively clicked on the Follow button; since I wasn’t logged into Mastodon, a Login page appeared. I entered my credentials but were refused. After some unsuccessful attempts, I realised what was going on: I was trying to log into the same Mastodon instance that person was on, which is different from the instance I am on. So I opened my Mastodon client, clicked on Search, pasted the full account address of that person, found them and added them.

Wait, Rick — I hear you say — What’s a Mastodon instance? As you can see, we already have the first bit of friction. Since Mastodon is not a centralised site like Twitter, accounts must be handled by several different servers. That’s also why your Mastodon handle hasn’t got a simple syntax like on Twitter, but something that looks almost like an email address. You’re not just @someone on Mastodon: you’re @someone@somewhere.domain. The ingenious part is that once you open an account on a Mastodon server (and your credentials are only valid on that server) you nevertheless can reach anyone anywhere in the Mastodon federated universe (fediverse) and you can be reached in turn. This also explain why you have Local and Global Timelines.

For a novice, another bit of friction at this point is where to sign up. There’s of course a central point of reference, probably the most populated instance: Mastodon.social, which is the original server operated by the Mastodon non-profit entity. But there are many others. You may know about one by word of mouth; you may be invited to join an instance by other contacts who migrated there; you may search online for places that keep Mastodon lists of instances, such as this one; if you are savvy enough, you can even create your own Mastodon instance on your own server, and you can be the only user in that instance in case you don’t want to open access to other people. 

As you can see, this doesn’t feel as simple and immediate as Twitter. Fortunately, the friction with Mastodon comes largely in the preparatory stage. Once you’ve overcome this quite literal barrier to entry, once you have your Mastodon profile and have downloaded a client, the mechanics and experience are rather similar to Twitter. You follow people, you post updates, you can favourite other people’s posts, and/or boost them (like when you retweet something on Twitter). Another advantage of Mastodon’s decentralisation is that moderation happens locally, since every server is operated by volunteers and single users. Instead of having to monitor a single network of millions of users, every instance may have to deal with ‘just’ dozens, hundreds, or thousands of users, depending on the scope established by the instance’s maintainer. Instances seem to have a strong focus on being protective communities, and this is tremendously helpful for marginalised people. If you’re queer, trans, non-binary, you may look for LGBTQ-friendly instances and feel safer there. 

Cautiously optimistic

Despite all the devastation hurricane Musk has brought to Twitter in such a short period of time, I’m not entirely convinced that the Twitter cruise ship is sinking. I’m not a Musk fan and I don’t consider him a genius, but I keep thinking he must have some semblance of a plan that doesn’t involve the complete annihilation of his latest, quite costly purchase. I think that what’s currently happening on Twitter is what Musk in his head considers a stress test, a sort of experiment where he’s trying to assess just how much he can prune the tree before the organism starts breaking up. I certainly don’t condone his attitude and methods here, don’t get me wrong; I’m just trying to understand what’s going on while hoping for the best (and begrudgingly preparing for the worst). 

Before making grand proclamations about the future of Twitter or rage-quitting the platform, I want to see what’s going to happen. If the ‘Twitter experience’ as we know it is going to survive, I’ll keep staying on Twitter while maintaining my presence on Mastodon and other networks. Otherwise I’ll choose a new home online. As a final note, I don’t like the attitude of those who are very fast at pointing fingers and saying that all Twitter ‘remainers’ are endorsing Musk. If I decide not to leave Twitter isn’t because I’m happy to serve master Musk and contribute to making him richer than he is already. If I stay it will only be for the sake of preserving my current ‘neighbourhood’ and network of people. It goes without saying that if the majority of ‘my people’ decide to leave Twitter en masse one day, I’ll go where they go — ‘Twitter experience’ be damned.

 

Social paths and detours was first published by Riccardo Mori on Morrick.me on 25 November 2022.

Another period of tech fatigue

Tech Life

It’s been almost a month since the last update here. Not that I usually update this blog with great frequency, but this has been another period of ‘low tide’ for me. Just like it happened four years ago, as I wrote in Tech’s high speed, and my low tide. If you don’t want to read that piece before proceeding with this one, make sure you read it afterwards. Nothing has changed in four years. As I re-read that piece myself before starting to write this, I realised it’s something I could have written today. 

In that piece I wrote, As for technology, it’s one of those periods when I’m feeling overwhelmed by everything revolving around it. Debates are exhausting. Debates are exhausting indeed. You see, on 28 October I started a draft in iA Writer with this working title: ‘My next Mac might be the last’ follow-up: discussing feedback and a few notes on User experience homogenisation. The idea was to talk about the many email messages I have been receiving since publishing that article (I haven’t replied to anybody privately, my apologies; work and personal stuff got in the way). 

And also to talk about one particular aspect — User experience homogenisation — that was touched on in Episode 841 of MacBreak Weekly, when Leo Laporte quoted my article, which seems to have resonated with him, blowing my mind in the process. As I was watching the episode, I feared the worse, like These veterans are going to make fun of me or something like that. They didn’t, but they also didn’t give much importance to my observations. This was the part Laporte quoted for discussion:

I actually quite like most of what Apple is doing with the Mac, hardware-wise. The problem is I just can’t stand the software anymore. The problem is that I feel there is a troubling ungluing going on between Mac hardware and Mac OS, a substantial difference in quality between the two components, that doesn’t make me feel what I used to feel in previous versions of Mac OS X: seamless integration.

I think it all stems from Apple’s desire to simplify things for themselves, architecture-wise — Apple Silicon is quite innovative in bringing the advantages of iOS devices to Macs (performance + power efficiency). The terrible decision, in my view, has been to also want to bring the iOS look and feel to the Mac. It was unnecessary, it has broken so many tried-and-true Mac interface guidelines, and it has delivered a massive blow to the whole operating system’s identity. Just to make the Mac what, more fashionable? 

The consensus among the MacBreak Weekly regular guests was that actually what Apple is doing to Mac OS is a good thing, that maybe some UI changes go a bit too far, but that typically Apple corrects them afterwards in case the pushback is strong. That a more visually cohesive look between the various Apple platforms is good for the ecosystem.

What I originally planned to write in the follow-up article, then, were a few observations stemming from this core question: Should the user experience on Mac OS be as similar as possible to iOS for the Apple ecosystem’s sake?

But then I dropped everything. This nagging voice inside me kept repeating: Is it worth it? Will anyone care? And I know that someone somewhere would care, but then I was overcome with the feeling that whatever I say, I will end up being treated like that famous Simpsons meme — “Old Man Yells At Cloud”.

This is where we are today in the ever-exhausting tech debate: either you happily embrace whatever kind of shit tech throws at you, or you’re an Old Man Yelling At Cloud. I may be wrong about this, because it’s based on personal, subjective experience, but more and more I end up feeling like these debates go nowhere. I still think it’s worth criticising and pointing out what I think is wrong — especially, crucially, when it comes to Apple — but there are periods just like this one in which it all feels so tiring and pointless. My observations and criticism will resonate with like-minded people, we’ll talk about them for a bit, and then everything will be business as usual. At the beginning of November, I blurted out this tweet: Funny how so many people tell me in private how they enjoy my blog and my tech commentary, but they so often forget to mention it in public when sharing recommendations on who to read in tech. 35+ years of experience in this stupid field and [I’m] still made to feel not good enough. “teknisktsett” replied that Some people don’t dare to agree on “hot topics”, publicly. I received a similar, longer response, via private email: “Don’t expect prominent writers and figures in tech to amplify your (always excellent and on-point) criticisms. They may agree with you ‘at home’, but ‘at work’ they’ll keep their facade because it’s counterproductive for them to agree with you”.

So here we are. 

By the way, of course my answer to that question — Should the user experience on Mac OS be as similar as possible to iOS for the Apple ecosystem’s sake? — was going to be No. The short, simple example is that Mac OS and iOS have coexisted for years without problems, each interface taking advantage of each platform’s strengths and user interaction paradigms, and people didn’t seem to protest. Mac sales didn’t wane because Mac OS was sooo unfamiliar when coming from iOS. Macs didn’t sell well whenever there was something more immediately wrong with them, like Touch Bars replacing an entire row of useful keys, or MacBooks with keyboards that broke down on their own due to atrocious design decisions, or Macs with poorly-designed thermal management.

I’m not entirely against the spirit of bringing a more unified look to all the different operating systems within a bigger ecosystem like Apple’s, mind you, but I find worrying and incompetent to just cut certain parts (or certain visual aspects) of the UI of iOS and paste them onto Mac OS. The user interaction on a traditional computer with mouse/trackpad and keyboard is different from the interaction you find on a touch-based and Multi-touch interface. What severely annoys me about Mac OS Ventura’s new System Settings is that 

  1. They don’t solve what was supposedly a problem with the earlier implementation of System Preferences, i.e. making settings easier to find. In my opinion, things have actually worsened on this front. If you removed the Search feature in both the older System Preferences and the new System Settings, I’m pretty sure you’d still find stuff more quickly in the older System Preferences.
  2. The interface of System Settings is just ‘off’ and inadequate on a traditional computer. Since it’s copy-pasted from iOS, the whole look & feel of it invites you to navigate it by touch, suddenly making interactions with mouse + keyboard more awkward. I saw with my own eyes someone at the local Apple Store trying to change the system appearance from light to dark by directly touching the MacBook Air’s display. Yes, for a moment one smiles at things like this. Then you realise just how bad the UI/UX situation has become on Mac OS.

There, I said it. This will have zero impact on anything, naturally, but it’s out of my system now. 

Aside 1 — In After WWDC 2020: bittersweet Mac, written in July 2020, I said: 

I’d hate to see a progressive oversimplification of the Mac’s UI that could potentially introduce the same discoverability issues that are still present in iPadOS.

I’ve always considered the look of an operating system to be a by-product of how it works, rather than a goal to achieve, if you know what I mean. If something is well-designed in the sense that it works well, provides little to no friction during use, and makes you work better, it’s very rare that it also ends up being something ugly or inelegant from a visual standpoint. How it works shapes how it looks. If you put the look before the how-it-works, you may end up with a gorgeous-looking interface that doesn’t work as well as it looks. 

Or, as it’s happening more frequently now, a gorgeous-looking interface that misleads you because it’s made to look and feel like another user interface which was designed for an entirely different kind of device.

Aside 2 — In What about the M1 Macs?, written in December 2020, I said: 

So, what about the M1 Macs? They’re unbelievably good machines, and everything that is genuinely good about them and future Apple Silicon-based Macs — sheer performance, astounding power-efficiency, and great backward compatibility with Intel software thanks to Rosetta 2 — will also allow Apple to get away with a lot of things with regard to platform control, design decisions, and so forth. 

Guess what happened.

I’m just tired of seeing this passive attitude a lot of people seem to have towards tech companies and Apple in particular; the constant excuses made in Apple’s defence even when changes to the interface design break or interfere with their workflow. So much so that when you point out all those changes for change’s sake, they look at you as if you were the weird one; as if you were less smart for not wanting to adapt every single time and at every Apple designer’s whim. 

I’m tired of hearing the same old song, Apple keeps beating financial records at every quarter, so they must be doing something right. Yes, yes, they make desirable products. Yes, the hardware is still attractive enough to make enough people want to purchase Apple’s products. And yes, Apple Silicon is groundbreaking, an undeniable innovation — but as I’ve kept saying for a while now, this groundbreaking technological advance is used to do the same things we used to do before, only faster and more efficiently. For some, this is enough progress. For me, it’s wasted potential.

I’ve already said it — I’ve never seen such stagnancy in software like in the past decade or so. What I do on my 2020 eighth-generation iPad I can do on my 2012 third-generation iPad. And sure, the eighth-generation iPad is faster and more efficient, but its sole software advantage is that a lot of the services behind certain apps work on iOS 16 but are deprecated on iOS 9. What I do on my 2015 13-inch retina MacBook Pro running Mac OS Monterey is essentially the same that I can do on my 2009 15-inch MacBook Pro with OS X 10.11 El Capitan. Here, some things are faster on the more recent MacBook Pro with Monterey, but from an interface standpoint in many situations I just work better under El Capitan on the older MacBook Pro. 

Where’s the innovation here? Instead of researching and pushing out new software ideas to truly make people’s lives better, the latest Mac OS release’s highlights are… yet another way of working with application windows, redesigned System Preferences, and some other minor things I’m having a hard time recalling. But even if I’m forgetting a cute new feature, or the new Freeform app, my beloved pedants, what matters here is the big picture. And the big picture is that there simply is no real vision behind this technology. Even with something as big as Apple Silicon. What’s the plan? What I see from here boils down to, Let’s make these devices faster and more efficient. Okay, and… That’s it. Let’s make their operating systems look more homogeneous, too. It’s like watching an artist who has basically exhausted their inspiration or creativity and just keeps touching and retouching their last artwork.

That’s why, when people take the time to email me to tell me I’m an Old Man Yelling At Cloud because I don’t want things to change in tech, I laugh out loud in the privacy of my studio. What change!? Nothing has fundamentally changed in tech for a good while. I see ‘faster horses’ everywhere. What irritates me are the unnecessary changes inflicted on things and designs that were provably already working well, just to make them look different and behave differently; just to have the excuse that you’re now offering something ‘new and improved’ where in reality in most cases your lack of ideas and vision is making things worse.

I’m tired of seeing sloppy, borderline incompetent design work. I’m tired of seeing lowering standards when it comes to the user interface. (Jeff Johnson said it well back at the beginning of 2021: The selling point of the Macintosh was never the hardware, it was the user interface. So if the selling point now is the hardware, that’s a damning indictment of the current user interface. I cannot emphasize enough how everyone seems to have lowered their standards with regard to the user interface. He was right then — inspiring me to write The reshaped Mac experience — and he’s right now). I’m also tired of all these pundits and tech journalists who don’t want to openly criticise Apple for fear of ‘losing access’ with the company. Where’s the journalistic ‘speaking truth to power’ here? 

Anyway, this is just the tip of the tech fatigue iceberg I’ve been experiencing as of late, and all these things do tire me, but they also make me mad, and that’s why I ultimately keep writing. I probably care more than I should, really.

 

Another period of tech fatigue was first published by Riccardo Mori on Morrick.me on 18 November 2022.