Mobile Is A Fad

Christopher Mims of the Wall Street Journal published a story this week with the sensational headline “Why Apple Should Kill Off the Mac.” In it, Mims argues that Apple doesn’t have the resources to focus on the Mac, which is clearly less important to the company than its growing lineup of mobile devices.

Long-time, Mac-savvy journalist Glenn Fleishman couldn’t resist rebutting the argument for Macworld. His take boils down to the Mac remaining too vital a part of Apple’s spiritual core, and it being important to Apple to control the devices used for the very development work that makes the other devices so valuable.

John Gruber unleashed his coveted “Jackass of the Week” award for Sims, dismissing the argument as nonsensical, and proclaiming “the end of the Mac is not in sight.”

The assumption that mobile devices will rise to the occasion of obsoleting desktop computers has run rampant for years. I responded to the sentiment nearly five years ago in a Macworld article: “Why I’m Sticking with the Mac.” The Mac is a general-purpose computer, which makes it a little boring in some respects, but its role as the hub for many customers’ computing needs remains valuable. “Apple’s strength on the desktop permits it to take risks with other products,” I wrote in 2010, and I believe that remains true today.

One sensational headline deserves another, so let’s get to mine: “Mobile is a Fad.” Why have people been so convinced, for years, that mobile is the future, while desktop computers are on the way out? What if mobile devices only fill the variety of temporary needs that arise from how we live today?

Product genres proliferate because they meet a need. In the 1970s when oil supplies were scarce, tiny economy cars began to dominate the market. It probably seemed reasonable at the time to assume that gas-guzzling trucks and off-road vehicles were on the way out, yet as soon as the world became flush with cheap oil again, car sizes ballooned and fuel economy plummeted. For many the demand for utility and power, even in the absence of justifiable need, outshines the specialized economy of smaller cars.

Why are people so excited about mobile? Because they go places. What if people stopped going places? Mobile devices are a godsend for people who are expected to wake up every morning, commute to work, run a variety of errands, and possibly stop for a drink with friends on the way home, expecting the battery life on their pocket and wrist-bound devices to stay at least above 20%.

In the future, your errands will all be handled by a low-paid army of Postmates and Taskrabbits. Your friends, geographically distributed around the world, will be selected from among the group of loyal comrades that chooses to live in your virtual reality: Facebook or Google. And you won’t ever be found rushing out the door at dawn, unless you’ve just woken from a nightmare flashback to the days before everybody worked from home. And now that we’re all at home most of the time, we might as well use powerful, multi-purpose computers with full-sized tactile keyboards. We deserve it.

Hopefully that’s all far-fetched, but I indulge in the dystopian fantasy to draw focus on my contention that neither the proliferation of mobile devices nor the extinction of desktop computers is a foregone conclusion. Each of the computing devices Apple in particular sells today, from the tank-like Mac Pro to the butterfly-light Apple Watch, has its own unique set of advantages and compromises. Most likely, the vast majority of us will find uses for several or all of these classes of products, as we engage in the aspects of our lives that favor either mobility or stability.

Years from now, I suppose it’s possible desktop computers will become obsolete, supplanted by mobile devices. But given the unpredictability of progress, I suspect we’ll look back at both classes of computing devices and chuckle about how silly it all seemed, before the advent of ______. On a long enough time scale, everything is a fad.

Apple News And The Open Web

People love to poke fun at Apple for its purported failure to achieve anything of lasting value in the realms of the cloud or social media. Essentially: anything that connects people to a centralized system for storing and sharing information with each other? Apple’s not good at that. Or at least that’s what people say.

Apple has fallen short or outright failed with many projects, including Mobile Me and Ping, which serve as poster children for people who claim they will remain forever helpless with this whole class of technologies. Personally when I hear this criticism, I’m inclined to remind people that for example the massive number of iOS and Mac users who communicate daily over iMessage are technically part of a massive social network that connects them through Apple’s centralized servers and permits the storage of, and sharing of, information between people. If you were to concede that iMessage is a social network, then it’s a pretty impressive one.

But I grant that in key ways, Apple falls short when compared to social giants such as Facebook or Twitter. These companies see value less in the types of private communications that take place via iMessage, and more in the public, or at least loosely bounded communications that take place between individuals and groups of followers. Subscribers, if you will. This massive quantity of communication, and the tendency towards sharing it publicly to potentially millions of viewers, seems well-suited to companies whose viability is rooted in advertising on a massive scale.

I’m a huge fan of Twitter, but one of the things that continues to bug me is that I don’t feel as though I own any of my content there. Sure, I can now request and download a complete archive of my Twitter posts, and a variety of solutions make it easy to automatically accumulate a copy, or even post live replicas of my posts to other services. But the canonical home for my posts to Twitter is … Twitter. When you multiply this fact out over the hundreds of millions of Twitter users, you have a situation that is very good for Twitter, but in my humble opinion, not so great for each and every one of us users.

As the developer of a popular blogging Application for the Mac, it should be obvious that I value blogging. I think there is something special about the ability we have gained as a global community to sit down at a computer, tablet, or phone, and peck out the words that attempt to express our thoughts, sharing them with the world through this gift (coincidence?) of history sometimes referred to as The Open Web. In a nutshell: the Open Web enables free distribution of content in a manner that can’t be completely curtailed by centralized authorities such as governments, militaries, or multi-national companies who happen to run social networks.

Twitter for example is as a company that controls the storage and distribution of each and every one of the messages we post to it. If they decided tomorrow that my use of the service does not meet their standards, my content could be eliminated from the system with the metaphorical flip of a switch. They also maintain tight control over access to the information they do distribute. Years ago, they famously clamped down on 3rd party developers, severely limiting the ways in which existing apps could connect end-users to the company’s services, all but eliminating the possibility that new “full service” Twitter clients would be developed.

What does all of this have to do with Apple and its famous inability to run a viable social network? At WWDC 2015, held last week in San Francisco, Apple announced the Apple News app for iOS 9: essentially an app that will make it easy for 3rd party content providers to serve rich “magazine style” content to all iOS users. Already they have a host of big publishing names on board including Condé Nast, the New York Times, and Bloomberg.

This all sounds great for big publishing, but how does this serve “the rest of us,” and what does it have to do with the “Open Web”? It will all come down to how stringently Apple limits access to small publishers who wish to get their content into the app. Judging from initial overtures, I’m inclined to think that most publishers will be welcome to participate. Currently, if you log in with your iCloud account and click through the sign-up process, it indicates that you can enroll as either a company or individual. I am tentatively optimistic that this blog, your blog, and the vast majority of blogs you read and enjoy will be welcome to publish content through Apple’s News app.

Great, another closed system over which a huge company lords absolute control, and can cut off access to unwanted content at the drop of a hat? No. Because the content doesn’t live on Apple’s servers. This is a key distinction in my mind. Apple’s News App serves primarily not as a source of information, but as an amplifier of it. Podcasting makes a great comparison, and is especially apt considering the extent to which Apple deserves credit for popularizing and faciliating the early growth of podcasting as a platform for free expression.

Approximately 0% of the podcasts available to the massive installed base of Apple’s customers are actually hosted on Apple’s servers. Yet a huge number of podcast content providers thrive because of the distribution mechanism, the amplifier, that Apple provides by way of the Podcasts section of its iTunes store, and the Podcasts app on its iOS devices. If Apple decides on a whim to rank a particular podcast lower in the charts, or even to outright remove it from the iTunes directory? It’s definitely bad news for the show, but it’s not a death knell. The content lives on, access to it remains unfettered for those who seek it, and alternative clients for accessing the content are not “permitted,” because they don’t need to be. They are allowed to exist by default, because of the very nature of the web.

I already said I’m moderately bummed out by my relationship to Twitter because of the sense of lost ownership of my content. That feeling is exacerbated by my knowledge that eschewing Twitter, publishing my shorter, quippy, conversational thoughts to a private server of my own devising, would result in connecting to fewer people. To me, that’s the point of tweeting, the point of blogging, and the point of podcasting: to connect with people.

People who used to write prolifically on long-form blogs are facing a similar conundrum with the rise of services such as Medium, which aim for and seem to deliver on the goal of connecting writers with larger audiences of people. Why keep writing for your own, completely owned and controlled site, if contributing your content to a centralized authority such as Medium will yield more feedback, gratitude, and criticism than publishing on your own site?

I’m optimistic that Apple’s News app will be a strike against centralized services such as Medium, Twitter, and Facebook. A strike against signing over content to a 3rd party mediator for the sake of a greater chance at connecting to an audience. Apple may not be the world’s best technology company when it comes to either storing data or building a social network around it, but they are damned good at building a captive audience of delighted users who trust the company to provide access to a variety of 3rd party content.

Whether it’s music, apps, podcasts, or, coming very soon, syndicated blog content, you’d have to be a fool not to try to get your work into their customer-facing channels. In the case of podcasts, and as it seems with “News,” doing so means providing a feed that points to content you own and which you store on your server. If Apple turns out to be a jerk about it? We can count on other apps and services rising to consume the content in a comparable or improved manner. That’s the way the web works.

OS X El Capitan

Thanks to a tweet from Michael Steeber, I learned that I have the dubious honor of having been the first person to tweet the literal phrase “OS X El Capitan”, which happens to be the name of of Apple’s forthcoming OS X 10.11 operating system.

I did some research of my own and believe this claim is true. I don’t think this is some great victory or proof of my insightfulness, but I do admit to thinking it’s at least moderately cool.

Out of curiosity, I used Twitter’s now-awesome advanced search to zero in on the day when I first tweeted the phrase, June 19, 2013. This must have been in the aftermath of WWDC 2013, shortly after Apple had debuted its new OS naming strategy, after places that are distinctly Californian. People were joking about future code names like OS X Sacramento, OS X Carmel, or gasp!, OS X San Jose. I thought these were all poor choices because they would not be evocative of the spirit of California in the same visceral way that Mavericks was:

I quickly followed with a quip about using OS X El Capitan:

Though to be honest I don’t remember exactly what grammatical pedantry I was alluding to. What’s (not really) important is that I was the first to use the phrase, two years before Apple announced the name of the OS.

And while I’m patting myself on the back, let me give a shout out to Mark Hachman, who while similarly throwing out possible names for future OS releases, managed to make the first ever reference to “OS X Yosemite”:

Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t teach, tweet early and often.

WWDC Video Downloader

It’s great that Apple has, for years now, made videos of most WWDC content available free of charge on the web. A problem arises though, when you realize that you want to quickly check the content of some specific session, only to realize you are either offline, on a slow internet connection, or just don’t have the time or patience to connect to Apple and download the video.

I’ve found it useful to use Olivier HO-A-CHUCK’s wwdc-downloader script, which he has recently updated for the 2015 URL conventions.

Essentially you just download the script to a disk with a ton of free space, run it, and you’re left with a permanent archive of all the videos and PDFs from a given year’s WWDC.

I’ll be waiting until I get home to run this script, since by then all of the videos should be available, and I’ll have easy access to that aforementioned big hard drive. It’s great though that he has updated it so promptly this year.

Keeping Up With WWDC

Each year, WWDC kicks off with a keynote address chock full of the company’s tentpole announcements for the coming year. I always find it difficult to keep in mind even these, ahem, key points. But it gets “worse” as the day goes on, and then as the week goes on, as nuanced announcements are indicated by revelations in the Platforms State of the Union, and the extensive, in-depth sessions that fill out the remaining days of the week.

It’s all too much. Exciting, but still, too much.

Fortunately, master information compilers like Michael Tsai swoop in to help organize links to the most significant download points and technical summaries, as well as pertinent pages from non-Apple sources such as one explaining the process for using VMware to create a standalone test version of OS X El Capitan.

Michael Tsai: WWDC 2015 Links.

Michael’s blog continues to serve as a great argument for the value of RSS and blogging. Subscribing to it is a great way to keep your finger on the pulse of a great number of pertinent issues to Mac and iOS developers, both during WWDC week and a throughout the year.

Whose Phone Is This?

On the latest episode of Core Intuition, my co-host Manton Reece described the experience his wife had of leaving her iPhone behind on an airplane, only to have the airline thankfully announce over the airport loudspeakers that the phone had been found.

When they returned to claim it, they asked how they had been able to determine the name of the owner from the locked phone? The answer? They “just asked Siri whose phone it was.”

Apparently this is common knowledge to the airline employees, and to no doubt countless iPhone users, but it was news to Manton and me. You can try it yourself: if you have an iPhone, and have set a contact card as “My Info” in Siri’s preferences, lock your phone and then ask Siri: “Whose phone is this?”

On the face of it, it seems like a great feature. Who wouldn’t want to empower the well-intentioned finder of one’s lost phone to make an effort of returning it?

The problem to my mind is not that Siri shares my name and contact information, but that it goes a step further, showing not only my main telephone number, but my physical address, all my telephone numbers, email addresses, as well as my AIM, Twitter, and Facebook accounts. It also happily provides my birthdate, the names of my wife, mom, dad, brother, heck, the names of any person I have assigned a relationship to.

When my friend Dan Moren gave me a ride to Çingleton last year, we killed time in the car playing with Siri’s abundant personalization features. Anybody with access to my locked phone will soon learn that Dan is in fact more than just a friend to me:

Screen capture showing personal details revealed via Siri

Of course, you don’t have to share all this information with whatever stranger manages to pick up your phone. Simply disable Siri access from the lock screen, and nobody will be able to access your private information using it. Of course, this means no airline employee who finds your phone tucked between the seats will be able to easily return your phone to you, either.

Alternatively, you could change the information on your “My Info” contact card. For example I could add an entry “Daniel Minimal” to my Contacts list, and only include a telephone number or email address. The problem here is much of Siri’s usefulness (as we discussed on the podcast) is rooted in it knowing specific details about you. Requests such as “give me directions home,” “call my mom,” or heck, “text my sweet, sweet ride to Montréal,” will fall upon deaf ears if you don’t include this information in the card that you associate with Siri’s “My Info.”

Depending on how paranoid you are about what happens when a stranger gets ahold of your phone, you might read this and decide to do nothing, to delete all the personal information from your “Me” contact card, or to forbid Siri from being accessed when the phone is locked. Personally, I don’t think any of these solutions is ideal. I’d like to be able to ask Siri to share some of my personal information from the lock screen, to increase the odds of my lost phone being returned. But I’d like to draw the line somewhere reasonable, without having to share every last detail about myself with the stranger who is holding the device.

Off By One Half

A friend was complaining that his wrist size falls more naturally between two size holes on his Apple Watch sport band. The holes are spaced so closely together that they don’t really give you an option of improvising an extra hole.

To increase the odds of a good fit, Apple includes two “holey” band segments with the Sport product: one for “Small/Medium” and one for “Medium/Large”. The natural result of this for many of us is that we get to choose which of the band segments to use. If you’re a “medium” then you’re likely using one of the last four holes on the smaller band, or the first four holes on the larger one:

Small, medium and large watchband holes on Apple Sport band.

I thought it would have been a supremely “Apple thing” to do if the holes that overlap, at the medium-sized positions, were carefully offset such that they were in fact half-sizes on one band in relation to the other. So, I drew lines through each of the holes’ (rough) centers, to see where the lines correlate on the opposing band segment:

Apple Watch Sport band hole alignment

Putting aside my imperfect placement of the watch bands on the floor, this is pretty interesting! Maybe not precise enough to indicate Apple intentionally designed it this way, but it’s convenient that the holes line up offset from one another. If your wrist size lands in the “medium” zone on the Sport band, switching from the “Medium/Large” to the “Small/Medium,” or vice-versa, could be just the adjustment to help fine-tune the grip of the watch to your wrist.

Update May 20, 2015: Jörg Schwieder on Twitter offered an insight that I hadn’t considered: the way the holes line up linearly on the floor is not a sufficient comparison because, in the case of the longer strap, the excess overlap that then slides under the counterstrap narrows the overall diameter of the band, such that it squeezes slightly tighter on your wrist.

I’m not sure if this exactly counteracts the size discrepancy of the hole placement. It’s possible the discrepancy was itself an intentional design to counteract this phenomenon. In any case, if you try to switch up from a small band to a larger band, and it feels a little snug yet, you might try trimming (egad!) the long end of the strap so that it creates less volume under the band when you tuck it away.

Another sizing hack this brings to mind is that, if you find something comfortable to glue to the underside of the non-hole half of the band, you would effectively increase the volume and tighten up an otherwise loose fit.

Nineteen Years

Nineteen years ago today, I joined Apple as a full-time employee.

I was 20 years old, on the verge of 21. I dropped into a workplace filled with the most ambitious, most laid-back, most serious, most bizarre, most intelligent, least obsessed-with-intelligence people I have ever met. They made up, and were made from the culture that is Apple.

If you had told me 19 years ago that Apple would become the most successful company in the world, I would have believed you. Even at its lowest points, the place seemed to be teeming with latent success. It’s why I wanted to work there so badly, and why I’m so glad that I did.

The Risks And Rewards Of Criticism

Marco Arment responded to speculation by Eli Schiff that he and other Apple developers hesitate to criticize Apple for fear of retribution.

I was particularly surprised by the section of Schiff’s post that described Shifty Jelly developer Russell Ivanovic’s experience of being cut off by Apple from what had previously been a well-supported position. The way it’s described in the post, Ivanovic’s close marketing ties to Apple were severed when he decided to launch a version of his app on the Android Play store before Apple’s App Store. I haven’t listened to the podcast yet, but it sounds great, and may provide slightly more details about the situation.

Ivanovic’s experience sounds devastating, but it doesn’t strike me as treatment that many developers should live in fear of also suffering.

As a company, Apple doesn’t care about individual developers. This works both ways of course: they don’t go out of their way to help, but also don’t go out of their way to harm. When a developer benefits or suffers at the hands of Apple, I believe it’s always thanks to either a wide-sweeping corporate policy that affects all developers, or to an individual at the company whose everyday choices on the job can have a profound impact. An editor who chooses to feature an app on the store, for example, or a reviewer who chooses to notice and raise a fuss about a slightly non-compliant behavior in an app.

I’m confident that at the level of individuals within Apple, efforts are almost always in the spirit of helping developers. You don’t have to meet many Apple employees to form an opinion that, on the whole, the company is made up of good people. So, naturally, the majority of folks there are working to cause good outcomes for people both inside and outside of Apple. The culture at Apple leans towards building people up rather than tearing people down. This is, incidentally, why their products tend to be so great. And why in spite of some truly confounding decisions, the company tends to promote stellar third party products through its App Stores.

On the other hand, the company is huge, and you simply can’t have that many thousands of people in varying positions of power without having at least tens or hundreds of spiteful, angry, petty people in positions of power. Oops, that sucks. While I was trying to make sense on Twitter of Ivanovic’s unfathomably petty experience, another slighted developer chimed in. Matthew Drayton, who like Ivanovic lives and works in Australia, pins his own similar experience on an individual:

I can’t quite tell if the implication is that the same individual is likely to be responsible for the “blackballing” that both Drayton and Ivanovic say they’ve felt. But for the sake of Apple, I hope it is indeed down to one person. One person can often be fired, reprimanded, or simply decide to move on. It would obviously be much worse if there were a systematic policy of suppressing developers who fail to “walk the line,” to to speak.

The risks of being critical are usually not on the scale of upsetting an entire company and suffering its wrath. Instead they are on the scale of possibly upsetting, or merely frustrating, or even just vaguely losing attractiveness to an individual whose help you would otherwise have enjoyed. This is true both in the context of Apple and outside of it. For example, an off-hand remark about the bitterness of the coffee at your local shop might earn you a less professional effort on your next visit.

On the other hand, an astute barista may take the criticism to heart and become hell-bent on ensuring your next cup exceeds expectations. This is what happens when well-formed criticism meets the ears of a confident, competent individual: the facts are taken to heart and studied, perhaps grudgingly. But upon reflection and determination that there was merit in the complaint, respect for the source of provocation goes through the roof.

These are the risks and rewards of criticism: depending upon how far your opinions reach, you may garner either immense respect or massive disdain from the individuals who consider it. In that light, is it risky to be publicly critical of a company upon which you base your entire livelihood? Possibly. But it could be just as risky to remain meekly under the radar while the thoughtful professionals at that company go out of their way to reward the people whose meaningful criticism they value.

Crazy Apple Car Rumors

When I first heard rumors about Apple’s alleged development of a car, I disregarded them without thinking. The idea that the company would stretch its focus so far away from its current line of computer software and hardware products seemed ridiculous, and happened to overlap with countless jokes over the years about the hilariousness that would ensue if Apple entered this, that, or another market.

My head jerked to attention however when the Wall Street Journal recently added its weight to the rumors, giving a code name “Titan” for the project, and asserting that there are hundreds of employees already working on the team.

Even in the wake of this revelation I clung to my skepticism, sensing that it would simply be too “out there” for Apple to tackle the automotive market. I agreed with reasons cited by folks such as Jean-Louis Gassée, who dismisses the idea as fantastical based on comparatively low profits, challenging customer-service obligations, and the absence of Moore’s Law-style advances over time in automotive technologies.

But today’s report from Jordan Kahn of 9to5Mac, listing a variety of automotive-industry experts who are now working for Apple, has really got me doubting my earlier dismissiveness.

What does it mean that Apple has hired a significant number of people with expertise in the auto industry? To me it means that they are either making a car, or that they are making a product that they know will uniquely leverage the abilities of people familiar with cars.

Personally, I’ve flipped over to being cautiously optimistic that the Apple car will become a reality. My first inclination was to worry that it represented a deparature of focus for Apple, and that it would mean stretching their limited resources even thinner. But the 9to5Mac story drives home that a lot of the expertise required to pursue this dream, if that’s what they do, can be hired from outside the pool of software and hardware engineers that Apple has typically employed. I think it’s reasonable, for example, to be optimistic that a drive-train engineer’s efforts are not being wasted by working on a car instead of a MacBook Pro’s cooling fans.

Putting aside the significant effort of designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and servicing a line of Apple-branded vehicles, having these products exist and in use by even a modestly large number of customers would offer some interesting benefits to Apple. Particularly, I’m curious to see how they might leverage the technological ownership of a whole car to serve their ambitions in mapping and navigation.

I thought it was a big loss for Apple when Google acquired Waze, the crowd-sourced navigation service that uses mobile phones to collect traffic data. Since then, I’ve been hoping that Apple might eventually offer a similar solution. With a suitably pre-rigged Apple car, the amount and quality of data collection might leapfrog even Waze’s impressive installed base. Imagine even 100,000 Apple cars in the US, equipped with built-in cameras on four sides, transmitting GPS and environmental graphics (anonymously and with user consent!) to Apple HQ. It might finally give Google something to worry about (assuming Google’s own cars haven’t already captured as much interest).

These rumors have fueled an enormous amount of speculation outside of Apple about whether or not they should build a car. Regardless of whether they do so or not, it’s clear from the amount of automotive-related hiring they have done that a great deal more speculation has probably been done inside of Apple, by minds that are now suited to make constructive decisions about whether Apple will build a car, what kind of car it will be, and when it will be available. I for one can’t wait to see what comes of it all.

The Siri Standard

John Gruber writes about his impression that Siri’s performance has improved over the past year:

Siri is noticeably faster than it used to be. Even just a year ago, I don’t think Siri could have held its own with Google Now pulling information like the current temperature or sports scores, but today, it does. Apple has clearly gotten much better at something everyone agreed was a serious weakness.

Michael Tsai chimes in with agreement, emphasizing improvements in reliability:

I had stopped using it because for years it would essentially throw away what I’d said. It was either unavailable (most of the time) or it didn’t understand me properly (less often). Now I regularly use it to make reminders while driving, and it pretty much always works.

I use Siri in much the same way that John and Michael seem to: for quick, relatively simple data inquiries, text messages, timers, and reminders. I share their impression that Siri has gotten faster and more reliable. It was most striking for me when I first updated to the iPhone 6:

I’m really impressed with the speed and accuracy of Siri on my iPhone 6. It’s exciting to know that Apple is making such progress on this.

Which is not to say Siri is perfect or doesn’t cause frustration to me and others. I use it frequently enough that I’m probably stymied by its misinterpretation of my command at least once a day. But the consequences of the misbehavior are usually not dire, and can be remedied right away. Usually it’s just a matter of sighing and rephrasing the command with a structure that I know will be “more Siri compatible.” And every so often, I say something instinctively before remembering “oh, that doesn’t work with Siri,” but before I’ve had a chance to cancel and restate it, I discover that in fact, it now does work with Siri. I know some people will have horror stories about Siri’s behavior, but for me, and apparently many others, It’s quietly improving all the time.

How many other Apple technologies are earning this kind of unsolicited praise right now? Especially in light of recent discussions about perceptions of a steady decline in quality, the progress by Apple in the Siri department is particularly noticeable.

What if all of Apple’s high-impact technologies were improving so demonstrably that folks were moved to praise the progress? What would the usually gripe-filled Apple blogging, Twittering, and forum-posting scene sound like? Let’s indulge the dream that these enthusiastic posts might grace the web someday soon:

It’s been weeks since I restarted any of my Airport routers. File sharing between my Macs “just works.” Great work, Apple!

Continuity and AirDrop have become so reliable, I actually worry more about data getting lost by emailing it to myself than by beaming it instantly with Bluetooth.

Just deleted Google Maps from my phone. Apple has work to do with placemarks, but these new transit directions are awesome! A huge step above what we lost years ago, and I’m so much more comfortable having Apple handle my private location data.

Tried to backup my phone to iCloud, and Apple says I’m 2GB over my storage limit. It’s cool that they do the backup anyway, and give you 30 days to decide whether to upgrade the plan or download the backup archive. Seems like upgrading is a no-brainer?

No serious complaints about my apps for a year, so Apple just updated my account to “Solo” status. It’s so great to publish updates immediately to my customers. This is a privilege and a responsibility!

OK, OK. Some of these may be a little over the top. But, a boy can dream, can’t he?

I don’t doubt that the groups at Apple responsible for these … less often praised … technologies are comprised of individuals striving to improve things as quickly as possible. It’s hard to say how much the impression of slow progress is due to internal challenges we don’t know about, Apple’s lack of knowledge about the breadth of defects, or the public’s perception being skewed by severity of the impact from problems that persist.

Whatever combination of luck, hard work, and pragmatism is powering the Siri team’s “year of good work,” perhaps it should serve as a model, or at least as a symbol of hope for these teams as they move forward adding features, fixing bugs, and finessing the public’s perception of the value of their work. A world in which every group at Apple somehow achieved the standard of apparent progress that Siri has achieved would be a very good world indeed.