There are definitely plenty of coasters at Google, but these kinds of investor statements are positively vapid.
"Google spends billions per year on projects that go nowhere"
Isn't that exactly what VC firms do? Google would be unwise not to invest billions in many projects. Some of them will go somewhere and some of them won't. That's the nature of technology and R&D.
"all that money could have been returned to shareholders who have retirement accounts"
Over the last decade, Google stock is up 534% while the S&P500 is up 177%; Over the last year, Google stock is up 59% while the S&P is up 26%. Your investment in Google has done pretty well. If you think it's being managed that terribly as an investor, sell your stock and invest it somewhere else.
"UX is complete and utter trash" is a bit hyperbolic — you listed a handful of nits that don't affect 99.9% of their users. On the other hand, iOS is undoubtedly more efficient, smoother, and more stable than Android. I have a Pixel phone where the Google camera app crashes about 10% of the time when I tap the shutter button. The cellular connection often gets stuck in a disconnected state, without telling me. The "Always on Display" stopped working entirely. Along the core dimensions where Apple invests their energy, their software can be pretty good.
Just my opinion -- I'm a daily MacBook Pro user; I really struggle to find one thing that Apple is doing better than Microsoft from a UX perspective. Less options for customization; tiny buttons all over the place (very abundant in the system dialogs); the notch causing some apps to disappear from top bar on the right; the spatial distance between the window and the top bar as opposed to Microsoft where the app bar is attached to the window; the poor window snapping options for organizing desktops; the childish default animations; lots of issues with Finder versus Explorer; the seemingly random organization, sizing, and placement of windows in Mission Control; the weird behavior when you CLOSE all of your windows like Chrome and then CTRL+N creates a new Chrome window -- no, you need to quit the app, too.
I don't think there's anything macOS is doing better than Windows in so far as UX goes. Put it another way: I use macOS every day and I never think "Wow, I wish Windows had this feature, too" but every day I wish I had some UX element from Windows -- just basic window management feels so clunky on macOS unless you fullscreen everything.
It's just different. Like KDE/Gnome/i3/Windows is different from each other. MacOS applications are more like services, while windows let you perform the current task you have. As an example Preview.app allows you to open PDFs and picture files. But you need to open a file to do anything to it, and when you do so, it creates a window allowing you to interact with the file. When you're done, you close the file by closing the window (which is why it duplicates the window when you chose "Save As"). The window has a 1:1 relationship with the files. The menu bar is part of the application, but the currently focused window can interact with it.
When you're close all Chrome windows, that just means you're done with the webpages, not that you're done with Chrome. Chrome dev team can set Chrome to terminate when all windows close, but they've not chosen to do so. It's there when you want to create a new window when you want to interact with a new webpage. And again it's up to the developer to choose to tie the application lifecyle to its windows.
That's all well and good, but when I've closed the interfaces with which I'm interacting with the Chrome "service", isn't it pretty clear that the intent is that "I'm done with the service"? "Chrome team chose to build it like that" -- I guess the question here is "why is this even an option at the OS level?" and "shouldn't we expect window and application behavior to be consistent?". Davinci Resolve on macOS, for example, exits when I close its window while Chrome does not. Do you not think that even having this option to create an inconsistent application interaction seems like bad design? Sometimes the app exits when I close all windows, sometimes it doesn't.
My issue with the menu bar is purely from an ergonomics and usability perspective, especially with high resolution monitors. If I have a window at the bottom right corner of the monitor, I need to move my mouse all the ways to the top left of the monitor to interact with the menu bar. If you always full screen everything, it makes total sense. But I would make the case that macOS has done a very poor job of adapting to changes in monitor resolutions. Consider ultra-wide screen monitors where I have apps side-by-side or I have 4 windows tiled. The accessibility of the menu bar becomes quite low for three out of the 4 windows.
The key stroke to access the menu bar is (do you know it?) CTRL+F2. Try that stroke yourself and see how it feels. It's not at all obvious that this allows you to access the menu bar with the keyboard.
By attaching the menu bar to the application window, the spatial locality increases usability, especially for modern ultra-wide monitors don't you agree?
I do agree that you have a point. But it’s an interaction model that works for many people and there are customization options to alleviate some of the pain points from keyboard shortcut (administrated at OS level) to 3rd parties software. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect a complete reworking of the interface.
I use Windows all day and it’s garbage as well. Perhaps they are both garbage? I’m talking the latest release of Windows 10. Or maybe it’s 11. Whatever it is it sucks too
I think your mods are sensible, however if Dan Luu added those CSS rules himself, there would be comments on here lamenting the low density and "excess whitespace". Luu's audience, on the whole, probably prefers the relatively unstyled approach.
You say that like someone who didn't have to periodically clean/erase/throw away their parents' malware-infested Windows machine (which was already bogged down by anti-virus software) in the early '00s. Not that I agree with every Apple policy, but it's hard to argue that their customers aren't generally more "protected" than they have been on other platforms. The fact that my mom can safely use an iPhone for 4-5 years with little to no support from me is incredible.
>You say that like someone who didn't have to periodically clean/erase/throw away their parents' malware-infested Windows machine (which was already bogged down by anti-virus software) in the early '00s.
Yes I have, you don't know me. And that's not an argument. Apple's MacOS is open unlike iOS and that's not full of malware or users getting scammed daily then what makes you think they'll suddenly start getting scammed on iOS. Explain that please.
The blending looks better, but the LED sign on the bus for example looks almost like handwritten lettering... the letters are all different heights and widths. Not even close to realistic. There's a lot of nuance that goes into getting these things right. It seems like it'll be stuck in an uncanny valley for a long time.
I really wanted to love the 13" Air but two things made me switch to the Pro after trying it for a few weeks. One is that the internal speakers suck in comparison to the Pro. I 'm not looking for audiophile quality from laptop speakers, but the Pro speakers are good enough for casually watching youtube videos, TV shows, podcasts, etc, whereas the Air speakers are harsh and tinny. The second is that the default resolution isn't .5x the native resolution, as it is for most Apple desktop/laptop displays. It's some weird in-between resolution that creates aliasing on text and such. If you bump it down to a true .5x, it's 1280x~800, which is borderline unusable for desktop browsing these days.
I'm curious what your comparison point was for the audio quality of the MacBook Air.
In the Windows world, I rarely if ever come across a laptop where the speakers weren't clearly last in precedence for engineering and BOM consideration. Just astoundingly bad sound quality accepted as normal in the Windows laptop world, even in supposedly premium machines.
In comparison, even the least impressive MacBook Air speakers are good.
But if you were coming from another MacBook Pro when evaluating the Air I can see why you would have come away wanting better. The Pro machines are indeed a clear step up, and the larger 16" models are even better given the extra space they have to work with.
Yep I was coming from an older Intel MBP, so the downgrade to the Air was dramatic enough to be irritating. But I agree, the sound engineering in the Air isn't bad in absolute terms, probably even pretty good... just not close to the Pros.
I have an Air and I felt like its speakers were pretty decent, but my wife bought a Pro and they're just incredible.
Sometimes I hear her watching some movie or show a few rooms away, and I can never know if she's watching it on the TV or on the Pro just by the audio alone. Those speakers do fill the room, and them some.
Do a lot of folks actively watch media content on laptops these days?
I have never really watched more than short content on that form factor. I like a bigger screen and a remote, watching anything like a movie on a laptop feels klunky.
You’d think it feels small but go ahead and sit in front of your tv and pull out your laptop. In terms of effective size from where I have the tv and the laptop, the laptop screen is bigger in my field of view. 40 inch tv too, no slouch.
This is also the case with Pro M1 Max. Font is very blurry. It's funny how they turn off "scaling/sharpening filter" when video is watched. I've tried a bunch of things to fix it and none of them worked.
A 4K monitor I use works perfectly fine on Linux, but with Macbook Pro, even though resolution perfectly matches, it still has blurred font (the filter they apply completely changes the look of the font, even though I use the same one), everything just remains blurry and again, watching video disables it.
What are you comparing the font rendering to? Linux/Windows?
That's one of the things that pushed me to Mac from Linux: fonts finally looked nice. (This was around 2010.) I tried everything I could to get Linux to render decently but eventually gave up. I recognize that this is so much down to personal taste. If you prefer Windows-style ClearType to Mac's rendering, Mac (especially on a non-Retina screen) will look awful. If you like Mac's rendering, Windows tends to look awful at any resolution.
So you can get the 0.5 resolution without text aliasing (which I agree is annoying) you just get a smaller viewing area. I keep hearing complaints about aliasing on the Air, and I can respect that since the default resolution causes it, but it is fixable at the expense of reduced viewing area.
Lets not gulp down the koolaid. The speakers on the pro are nice for a laptop but thats it, they are nice for a laptop. A basic bluetooth speaker laps it. Honestly they are balanced poorly and very “boomy” where I feel like I need to turn the volume up more than I have to just to start to discern spoken words from a sort of mumbly bassy sound.
As an Air user who pretty passionately hates hearing a laptop fan, my wonderment at the quality of the Pro's audio would end the moment I heard that fan whine.
I've had a similar train of thought, based on my experience with earlier Macbooks -- that I would pick the Air over the Pro specifically because it does _not_ have a fan and therefore could never make fan noise. But like spinningarrow, I don't think I've ever heard the fan on my work-issued M1 Pro MBP.
You might be underestimating how many Cybertruck buyers are not pickup truck buyers.
Also not sure that a little added charging convenience is going to sway Cybertruck buyers to an F150. The "antialiased 3D polygon" design is a big part of the appeal.
Users _invented_ hashtags and the platform subsequently provided official mechanics for them. Just as users invented retweets and used to do them manually. People really value discovery, it's just that it's so vulnerable to the SEO arms race.
It's wild to me that there's still no dedicated hardware MIDI sequencer that's designed for making _songs_. Pretty much everything is designed for making lots of 16 step patterns. But then arranging those patterns is a mystery. I had the deluge and it's not great. The Roland TR-8S inexplicable has no song mode. The Squarp hapax seems close but has some serious flaws from what I've read. Ultimately using a DAW still wins.
Yeah the TR-8S is very much geared as a live performance device to channel your inner-Jeff Mills (even though the 909/808 did have a song mode!). I will say you can get most of the way there with pattern chaining, and you implement a more fully featured ersatz song mode if you have something that will send it MIDI ProgramChange messages.
"Google spends billions per year on projects that go nowhere" Isn't that exactly what VC firms do? Google would be unwise not to invest billions in many projects. Some of them will go somewhere and some of them won't. That's the nature of technology and R&D.
"all that money could have been returned to shareholders who have retirement accounts" Over the last decade, Google stock is up 534% while the S&P500 is up 177%; Over the last year, Google stock is up 59% while the S&P is up 26%. Your investment in Google has done pretty well. If you think it's being managed that terribly as an investor, sell your stock and invest it somewhere else.