[LoganDark]

> Why does Apple behave like there are no other operating systems or devices in the world?

Because Apple doesn't care. Or, to be more accurate, Apple didn't care while Steve Jobs was still alive. They never cared what the rest of the world was doing - their mission had always been to build the entire user experience from scratch. The software, hardware, everything. Because in their eyes (or at least in Jobs' eyes) the rest of the world was doing it all wrong.

Ever since Steve Jobs died, the company he built has been slowly taken over by the wrong kinds of people. Apple Intelligence, for example, is not driven by any of the philosophy that Jobs would have used. And Apple software updates have been slowly declining in quality ever since his death.

My total speculation was that Steve Jobs was autistic and Apple was sort of an autistic revolution. I don't know what Tim Cook is, but he's no Steve Jobs. Apple is slowly devolving into the sort of thinking that is not different and that is a real shame.

[aspenmayer]

I think that you’re right that Apple is different, but it’s different so that Apple can control it. I wrote about this recently in another comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=43953751

The gist of it is this:

Both Steves worked for Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari and Chuck E. Cheese. I believe that Jobs was likely inspired by Bushnell to create a tech ecosystem to enable easy creation, monetization, and control. But mostly, I think Jobs and Wozniak created Apple to enable them both to create the kinds of technology they needed and wanted, to get the work done they knew folks were using personal computers for. Personal computers have distinct use cases which make them distinct from mainframes or other systems largely outside the control of individuals, and this appeal to the individual is what differentiates Apple from Google or other computer hardware companies. Apple still actually has tech support, retail stores, and yet the goalposts of the market and consumer expectations have moved. Apple hasn’t kept up with what consumers expect in many ways, and the markets they serve have changed, as Apple is now serving multiple sides of markets that they operate as an intermediary, as opposed to the past where Apple was constrained to being a participant in multiple, sometimes overlapping markets.

[LoganDark]

> I think that you’re right that Apple is different, but it’s different so that Apple can control it.

Control would not be such a bad thing if Apple could still be trusted. Unfortunately it seems that they have started to lose their way.

It's not like they became worthless or evil at the flip of a switch - it takes time for such a large company to die like that. But they are declining (in ways other than profit, of course).

They have still managed to create some genuinely good innovation, such as Apple Silicon Macs, but they are seeming to gradually lose their ability to do that properly.

I don't see any problem with wanting more control over the user experience so that it can be improved. Honestly, it seems like the problem you're describing started with how that control has been (ab)used since Steve Jobs' death. I feel like that brought all the corruption out of hiding because Tim doesn't necessarily shoot it all down like Jobs would have.

[xeonmc]

I wonder if Phil Schiller were at the helm instead of Tim would the devolution would be staved off for longer?

I still remember the “can’t innovate anymore my ass” quip which revealed a bit of a personal chip on Phil’s shoulder, contrasting Tim’s lack of enthusiasm towards to product experience and general billionairy apathy that’s perfectly symbolized by his flaccid flag-waving at the Miami F1 race.

[scripturial]

> Apple software updates have been slowly declining in quality ever since his dea

For years I installed all Apple software updates instantly and without reserve. These days I wait for at least the .1 release, after being bitten a few times by bugs and workflow breaking pointless changes.

> My total speculation was that Steve Jobs was autistic and Apple was sort of an autistic revolution.

Yes, I assume his abrasiveness was a result of an autistic drive for perfection combined with an autistic difficulty with picking up on social queues. But I’m not sure it’s possible to know this for sure. So many people simply read it as narcissism (which has overlapping external features) I’m not sure everyone can tell the difference (during a social interaction) between a narcissistic lack of concern for others vs an autistic inability to properly read and react to social queues.

[7speter]

There was Australian… professor(?) Whose youtube videos I can’t find right now who quite comfortably claimed Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Robin Williams were autistic.

Best I could find is a Temple Grandin blurb about Jobs and Wozniak being autistic and still different sorts of thinkers:

https://youtu.be/L2NTVEU7IaI?si=7RVienyhYWEdLrGo

[LoganDark]

I can't say whether he was or wasn't a narcissist, because I can't really tell one way or the other, but I don't think he had a simple inability to pick up on social cues. At least, that doesn't look to have been the cause of the abrasiveness. To me, it just seemed like he believed that people could do better.

This video is just one tiny piece of history, but I'd call it a very good watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-Fs0pD2Hsk

Today's Apple doesn't truly stand for this anymore. Today's Apple is not the same Apple. It still has Jobs' Apple in its core, and that's why there ever was a solid base to build upon... but their new stuff is all hit or miss, sometimes very miss, because they're not the crazy ones anymore. They're slowly rotting into a generic megacorp... and that is very sad.