MacInTouch Amazon link...

macOS 10.15 Catalina

Channels
Apple, News

Ric Ford

MacInTouch
I guess it's time to start a macOS 10.15 Catalina topic. Here's some news about Apple iOSifying iTunes (which became the company's worst Mac app after Apple bought the software from its original developers) - Apple will now convert iTunes into a collection of iOS-based apps for macOS 10.15.
The Verge said:
Apple reportedly will break out Music, Video, and Podcasts into separate apps in macOS 10.15
iTunes — the media management software that everyone loves to hate — may finally be dying. Apple is reportedly set to break up the software into separate Music, TV, and Podcasts apps in the next version of macOS, according to both Guilherme Rambo at 9to5Mac and Steve Troughton-Smith.

The new apps are said to be Marzipan applications, similar to the Apple News app on the Mac, which will share an overarching design and codebase with their iOS counterparts on the iPhone and iPad.
 




I would welcome a rethought approach, but my fear is lowest common denominator software. I agree with John Gruber's first take...
...the $64,000 question unanswered: will these apps be more like dumbed-down iPad apps on the Mac, or more like smartened-up Mac apps on the iPad? Dumbed-down iPad apps on the Mac is, if anything, a generous description of the News, Stocks, Home, and Voice Recorder apps we got with 10.14.
 


Apple will now convert iTunes into a collection of iOS-based apps for macOS 10.15.
The iOS music player lacks all the library management functions of iTunes, such as metadata editing, searching, smart playlists, etc.. Recreating them all in a new iOSified app will not be a smooth transition for current heavy iTunes users, such as myself.
 


I guess it's time to start a macOS 10.15 topic. Here's some news about Apple iOSifying iTunes (which became the company's worst Mac app after Apple bought the software from its original developers) and will now move iTunes into a collection of iOS-based apps for macOS 10.15.
The iOS Music app is completely, utterly awful for my purposes (which I admit are not typical). If the Music app on the Mac ends up being like the iOS app, I will not be able to use it.

iTunes 12 has been a source of regular aggravation due to the stuff that Apple thinks I should have to see that I never want to see by default. There’s no way to turn off some of these things globally.

Developers at Apple seem to be terrified by the idea of informative lists. We are supposed to get by with truncated text so as to accommodate pictures. Even if I had tons of tracks that had album art, I would not want to view my music or playlists that way, as a grid of tiles, or with teeny-weeny album art next to titles. View options for iTunes Playlists already includes a “Playlist” view that wastes such an enormous amount of space on non-essential elements that it truncates any track title that consists of more than a couple of words. It’s very similar to the awful playlists view in the Music app. And there is no global way to set all playlists to default to a different view option. Nothing about Apple’s handing of Music gives me any confidence that they won’t turn that portion of iTunes into something significantly worse than what we have now.
 


I guess it's time to start a macOS 10.15 topic. Here's some news about Apple iOSifying iTunes (which became the company's worst Mac app after Apple bought the software from its original developers) - Apple will now convert iTunes into a collection of iOS-based apps for macOS 10.15.
I wouldn't call iTunes the worst Mac app (that would be Photos, maybe). Yes, it's a total hodgepodge, and I only use a fraction of its "features," but handled correctly, and once you learn its foibles, it works pretty well, at least for my purposes. I have a ton of music, some 375 GB of files (not to mention hundreds of CDs I haven't got around to ripping -- and all my old LPs!). I can access this music easily enough via iTunes on my Macs or via the iCloud music library on my iPhone or on my Apple TV.

As long as I stay in "Songs" view with the column browser, iTunes does most of what I need. It has trouble with multiple performers on a single recording, so it's not ideal for classical, where you might have a conductor and an orchestra and a choir and soloists, or jazz, where you want to know which sidemen performed with the leader on a given piece. But you can work around this.

The Music app on the iPhone, in contrast, is truly awful. It gives you almost no information (only "song" name, performer, and album), it chokes on long titles (good luck with "Bach: Brandenburg Concerto #1 In F: IV. Menuet & Trio I, Polonaise & Trio II" !), and there's no equivalent of the column browser to help you find things. If you're in Album mode and you click on the performer name, it won't even show other albums by the same performer. It's workable if you do the heavy lifting in iTunes on a Mac, but on its own it's useless. If this is the future for Macs, heaven help us.
 


I guess it's time to start a macOS 10.15 topic. Here's some news about Apple iOSifying iTunes (which became the company's worst Mac app after Apple bought the software from its original developers) - Apple will now convert iTunes into a collection of iOS-based apps for macOS 10.15.
The first big question I have is, "What will happen to my playlists?", since Apple was discourteous enough to delete much carefully curated metadata when it ripped books from iTunes and put them in iBooks -with no ability to even manually replace all that metadata. Up until then, I really appreciated iTunes ability as a media organizer. Now, not so much.

So far, Apple Configurator is moderately useful for iDevice backups and re-arrangement of home screens, but not so useful for restores. In the past, iTunes served all these roles well.

I live in the Apple ecosystem because of the good integration of activities, both on OS X/macOS and iOS and between them. Now, fear and trepidation color my view of the Apple ecosystem future.
 


I guess it's time to start a macOS 10.15 topic. Here's some news about Apple iOSifying iTunes (which became the company's worst Mac app after Apple bought the software from its original developers) - Apple will now convert iTunes into a collection of iOS-based apps for macOS 10.15.
Hmm, may I assume iTunes Movie purchases will still be supported (Extras, too, maybe)?
... Also, I wonder if the iOS-ization of the platform will allow AirPlay of content only downloadable on iPad to a Mac - i.e. Amazon video.

(Not to mention: Long live SoundJam! :-)
 


I wouldn't call iTunes the worst Mac app (that would be Photos, maybe). Yes, it's a total hodgepodge, and I only use a fraction of its "features," but handled correctly, and once you learn its foibles, it works pretty well, at least for my purposes. I have a ton of music, some 375 GB of files (not to mention hundreds of CDs I haven't got around to ripping -- and all my old LPs!). I can access this music easily enough via iTunes on my Macs or via the iCloud music library on my iPhone or on my Apple TV.
As long as I stay in "Songs" view with the column browser, iTunes does most of what I need. ...
Yes, indeed... agreed. FWIW, iTunes (always left at "songs" view) was pretty ok, if somewhat bloated with iOS apps, sync etc, but this was years ago. Used to get my artwork (and lyrics) from the app and CoverScout and SongGenie (both discontinued, sadly). But I have pretty much grown sick of it, since it's all really aimed at being compatible with the increasingly confusing and unsatisfying iOS Music, which for me is truly terrible.

Why there isn't a sophisticated music app on macOS and iOS derived from Apple, I have no idea - movies/video incorporated... Now, it's awful, with

1) anyone wanting simple but detailed listings - forget it (especially if you have much classical)​
2) anyone who has no desire whatsoever in Apple Music streaming - forget it... all those people with huge ripped collections need a player not a streamer
3) anyone who's not that bothered about iCloud sharing - forget it (see (2) above)​
4) anyone who's been using iTunes to include vast numbers of original/unreleased tracks (music professionals wanting a simple indexed playback app, say) - forget it - hugely discouraged and prone to having stuff instantly uploaded to Apple Music/iCloud etc. without difficult work with your settings​

So, ironically, if the iPod helped to get Apple back on, uh, track (sorry), the software descendants have screwed things up big-time.

If simpler iOS individual apps will be the norm in macOS 10.15, I shudder thinking about what the macOS versions will be, especially as I've been waiting years for a decent Mac Pro to finally run the latest Logic and Final Cut apps on... and presumably arriving with 10.15 pre-installed (with no 32-bit files allowed).

Slightly worrying times...
 


I wouldn't call iTunes the worst Mac app (that would be Photos, maybe). Yes, it's a total hodgepodge, and I only use a fraction of its "features," but handled correctly, and once you learn its foibles, it works pretty well, at least for my purposes. I have a ton of music, some 375 GB of files (not to mention hundreds of CDs I haven't got around to ripping -- and all my old LPs!). I can access this music easily enough via iTunes on my Macs or via the iCloud music library on my iPhone or on my Apple TV.

As long as I stay in "Songs" view with the column browser, iTunes does most of what I need. It has trouble with multiple performers on a single recording, so it's not ideal for classical, where you might have a conductor and an orchestra and a choir and soloists, or jazz, where you want to know which sidemen performed with the leader on a given piece. But you can work around this.

The Music app on the iPhone, in contrast, is truly awful. It gives you almost no information (only "song" name, performer, and album), it chokes on long titles (good luck with "Bach: Brandenburg Concerto #1 In F: IV. Menuet & Trio I, Polonaise & Trio II" !), and there's no equivalent of the column browser to help you find things. If you're in Album mode and you click on the performer name, it won't even show other albums by the same performer. It's workable if you do the heavy lifting in iTunes on a Mac, but on its own it's useless. If this is the future for Macs, heaven help us.
This is exactly my situation. I have ripped hundreds of CDs, mostly classical, and have devoted a lot of time to cleaning up the information that gets pulled in from Gracenotes or wherever. This involves adding a lot of info to each “album” and track (conductor, orchestra, performers) and extensive repair or clarification of track information. German titles that consist of more than one or two words are incorrect close to 100% of the time, because people have entered them with no clue about German capitalization rules. This applies to other languages, also.

iTunes clearly expects tracks with short titles, album art, and very little detail about performers to be the norm, and I am sure it is. Fortunately, the Song view still gives us one workable interface, for now. But everything else in iTunes 12 is way too much like the Music app. It does not bode well for what will come next.

Maybe Cesium will make its way to the Mac OS?
 


Maybe Cesium will make its way to the Mac OS?
I'm using Cesium (mostly happily) on iOS, as well, but I forget, Kathryn, have you've tried Swinsian on macOS yet? I haven't needed to in earnest yet, I'm still marching along with iTunes 12.6.5.3 on OS X 10.11, but have long mourned the fate of VolumeLogic for event background music.
 


This is exactly my situation. I have ripped hundreds of CDs, mostly classical, and have devoted a lot of time to cleaning up the information that gets pulled in from Gracenotes or wherever.
I've been ripping thousands, and I mean thousands, of CDs on my Macs into WAV format, not only from my own music library but from commercial broadcast music suppliers, for use with professional Windows-based broadcast automation playback software.

It is utterly dismal the way the information has been entered into Gracenote (for iTunes retrieval) or FreeDB (which is what I believe XLD uses). The sheer inconsistencies of both make ripping discs a time-consuming chore! I only need basic artist / title info to properly title the files, so I can't imagine the hoops Kathryn or anyone else is having to jump through to add other metadata, such as performer info, etc. (assuming the file format they're ripping to supports the additional metadata).

I find iTunes has grown into a rather clunky mess, especially with version 12. I remember when Casady and Greene produced SoundJam MP, which ended up as the core for iTunes. It seemed to work amazingly well for what it was at the time. Why is it that Apple has a knack to overcomplicate the world, especially with something as simple as an audio player?
 


I've been ripping thousands, and I mean thousands, of CDs on my Macs ...
I find iTunes has grown into a rather clunky mess, especially with version 12. I remember when Casady and Greene produced SoundJam MP, which ended up as the core for iTunes. It seemed to work amazingly well for what it was at the time. Why is it that Apple has a knack to overcomplicate the world, especially with something as simple as an audio player?
I think a real problem might be that music players aren’t making Apple any new money, while music streaming does.
 


I'm using Cesium (mostly happily) on iOS, as well, but I forget, Kathryn, have you've tried Swinsian on macOS yet? I haven't needed to in earnest yet, I'm still marching along with iTunes 12.6.5.3 on OS X 10.11, but have long mourned the fate of VolumeLogic for event background music.
I do have Swinsian; it seems to be pretty good, and I will probably switch to that when iMusic or whatever they decide to call the Mac version becomes too painful to use. My plan has been to import my iTunes library when it is finally more or less complete. I need to experiment with Swinsian more, because although I recall encountering a few snags when I tried it, those could very well have been PEBKAC errors.
 


I've been ripping thousands, and I mean thousands, of CDs on my Macs into WAV format, not only from my own music library but from commercial broadcast music suppliers, for use with professional Windows-based broadcast automation playback software.

It is utterly dismal the way the information has been entered into Gracenote (for iTunes retrieval) or FreeDB (which is what I believe XLD uses). The sheer inconsistencies of both make ripping discs a time-consuming chore! I only need basic artist / title info to properly title the files, so I can't imagine the hoops Kathryn or anyone else is having to jump through to add other metadata, such as performer info, etc. (assuming the file format they're ripping to supports the additional metadata).

I find iTunes has grown into a rather clunky mess, especially with version 12. I remember when Casady and Greene produced SoundJam MP, which ended up as the core for iTunes. It seemed to work amazingly well for what it was at the time. Why is it that Apple has a knack to overcomplicate the world, especially with something as simple as an audio player?
The one thing I like better about iTunes 12 is that some of Doug's Applescripts for iTunes have been very helpful in cleaning up the way I have entered track info. The most helpful ones are not available for iTunes 11, unfortunately.

I have been ripping everything Apple Lossless, so I can clean up the track info quite a bit.

Amazon must get some of their info from the same or similar dubious sources, because anything classical is usually a mess there, also. I briefly tried out Delicious Library a few years ago, hoping to catalog books and CDs, and since Delicious Library pulled in music info from Amazon, the result was dreadful.
 


I still miss the capability, axed by Apple when the apps starting subdividing on iOS years ago, of creating playlists that contained both music and spoken word content (chapters of audiobooks, podcast episodes, etc.). Grumble, grumble.
 


I guess it's time to start a macOS 10.15 topic. Here's some news about Apple iOSifying iTunes (which became the company's worst Mac app after Apple bought the software from its original developers) - Apple will now convert iTunes into a collection of iOS-based apps for macOS 10.15.
I tried Swinsian, after seeing it mentioned here. Works great.
 


iTunes clearly expects tracks with short titles, album art, and very little detail about performers to be the norm, and I am sure it is. Fortunately, the Song view still gives us one workable interface, for now. But everything else in iTunes 12 is way too much like the Music app. It does not bode well for what will come next.
Maybe Cesium will make its way to the Mac OS?
... I think one of the issues here is, we have very young programmers building these apps, who have zero backwards perspective: they never used iTunes prior to 2015, and have scant insight or understanding (or interest) as to how people like us actually use these programs. They think they're changing the world with their ground-up re-writes that ignore 80% of the established user base, betting the entire platform on this years' white-space-intensive user interface fad, and trying to counter Spotify feature for feature. Old keyboard shortcuts and UI traditions fall by the wayside, because they didn't know about them in the first place. There was a really good Dilbert story arc recently about the disdain young tech types have for us bearded old fogies. Pair that all up with the regrettable industry-wide trend toward skipping beta testing altogether, and we have soup. But don't worry; this stuff is like the weather in Hawaii: if you don't like this years' release, wait for the next update - you can bet it will be "different." Because "different" is always better, right? </rant>
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
... I think one of the issues here is, we have very young programmers building these apps, who have zero backwards perspective: they never used iTunes prior to 2015, and have scant insight or understanding (or interest) as to how people like us actually use these programs. They think they're changing the world with their ground-up re-writes that ignore 80% of the established user base, betting the entire platform on this years' white-space-intensive user interface fad, and trying to counter Spotify feature for feature....
I agree with much of this and am equally frustrated by these issues (above all, the destruction of human interface design integrity), but you seem to be overlooking one thing: Apple's customer installed base is definitely not 80% Mac; it's around 90+% iOS.

(Meanwhile, Microsoft's Windows 10 installed base is 8 times the size of the Mac base, similar in number to iPhones; adding older Windows systems should at least double that total.)

Apple has driven prices of iOS-based devices well up into computer price ranges, and profit margins on media and services are the same on either platform (or on Android and Windows, which Apple also supports as media purchasing platforms.)

Unfortunately, Apple's current designers do seem shamefully oblivious to the brilliance, essence and integrity of the original Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines as Apple executives incessantly push purchases of media, games, software and "services" via Apple's mandatory online stores and update mechanisms, embracing manipulation over choice, bizarre hide-and-seek user interfaces, and inconsistent, dysfunctional design. </rant>

As I've said before, though, all of this pales in comparison to what's coming down the road with Apple's (and others') massive move to A.I. (Cf. "machine learning" and A.I. agents, such as Siri, Alexa et al), which will make most of these lesser issues moot in a few years' time, as much greater issues become more obvious.
 


I have a different viewpoint - really don't care much about music collections and all that.
I am an HTML5 animation and web developer, and Apple apps are for me sort of a curiosity that I dont get into much, so in that respect the fact that they have been going toward a Fisher Price-type interface has not mattered to me. But it's causing concerns.

Why? I now think that the 3rd-party developers who supply all of the varied apps (roughly 12-20 different specialized apps) have never been better! So, theoretically at least, if Windows developers developed those same apps, I could move that way with hardly a hiccup. There are some technical reasons why the HTML5 animation program (Tumult Hype) does depend on many core macOS areas, so it would be painful for the developers and the users, but they have looked at Windows.

Visually, I love the Mac desktop look and how easily I can shift back and forth in all of those 3rd-party apps (it's not so easy in Windows, but they are getting better). Adobe stuff is so unproductive that I can't go there - I have been there for a client... no.

My point is, depending on how Fisher-Price Apple goes in interface development, it could be a necessary tipping point for me. (Or out of business.)
 


I will not be doing any more macOS updates on my 2012 Mac Pro 5.1, because it will disable a lot of tools I have that are still technically 32-bit - one of them being OuicktTme Pro 7. Apple has no right going to a 64-bit (only) operating system until they give us all the 64-bit tools back that they are taking from us!
 


I will not be doing any more macOS updates on my 2012 Mac Pro 5.1, because it will disable a lot of tools I have that are still technically 32-bit - one of them being OuicktTme Pro 7. Apple has no right going to a 64-bit (only) operating system until they give us all the 64-bit tools back that they are taking from us!
64-bit is where the world is going. Pushing back against it is like trying to keep the ocean away from the shore. I think the best thing to do is as I, and others, have done. Spend $80 for VMWare Fusion and create a VM with High Sierra (or earlier if you need) and run those apps in the VM. Is Apple the only company that has 32-bit apps that you won't be able to use or are there others? I have quite a few, including Adobe CC5.5. Apple can't replace products they don't own or have created. The VM is an inexpensive and simple solution for these situations.
 


64-bit is where the world is going. Pushing back against it is like trying to keep the ocean away from the shore.
It is great for Apple to support 64-bit code but why must they stop supporting 32-bit code? It isn't like it's not technically possible to support both.

For example, consider IBM z/OS: the first 64-bit z/Architecture mainframes came to market 19 years ago, in 2000. And yet, 31-bit* code still runs perfectly fine. In fact, 24-bit code still runs perfectly fine, even though the mainframes have supported 31-bit code for 36 years. You can even still write new 24-bit programs, or multi-mode programs, or 31-bit programs that integrate with 24-bit code. It Just Workstm.

The problem is one of attitude: Apple does not think there is any value in any application that is not for sale on the App Store today, so they don't see it as desirable to support older applications.

* pre-z/Architecture mainframes support 32-bit registers with 24- or 31-bit addresses. z/Architecture supports 64-bit registers with 64-bit addresses, plus the 24-bit and 31-bit address modes.
 


The agitation of change from 32-bit to 64-bit has occurred before in my lifetime.

I was there when 8-bit computers, Atari 800/XL/E and Apple II series, switched to 16-bit - Atari to the windowing OS, GEM, and Apple to the windowing OS, Macintosh. And don’t forget IBM/compatible BIOS DOS to IBM/compatible Windows.

Mac went into even another period of agitation, switching from System 6 to 7. There was complete disdain because System 7 had such a slow interface and response compared to System 6. What we got in return with System 7 was, at the time, the magical QuickTime.

The difference back then was that the changes were actually exciting and meant true, honest new features that were useful.

Now it seems like just basically new interface “skins” and broken, useful features of core legacy systems.

Soon we are going to have quarterly interface changes and major operating system changes, or how else can we keep infinite growth for stock prices (tongue in cheek)?
 


But don't worry; this stuff is like the weather in Hawaii: if you don't like this years' release, wait for the next update - you can bet it will be "different." Because "different" is always better, right? </rant>
There are two kinds of fools. One says, "This is old, and therefore good." And one says, "This is new, and therefore better."
It is great for Apple to support 64-bit code but why must they stop supporting 32-bit code? It isn't like it's not technically possible to support both.
It's always technically possible, but support comes at a cost.

As the system architecture grows and evolves, all the 32-bit libraries and frameworks need to be updated to remain compatible. This means architecture, engineering, testing and support. That can cost as much as it does for the 64-bit APIs, possibly doubling Apple's R&D costs for the product. Sooner or later, it ceases to become cost-effective to maintain that code, especially if it is being distributed in the form of free upgrades.

IBM's z/OS costs a boatload of money, both to purchase and for ongoing support. And corporations running these systems are more than willing to pay it in order to keep running all of their software, including very old legacy apps.

I don't think very many Mac users would be willing to pay enough to pay the costs to keep on developing and supporting the legacy 32-bit APIs (and while we're at it, why not also the PowerPC and 68K/Classic environments?) I suspect very few today would be willing to pay even the $130 per computer (or $200 per 5-computer family pack) that Apple used to charge for major upgrades.

You get what you pay for.
 


I don't think very many Mac users would be willing to pay enough to pay the costs to keep on developing and supporting the legacy 32-bit APIs (and while we're at it, why not also the PowerPC and 68K/Classic environments?) I suspect very few today would be willing to pay even the $130 per computer (or $200 per 5-computer family pack) that Apple used to charge for major upgrades. You get what you pay for.
Yup, Apple gives their macOS away for free, so there's no money to pay the costs to keep on developing and supporting the legacy 32-bit APIs (but a tricked out Mac Mini with that "free" OS costs $3,599.00). I mean, the company is so hard up, they have to deliberately stop supporting hardware, too, after just ~5 years, 'cos that's soooo expensive (yet, your high-end iMac "Pro" that will still be forced into obsolescence in around 5 years can cost $15,848.00) . They have so little money, their head-office staff have to work in really poor conditions.

Oh! Hang on, they're a(lmost) trillion dollar company :-|

Sorry, I personally have absolutely no sympathy for Apple with those kind of excuses. Any Apple and "it costs money" equation in one sentence simply does not compute.
 



Like others, I have some legacy software (like QuickTime 7 Pro) that I occasionally need. I long ago set up a VM for Snow Leopard to handle some old Adobe (and other) programs that I still need for supporting clients who can't upgrade. I plan on setting up a VM for Mojave to take care of whatever 32-bit programs I can't do without. It's a minor inconvenience [for me].
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Yup, Apple gives their macOS away for free, so there's no money to pay the costs to keep on developing and supporting the legacy 32-bit APIs (but a tricked out Mac Mini with that "free" OS costs $3,599.00). I mean, the company is so hard up, they have to deliberately stop supporting hardware, too, after just ~5 years, 'cos that's soooo expensive (yet, your high-end iMac "Pro" that will still be forced into obsolescence in around 5 years can cost $15,848.00)...
You hit the nail on the head, and, in fact, Apple's customers are paying a great deal of money for software updates, it's just that Apple hides that with accounting tricks that make software expenses appear to be "free" when they are actually incorporated in Apple's exhorbitant hardware prices and counted as subscription revenue!
 




I suspect very few today would be willing to pay even the $130 per computer (or $200 per 5-computer family pack) that Apple used to charge for major upgrades.​
If it no longer sucked, and the "updates" and "maintenance" being done were actually relevant, purposeful (for the good of the user), and resulted in a more robust tool, I would. But I suspect I am among a small demographic, perhaps disproportionately represented here on MacInTouch.
 


Given that I would have to pay thousands of dollars to replace my 32-bit software, I, for one, would be willing to pay $200 for continued 32-bit support...
I work in academia, and I have many 32-bit applications I rely upon to help me analyse data, map DNA constructs and visualise molecules. Most of these are freeware, released by fellow researchers, and some will be updated by their authors, but many will not. These are often gnarly, awkward little programs, but profoundly useful in their niche.

There are often commercially available programs that can replicate some of these utilities, but here's the kicker, the licenses often run into thousands of dollars annually (even 'academic' licenses), and we don't have that sort of money to spend on software. One solution is to get my hands dirty with Python and write my own data analysis programs. But I'm getting on in life, and these things don't come as easily as they used to. There's also the significant time investment required. So, in the meantime, I'll avoid 10.15 as long as reasonably possible, make the leap into Windows, or look at virtualisation options. Change isn't always good.
 


As long as Apple updates their applications to supply what was previously afforded to their clients, then I have no problem, even if they want to update to 128-bit! However, to abandon the base just to somehow relieve their responsibilities to what is still relevant technology, seems like a pretty heinous abuse of power.
 


I agree with most of the other complaints about this. Computers and computer users (yes, computers = Macs) are no longer even close to top priority for Apple - they're now almost demotivating. I’m getting the ugly feeling that Apple is either going to spin off the Mac division or possibly even stop making them altogether.
 


Unfortunately, Apple's current designers do seem shamefully oblivious to the brilliance, essence and integrity of the original Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines...
That to me is far more important than 32-bit vs 64-bit. These guidelines are what made Apple what they are today.

I realize so many iOS users are blissfully unaware of the existence of these guidlines and how important they are. They are the basis for Apple's continued existence - without them, Apple would not have survived long enough to create the iPhone. And, does any iOS device conform to them? Not often in my experience.

Does it matter to Apple's survival? Maybe not, because there are no high expectations for any touch interface that I have seen, so maybe it's not a problem.

But it does play a critical part of whether I stay with Mac or not. Even though they don't necessarily need to follow those guidlines, the good third-party Mac app developers do for one reason: the Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines work! Like the alphabet and the multiplication tables work. Good luck going without them.
 


As the system architecture grows and evolves, all the 32-bit libraries and frameworks need to be updated to remain compatible. This means architecture, engineering, testing and support. That can cost as much as it does for the 64-bit APIs, possibly doubling Apple's R&D costs for the product.
Yup, Apple gives their macOS away for free, so there's no money to pay the costs to keep on developing and supporting the legacy 32-bit APIs
But why must there be two sets of APIs?

Back to z/OS: it doesn't have different APIs and services for 24-bit, 31-bit, and 64-bit programs. There's just one set of APIs and services for applications to use.

Now, if you're talking about dropping the Carbon framework, that could save on development effort. But that's not what they're doing here. Apple is also dropping support for 32-bit Cocoa applications. In fact, as far as we know, Apple is changing macOS so it won't even execute 32-bit code, even if it uses no frameworks or APIs.

Are there really separate 32-bit and 64-bit Cocoa frameworks? Why was that necessary?
 


I won't be leaving the 32-bit world behind. I have numerous 32-bit apps that I like and use which won't be updated in the future (such as the standalone version of "Picasa").

Nor will I be leaving the world of HFS+. Again, my utility apps are designed to maintain it.

I've just bought a 2018 Mac Mini, which will be my "main computing platform" into 2025, 2026, perhaps even 2027.

I've set it up with Mojave running under HFS+ on the internal drive.
T2 functions are disabled (insofar as they can be, using the Startup Security utility).
It boots and runs just fine with HFS+.

If I need to update the OS, I keep a "mule drive" formatted to APFS with a copy of Mojave on it, and Software Update can be used on that drive. But other than for updates, it is never booted or used.

Once Mojave becomes "mature" (with the release of macOS 10.15), the internal drive will no longer be updated and will remain at macOS 10.14 - for the life of the Mini.

Thus, I'll have a relatively late-model Mac, still capable of running 32-bit, for the foreseeable future.

I will probably also keep at least one "later version" of the macOS on an external SSD, to boot and run externally when needed. But again, my "main OS" is going to be macOS 10.14.x for the next 6-8 years.

Before anyone jumps in and says "you'll be running an outdated version of the OS that is no longer supported", I care not at all about such things. My old 2010 MacBook Pro still boots its original OS (Mac OS X 10.6.8) and runs fine. Others may worry about such things... I don't.
 


You hit the nail on the head, and, in fact, Apple's customers are paying a great deal of money for software updates, it's just that Apple hides that with accounting tricks that make software expenses appear to be "free" when they are actually incorporated in Apple's exhorbitant hardware prices and, critically, counted as subscription revenue!
If I recall correctly, it was just such “accounting tricks” that prompted the federal anti-trust action against IBM in the late ‘60s or ‘70s, which eventually led to IBM “unbundling” hardware and software pricing. Hmm...

Unfortunately, the federal government has pretty much abandoned anti-trust enforcement in this century.
 


Amazon disclaimer:
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Latest posts