rejoining in May - Jan Burrell
ADAM ENGST 22 May 2025
In a video dripping with so much mutual admiration that I found myself muttering “Get a room,” former Apple designer Jony Ive and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman have announced a collaboration to “create a family of devices that would let people use AI to create all sorts of wonderful things.” Ive’s hardware design company, io Products, will be acquired by OpenAI for $6.5 billion in stock, despite having only 55 employees and never having shipped anything. Ive and his team will oversee creative and design aspects across all OpenAI products, including ChatGPT and other apps.
Despite all the self-congratulatory Bay Area tech bro exaggeration, the announcement is not pure fluffery. ChatGPT—and generative AI overall—is arguably one of the most transformative technologies since the Internet and the smartphone.
It’s hard to envision what we’ll use to interact with AI in the future besides the smartphone, smartwatch, and earbuds we have today. Jarringly—and perhaps tellingly—despite the video being staged as an informal discussion in a San Francisco coffee shop, Altman chose to describe current usage of ChatGPT in a laptop browser instead of the ChatGPT app on a phone.
The next piece of AI hardware won’t be the now-defunct Humane AI Pin(which also had investment from Sam Altman and a partnership with OpenAI) or the Rabbit r1 (which Marques Brownlee described as “barely reviewable,” after calling the Humane AI Pin “the worst product I’ve ever reviewed”). It’s certainly not the Apple Vision Pro, which, remember, is a “spatial computer.” It may eventually be glasses, even if the Ray-Ban Meta AI Glasses haven’t set the world on fire.
Years of hearing overblown promises have made me inherently skeptical, but Jony Ive and his team have done important work in the past, and OpenAI has the resources and the chutzpah to bring a product to the mainstream market. Whatever it is, it’s slated for late 2026.
Regardless of what OpenAI ultimately ships, this announcement may signal a shift in the balance of power in the tech world. Jony Ive, the guy who played a key role in designing iconic products like the iMac, iPod, iPhone, and MacBook, is now focused on creating the next generation of consumer technology for OpenAI rather than Apple.
Meanwhile, instead of making the iPhone the preferred platform for AI, Apple has struggled to develop and implement a compelling AI vision. At best, Apple Intelligence is currently a scattershot collection of unimpressive features that barely change the user experience; at worst, it’s a promised version of Siri that’s hard to imagine living up to its marketing. Even more embarrassingly, Perplexity has released a version of its voice assistant on iOS that encroaches on Siri’s territory by linking a modern chatbot to public APIs that enable it to create reminders and events, load inline maps, play songs from Apple Music, and more.
Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. Apple’s cultural DNA is built around perfecting individual, on-device experiences instead of fostering social interactions, community development, and engagement with the broader Internet. Consider features like iTunes Ping, Game Center, and Apple Music Connect, which struggled due to closed ecosystems, limited opportunities for interaction, and insufficient attention and resources. Apple has also failed to compete in the blogging and publishing space, having discontinued iWeb, limited iCloud sharing to specific data types, and kept Pages focused on print output. And, of course, there’s search, where Apple has consistently depended on Google and other partners to provide information to Spotlight and Siri rather than creating its own index.
Apple’s desire to limit its engagement with the messiness of the Internet isn’t just a historical curiosity—it may represent an existential threat to the company’s future. Recently, in the Google antitrust case, Apple’s senior vice president of services, Eddy Cue, speculated that “you may not need an iPhone 10 years from now” as technology evolves, particularly due to AI. He also noted that AI-powered search features, such as I wrote about in “AI Answer Engines Are Worth Trying” (17 April 2025), have contributed to Safari searches declining for the first time in 22 years.
So Apple executives recognize the threat. The question is, can they generate the youthful perspectives, energy, and enthusiasm needed to keep Apple relevant?
ADAM ENGST 12 May 2025
More so than any other tech giant (Google’s fading “Don’t be evil” slogan notwithstanding), Apple has built its brand over the years around being a good corporate citizen. Apple has long espoused a commitment to user experience, privacy, environmental stewardship, and social responsibility, touting its attention to detail in product design, its sustainability efforts, and its focus on accessibility.
Apple’s version of “Don’t be evil” is “Leave the world better than we found it.” Tim Cook opened the most recent earnings call with “We are as dedicated as ever to the innovation and ingenuity that will enrich our customers’ lives and help us leave the world better than we found it.” Apple also promotes this theme among its developers—the Apple Storiespage in the company’s Newsroom features stories about “creators, developers, and innovators leaving the world better than they found it.”
The problem lies in the contradiction between Apple’s publicly stated values and the corporate behavior exposed in the April 2025 ruling from Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Epic v. Apple antitrust lawsuit. Although Apple largely prevailed in the original case back in September 2021, the court took exception to Apple’s anti-steering policies (see “Judge Rules for Apple over Epic Games, Strikes Down App Store Anti-Steering Policies,” 13 September 2021).
Under the original App Store policies, developers were required to process all in-app purchases through Apple and pay a 30% fee, with no option to direct users to external payment systems or even mention their existence. (Apple dropped the fee to 15% for small developers who earn less than $1 million per year and for the second and subsequent years of subscriptions; see “Developers v. Apple: Outlining Complaints about the App Store,” 13 August 2020.) In the initial ruling, Gonzalez Rogers issued an injunction requiring Apple to allow linking to external payment systems.
Apple complied in the most grudging manner possible, instituting significant limitations on how the links were displayed, making developers apply for specific entitlements, and requiring a 27% (12% for small developers) fee anyway. Since credit card fees alone make it impossible to process a payment for less than 3%, there was no financial benefit to sidestepping Apple’s in-app purchase system. Only a handful of developers did—the latest ruling notes that, as of May 2024, just 34 of 136,000 App Store developers applied for the external payment program.
In the most recent injunction, Gonzalez Rogers found Apple to be in willful violation of the 2021 injunction, closing with:
This is an injunction, not a negotiation. There are no do-overs once a party willfully disregards a court order. Time is of the essence. The Court will not tolerate further delays. As previously ordered, Apple will not impede competition. The Court enjoins Apple from implementing its new anticompetitive acts to avoid compliance with the Injunction. Effective immediately Apple will no longer impede developers’ ability to communicate with users nor will they levy or impose a new commission on off-app purchases
This time, Apple’s compliance took the form of new App Store rules that allow linking to external payment systems without any entitlements or restrictions. Well-known developers like Spotify, Kindle, and Patreon quickly issued updates featuring such links, and payment processor Stripe provided instructions for iOS developers.
However, Apple also promptly filed an emergency motion for a partial stay pending appeal, so the case will move to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which may or may not agree that Gonzalez Rogers overstepped by forcing Apple to eliminate all fees.
The problem here isn’t just recalcitrant legal compliance. It’s one thing for Apple to exert tight control over the App Store ecosystem in ways that legitimately serve users, such as by detecting and rejecting malicious apps. However, it’s difficult to see how users benefit when Apple charges high fees and restricts how developers can communicate. Those are just a few of the complaints developers have with the App Store, many of whom feel trapped in a system that prioritizes Apple’s profits over collaborative partnership.
That tension is increasingly undermining Apple’s reputation. In the eyes of many developers and a growing number of users, the same company that claims to be a champion of creativity and innovation is behaving more like a Gilded Age robber baron. Those roles aren’t always mutually exclusive—Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Vanderbilt combined monopolistic business practices with genuine social contributions—but with the kind of profits Apple is pulling in, the disconnect between the company’s narrative and its behavior is unnecessary and unhelpful.
To be clear, Apple is not obligated to be generous—it’s a business, not a charity. But by treating developers as resources to be exploited, Apple risks tarnishing its positive contributions to society. More concretely, sales could suffer if Apple’s public reputation becomes that of a sullen bully that has to be forced by the courts to behave reasonably. As the precipitous drop in Tesla sales has shown, consumers can react negatively to corporate behavior even when it’s completely separate from an otherwise desirable product.
Apple’s resistance to adhering to the spirit of the original injunction backfired. Instead of cutting its 30% fee to 27% for those using external payment systems, had Apple dropped it to 10%, developers would have had a real choice between paying more for Apple’s frictionless transactions or paying less and doing more work for a more complex user experience. Epic’s appeal would have had far less of a leg to stand on, and Apple would have faced competitive pressure to encourage further improvements.
Although this most recent injunction is entirely self-inflicted, I don’t think Apple should be forced to allow developers to use external payment systems for free. Apple does provide real value to developers with its development tools, operating system APIs, and the App Store itself, and it’s reasonable for Apple to benefit from creating and maintaining that ecosystem. But not to the tune of 30%, which I’ve always considered ridiculous—over a decade ago, our payment processing fees for Take Control were less than 10% for a full-fledged ecommerce solution. If Apple is lucky, the appeals court will agree and allow a reasonable percentage.
In “Staying the Course After 35 Years of TidBITS” (18 April 2025), I wrote:
I encourage you to align your actions with your values in a way that feels right to you. When the path forward seems unclear, I believe we can best contribute by modeling the behavior we want to see in the world. How we conduct business on an everyday basis matters.
I’m disappointed in Apple’s behavior throughout the Epic case. Rather than come off as truculent and money-grubbing, Apple could have extended the culture of excellence and care that’s so evident in its hardware and interface design to the people who make the apps that power its devices.
Much of the appeal of the Apple ecosystem stems from the creative and innovative work of tens of thousands of developers who create apps for audiences that Apple doesn’t even know exist. Apple itself will say just that at WWDC in less than a month. But will it start treating developers as valued partners who are essential to the ecosystem?
Apple is one of the most profitable companies in history. It can afford to be better, and I would argue that any short-term reduction in profit would more than pay off in the long run. If Apple truly wants to leave the world better than it found it, now is the time to align its behavior toward developers with the rest of the company’s stated values.
Malcolm Owen | May 28, 2025
Some of the Self Service Repair tools Apple rents out
Apple launched the Self Service Repair Program in April 2022 after first announcing it in November 2021. While the service was originally meant for iPhone repair, Apple is now opening it up so that users can fix iPads too.
The expansion, launched on May 28 and officially starting on May 29, provides access to Apple parts, troubleshooting sessions, and tools to end users. Under the program, users can order components for a number of iPad issues from the Self Service Repair Store, including displays, batteries, cameras, and external charging ports.
Initially, this will introduce support for the M2 or later iPad Air, the M4 iPad Pro, A17 Pro iPad mini, and A16 iPad.
The introduction of iPad support expands from its previous offering, which included Macs alongside iPhones. Self Service Repair now supports a total of 65 Apple products.Apple has expanded its Self Service Repair Program, allowing hardware tinkerers to fix hardware issues with their iPad at home for the first time.
The introduction of iPad support expands from its previous offering, which included Macs alongside iPhones. Self Service Repair now supports a total of 65 Apple products.
"At Apple, our goal is to create the world's greatest products that last as long as possible," Apple VP of AppleCare Brian Naumann said of the expansion. This allows users to expand the life of their iPads "all without compromising safety, security, or privacy."
Following a user's self-diagnosis, the customer places an order for the parts and tools using a special online store. Consumers will have to return "core" parts the same as repair shops do now, to receive a credit towards the initial part purchase price.
At the same time as the product support expansion, Apple says it will be bringing Self Service Repair to Canada. The 34th country to gain the service, Self Service Repair will be available there later this summer.
ADAM ENGST 28 May 2025
One of the longest-standing aspects of the Mac user experience is the necessity of ejecting disks before turning them off or unplugging them. Initially, this meant literally ejecting floppy disks from their drives, but Apple retained the term even after adding non-removable media.
The need for the Eject command arises from two reasons. First, if there are open files on a disk, macOS refuses to let you eject it because doing so might result in data loss. Second, the Eject command forces macOS to flush any data cached in memory and write it to the physical disk, ensuring that everything is saved and preventing file corruption.
Despite all the advances in macOS since 1984, we still need to virtually eject disks before physically disconnecting them. Today, you can select a disk and choose File > Eject (Command-E) or drag one or more disks to the Trash icon, which helpfully changes to an Eject icon so no one is led to think the disk or its contents will be deleted. If there are multiple volumes on a single physical disk, macOS allows you to eject just the selected one or, as is often desirable, all of them.
It’s also still possible to encounter a situation where a file remains open on a disk such that macOS won’t let you eject it. Sometimes the solution is simple—just quit the offending app. Other times, macOS doesn’t identify the app, leaving you unsure of what to quit or if quitting is even an option, especially when a low-level process has the file open. You can throw caution to the wind and power the drive down or unplug it unceremoniously, but macOS always chides you for such uncouth behavior.
If macOS cannot eject the disk or identify the rogue programs, it allows you to force eject the disk—a software override that bypasses macOS’s safety checks but still flushes cached data, making it safer than simply unplugging. If that makes you too nervous, your only recourse is to shut down your Mac, disconnect the disk while everything is powered off, and then turn the Mac back on. You can also restart and unplug it between quitting all applications and macOS booting up again, though that requires more precise timing.
I’ll admit, I occasionally forget to eject a disk before disconnecting it or inadvertently unplug the wrong disk while working behind my Mac. However, I’ve never experienced any file or disk corruption that I could attribute to that action. Still, it’s never a good idea to cut power to a drive or unplug it without first ejecting it.
For the most part, I don’t have trouble ejecting disks. Some time ago, when I would eject the SSD that holds the duplicate SuperDuper makes of my internal boot disk every night, the backup disk’s icon would disappear from my desktop, but I’d still be prompted to eject “Disk Name – Data” before disconnecting it. I felt that was unfair because I had ejected the disk, but whatever the cause, I can no longer reproduce the problem.
Nevertheless, many people do have issues with external disks. When leaving the house with your laptop, you can close the lid and disconnect all its cables without worry… except for those connected to external disks, which remain mounted even when the laptop is asleep. Others find themselves in situations where macOS seems incapable of ejecting disks for no good reason. And still more people store working data or media on external drives that they want to mount and dismount in different situations.
Those who need more control over their external disks than macOS provides should consider Jettison, available for $6.95 from St. Clair Software, which provides a plethora of features designed to simplify working with external disks. It’s a menu bar utility that’s entirely up front about its capabilities, which you can try for free for 15 days. It runs on macOS 10.13 High Sierra and later, and is compatible with both Intel-based and Apple silicon Macs.
Easily accessed commands in Jettison’s menu enable you to:
Jettison’s Settings window provides extensive control over when and how disks are ejected, reported to the user, and remounted.
These settings allow Jettison to:
A few of these may need more explanation. For instance, why would you want to eject your disks automatically after the display turns off? Since the display may go black before the Mac goes to sleep, some people found themselves disconnecting disks when they shouldn’t have because the screen was off while the Mac was still awake.
Also, what’s up with ejecting disks before logout, restart, and shutdown, given that macOS already ejects most disks in the latter two cases? One reason for that option is that you might have an encrypted disk containing private data that you don’t want to be accessible to other accounts on your Mac. Another reason arises if you have a removable media drive and want to eject whatever disc is in there before shutting down.
Jettison developer Jon Gotow tells me something that’s not immediately obvious. When Jettison is set to eject disks before sleep, it automatically quits Music and Photos in case the user is storing their libraries on an external disk. When the Mac wakes up again, Jettison relaunches those two apps. You can find similar tweaky details about how Jettison works (and what might prevent it from working as expected) in the Jettison FAQ.
Everyone has different needs and circumstances, but if you’ve found yourself struggling to eject disks that macOS refuses to let go of, forgetting to eject disks before disconnecting them from your laptop, or fussing to eject and remount disks regularly, Jettison may be your new favorite utility. Give it a try.
