Author’s note:  This piece was collaboratively written by Nick, Pilky and Arden.  Each section is credited to its author. We were going to credit each section to its respective author, but decided that it broke the page’s flow however we tried to do it.  If you’re really interested, you can look at the source code and find out who wrote which pieces.

We all love Macs (well, most of us do at least).  They’re easy to use, they have lots of great software, and they have an interface that’s pleasing to the eyes.  And don’t get me started on the iPod—can you say 67 million to date?  But despite all this, despite the innovation and the general user-friendliness, Apple isn’t nothing but fun, games and iCandy.  There’s a side of Apple that some people don’t like to admit exists, but that rears its shiny head every so often and bites users in the tuchis.  Yes, I’m afraid it’s true:  Apple’s ugly side is powered by Windows.  3.1.  On an IBM PCjr.

Here are just a few of the things we the userbase believe Apple can improve upon.

Aroma of Superiority

I love the smell of smugness in the morning!  No, really, I do. 

If you follow Apple closely, I’m sure you’ve memorized Apple’s digs against Microsoft in recent years.  Who can forget ”Redmond, start your photocopiers,” or everyone’s sing-along favorite, ”We’re upset at Windows for not being more hardy against viruses?” Um, it was your product that shipped with a virus, guys.  And maybe, just maybe, a few features from OS X were, in reality, inspired by Windows. 

As amusing as these jabs can be, there are a good number of people who are turned off by them, including other Mac users like Josh Pigford of The Apple Blog: “But after seeing multiple banners at WWDC taking direct jabs at Microsoft, I feel like Apple might be pushing it.  It’s one thing to make a comment in a keynote, and it’s another to have huge banners at the APPLE Developer conference that specifically target Microsoft.”

What he said.

Help!  The Mouse Just Cursed at my Dogcow! 

I’ve had good experiences with Apple’s technical support for the most part.  Each time, my issue was resolved in a fairly timely matter.  But let’s be honest… Apple’s support offerings are, well, lacking.

Apple’s 90 days of telephone support is an absolute joke.  There, I said it.  There is no excuse in selling someone a $1,500 piece of computer equipment and only giving them a mere 90 days of phone support.  Not everyone lives near an Apple Store or Apple retailer or service center, after all.  The lack of an accidental damage coverage option is disappointing; there are plenty of people I’ve helped who would have liked to buy accidental damage coverage for their Apple laptops.  No, it’s not just disappointing, it’s downright lame.  Virtually every PC manufacturer offers an option for accidental damage coverage.  Why can’t Apple?  Why does a Mac Pro have the same exact meager warranty as the Mac mini?  If I pay $4,000 on a new Mac Pro and display, I had better get more than 90 days of phone support, damn it!  I guess what I’m arguing here is two-fold: Apple needs to improve their support offerings across the board, and they need to give users who buy higher-end systems some sort of perk for putting a nice heavy load on their credit cards.

Hey, This Ain’t the Pentagon

Apple, king of openness, proud to share what it’s working on with everyone long before release… er, yeah, that’s some strong kool aid.  Everyone knows that Apple isn’t the most open of companies; in fact, it’s probably more secretive than most governments.  But it doesn’t have to be that way.  The main reason for Apple being secretive is that it likes to surprise people and put on a good show when it announces its magical new product.  But with Apple now partnering with Intel, it has lost one of the main elements of surprise for its computers: the sporadic chip supply of IBM.  As such, we can pretty much guarantee we’ll see upgrades when Intel releases a new chip; in essence, this is a Macintosh roadmap.  Now Apple just needs to get onboard and start unzipping their tight lip.

With the iPod, Apple’s extreme secrecy has led some companies to cease dealings altogether.  For example, remember the HP-branded iPod?  According to MacNN’s reporting from the Wall Street Journal, Apple would often withhold new iPod product announcements from HP until they were announced to the general public, leaving HP struggling to catch up and release the same players (under their own brand) as were currently on the shelves.  Additionally, “Apple insisted HP work on iPods under tight security, even though Apple’s versions in some cases were already sitting on store shelves,” leaving HP lagging far behind while keeping close tabs on a product the public already knows about.

Now, quite frankly, I don’t think anyone cares that HP is no longer selling iPods (consider the 67 million iPods Apple has managed to sell under its own brand).  But it’s deals gone sour like this that make companies wary, to say the least, about entering into partnerships with Apple.  Why can’t (or won’t) they trust their partners to keep some things under wraps while keeping trade secrets confidential?  Are they scared that too much will leak out and other companies will release their new product first?  I bet Steve Jobs uses a different hashed password for every site he visits.  I mean, geez.

Is It Supposed to Do That? 

Quality control has started to wither at Apple.  The Mac used to be the shining example of consistent, usable and stable hardware and quality software, but recent years have seen a significant dip in the level of finesse that Apple puts into its products.  That’s not to say that Macs and their ilk have become shoddy garbage; rather, the shiny wood veneer is starting to crack and show its particleboard.

This is your computer on nitroglycerin.
(Courtesy of Engadget via Flickr)

Hardware is an important area for rigorous quality control and standards.  A faulty part can cause some major damage if not caught in time, as everyone is well aware from recent months.  But Apple has more quality problems than simply installing defective parts.  There is the MacBook “mooing” quagmire; there are occasional obscure issues with keyboards; there was the Power Mac G4 “wind tunnel” situation; the list goes on and on.  And on and on and on and on and on.  And on.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

The software side isn’t immune from the increasing deficiency of rigorous quality control, either.  The most glaring bug was undoubtedly the problem with iTunes 2 from five years ago, wherein some users lost their entire hard drives! Other issues aren’t quite as glaring, but they are still quite annoying.  For example, Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger (hereafter referred to as “Stripey") featured a number of improvements over 10.3, but also introduced a whole cachet of bugs and small changes that reduced its overall functionality.  Even now, 1 ¹/₂ years in the public’s hands, most of these bugs have yet to even be acknowledged, much less patched.  Betalogue itself is dedicated to pointing out some of the many flaws in Apple’s (and others’, mind you) software that the author, Pierre Igot, finds galling.  It is simply incredible at how much he has to write about.

What is the explanation behind these fumbles?  Is Apple so intently concentrating on The Next Big Thing™s that they have few resources devoted to weeding out and fixing all but the most glaring bugs?  Are they hiring incompetent QA employees and testers?  Do they have a secret alliance with some mystery conglomerate, whereby they get a subsidy on iPod parts for every bug they ship and souls to power the Xsans?  Who knows.  Whatever the explanation, it is the opinion of the authors that Apple needs to take a good, hard look at tightening their grip on the imperfections in their products.

Don’t Hate the Players

For many years, Mac gamers have decried the short-end-of-the-stick treatment they get from game companies.  Windows PC’s have more games by far, of good quality and poor; a slew of hardware options like graphics cards, sound cards, processors and more; software libraries like DirectX that in some ways are better than what we have on the Mac (like OpenGL); and did I mention how there are way more games?  Like 10:1?

Given all this, it’s no surprise that Mac gaming leaves a lot to be desired.  We’ve frequently received shoddy ports of games years after they were released for Windows, with gameplay on the Mac far sub-par that on the PC (with few exceptions, like Unreal Tournament 2004 and World of Warcraft).  Some of the most popular games out there, like Counterstrike and Battlefield 2, have not and may never see light of day under the OS X sun.  Mac gaming is made fun of as if it were the redheaded stepchild, sometimes with just cause.  Games brought to the Mac often sell poorly, discouraging further developments.  And it makes us so-called Mac gamers a little annoyed.

Great game, but will it ever see
life on a Mac?  Nope.

But this article is about Apple.  What does all this have to do with Apple, you may ask?  Well, Apple has been less than fully supportive of game development.  They fully support OpenGL, which is good, but they haven’t optimized it to its full gaming potential, nor have they developed bigger and badder libraries to address OpenGL’s shortcomings.  Apple also doesn’t actively encourage game development on the Mac.  Sure, they support it and even provide some tools for development (like Xcode), but they seem to be more interested in targeting other markets, such as the iLife crowd and creative professionals.  The gamer segment of the market is potentially huge, but Apple doesn’t have the inclination (nor, apparently, the means) to really invest heavily in gaming.

Imagine, if you will, if Apple made a serious push to get games onto the Mac as a first-class citizen.  Suddenly, Macs are high-end computers that can run Mac OS X and Windows, and are billed as the premiere computer for playing games.  Eventually, the whole world is using Macs and dual-booting (or running Parallels) as necessary, and games are being released for both OS’s simultaneously, and with complete support.  Wishful thinking, I know, but there’s a lot Apple can do to move in this direction.

Whether or not they ever will, who knows.  The game market is simply astronomical, and to even get one’s foot in the door requires more money than the GDP of some third world countries.  Now, I’m not suggesting that Apple try to aggressively take over the game market like Microsoft, but they should at least be more hospitable and encourage developers to license ports of their games.  It’s time for Apple to get its game on.

Hamsters, Gerbils, Rats and…

Mice.  How many times have you heard PC users going on about Apple and its one-button mice?  Maybe how some of them might use a Mac if it wasn’t for having to use a one-button mouse?  But Apple ships all of its computers with a four-button mouse, the Mighty Mouse, so what’s the huge beef?  Well, it essentially boils down to one thing: the Mighty Mouse just plain sucks.  It looks like a one-button mouse with a nipple, and as such, people will think of it as a one-button mouse with a nipple.  It also doesn’t help that you have to take your left finger off to right click, essentially making it just a one-button mouse to the majority of people.

I have nipples, Greg...

Now I admit, it is good looking and could have been very good in concept, but like most recent Apple mice, Apple has really let themselves down.  Apple hasn’t had an ergonomically well-designed mouse since before the infamous hockey puck mouse from the original iMac.  They have all been too low or too small, requiring you to put your hand in an odd position, or float it above the mouse, increasing the risk of RSI.  A good mouse supports the natural shape of your hand.  For a company that is known for making one of the most ergonomically well-designed computers in history (the iMac G4), they really let themselves down with their mice.  When Apple comes out and makes a mouse with two physical buttons and stops to think for even a second about ergonomics, then I’ll buy one; until then, I recommend taking a look at Logitech or Microsoft for their mice.

Biting Many Hands That Feed

Our very good androgynous, octapedal friend Rosyna has already written an incredibly lengthy and detailed rant assessment on the subject of Apple’s treatment of developers, so I’ll keep this relatively brief.  Some of his (her? its? their?) points:  Microsoft has a nice way of searching for bug reports, reporting bugs, and getting feedback while Apple is pretty cryptic about the whole process; Apple is so tight-lipped about everything that they don’t have any official staff blogs, and anyone who does blog from within Apple does so anonymously; Apple doesn’t respect the HIG (see below); and, most annoyingly, developers can get the short end of the straw when it comes to such big events as the release of new Intel-powered Macs.  Since I don’t have much experience as a Mac developer, I’ll have to take Rosyna’s word for it that the current state of relations between Apple and its developers could use some massaging, to put it mildly.

Hey, the Feedback Form is Broken! 

Apple knows best, right?  Doesn’t matter what it is, when it comes to something being designed, Apple doesn’t need to get feedback from anyone.

Right? 

They certainly seem to think so.  Many are the experts (and sometimes, not-so-experts) who weigh in on various aspects of Apple’s designs, and how they can be better.  John Siracusa, for example, wrote practically an entire PhD dissertation on what’s wrong with the Mac Finder… three years ago!  Has Apple addressed any of the points he made?  Have they re-examined the Finder’s cross of spatial and browser-based displays, and tried to come up with a better solution?  In a word… not really, no.  (Okay, that was three words.)

Brushed metal is another area in which Apple should perk up its ears to those “in the know.” I’ll save the critique of brushed metal itself for the next section, and instead focus on what some people have said about it.  Take John Gruber, for example; in 2004, he wrote an article about brushed metal and the Human Interface Guidelines, and Apple’s blatant disregard thereof (and he has written several followups since then).  Throughout his pieces, he has made several arguments as to why Apple should stick with one or two unique themes, including variations in relative usability, maintaining the consistency of the platform, and so on.  Apparently, nobody at Apple is paying any attention, because the problems he discussed continue to abound.  And the love continues.

The Mac community is rife with discussions and reasoning as to why Apple should change this, or fix that.  The issues I’ve mentioned here are but a scratching of the surface; there are many more examples regarding many issues.  But Apple doesn’t seem interested, because they continue to defy logical thought and they continue to ignore the judgment of erudite individuals.  It’s starting to get to the point where there’s no use in even trying anymore, because evidence of it changing anything is sincerely lacking.

A Checkbox is a Checkbox is a Checkbox… But In Gray? 

You see it all over the Mac web; Mac users and developers decrying the dearth of user interface consistency in OS X and the use of eye candy for eye candy’s sake (here’s one article, and another, and another, and another, and still another, and yet another, and even more, oh look--another one, and hell, one more).  In recent years, Mac OS X’s Aqua user interface has fragmented into several different variants.  As it stands today we have standard Aqua, unified Aqua, smooth metal (iTunes 6), brushed metal, the pro app scheme, whatever ugly thing iTunes 7 has going for it, and numerous others.  Some buttons are Aqualicious, others are flattened gradients.  Bottom line, it’s a mess.

Courtesy of Apple

So why is the OS X UI such a mess?  I think part of it has to do with Mac OS X still being fairly young.  Yes, its guts are based on stuff that’s been around for decades, but OS X itself has been around for a relatively short period of time compared to Classic Mac OS, especially if you consider that the first couple of releases were essentially extended public betas.  There’s still a lot of refining that Apple needs to do to the user interface.

Also, Apple has set the expectation of some UI changes with every OS X release.  In Jaguar the UI grew somewhat flatter.  In Panther it grew darker.  In Tiger, well, I’m not sure what happened in Tiger.  It got more experimental, maybe.  Tiger saw the introduction of the unified toolbar and the funky Mail UI which disposes of whitespace around the source list (no source list resize bar, for example), and adopts the blue source list background and non-standard toolbar buttons.  Oh, then there’s iTunes 7 and its assortment of push-buttons and funky scrollbars.  I don’t want to talk about it.  It hurts me.  Either way, Apple has gotten itself into the habit of tweaking the UI in every release and it seems that users now expect it.  Also it just looks really messy when other developers try to mimic Apple’s latest fashion fad and don’t quite pull it off, making their apps look bad now and even worse when Apple moves onto something else in a year or two (like some nice stained oak woodgrain, perhaps).

Experimentation is not a bad thing.  In fact, it is absolutely necessary for a user interface to make any advancement.  But it comes back to interface destabilization, and there comes a point where you need to make up your mind and get your act together.  There are some signs of this, like the slow death of brushed metal, but so far the progress is too scattered and sparse. 

So Apple.  Please.  Pick a look and stick with it already. 

Last, and Potentially Least:  It Starts With “Dot...”

.Mac, O where to begin.  In January 2000 Apple release a cool online service called iTools.  It provided web hosting, disk storage, email and greeting cards.  And it was free.  In September 2002, Apple renamed it to .Mac and began charging users $99 a year.  Now back in 2002 it wasn’t quite so bad to pay $99 for what effectively was a decent service, and Apple was citing the cost of running iTools as the reason to charge for .Mac.  However, given that you can get better functionality for much less, if not free, $99 feels like too much money for the service it provides.  And given how well Apple is doing with it now, the cost excuse doesn’t hold water anymore.

What is worse is that they want developers to support .Mac in their applications, while expecting them to buy .Mac just to test their programs.  You have to wonder if Apple is really serious about getting people to sign up for .Mac.  With Microsoft starting Windows Live, offering much of the same stuff to Windows users for free, it is becoming more and more obvious that Apple needs to drop the whole .Mac tax and give it away as a freebie, whereby it will go from being one of the most expensive packages on the market to one of the best-valued packages.

I would insert something about the state of Apple Backup but there has already been lots of people who have done that.

Insert Obligatory “In Conclusion” Piece Here ↓

With Macworld Expo 2007 approaching, the time is ripe for Apple to capitalize on some of the deficiencies we’ve enunciated here and to strengthen their image in the computer market.  Some of our suggestions are unrealistic: we’re not going to see a complete overhaul in quality control or a CoreQuartzSuperGameEngineX API.  But Apple could very well do something about the ragtag state of the Mac UI with Leopard, or replace the repugnant Mighty Mouse, or even address some of the cumulative shortcomings of .Mac.  What I predict we’ll see in mid-January are more features of Leopard (well, duh), possibly a new computer model or iPod, and complete neglect for everything we’ve written here.  We’ll have to wait and see.

We’re counting on you, Apple!  Please don’t let us down.