I think that if every app has to explain to the user how to use their own operating system, that operating system is not intuitive. I’ve been using Macs for a long time but I had to look up how to install an app the first time I did it.
Example of this would be the ability to open a can of soda. You can do it because you saw someone else do it. Now give the can to an Amazon tribe that never saw the can nor how to do it before.
Windows uninstallers also do not clean up the system and leave trash everywhere. The registry is often the most litter filed area. Even Microsoft's _cleanmgr.exe_ does not fully clean your Temp folder and a manual removal is needed.
As a user of a number of systems; Mac installation is the cleanest and most simple. Linux's closest would be AppImage packaged applications.
Windows is one of the worst because often they are un-scriptable and require the end user to always interact. Mac and Linux can script their installations with ease. I'm saying this as someone that needs to manage systems which are air-gaped and service by others.
So as long as an interface is consistent with prior interfaces I guess it is "intuitive"
I have never used mac, but it sounds like a good interface to me, not the .dmg one, that one is. weird. but where the application is self constrained in it's own directory. The traditional unix method where the parts go according to their function (/bin /lib /share and all the /usr variants) is fine when all the software is system software(promotes reuse) and sort of works when you have a sys-admin whose job is to incorporate third-party software as system software(central package systems also fit this category), But it really starts to stink when you have independent third parties packaging their own software.
Another way to think about it is what is the best hierarchy function/application or application/function
And then some dickhead put nipples on laptop keyboards and it was awful.
It is a niche use case but it made me a convert.