NonNefarious

Amen to all that, especially the headphone jack. I'd respect the company more for these anti-customer moves if they'd be honest about it or just say nothing.

But the stupid excuses for removing the jack are insulting to consumers and make Apple look like assholes.

I wonder what motivates the on-going degradation of UI that was sorted properly for years. The insertion-point and keyboard failures mentioned here are examples, and then there's the (widely scorned) new notification UI on Mac. Half the time you can't even dismiss a notification because the peek-a-boo X disappears when you roll ONTO the dialog. And the "snooze," etc. options are often missing. And if you have more than one notification, they're shown as a stack and the only dismissal option is "dismiss all." There's no way to just dismiss the top one and see what the next one in the stack is.

Oh yeah, and while we're on this, how about the suddenly asinine Groups functionality in your iOS contacts? You used to go into Groups, pick the type of contacts you wanted to see, then go back to the list. For example, let's say you have a group called Doctors. You'd go in there, press Doctors, and boom you're browsing your doctors.

Now when you go into groups, you have to manually scroll through them and hunt down and un-check whatever group(s) you're currently viewing, and then select the one you want to view. Who the hell manages categories like that? It's especially stupid when you consider that you can put people into more than one group at a time.

<click>

Candidate 1 has left the chat

That seems to be overstating their "failure" here. It seems that the person they actually interviewed may have been qualified, personable, and so forth. The problem is that a TOTALLY DIFFERENT PERSON showed up to work. How is that a failure in "vetting?"

I haven't been through a cold hire in a while (where I wasn't already known to the company), but I suppose the only solution is to demand photo ID and check online records as well. But I doubt many companies actually do this.

Uh-oh, some pro-illiteracy lobbyist has down-modded me.

I will decide what's appropriate, thanks.

I'm not saying it isn't impressive, but on the other hand... if you fire enough shots at something, you're eventually going to hit it. Where do you draw the line?

"He done it?"

Into "mo?"

Whatever that is.

Buried.

And also: Use tabs.

Is this to work around the way Apple has utterly and bafflingly broken the insertion-point handling in iOS?

It worked fine for years, and now suddenly it takes five tries to invoke the "select all", "paste", or whatever menu. And moving the insertion point? Cumbersome shitshow.

"It highlights them because they are a direct contrast to nearly every other interface feature on iOS."

Hahaha, really? That's a laughable claim. Tell us how to remove a city from the Weather app then.

The G in "GUI" stands for "graphical." People forget that when they defend shitty, undiscoverable UI. The examples in this article are right on point. Apple (and others) far too often simply punt and give up on doing the necessary design work, burying functionality behind some bullshit like "long presses" or "gestures" or modifier keys or modifier-key-clicking on a text label that isn't even demarcated as a control.

UI design takes time and thought; that's true. But why does a company with Apple's resources not bring the necessary effort to bear on it? It's not as if they can't afford it. Sure, there are time constraints, but if you're going to fold to those and trowel out shitty UI, then don't presume to publish "human interface guidelines" or other such bibles.

And it's high time to stop tolerating smug douchebags who denigrate any complaint about missing functionality and declare, "Well, you simply long-press Option-Shift-Command-Q to bring up the configuration menu."

Just found out my hearing is ruined, thanks to a useless booster.

Apparently someone from the Xcode team modded that down. There's always someone eager to take offense at facts.

Thanks for that referral.

On a side note: I like Swift for the most part, but the last time I looked at upcoming language features they seemed like a kitchen-sink approach that's bloating the language and would better have been left to libraries. I've read this sentiment in more than one place, too.

It's capitalized in the title, so it's a PROPER noun. And I've worked in software development for a long time, and have read HN regularly for a long time, and I've never heard of "Backstage" as software.

There's a wide world out there, which some HN posters "forget."

Why would Apple be interested? They really don't care about applications anymore.

I'm a bit surprised they even bother with FCP and Motion at this point. I have no idea what they would do with Figma. They can't even get SwiftUI to work after several years, so offering up a design product as part of Xcode or something would definitely be lipstick on a pig.

Backstage is a well-known entertainment-industry site and publication. What's the motivation for trying to duplicate it?

No, it's an abolished house at Hogwarts.

See FunnyBadger's comment above. Whoever mods statements like this down exemplifies the final sentiment.

Illegible because of paywall. Please remove.

Lenovo pulls some pretty underhanded shit, so I wouldn't put it past them. Just one example of at least a couple I remember: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29958247

But Verizon was caught continuing to charge the subsidy payback amount every month AFTER the customer had fully paid off the subsidy.

I arrived at that through the entire C++/OO/pre-built-components hype of '90s and beyond, the failure of which was blamed on a non-codified ABI.

The user can't "cancel the plan," though. It's a CONTRACT. That's why the entire scam is backward.

Under contract, the user has to pay the original company every month. It's actually GOOD for that company if the user takes his phone elsewhere, because now he has to pay for service he's not using. That's why locking the phone is mind-bogglingly stupid.

This arrangement is idiotic, though. Under contract, the user still has to pay the original company if he takes his phone to another network. Why PREVENT that?

Actually that's backward. Monthly plans are for UNlocked phones.

The idiotic thing about locked phones in the USA is that they're given to customers who are ON CONTRACT. Therefore, if the customer takes his phone to another network, he still has to pay the original one! Why on earth would the phone company want to prevent people from paying for service they're not even using?

The sheer stupidity of this behavior is almost worse than the offensiveness of the entire phone-locking concept.

ABI shenanigans are what killed the whole "off-the-shelf components" promise of C++ and object orientation.

They really made the same mistake again?

Then you are also arguing in favor of the Oxford comma.

"We're having hot dogs, hamburgers, and peanut butter and jelly.

OK. I didn't see that. I wonder if they updated it.