> And, IMHO, that's why Apple haven't kept Server.app up to date. There's just no demand for it any more.
This seems to be a primary driver of the software-rot found all across Apple's ecosystem. iOS is generally pretty well-maintained; macOS less-so. Apps like Music are kept in better condition than, say, Podcasts. Etc. You can almost directly correlate how unpopular a piece (or feature) of its first-party software is with how buggy it is. Which I guess makes some amount of sense, but it really tarnishes Apple's image as a company selling high-end products.
To be fair, their hardware standards have held up much better over the years than their software standards. Most recent hardware problems have been design choices, like the keyboards and ports shenanigans. The execution is still rock-solid.
In software, on the other hand, the latest macOS update introduced a bug in Notes where now if I hit the Tab key (entering an actual tab character), that whole line of text becomes invisible. Just invisible. I can highlight the text and see that it's still there, but without highlighting, it's invisible. It's very reproducible, this is not an obscure corner case. And this is at a time when Apple is attempting to ramp up its online services like Notes.
They didn't fail after a year or so, they failed when dust particles got in there because it was physically impossible to make that design not do that. They reworked it and reworked it but it just couldn't be done. Finally they admitted it was a mistake to require that level of thinness from a design standpoint.
But putting that aside, I still see that as an execution flaw, or at least, it's a way in which design and execution are so intertwined that the distinction no longer makes sense. A computer with a non-replacable keyboard that breaks after a year is a badly-executed product. The way to execute it better would be a keyboard that doesn't break, whatever design decisions that entails.
The way I see it is those doing the executing were handed an impossible constraint. Immediately upon having that constraint loosened, the keyboards became pretty much perfect.
Okay, I just experimented a little further (I didn't bother the first time, just switched to a different text editor), and it's slightly narrower than I thought:
1) Enable dark mode
2) Open a new note
3) Tab twice, then type text which will be invisible
It appears to be any line with two or more tabs of indentation. Not two or more relative to the previous line, but two or more period.
Research In Motion (RIM) later renamed to BlackBerry Ltd. 37Signals renamed to Basecamp. I wonder if at some point Apple Inc. would rename to iPhone Inc.
Apple has already changed their name twice. From Apple Computer Company to Apple Computer, Inc to Apple Inc.
The biggest part of their business has shifted from computers to phones but I doubt they expect the iPhone to be their biggest product in the future forever, so I don’t think they would pigeonhole themselves when their name and logo is so ubiquitous.
Research In Motion meant nothing for most people while the Blackberry brand was strong and instantly recognizable. 37Signals was also renamed after the much stronger brand of their core product. Apple and iPhone are both just as powerful.
Companies like Apple, Nike, Mercedes, Coca-Cola will never completely change the name (maybe some variations here and there, without touching the core name) simply because the brand is so recognizable. It would be throwing money and image down the drain and it would just cause confusion.
Should have said BMW :). Then again Daimler is far less known across the world than Mercedes. My point was that when you have a strong brand you don't mess with it. You go from a weak brand to a strong one, not the other way around.
But did that have more to do with the Beatles agreeing to it rather than anything else? I was under the impression that Apple had wanted to make the switch much earlier.
The Apple brand is one of the strongest brands in the world. Blackberry was always a bigger brand than RIM itself. Doesn't make sense to ditch an abandon a big brand.
Another interesting case is when HP decided to spin off their PC business: they gave the HP brand to that new company.
That’s different. When they started out the only thing coming to mind when someone said Apple was fruit. That changed, so they dropped the now redundant “computer”.
No. When Apple Computer first started, the Beatles "business" was called Apple Corp. This has resulted in several lawsuits between the Beatles and Apple.
I definitely used it as a DNS server internally and a few of the other functions. I was totally bummed to see them strip effectively all useful functionality from it. :-/
This seems to be a primary driver of the software-rot found all across Apple's ecosystem. iOS is generally pretty well-maintained; macOS less-so. Apps like Music are kept in better condition than, say, Podcasts. Etc. You can almost directly correlate how unpopular a piece (or feature) of its first-party software is with how buggy it is. Which I guess makes some amount of sense, but it really tarnishes Apple's image as a company selling high-end products.