I see some deeply enthusiastic comments like this whenever it’s mentioned. I wonder how much lack of adoption is simply lack of awareness. Apple needs to find ways to make experimenting with it, and experiencing specific use cases, more approachable. I’m not going to go to the Apple Store to try it — I don’t care enough. Maybe one day I’ll happen to do that, but I’ve got enough social anxiety (which is a low amount!) to not want to ask someone in a busy Apple Store to let me strap the VR goggles to my face for 30 minutes of experimenting with a code editor.
Idk if there’s an easy solution to this — maybe shared setups distributed to WeWork type spaces or something… but I suspect it’s the main barrier to adoption, assuming even just 10% of developers would share the same experience as you when they try it for the first time. (Or maybe there’s also a learning curve where it sucks on first experience, and your body gets used to it only after some prolonged usage?)
The biggest barrier to adoption is of course the price. To pay $3,500+ I'd better be damn sure I will use it every day, and even though I did the 30 min demo I still have no idea if it would be tolerable for longer periods.
I've said before and I'll say it again, Apple/Meta need to have rental stands in major airports so I can rent a Vision Pro or Meta Quest for my cross-country flights. That would be a huge way to "try before you buy" !
They will, but they won’t realize it’s writing code. It will look like Claude Cowork, which writes code for itself under the hood but is results-oriented for the user.
Co-work is damn near magic. I've been working on a mapping project the past few days, am probably a couple hundred prompts deep in to it (I'm doing some very weird stuff with the data to produce a hybrid map). The processing pipeline is something like 12k lines of python and counting.
I’d like to see less focus on Playwright and more focus on giving the agent more than just an MCP to browser automation. Make it multi-modal, figure out how to optimize when to send screenshots to which model, etc… current coding harnesses are awful at any UI automation because they’re just automating DevTools and occasionally screenshotting. It’s obviously robotic, it’s slow, it’s ineffective and makes it difficult for the agent to validate success of code changes.
Generalized computer use is what will ultimately solve this, but I think there’s real intermediate value in optimizing browser workflows specifically, as a medley of remote browser automation and multi-modal browser use.
Good question. You can actually see the searches it runs (momentarily) so testing could determine if it's using public search engines or a private system.
Datacenter operators who rent space are selling electricity. SpaceX is selling a fully built datacenter with compute designed for a specific purpose. They’re operating at a higher level of the value chain and can charge accordingly.
What's their novelty or moat to maintain the value chain? And why do we only see google, who already owns it, raising their hand to rent at these prices?
I’m not sure they need novelty or moat. AI compute resources are so scarce that inference providers will buy whatever is available. SpaceX sells inference hardware in bulk, with a proven track record of running inference and training workloads at scale.
What? They make money from their own inference and models too, which they can train effectively for free by funding their operations with rental income from their last gen datacenter.
SpaceX and Tesla used aggressive vertical integration, manufacturing simplification, and reuse to radically lower the cost of building rockets and EVs. It's not unreasonable to speculate they might be able to do the same for hyperscale compute.
When I download a new app on iOS, I immediately disable searching it and disable background updates. I hate the search feature and only use it as an app launcher when I’m accidentally not on the App Library screen.
On macOS, I also disable spotlight for everything because the indexing process has been the single biggest culprit of CPU spikes when it’s doing something insane like indexing a git repo. Again, I only use Spotlight as an app launcher.
I wish it were easier to opt into this “App Launcher only” mode. I had to really tinker with the settings to exclude everything except applications. And I’m sure I’m going to need to do it all over again after this update.
People talk about Liquid Glass as if it equal on all fronts. It's absolutely not. Apple knows which way their bread is buttered, that they can't mess up the iPhone. So Liquid Glass is fine on iOS. It's on Mac that it's a garbage fire of ridiculous design decisions.
Still the best OS around, but it looks like it was made by idiots.
Agreed, but seems like we're the odd ones out. I keep hearing how Liquid Glass is ok on iOS and terrible on macOS, but I actually think it's (slightly) better on macOS than on iOS.
At least macOS has configurability to turn off all the transparency. iOS just looks bad no matter how you configure it right now.
Try messing with the settings more. Grayscale (or whatever it’s called) makes the transparency much more tolerable, or even _nice_, than with multi-color.
It’s also more palatable on iOS because you only have one window open at a time. Many of the complaints around Liquid Glass on macOS are focused on window management and issues that only occur with multiple windows on screen simultaneously.
Yeah it seems like they are finally reconsidering their position of unifying ios and macos somewhat. I wish they would revert settings on the mac back to it's old 'control panel' days.
I really think Mac OS is one of the worst operating systems to begin with. How is liquid glass going to make it worse. I will 100% leave the criticism of liquid glass on Mac OS to others.
But Liquid Glass on iOS has been one of my favorite updates. I like the look and feel of it. They made some tangentially related changes that go too far.
Luckily for Apple, their primary competitor has managed to make their OS even worse. Windows becomes more unusable with every update, and on top of that, continues shoving telemetry and advertising into the OS. I installed windows on a laptop as an experiment and was shocked to see ads in the start menu. Who wants that?!
The best OS is probably something between Ubuntu and macOS. But nothing beats macOS on default, works out of the box, secure and usable and integrated with ecosystems of daily life.
I already agree with you on every single point. But Finder, holy heck is Finder awful. As someone who uses a filesystem as a first-class feature of an operating system, Finder it's one of the most horrible things about Mac OS.
I say this as someone who uses and has owned too many Macs, but can just never make them my primary machine. I promise, I've spent the last 30 years trying to make them my main.
the truth (that most people here would tell you) is that macos may be worse than linux, but it's generally understood, you can install companions for proprietary hardware much more easily and coworkers won't look at you with a blank stare when you explain that you're switching them all to it for mdm purposes (as they would with linux/windows).
it's worse in the same way a rally car is better than a 4 door sedan. Apple gives you something that runs and drives but linux can rip. Even using aerospace on my mac doesn't come close to the comfort I felt with sway on nixos
I'm in the same camp. I'm glad that I chose now to get my carrier-backed phone update because I wouldn't have been able to endure the keyboard still breaking and apps popping in like the interface is a windows ce skin for very long
> business people don't understand why you can't just put their app in production
I’d flip that around and say that engineers don’t understand that sometimes you _can_ just put their app into production. It might take some cleanup, and some clever ways of deploying it in isolation, but some of these “vibe coded prototypes” — many made by technical business people (they do exist) – are much closer to production-ready than you might initially assume.
I’d encourage you to challenge your assumptions before dismissing the possibility. I’ve personally seen this workflow produce real production code, used by customers, in an extremely rapid feedback loop. Now is the time to adapt, not push back. Keep an open mind or you’ll be left behind.
An open mind to not having a knee jerk reaction to “this is vibe coded therefore it’s not production-ready.” The delta between the prototype and production is likely far lower than you think, and many engineers are sneering at the prototype without actually looking at it or attempting to spend a few weeks applying engineering discipline to bring it up to scratch.
What is being sneered at is these prototypes being put into production. What is being demanded is that additional engineering time to make sure it's actually up to scratch.
> Now is the time to adapt, not push back. Keep an open mind or you’ll be left behind.
That’s not the gating factor. Who picks up the liability accountability and picks up the pager duty at o’dark thirty when it breaks in production, that’s the big gate. That long tail of accountability for operational risk weeds out a ton of Eager Ethan’s who want to see something go live yesterday. Because the success of launching has many fathers while the failures in the operational long tail is an orphan.
Get them to sign up for the long tail troubleshooting operations of the product. They are after all, now the SME on the product having built 90% of it. The full promise of AI in such a world is deploying and operating an AI-forward application is an artificial distinction, and full conviction means fully committing to the operational model.
I actually agree with you, although I don't agree with the "open your mind or be left behind" sentiment. I left it implicit in my example, but in my actual experience they actually can't put it in production as it is because there are genuine broken things or features they can't add without rewriting big chunks of the system. The worst are the ones that are not obviously broken but are just wrong, like incorrect numbers in a financial report.
But yes, I do agree that some engineers and some engineering teams are slow and cautious where it's not needed, to the point of obstructing rapid prototyping and iteration. And yes I agree that AI will be good to help push them to overcome it.
It's not about turning out the necessary lines of code. It's about doing the critical thinking, validating of assumptions, etc. which was not done the first time around.
Yes, AI can assist with the brute force of broad scale factoring. But without the humans and domain experts involved, you are going to either keep flailing around at the cost of millions of tokens, or something actually really bad in production that you don't even understand and won't work for your business.
The lines of code have never been a bottleneck for the actual engineering team. That's why AI is so good for expediting the prototype cycle and allowing stakeholders to develop their own prototypes, but why you still need someone who actually knows what they're doing to finish the project, whether they are manually typing the lines of code or letting Claude do it.
In my experience, business people are chomping at the bit to build and manage the ops for their apps, but it's always an "IT Operating Model" that is thrown back at them
As someone who's had to deal with a fair share of these types of sentiments, they have been, without exception, based on incompetence, and demonstrably wrong.
That isn't to say that there aren't cases where "just do the happy path" is actually sufficient, and the right thing to do. However, and bit overly simplified, but the non-happy-path is almost always the important parts of a system. It's the monitoring. Disaster recovery. Error handling and correction. Well thought out data models that prepare for future features, etc.
Security, legal considerations, internal controls and tracking for monitoring.
See, corporate means usually financial services. Money laundering is a thing here and there are deliberately checks and controls implemented as well as boundaries which don't allow for "deploy to PROD instantly" processes since they pose a red flag.
For example, PEN testing is mandatory as well as token handling to connect to the right backend.
Legal, as a hint, has a show stopping word in here. Every text, that surfaces, needs to be approved first, and also documented. "How inflexibel and anti-business" you might think, but here is the kicker: the wrong words as well as wording gets you into trouble faster than you can imagine.
Here is one example out of many dangerous mistakes, that cost you dearly besides a noticeable shitstorm:
We (one of the largest banks operating globally) were 2017 (!) already closely monitored which means, every change would not be undetected. And we are not talking about days later, but instantly, seconds later.
We have to follow certain obligations in certain countries to conform to legislation. So we are also obliged to incorporate changes, but these had to follow strictly the letters of the law. So if you deploy this change 5 minutes too early or too late for a specific day, you could be hit by a lawsuit. Ridiculous you might say and I somehow have to agree but my opinion does not play a relevant role here or better: won't change because I follow law while keeping my opinion.
And this is also something that disallows for the "vibe code to PROD" myth: Usually many teams and departments are involved.
I am glad I worked in corporate, because my understanding went from the cocky and totally arrogant "One team from us would beat you all easily. You are totally outdated." line to the "Well, now I understand that it is a difference to be under scrutiny globally and have to define responsibility as well as accountability depending on the context. And god forgive me, that I had no insights into a huge regulated machine, that has serious redundancy, however it works and rebels do more harm than good."
Yeah but you’re not supposed to say it out loud. The bigger part of this story is Nadella saying (paraphrased) that he has no clue who wrote the document and that guy should look for a new job.
1. There’s real profit/value expected in pursuing the full automation of the labor market to the extent that the Board will approve large debts to known allies (BH) who only invest in long term infrastructure.
So they are investing in more AI infrastructure with long term capital because they see the payoff in the long term.
2. That also means they aren’t doing market moving plays in public like selling corporate debt because they don’t want to be in the short term froth with a long term bet.
Capital is cheap for Google because they are making a lot of money and they have very little debt.
They are considered a very low risk and can borrow for a long time at low rates. They recently issued a 100 year bond.
They seem to have decided to issue equity rather than borrow more. This is probably so that they can maintain the ability to borrow very cheaply in future if necessary.
Sorry I am not buying into that. In your logic they should issue more debt. Their operating margin is lowest compared to Microsoft and meta. If oil goes to 200 tomorrow their profit margin will be squeezed most along with meta. (Ads) Backlog in cloud does not mean shit imo. They can slow roll it. Matter of fact half of that backlog seems backed by anthropic anyway. So imagine anthropic not making money because of a down turn and going down. Who will pay the backlog? This is exactly why they are diluting their stock instead of issuing more debt, they don't want to put all their eggs in one basket and want to retain capital for such downturn. That's how I read it.
They've already issued $80B in 6 markets/currencies. How much more do you think they can raise at a decent rate? I think they might issue more next year.
Issuing new equity might be a financial engineering experiment. No other mag7 has tried it. Plus they got BH name on the plate.
Idk if there’s an easy solution to this — maybe shared setups distributed to WeWork type spaces or something… but I suspect it’s the main barrier to adoption, assuming even just 10% of developers would share the same experience as you when they try it for the first time. (Or maybe there’s also a learning curve where it sucks on first experience, and your body gets used to it only after some prolonged usage?)
reply