This is a yarn of three threads, and it got a bit long. The tldr is
The story is personal, but I hope readers find something they can relate to in their own life stream.
Manav
Feb 2024
Apple cares for me as a customer, but it doesn’t care for me as a developer. This dynamic had been subconsciously griefing me for years, until I was able to formulate it consciously recently.
The dependency goes Developer -> Apple and Apple -> Consumer, there is no reverse arrow from Apple to the developers.
If all developers stopped building for Apple's platforms tomorrow, Apple will still survive, almost intact, since it doesn’t hurt their core value prop (I'll expand on this below). Apple has no dependency on individual developers. They care for and need to collaborate with corporate dev “partners”, but that's different.
Since companies, especially ginormous multinationals, behave in purely game theoretic cost/benefit terms, and since Apple has no reason to care about developers: indeed it doesn’t.
Just to restate the obvious - such a stance isn't necessarily the case. There are other multinationals who've figured that developers form a core part of their strategy.
This realisation has made me happier since I now know my place. I can like their products without wanting to develop for them.
Google has a bug. I have dynamic light/dark mode, and if I search on Google at night, the first page shows up in light mode. With the rest of my machine in a subdued state, the glaring white of the background hurts my eyes.
In the morning, my laptop automatically switches back to light mode. Now when I search on Google, the results first show up in an unreadable black background.
One would think that of all the leetcode certified staff, there must be someone there who would know an O(n) algorithm for fixing this bug. But no, this bug has persisted for years (I've counted), and it is unlikely to be fixed in the future unless it gets accidentally fixed as part of some overhaul.
Apologies for the snide, I know some great people who work there. My point is that Google isn't fixing this bug not because it doesn’t know how to, but because it doesn’t care. This bug has zero impact on its bottom line.
The people like me who use alternate search engines like DDG have already moved on years ago. The rest of the (overwhelming) majority is stuck with Google. No matter how bad their search is - UX or results - they have a captive audience.
I think DDG etc also have a marketing blind spot - they keep pitching themselves as a more privacy friendly alternative, they never go after the main course. I don’t use DDG because of its privacy benefits, I use it because it reminds me of early Google - simple low clutter UX, good quality verbatim search results, and unobtrusive ads.
Okay Manav, but I thought you were ranting about Apple, why bring in Google?
Google is an example where I never grieved much because I understood the dynamics. I know that I, the customer, am not their game theoretic target. So when I have to invariably use their products and face another user hostile interaction, I try to shrug it off and move on. I know that Google has entered a rent seeking phase, and while it is sad that the world is giving all its video content up to it for even more of a hostage situation in the future, but that’s for governments to deal with.
With Apple I didn’t understand the dynamics.
2009-ish. I struggled to find a computer for my mom. Windows (at that time, I don't know about now) was just too insecure. Linux required constant tech support. Eventually I prepared for her an OpenBSD machine running Firefox and a basic game (Bubbles I think).
Obviously, this was not ideal. It fulfilled some goals - it worked without requiring any tech support when I wasn't around, and I was ensuring her data safety and privacy - and she was surprisingly happy with too. But I was not happy about how this was such a shrivelled parody of what things could be, and how it limited the ways she could use computers to enrich her life.
Around this time, I joined a new job as a developer for a company that was making iOS apps. After a week or so of using the mac at work it hit me - this is the computer I wanted for my mom!
That is Apple’s value prop.
As soon as I had saved enough I bought her a MacBook. And heartfeltly thanked Steve Jobs for engendering it.
The earth has done many a revolutions since then, and Jobs has left earth, and the form factor my mother uses has changed from a laptop to an iPad. But it still satisfies that core value prop.
Let's consider a different context. Even if there were no apps in my phone, I would still buy an iPhone. For myself likely, but most certainly for her.
The people running Apple know all this. In the deep dungeons of Menlo Park when there are meetings of the core council, after all the sacrificial lambs have been slain and the blood and gore washed away, out comes the elder spreadsheet that encodes Apple’s business model, but nowhere in them is any cell, input or output, which involves developers. Sure, Apple doesn't mind if developers are also happy. But it knows it doesn’t need to care if they are.
This lack of caring is never expressed out loud. It isn’t some conspiracy, it just is one of those things - you wouldn’t walk up to someone who you don’t care about and tell them you don’t care.
Unfortunately all this results in sometimes schizophrenic behaviour on Apple’s part, as there are many individuals working at Apple who do care about developers and are trying to make things better.
2016-ish. As part of my annual Apple simping I was watching WWDC when they announced Apple Music APIs.
I was ecstatic. My coworkers were puzzled at my ecstasy, “All this, can’t we already do with Spotify’s API?”. I didn’t know how to answer that, so I just repeated how this changes everything.
Of course, and as is usual, I was wrong. It didn’t change everything. In fact, it didn’t change anything.
Apple’s own music player was, and still is, unusably bad. Even talking about it makes me angry. The people making it can’t be so incompetent, and it seems to be working for the rest of the world, so I've never known what to make of this situation.
With the APIs out, I'd thought maybe things will change. But nothing happened. Apple’s own player continues to make my blood pressure high anytime I have to use it. And whatever alternative players I have tried just all seem to go for the same generic “Spotify” approach to music.
I think it is because the people who're making these apps were never around in the Justin Frankel era of Winamp, and haven't seen how a music player can provide a fast, seamless, endless yet still personal approach to music.
That era is not coming back because it relied on piracy, but luckily we don't need to anymore - that's the great thing about Apple's music catalog! We can recreate that experience without needing to sail the high seas.
So that's the backstory. Now recently I had a bunch of free time, and thought that I’ll write a music player. Mostly for myself, but I also wanted to write a tutorial. This is what I wrote in the README in the first commit:
Here I'll be writing down my notes as I build Flowers. The world needs not one music player, or two, but many: each of us has our own way of connecting with music, and so maybe these notes will help others build the flower they want, nay need.
Cute, dumb, and in vain.
As I went about it, I realized that 8 years down the line, not only is the API still buggy, it is also still not public!
Firstly you need to pay Apple. No, not for bulk usage etc, but just to try out the API. So there there goes my dream of writing a walkthrough – nobody’s going to pay Apple 100 bucks just to try things out. And it also partially explains why there has been no innovation.
But that's not even it - Even if you pay them, you get a restricted API.
The point where I disgustedly gave up was when I found out that while I was
jumping all these kafkaesque hoops, instead you could just go to Apple's own web
music player, type MusicKit.getInstance().developerToken in your
browser console, and you’ll get an unrestricted root token for free!
All these anecdotes Manav, what does all this mean?
Write code that runs on the web. We’re lucky to have a shared platform that no single entity owns. Even benevolence can be ruined by incompetence.
The web platform is in a precarious place – overreaching governments, browser duopolies, a complex developer ecosystem – so it is not a given it’ll remain thriving. But so far it has survived. And every year longer it survives, the more the chances that it’ll continue to thrive in the future.
Ironically Google is the good guy here, they’re doing great work for the web. On the other hand, literally every single workaround I’ve had to write in the recent past in web related code has been due to Safari's princessness.
Which brings me to the third thread of this story, how all this made me reevalute my relationship with companies.
Someone I know, someone who has a better grip on living than me, told me once that it's not useful to put people into the buckets of good and bad. People are a mix. Bad folks can do good actions sometimes, and vice versa.
I don't know to what extent I've been able to internalize their message, but that's for another day. What I realized is that the same applies to companies.
Companies are like people. I don't know if they're sentient, but otherwise they share many attributes with us: they're intelligent (they were the AI before AI), have personalities, they are born, thrive, live and die, they're even legal persons.
Just like we can't live without other people, we can't live without companies. They have many inhumane characteristics, but like them or not, such fractal conceptions of human organizations will always be around.
By not permanently bucketing companies into good or bad, I can have a more fluid interaction with them - I can reduce my dependence on them when they try to put me in a zero sum game, or reengage more with them if they're willing to be more symbiotic. Nothing is set in stone, really.