Apple yesterday announced a broad, wide-ranging, and complex set of new policies establishing their intended compliance with the European Union’s Digital Markets Act, which comes into effect March 7. There is a lot to remark upon and numerous remaining questions, but my favorite take was from Sebastiaan de With on Twitter/X, the day before any of this was announced.

After quipping “Oh god please no” to a screenshot of the phrase “Spotify also wants to roll out alternate app stores”, de With had this conversation:

de With:

The EU is once again solving absolutely no problems and making everything worse in tech. I gotta say, they are if anything highly consistent.

“Anton”:

Overly powerful, rent-seeking gatekeepers seem like a problem.

de With:

I love that I can’t tell if you are talking about the EU or Apple in this case.

My second-favorite take, from that same thread, was this from Max Rovensky:

DMA is not pro-consumer.

It’s anti-big-business.

Those tend to coincide sometimes, which makes it an easy sell for the general public, but do actually read the DMA, it’s quite interesting.

I’d go slightly further and describe the DMA as anti-U.S.-big-business, because as far as I can tell, nothing in the DMA adversely affects or even annoys any European tech companies. There are aspects of it that seem written specifically for Spotify, in fact.

But Rovensky’s framing captures the dichotomy. Anti-big-business regulation and pro-consumer results often do go hand-in-hand, but the DMA exposes the fissures. I do not think the DMA is going to change much, if anything at all, for the better for iOS users in the E.U. (Or for non-iOS users in the EU, for that matter.) And much like the GDPR’s website cookie regulations, I think if it has any practical effect, it’ll be to make things worse for users. Whether these options are better for developers seems less clear.

I’ve often said that Apple’s priorities are consistent: Apple’s own needs first, users second, developers third. The European Commission’s priorities put developers first, users second, and “gatekeepers” a distant third. The DMA prescribes not a win-win-win framework, but a win-win-lose one.

Apple is proud, stubborn, arrogant, controlling, and convinced it has the best interests of its customers in mind.

The European Commission is proud, stubborn, arrogant, controlling, and convinced it has the best interests of its citizens in mind.

Ever since this collision over the DMA seemed inevitable, starting about two years ago, I’ve been trying to imagine how it would turn out. And each time, I start by asking: Which side is smarter? My money has been on Apple. Yesterday’s announcements, I think, show why.

Apple’s Proposed Changes

It’s really hard to summarize everything Apple announced yesterday, but I’ll try. Start with the main Apple Newsroom press release, “Apple Announces Changes to iOS, Safari, and the App Store in the European Union”:

“The changes we’re announcing today comply with the Digital Markets Act’s requirements in the European Union, while helping to protect EU users from the unavoidable increased privacy and security threats this regulation brings. Our priority remains creating the best, most secure possible experience for our users in the EU and around the world,” said Phil Schiller, Apple Fellow. “Developers can now learn about the new tools and terms available for alternative app distribution and alternative payment processing, new capabilities for alternative browser engines and contactless payments, and more. Importantly, developers can choose to remain on the same business terms in place today if they prefer.”

Schiller is the only Apple executive quoted in the press release, and to my ear, his writing hand is all over the entire announcement. Apple was quite clear before the DMA was put into law that they considered mandatory sideloading on iOS a bad idea for users, and their announcement yesterday doesn’t back down an inch from still declaring it a bad idea.

Apple has also argued, consistently, that they seek to monetize third-party development for the iOS platform, and that being forced to change from their current system — (a) all apps must come from the App Store; (b) developers never pay anything for the distribution of free apps; (c) paid apps and in-app-purchases for digital content consumed in-app must go through Apple’s In-App Payments system that automates Apple’s 30/15 percent commissions — would greatly complicate how they monetize the platform. And now Apple has revealed a greatly complicated set of rules and policies for iPhone apps in the EU.

MG Siegler has a great — and fun — post dissecting Apple’s press release line-by-line. Siegler concludes:

I’m honestly not sure I can recall a press release dripping with such disdain. Apple may even have a point in many of the points above, but the framing of it would just seem to ensure that Apple is going to continue to be at war with the EU over all of this and now undoubtedly more. Typically, if you’re going to make some changes and consider the matter closed, you don’t do so while emphatically shoving your middle fingers in the air.

Some of these changes do seem good and useful, but most simply seem like convoluted changes to ensure the status quo actually doesn’t change much, if at all. Just remember that, “importantly, developers can choose to remain on the same business terms in place today if they prefer.” What do you think Apple prefers?

The puzzle Apple attempted to solve was creating a framework of new policies — and over 600 new developer APIs to enable those policies — to comply with the DMA, while keeping the path of least resistance and risk for developers the status quo: Apple’s own App Store as it is.

So the first option for developers is to do nothing — to stay in Apple’s App Store, exclusively, under the existing terms. (Apple made a few announcements yesterday that are effective worldwide, not merely in the EU, such as changes regarding the rules for streaming game services, mini-games, and mini-apps. For the sake of brevity — well, attempted brevity — I’m focusing on E.U.-specific changes related to DMA compliance.)

One point of confusion is that some aspects of Apple’s proposed DMA compliance apply to the App Store across all platforms (iPhone, iPad, Mac, TV, Watch, and soon, Vision), but other aspects are specific to the iOS platform — which is to say, only the iPhone. Third-party app marketplaces¹ and web browsers using non-WebKit rendering engines are only available on iOS specifically, meaning they are iPhone-only,² and not available for iPadOS. Apple’s main press release yesterday breaks out iOS changes and App Store changes separately, but on my first read did not make clear that the iOS changes did not apply to iPadOS.³

Here’s my summary of the options available to developers in the EU, under Apple’s proposal:

1. Stay in App Store under the current (pre-DMA) rules, exclusively. Developers that take this option:
   • Are not permitted to use any of the new business terms available in the EU, but new iOS platform options for the EU, such as alternate browser engines, are allowed. (Because they are required to be allowed.)
   • Because nothing business-related changes under this option, the existing worldwide rules apply for paid apps, subscriptions, and in-app purchases (IAP), including the 30/15 percent commission to Apple and a requirement that apps exclusively use Apple’s App Store payments system.
   • The Core Technology Fee (CTF) is not collected, because the business terms haven’t changed. (See below re: the CTF.)
2. Opt in to the new EU rules (all sub-options available under this choice require paying the Core Technology Fee for each app with over 1 million downloads in the EU):
   • After opting in to the new EU rules, developers can choose to remain in the App Store, and:
     • Use Apple’s App Store payments system: 20/13 percent commission + CTF paid to Apple automatically.
     • Use a custom in-app payments system (e.g. Stripe): 17/10 percent commission + CTF paid to Apple.
     • Use external links from inside apps to the web for payments and subscriptions: 17/10 percent + CTF paid to Apple.
     • The latter two options — using custom payment processing and/or external links to the web — are similar to the announced-last-week External Payment Link entitlement policy, regarding the developer’s obligation to track these payments, report sales to Apple monthly, and submit to audits by Apple to ensure compliance.
   • Distribute apps in one or more third-party marketplaces:
     • No option to use Apple’s App Store payment processing, because the apps aren’t coming from the App Store.
     • The only money due to Apple is the Core Technology Fee — there is no commission percentage on in-app transactions or links to the web.

Under option (2) — the catch-all for opting in to the new rules available in the EU — the sub-options are not mutually exclusive. Developers that opt in to the new EU rules can have (or keep) apps in the App Store and distribute those same apps, or different apps, via third-party app marketplaces. Or they can stay in the App Store exclusively (under the new business terms, with lower commissions but also the CTF), or they can distribute exclusively via app marketplaces.

Only options (1) and (2) are exclusive. However, once a developer opts in to the new EU rules, that decision is irrevocable. Quoting from the Q&A section of Apple’s “Update on Apps Distributed in the European Union” document:

Developers who adopt the new business terms at any time will not be able to switch back to Apple’s existing business terms for their EU apps. Apple will continue to give developers advance notice of changes to our terms, so they can make informed choices about their businesses moving forward.

(That entire FAQ section is a good summary and worth reading.)

The Core Technology Fee

Apple’s description of the CTF:

The Core Technology Fee (CTF) reflects Apple’s investment in the tools, technology, and services that enable developers to build and share their apps with Apple users. That includes more than 250,000 APIs, TestFlight, Xcode, and so much more. These tools create a lot of value for developers, whether or not they share their apps on the App Store.

The CTF only applies to developers who adopt the new terms for alternative distribution and payment processing — and whose apps reach exceptional scale. With membership in the Apple Developer Program, eligible developers on the new business terms get a free one million first annual installs per year for each of their apps in the EU. See terms for more details. Under the new business terms for EU apps, Apple estimates that less than 1% of developers would pay a Core Technology Fee.

Apple’s description is clear on the following point, but it’s worth reiterating: the CTF only applies to downloads above 1 million, like a marginal tax rate. So a developer whose app goes from 1,000,000 EU user downloads to 1,000,001 will only owe Apple €0.50 in Core Technology Fees. The CTF is recurring each year however, and updates count as downloads. Installing the same app on multiple devices does not count as multiple installations though.⁴ The CTF is calculated per user, per app, per year. (Apple has a CTF calculator developers can use to game scenarios of prices, distribution method, and download counts.)

In plain language, the DMA demands that Apple unbundle its monetization for the App Store from its monetization of the iOS platform. Apple’s existing, purely commission-based, monetization for iOS apps implicitly bundles together the value provided from the App Store and iOS.

So under option (1) — where developers choose the existing rules for App Store distribution, including App Store exclusivity — nothing changes and Apple collects its 30/15 percent commissions from App Store transactions.

But under option (2) — where developers opt in to the new EU rules — Apple’s monetization for the App Store is severed from its monetization for the iOS platform itself. That’s why the commission fees under the new EU rules are reduced to 20/13 percent for apps distributed through the App Store that use the App Store payment system, and 17/10 percent for apps distributed through the App Store that use custom payment processing. Effectively, Apple is saying that their fair share of App Store distribution is 17/10 percent, and that Apple’s own App Store payment processing is worth an additional 3 percent. (3 percent is almost indisputably a fair estimate for the cost of payment processing alone.)

And, that’s why apps distributed outside the App Store will only pay Apple the CTF, with no commission on sales. The commissions under the new EU rules are only for the App Store, so apps from marketplaces don’t pay them. The Core Technology Fee is how Apple proposes monetizing the value provided by iOS itself.

All developers who opt in to the new EU rules are subject to the CTF. No developers who remain in the App Store under existing policies are subject to the CTF.

Marketplace Apps Are the Only Distribution Outside the App Store

Third-party marketplace apps are the only way for developers to distribute apps in the EU outside the App Store. Apple’s proposal has no option for direct downloads of apps from developer websites. Apple has rules for who can become an app marketplace. You have to be a company, not an individual. You must “provide Apple a stand-by letter of credit from an A-rated (or equivalent by S&P, Fitch, or Moody’s) financial Institution of €1,000,000 to establish adequate financial means in order to guarantee support for your developers and users.” And more. In short, the qualifications aren’t trivial, but nor are they overly complicated.

But marketplace apps must be real “stores”. A marketplace can decide to exclusively distribute apps from a certain category — like games — but must be open to submissions from any developer in that same category. Company XYZ can’t create a marketplace that only distributes XYZ’s own apps. That’s not a proper category. Nor would Apple consider to be a proper category something like, say, “Apps from companies founded by Harvard dropouts whose origins were depicted in fun movies by Aaron Sorkin.”

One key restriction for developers who wish to distribute through multiple stores (including Apple’s App Store): an installation from one store cannot overwrite an existing installation of the same app from another store. The user must manually delete the installation from the old store first, then re-install the app from the other store. Apple claims — reasonably, perhaps — that this restriction is because they don’t know whether a fresh installation from a different store will preserve the data from the app installed via the previous store.

But this also means that if, say, Meta starts distributing their apps through a third-party marketplace (perhaps their own Meta Store), and wishes to encourage iOS users to switch from App Store installations to installations from the Meta Store, each user who does so must delete their existing installations of Meta’s apps before installing the new ones.

Third-party marketplace apps — the actual app store apps — will not be permitted in Apple’s App Store. To install a marketplace app — and third-party app marketplaces will be apps themselves — users must go to the marketplace app’s website. Safari (and other web browsers that adopt new APIs) will offer to install marketplace apps after confirmation from the user that they really want to install it. That confirmation scaresheet and the subsequent installation is provided by the system.

Part of what makes the DMA a terrible law (in this writer’s estimation) is its ambiguity and inscrutable language. It’s completely unclear whether Apple’s proposal to only allow distribution of apps outside the App Store through marketplace apps is compliant. Many proponents of the DMA have been under the conviction that the DMA mandates gatekeeper platforms like iOS to permit direct downloads of apps from the web (like on PCs and Macs). Here’s Article 6, Section 4 of the DMA, boldface emphasis added:

4. The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall, where applicable, not prevent the downloaded third-party software applications or software application stores from prompting end users to decide whether they want to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default. The gatekeeper shall technically enable end users who decide to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default to carry out that change easily.

By Apple’s interpretation, all of those or’s would be and/or’s or and’s if the DMA demanded that iOS support both third-party marketplaces and direct installation of individual apps and games. See below regarding the uncertainty of this interpretation.

Apple Will Still Review All Apps, But With Very Different Rules

All apps for iOS require an Apple Developer Program account.⁵ All apps and every update must still be submitted to Apple for notarization. After review, Apple will then forward apps to each marketplace where the app is distributed. The review policies for apps distributed via marketplace apps are entirely different from the App Store. From Apple’s FAQ, again:

Developers can submit a single binary and will be able to choose alternative distribution options in App Store Connect. Notarization for iOS apps will check for:

• Accuracy — Apps must accurately represent the developer, capabilities, and costs to users.
• Functionality — Binaries must be reviewable, free of serious bugs or crashes, and compatible with the current version of iOS. They cannot manipulate software or hardware in ways that negatively impact the user experience.
• Safety — Apps cannot promote physical harm of the user or public.
• Security — Apps cannot enable distribution of malware or of suspicious or unwanted software. They cannot download executable code, read outside of the container, or direct users to lower the security on their system or device. Also, apps must provide transparency and allow user consent to enable any party to access the system or device, or reconfigure the system or other software.
• Privacy — Apps cannot collect or transmit private, sensitive data without a user’s knowledge or in a manner contrary to the stated purpose of the software.

Apple representatives I’ve been in briefings with — multiple times over the last two days — emphasized that content restrictions that apply to apps distributed in the App Store will not apply to those distributed exclusively in EU marketplaces. Adult content and pornography were cited as examples: porn apps will never be permitted in the App Store, but will not be rejected by Apple for distribution in marketplaces. That will be up to each individual marketplace.

Apple’s review process will involve both automated checks and human review. Private API usage will not be permitted. This restriction, Apple believes, is kosher under the DMA under another provision of Article 6, Section 4, which states:

The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.

So any third-party app that is prevented from appearing in the App Store because it uses private APIs or SPIs will thus also be prevented from appearing in third-party marketplaces. Apps that attempt to circumvent sandbox restrictions, background processing restrictions, etc. will be considered by Apple to “endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system”.

One oddity is that the DMA’s prohibition against content-based restrictions by gatekeepers is that Apple will not be permitted to reject apps or games for piracy or copyright violations. If a rando no-name developer submits for distribution on a third-party marketplace a game that features Buzz Lightyear, Donald Duck, Mario, and Donkey Kong going on a murderous Grand-Theft-Auto-style blood-soaked (among other bodily fluids) rampage, Apple will not be permitted to reject it on copyright violation grounds. They may not be permitted to reject an app titled “Tim Cook Is a Jerk” or “Apple Keynote” either. The DMA is clear that gatekeepers can only reject or block apps for technical reasons, not content reasons, no matter if the content is glaringly illegal. Under the DMA, it’s up to government entities and individual marketplaces to gate apps by content.

The CTF Upends Expectations and Seems to Be Apple’s Defense Against Having Control Over iOS Wrested Away

One of Apple’s strategic concerns about the DMA is protecting the large (and still-growing) revenue it garners from third-party iOS apps. (Duh.) Another is protecting its customers’ privacy, safety, and user experience.

But Apple’s overriding concern is surely control. Control encompasses all of Apple’s concerns, from their own revenue to users’ experiences. Any form of compliance with the DMA necessarily implies Apple losing some control over the iOS platform. (Any users who switch from Safari, or any other WebKit-based browser, to a browser using Google Chrome’s Blink or Mozilla’s Firefox/Gecko rendering engines are almost certainly going to see an adverse hit to battery life. But Apple must allow third-party web rendering engines on the iPhone in the EU, including through the App Store.⁶)

The CTF, I think, is Apple’s way of minimizing the risk of competing marketplace stores from their biggest rivals: Meta, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon (probably in that order). The EC is obsessed with payment processing and Apple’s commissions from IAP. Apple’s stance, from the inception of the App Store in 2008 through today, has been that they monetize the iOS platform solely through purchase commissions of paid apps, and because that’s the only way they monetize the platform, that’s one of the reasons the use of their own App Store payment system has been mandatory. (Apple also argues, with numerous meritable points, that there are user benefits to mandating the use of App Store payments. My favorite example are their subscription policies, including mandatory renewal notices and easy cancellation.) You can agree or disagree that this is a good policy, including the base assumption that Apple should seek to “monetize” the iOS platform in any way at all different from how they monetize MacOS⁷ — but that’s Apple’s stance.

The DMA is a direct attack on Apple’s entire monetization strategy. It mandates that alternate payment processing be available to apps in the EU, even from Apple’s own App Store, mandates permitting links to the web for payment, and mandates allowing apps to be distributed from outside the App Store. Attack is a strong word, but huge portions of the DMA are clearly targeting one platform: the iPhone/iOS.

The EC’s obsession with payment processing and commissions blinded them, I think, to the fact that Apple has always had other options for monetization. This Core Technology Fee, based on installations rather than purchases, is one of them.

The CTF disrupts the free/freemium model used by Apple’s biggest rivals and competitors. Meta’s apps are all free: WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, and now Threads. Meta has paid Apple effectively nothing for those apps, ever. The YouTube app offers IAP subscriptions but most of Google’s popular iOS apps are just completely free, so Google pays Apple nothing. Spotify has 500 million worldwide users, split 40-60 between paid and free (ad-supported). That means Spotify likely has roughly 100 million free users on iOS — and Spotify pays Apple nothing.

If any of these companies, with hundreds of millions of EU users, opts in to the new EU rules (and thus opts out of the existing App Store rules), they’ll be on the hook to pay Apple hundreds of millions of dollars (well, euros — but they’re roughly 1:1) per year.

My first thought upon doing this back-of-the-envelope math was that the CTF was a poison pill. Of course none of these companies that pay Apple nothing to distribute their apps through the App Store would opt in to a new system that would require them to pay hundreds of millions of dollars per year, per app. Right? But then I realized that these companies operate at such enormous financial scale that “hundreds of millions of dollars” isn’t ridiculous to them.

Consider simply that Google pays Apple $20-fucking-BILLION dollars per year to keep Google Search as the default search engine in Safari. They may well consider paying Apple a mere $1 billion per year acceptable to run their own iOS marketplace in the EU. Likewise for Meta and Microsoft, which like Google are fabulously profitable. Probably not, however, for Spotify, which has never been consistently profitable. Not surprisingly, while Meta, Microsoft, and Google have refrained from comment, Spotify is shocked — shocked — at Apple’s proposed compliance with the DMA, describing it as “extortion” and “a complete and total farce”. (And MG Siegler thought Apple’s press release dripped with disdain.)

The DMA says Apple can’t make the App Store the exclusive distribution source for iOS apps in the EU, and can’t make its own payment system exclusive for apps from the App Store, either. But I don’t see anything in the DMA that says Apple is prevented from charging fees to developers.

The assumption from many App Store critics has been something like this: We don’t like Apple’s current iOS App Store policies. The DMA demands Apple change those policies in the EU. Therefore Apple will surely change its policies in the EU to something we like, and that Apple loathes. (And Mozilla, to name another outspoken critic of Apple’s restrictions and policies, further assumed that Apple would change its worldwide policies on browser engines to match the EU’s requirements in the DMA. They’re smoking the good stuff.)

That the DMA deems Apple’s existing terms no longer acceptable does not mean Apple’s only compliant response would be to cede most control over iOS. What Apple has proposed this week, across the board, indicates a desire to keep iOS (and the App Store across all platforms) as much in line with Apple’s desires as possible within the letter of the DMA. Anyone who thought Apple would propose different has not been paying attention at all.

These Are Merely Proposals

I’ve emphasized throughout this piece the word proposals. That’s key, because no one, including Apple, knows whether the European Commission is going to find any or all of them compliant with the DMA. Apple has met with EC representatives dozens of times across several years regarding the DMA, but the way the EC works is that (1) they pass laws; (2) companies do all the work to attempt compliance with those laws; and only then (3) does the EC decide whether they comply. Companies like Apple don’t get to run ideas past the EC and get a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. They have to build them, then find out.

Which brings me back to my lede, and Sebastiaan de With’s quip that he couldn’t tell if a gripe about “overly powerful, rent-seeking gatekeepers” was about Apple, or about the EU.

The delicious irony in Apple’s not knowing if these massive, complicated proposals will be deemed DMA-compliant is that their dealings with the European Commission sound exactly like App Store developers’ dealings with Apple. Do all the work to build it first, and only then find out if it passes muster with largely inscrutable rules interpreted by faceless bureaucrats.

Malcolm Owen (MacRumors):

January 24 will be the Macintosh’s 40th birthday, marking four decades since Steve Jobs showed off what he believed to be the future of computing.

Dan Moren:

In that time, it’s run on four different processor architectures and two major operating systems, making it a bit of a computer of Theseus. It’s seen challengers rise and fall, and been threatened with extinction more than once, and yet for all of that has emerged in recent years revitalized and stronger than ever.

D. Griffin Jones:

The 40-year history of Macintosh computers is a roller coaster of ages golden and dark.

[…]

We produced a short video documentary you can sit back and watch if you’d rather do that than read[…]

Steven Levy:

That legacy has been long-lasting. For the first half of its existence, the Mac occupied only a slice of the market, even as it inspired so many rivals; now it’s a substantial chunk of PC sales. Even within the Apple juggernaut, $30 billion isn’t chicken feed! What’s more, when people think of PCs these days, many will envision a Macintosh. More often than not, the open laptops populating coffee shops and tech company workstations beam out glowing Apples from their covers. Apple claims that its Macbook Air is the world’s best-selling computer model. One 2019 survey reported that more than two-thirds of all college students prefer a Mac. And Apple has relentlessly improved the product, whether with the increasingly slim profile of the iMac or the 22-hour battery life of the Macbook Pro. Moreover, the Mac is still a thing. Chromebooks and Surface PCs come and go, but Apple’s creation remains the pinnacle of PC-dom. “It’s not a story of nostalgia, or history passing us by,” says Greg “Joz” Joswiak, Apple’s senior vice president of worldwide marketing, in a rare on-the-record interview with five Apple executives involved in its Macintosh operation. “The fact we did this for 40 years is unbelievable.”

[…]

Ternus’ comment opens up an unexpected theme to our conversation: how the connections between the Mac and Apple’s other breakout products have continually revitalized the company’s PC workhorse. As a result, the Mac has stayed relevant and influential way past the normal lifespan of a computer product.

No question, the Mac would not be as popular as it is today if it weren’t for the iPhone, nor would there be Apple Silicon and perhaps some other technologies. On the other hand, the sore spots with today’s Macs come from iOS, too: the annual release schedule that impedes software quality, the Mac App Store, supposed security and privacy at the expense of capabilities and interoperability, first-party apps that look and feel like they were designed for mobile, two cross-platform frameworks that are not geared toward creating great desktop apps, and the neglect of Mac technologies (e.g. scripting, external storage, 1x displays, x86 compatibility) that don’t apply to iOS.

Apple once saw the Mac as the center of the digital hub. It still sees it as important, but more as an accessory for iOS. Most software changes these days are about integrating with iOS or belatedly porting stuff from that platform. There does not seem to be much interest in expanding the things that only the Mac can do. Rather, Apple seemingly wanted to supplant it with iPad and now cares more about visionOS. Imagine if more of those resources had been applied to the platform we’ve loved for decades.

Upgrade (video):

Celebrating 40 years of the Mac, we’ve gathered an all-star panel of longtime Mac users to pick the best Macs, Mac software, and Mac accessories, as well as induct a few events or devices into the Mac Hall of Shame.

I’ve not listened yet because I wanted to jot down some picks, uninfluenced. I’m probably missing some good ones, but here’s what came to mind right away:

Favorite Macs: SE/30, PowerBook 170, iMac DV, iBook 2001 (Dual USB), MacBook Pro 2012 (15-inch, first Retina), MacBook Pro 2021 (14-inch, M1 Pro/Max).

Favorite Software: Finder, HyperCard, Now Utilities, Conflict Catcher, DragThing, Retrospect, Nisus Writer, BBEdit, THINK Reference, RAM Doubler, Anarchie, ClarisWorks, DiskWarrior, Claris Emailer, ImageReady, Frontier, FrameMaker, iCab, Mailsmith, Script Debugger, iTunes, LaunchBar, OmniOutliner, Safari, NetNewsWire, Growl, Little Snitch, TextMate, OmniFocus, Dropbox, Time Machine, Mac OS X 10.6.8. I’ll stop there because I wanted to remember some great software over the years, not list my current Dock.

Favorite Accessories: PhoneNET, SuperView (SCSI external display support for PowerBooks), AirPort Express, ScanSnap S500M.

Hall of Shame: The Mac OS X Finder not remembering window and icon positions, the early Mac OS X bug where the installer would delete stuff if there was a space in the file path, sandboxing and TCC (the implementation and policies, not the idea), pretending that the App Store invented online software distribution, killing Aperture, MacBook Pro 2016, Apple Mail data loss starting in Catalina.

Dan Moren:

As I mentioned on the show, my first Mac was the LC and I spend hours and hours on that thing. So much so that I guess my mom thought it worth memorializing in photo form? So here’s me in 1993, reading (I’m pretty sure) The Macintosh Bible, and surly as only a 13-year old having his picture taken can be.

Peter Cohen:

Fell in love at first sight with MacPaint and MacWrite and got my own (a Fat Mac) about a year later.

Mr. Macintosh:

41 years ago today, on January 19th, 1983, Apple announced the Lisa computer

List price: $9,995
Inflation: $31,348

John Voorhees:

Jonathan Zufi, the creator behind the coffee table book ICONIC - A Photographic Tribute To Apple Innovation has dug into his archive of Mac photography to mark the 40th anniversary of the Mac with over 1,000 photos and videos that he’s taken and collected over the years, all of which are on display on mac40th.com. Here’s Zufi on the Mac’s milestone[…]

Dave Mark:

OG Macintosh team will gather today at the Computer History Museum to talk about the Mac at 40.

All star cast:

Bill Atkinson, Steve Capps, Andy Cunningham, Andy Hertzfeld, Bruce Horn, Susan Kare, Dan’l Lewin, Mike Murray, Chris Espinosa, Guy Kawasaki, Steven Levy, and David Pogue.

Dr. Drang:

The app I nearly chose was Macintosh Pascal, written by THINK Technologies (who went on to publish Lightspeed Pascal and Lightspeed C, which had the greatest programmer slogan ever: “Make mistakes faster”) and distributed by Apple.

[…]

So with my not-quite-choice out of the way, here’s my fave: Claris CAD.

Am I kidding? No. This was a fantastic program for the kind of drawing I was doing back in the early ’90s and am still doing today. It wasn’t drafting, per se, but it did involve the kinds of construction typically done on a drafting table: lines tangent to circles, circles tangent to lines, lines perpendicular to other lines, and so on. The cursor would snap to features of the drawing and show a preview of how the next item would be drawn. It nearly always did exactly what I wanted.

See also: TidBITS-Talk, MyFirstMac, Matthias Gansrigler, Jason Snell.

Previously:

• The iMac at 25
• The App Store Turns 15
• 20 Years of Safari
• Mac OS X at 20
• 35 Years of Mac

Steven Levy, writing for Wired, interviewed Apple executives about the secret to the Mac’s 40-year run:

“With the transition to Apple silicon that we started in 2020, the experience of using a Mac was unlike anything before that,” says John Ternus, Apple’s senior vice president of hardware engineering.

Ternus’ comment opens up an unexpected theme to our conversation: how the connections between the Mac and Apple’s other breakout products have continually revitalized the company’s PC workhorse. As a result, the Mac has stayed relevant and influential way past the normal lifespan of a computer product.

In the past few years, Mac innovations sprang from the transition to custom Apple silicon chips first pioneered to power iPhones. “I joke that we had to create the iPhone to create the scale to build the Mac we wanted to build,” says Craig Federighi, Apple’s senior vice president of software engineering. Ternus also notes that the iPhone’s contribution to Apple’s bottom line has been very good to the Mac. “As the business has been successful, it’s enabled us to invest and do the things we always wanted to do,” he says.

One example of that, I mention, must have been the recent boost to battery life in Mac notebooks. “When we broke physics?” jokes Joswiak. Indeed, the almost daylong span, 22 hours of battery life in some Macbook Pros, can feel life-changing. Again, this was a collateral effect of efforts to extend battery life in the iPhone.

“When we first started working with Apple silicon, it honestly did feel for us like the laws of physics had changed,” says Ternus. “All of a sudden, we could build a MacBook Air with no fan with 18 hours of battery life,” he says. “The best arrow in our quiver is efficiency. Because if you can improve efficiency, everything gets better.”

Levy has been covering the Mac from the beginning. His article is a fascinating look back at important moments in the computer’s history and at where it stands today.

Apple silicon is just the latest inflection point for a computer that has seen more than its fair share of changes over four decades. For a while, it looked like the Mac would be relegated to history’s dustbin – left behind by the iPhone. But, it’s the very success of the iPhone formed the foundation of some of the greatest strengths of today’s Mac. It’s an age-old story of reclaimed success built on reinvention necessitated to avert irrelevance.

→ Source: wired.com

Tim Bray:

But those Ten Blue Links surfaced by the PageRank-that-was had a special magic. I found them intensely human, a reflection of the voices populating what remains of the Web, the only platform without a vendor. This was true when I was there and I said so, but was laughed at.

And now, in Anno Domini 2024, Google has lost its edge in search. There are plenty of things it can’t find. There are compelling alternatives. To me this feels like a big inflection point, because around the stumbling feet of the Big Tech dinosaurs, the Web’s mammals, agile and flexible, still scurry. They exhibit creative energy and strongly-flavored voices, and those voices still sometimes find and reinforce each other without being sock puppets of shareholder-value-focused private empires.

That line: the Web’s mammals, agile and flexible, still scurry.

That resonates. I’d expand that to indie mammals, whether writing web or native apps — or often now, both. One of the indie mammals today, one that fits the bill for a “compelling alternative” to Google Search, is Kagi. I’d been using DuckDuckGo for many years as my primary search engine, but I switched to Kagi in the summer of 2022 and haven’t looked back. I’ve been paying $10/month for a Professional plan (unlimited searches per month, unlimited access to Kagi’s FastGPT and Universal Summarizer) and I’m this close to upgrading to the $25/month Ultimate plan just to support this crazy company.

Kagi search isn’t just good for a Google alternative, I flat out prefer its results to Google’s. Better results in a far better presentation. The only thing I find myself resorting to Google Search for are old links — when searching for news or specific articles that are, I don’t know, maybe more than 10 years old, no search engine seems able to compete with Google. But for everything else, I prefer Kagi. I go weeks at a time not using Google Search.

Kagi has no ads — it’s entirely supported by users paying for their excellent service. It’s never going to topple Google, but the man behind Kagi, Vladimir Prelovac, isn’t trying to. He’s just trying to make the best search engine — and web browser! — possible. Just trying to make something great for users.

I know: of all the things you thought you’d never pay for, a search engine is probably near the top of the list. But try Kagi out for yourself.

Apple is preparing to preview a new version of Siri with generative AI and a range of new capabilities at WWDC, according to a post on the Korean social media site Naver from a user with a track record for posting Apple rumors.


According to developer sources speaking to the operator of tech news aggregator account "yeux1122" on Naver, Apple has recently made progress with integrating generative AI into ‌Siri‌ using its Ajax-based model that Bloomberg's Mark Gurman first mentioned in July. The new version of ‌Siri‌ apparently touts natural conversation capabilities, as well as increased user personalization.

The new features are believed to be available across devices, suggesting that the new version of ‌Siri‌ will retain conversation information from one device to another. It is also said to feature a new "Apple-specific creational service," which might relate to the previously reported Siri-based Shortcuts capabilities rumored for iOS 18.

Apple is purportedly working on linkages for the new version of ‌Siri‌ to connect to various external services, likely via an API. Finally, the report suggests that some of Apple's new AI features may differ based on subscription service status, but it is unclear what shape this could take.

A recent forecast from Deepwater Asset Management similarly claimed that Apple will bring generative AI to ‌Siri‌ this year. The Naver blog account has a mixed track record for forecasting Apple's plans, but some of its claims have proven to be significant. For example, in March 2022 it accurately revealed some details about the third-generation iPhone SE ahead of Apple launching the model. In October of the same year it also accurately predicted that Apple would delay the release of new 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models until early 2023.
This article, "New Version of Siri With Generative AI Again Rumored for WWDC" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Originally published elsewhere on Thursday, April 10, 2014.

---

I have no plans to watch that new movie about Steve Jobs. As I have no plans to read Walter Isaacson’s biography of him.

It’s not because I think those efforts are somehow not worthy of his memory. It’s just that I have my own recollections of the man. And I’m very jealous in guarding them. I don’t want those few and fleeting memories fractured and confused by other people’s interpretations.

Consider that a fair warning, because I’d like to recount a few of my own stories about Steve here. Not only for you, but for myself. Because maybe in the process I can remember him better.

Let me be up front saying that I did not know Steve well, but I had the opportunity to be around him on occasion. Mostly during design reviews of applications for which I was responsible. There were certainly other meetings, but I never visited his home and very rarely spent time with him unless others were part of the conversation.

And I was certainly not some kind of confidant. In fact, he probably always thought of me as the “Safari Person.” Which is fine by me since there were worse ways for Steve Jobs to think of you.

Of course, Steve could recall my real name, too. Anyone at Apple or Pixar—both large organizations—will tell you that Steve knowing your name was an honor. But also occasionally a terrifying responsibility. That was the bargain.

---

I was privileged to work at Apple during its Renaissance. I thank Scott Forstall for that. For hiring me. And for introducing me to Steve.

But the first time I met Steve Jobs—actually just saw him in person—wasn’t at Apple. It was at the developer rollout of the original NeXT computer and its software, NeXTSTEP. Software which would eventually become Mac OS X. This was an all-day conference—I forget exactly where—probably during 1988.

Steve was supposed to address us potential NeXT developers at lunch. When the noon hour rolled around, I remember being very hungry and wanting to quickly find a quiet place in the oddly-shaped dining hall to eat my meal. I picked what I thought would be a remote table. Turns out it was right next to where a lectern would soon be placed, followed shortly by the honored speaker.

Steve walked out from some side door and up to the podium. Close enough for me to stand up, walk two steps and shake his hand. Not that I was stupid enough to try that.

He was dressed in a suit. Apparently he did that a lot in those days before he rediscovered jeans. Very professional looking. Almost too serious. Matching the intensity of his bearing and gaze. Obviously Steve intended to tell us all something very important.

And we were all still eating. Some of us hadn’t even started. It was an ungrateful din of crackling sandwich paper, clanging forks, slurping straws, gnashing teeth.

Obviously he wanted us to quiet down. You could tell because he paused several times for us to hush ourselves. And out of respect, awe, and probably some fear, we all tried our best to do so. But, dammit, the room was now packed and that many people just swallowing food makes a lot of noise. Sitting so close, I felt especially self-conscious.

Who the hell scheduled him to speak at that time? Knucklehead. It’s entirely possible that person was taken out later and shot.

Anyway, I do remember Steve’s seriousness and apparent impatience that day. But not a thing he said.

---

After I started at Apple in June of 2001, I saw Steve at a few on-campus events, company meetings, walking between buildings and such. You could also see Steve sometimes in the company cafeteria, Caffè Macs. He ate there just like the rest of us. Often sitting with Jony Ive.

I’m not sure whether this incident happened just before or after Apple announced the original iPod, but it was a fine Autumn day in Cupertino and I was eating lunch with Ken Kocienda and Richard Williamson, the first two engineers on my Safari team.

We were sitting at a table just outside one of the double doors to Caffè Macs. I can’t remember exactly what we were talking about. If we ever discussed “the project”—as we would sometimes refer to it when not in our offices—it was always in quiet tones and extremely obtuse language since Safari was still double secret and known to only a handful.

Anyway, while we were all munching on sandwiches and salads, Ken noticed a familiar face looking for an open table near the other end of the long patio curving around the front of the cafeteria. It was Bud Tribble.

Among many other achievements, Bud was famous for running the original Macintosh software team and being a co-founder at NeXT, where Richard had worked years earlier. Bud had also hired me at the now defunct Eazel which Ken and I had both worked just prior to joining Apple. Bud, in fact, helped me get the interview at Apple with Scott Forstall.

So all three of us knew him well.

Bud finally sat down with someone else whose back was turned away from us, six or seven tables away. Ken said something like, “Hey, that’s Bud over there! Did you guys see him? What’s he doing here?”

Ken and I hadn’t seen Bud in months, not since Eazel shut down, so we were all making guesses about the reason for his visit. Tiring of the conjecture, I finally just stood up, cupped my hands and called out to him.

“Hey, Bud! Come over and see your old pals when you’re done to talking to that guy.” Bud looked up—slight pause—and “that guy” turned around to stare at me.

It was Steve Jobs. Of course.

I will forever remember his look—a slightly lopsided and tight-lipped half-smile, eyebrows narrowed as if to say, “I don’t know who you are but I won’t forget that.”

Gulp.

When I sat back down at least I didn’t say something smartass like, “I am so fired,” in front of my two engineers. Although that’s what I thought at the time.

Ken and Richard thought it was pretty funny once Steve turned back around. Until he did, I think they were holding their breath, too.

---

Spoiler alert: I did not get fired.

And about nine or ten months into the Safari project, Scott Forstall figured we should start preparing to review its features, user interface and various behaviors with Steve. This would have been during the late Spring of 2002.

By that time Safari was a for-real application which could actually browse the Web. But it wasn’t called Safari yet. That christening wouldn’t happen until December, later that year.

Scott briefed me on what to expect and essentially how to behave during my first meeting with Steve and the subsequent reviews. And it was clear I would not be at a second meeting with Steve if I fucked up during the first one.

So I listened to Scott very carefully and took his most excellent advice. In retrospect, it should have been obvious. At least the general guidelines. But there were a few particulars I never would have thought of ahead of time.

Let me be clear. Steve was not some mercurial ogre or cartoon autocrat. He was just very, very busy. He didn’t have time for “yes men,” the easily frightened, or those who didn’t know what the fuck they were doing or talking about.

In that way, he wasn’t different from any other executive. At least those with good sense.

Steve expected excellence. Which is why he so often got it.

He knew when something was right, but he didn’t always tell you what he wanted when it wasn’t. And he was very clear when he didn’t like it. Some misinterpreted this behavior as being overly critical, but it was actually time-saving clarity, albeit uncomfortable on occasion.

Design was an iterative process with Steve. Which meant that it could take several sessions with him to complete that cycle. So patience was not just a virtue.

When Steve asked you a question? You didn’t ramble and, whatever you did, you didn’t make up an answer. If you didn’t know, you just said that you didn’t know. But then you told him when you’d have an answer. Again, this was just good advice to anyone “managing up,” as they say.

When demoing something to Steve, you had to pace yourself. If Steve said, “Stop,” you fucking stopped. Hands down and waited. And you didn’t jiggle the cursor while he was looking at the screen. Certain death.

If he wanted to drive the demo machine then, by God, you let him drive.

And if your software crashed, you didn’t make excuses. You just made damn sure that particular scenario didn’t happen again. Ever.

Most of all, you remained calm. Because that was so easy. Oh, yeah.

Anyway, the other thing Scott warned me about was that Steve might test me. Meaning that he might push me a bit to see what I would do. Sort of like a pitcher brushing back a batter with the high hard one. Fun.

---

I don’t actually remember much about that first meeting with Steve. Sorry, folks. Probably nothing to do with nervousness, I’m sure. But I was invited back. So I must not have screwed it up too badly. No doubt because not much actually happened.

At one of those subsequent reviews—it might have been the second meeting—Steve did put me on the spot. With a direct in-your-face question. In fact, I think it was the first thing he ever asked me.

We were reviewing the bookmarks user interface in the yet-to-be-released Safari. At that time, all bookmarks were contained in a single, separate modeless window. It was homely but easy to implement.

And Steve didn’t like it. Probably because he didn’t want the complication of switching between windows. We started looking at how other Mac browsers did it. He didn’t like those solutions either.

So he turned directly to me, leaned forward with that laser-like focus of his and asked, “What would you do?”

Considering that what we just demoed was what I had done—or, technically, what my engineers had done—I was screwed. Everything else in the world seemed to fade away in a blur around Steve’s face, and for a moment I couldn’t think. But I didn’t panic. Or soil myself.

After a beat I said, “I actually like what Internet Explorer for Windows does, with the bookmarks in the same window as the Web content. I just don’t like how it puts them in a sidebar. There’s got to be a better solution than a sidebar, but I don’t know what that is yet.”

And instead of being annoyed at my lame-ass answer, Steve said, “Show me what that looks like.”

Of course, he put me on the spot again because we didn’t have any machine running Windows handy. Which shouldn’t be surprising. But I dodged another fastball by finding a screenshot online with Safari itself. Score!

I was in the major leagues now.

One great take away from working with Steve is that there’s not much anyone can do to intimidate me now. So, bonus.

---

After a few reviews with Steve, I was allowed to do the live application demos of Safari sitting right next to him.

Normally someone from the design team demoed screenshots or non-code prototypes in Macromedia Director. And many times they also demoed the real application. But Scott wanted me to demo the live code because he thought I would be able to avoid the fragile edges and therefore the crashes.

Later, I initiated one of my engineers, John Sullivan, with this honor and doom. But in the beginning, it was me.

Toward the end of Summer in 2002, we were making progress with Safari’s look and feel. While reviewing some of the affordances in the main Safari window again with Steve, we focused on the status bar.

Steve didn’t like the status bar and didn’t see the need for it. “Who looks at URLs when you hover your mouse over a link?” He thought it was just too geeky.

Fortunately, Scott and I convinced Steve to keep the status bar as an option, not visible by default. But that meant we had a new problem. Where should we put the progress bar to indicate how much of the page was left to load?

Before, the progress bar lived inside the status bar. So we needed to find it a new home. We discussed all sorts of silly ideas including making it vertical along the edge of the window.

Remember, this was back in the day before the spinning gear or other smaller affordances were widely used to indicate progress. In the age of barber-pole blue Aqua, it had to be a bar.

The room got quiet. Steve and I sat side-by-side in front of the demo machine staring at Safari. Suddenly we turned to each other and said at the same time, “In the page address field!”

Smiles all around. Which I followed with, “I’ll have a working version of that for you by the end of the week.” Over-committing my engineering team, of course.

But I didn’t care. I had just invented something with the Big Guy. True, it was a trifle, but there’s no feeling like sharing even a tiny byline with Steve.

The irony of that invention is that years later I tried to get the whole feature removed. Because even when precision testing showed that Safari loaded pages faster than any other browser, that damn in-your-face progress bar made it seem slower to the user. Its wonderful visibility was killing our reputation.

While we never did remove it, we finally changed the appearance and behavior of the progress bar. And that made me sad, even while it made me happy.

---

Sometimes during those design review meetings I got a glimpse of Steve that few were privileged to see.

Once a co-worker in the room acted a bit unfocused and bleary eyed so Steve paused the review to ask if he felt okay. That person apologized and responded that he’d been in the emergency room late into the night with his daughter after an accident at home.

Steve, visibly concerned, asked if it would be better to do the review later. The fellow thanked him and said no, we could proceed. Then Steve related a story about one of his own children who had a similar mishap a few weeks earlier and how much that had shook him, too. He told the fellow he could take off early that day, after the review.

Another time Steve himself looked a bit bleary eyed and apologized to all of us. He told us he’d been up all night.

The family dog had passed away sometime earlier so Steve and his family adopted a new puppy. After a few days with that strain, his wife told him it was his turn to stay up minding the animal so she and the kids could get some sleep. Which meant he had been sitting on the kitchen floor until morning with a cranky little dog trying to keep it quiet.

Even he thought that was funny, a good thing because several of us were trying not to laugh.

Yes, Steve could be intense at times. But he was also a real person. He had to deal with the ordinary and mundane aspects of life like everyone else. Maybe even enjoy them.

---

I’ve written before about being at 2003 Macworld keynote rehearsals, the event where Safari was unveiled. Also where Steve gave the first update on our new Apple Stores, at the time open less than a year.

Many technology and business pundits had already written off our retail effort claiming it would be a huge failure—yet another dumb-ass prediction about Apple. In fact, the stores had succeeded better than we expected. And Steve wanted to make damn sure everyone knew that. Especially the pundits.

During the two days of rehearsals, I sat about three or four rows away from the stage in the nearly empty presentation hall with Ken Kocienda. With the brightly lit stage in a dark hall, Ken and I were just visible enough for Steve or the support staff to see us if we were needed to troubleshoot the Safari demo.

But most of the time, we had nothing to do except sit there and watch The Master Presenter practice his magic.

Near the beginning of the first day Steve asked, “Is Phil here yet?” Meaning Phil Schiller, our head of Marketing. After a quick look around, somebody reported that he hadn’t arrived yet.

Steve explained to all of us that he was planning a little prank, we would see it first, and we had better not say anything about it when Phil did arrive later.

He then queued up the slides with the Apple Store update and inserted an extra special slide right at the end.

It. Was. Epic.

Laughter all around while we stared at the slide for a minute, a few moments to calm ourselves, and then the keynote was reset to the beginning. Great timing because that’s when Phil walked into the hall.

So Steve started the rehearsal, going through slides on the “Switcher” ad campaign and then the Apple Stores.

At the end of the retail update, he was supposed to conclude with something like “1.4 million visitors in the month of December alone,” but he added, “so to all of you in the press who doubted us…”

And then clicked to reveal his special slide—poster art I’m sure everyone has seen before—a 1940’s-style rendering of a grinning man holding a big mug of coffee next to his face with this text alongside like a word balloon:

“How about a nice cup of shut the fuck up.”

And then the best part—the part we didn’t know was coming—Steve paused, turned to his VP of Marketing and deadpanned, “What do you think, Phil? Too much?”

Ken and I struggled to keep from collapsing in another giggling fit and falling on the floor.

That Steve made such an effort to punk Phil not only meant he had a wonderful sense of mischief, but it was clear he thought well enough of Phil to know the man could take the joke. Which Phil did after a few moments of what I assume was panic.

---

Steve didn’t always wear blue jeans and a black turtleneck.

Sometime during my early years at Apple, I spoke with a veteran engineer in his first-floor office. He had his back to a window so I had a good view of the big path outside which led to Caffè Macs.

While looking out that window, I became distracted trying to figure out who was walking along that path with Jony Ive. The hand gestures seemed familiar, but… Wait. What the hell?

I pointed at who I saw out the window. My host turned around, looked and said, “Yeah, that’s how we know it’s really Summer—Steve is wearing short pants.” And apparently a short-sleeved, almost-tropical shirt with actual buttons.

Seriously, I didn’t recognize him at first. There were always a few strangely dressed folks around campus, including one fellow who regularly wore a plaid kilt. And I’m not even sure that guy was Scottish.

At least Steve looked like he was cool even if that wasn’t a particularly cool look for him.

And in retrospect, he did have a better tan than most of the rest of us geeks.

---

In my later years at Apple, I probably saw Steve less often than the early days of Safari development. Partly by circumstance and partly by my choice.

I had fewer new applications to review with him and often when I did, I tried to get someone on my staff to do the demo instead of myself. This made for less crowded reviews and it gave other folks experience dealing with Steve. I didn’t want to hog all the glory. Or all the doom.

Once there was a longer than usual stretch of time where I hadn’t been in a meeting with Steve. In fact, during that period, I didn’t recall seeing him in the cafeteria or walking around campus either.

And then I was called to participate in a design review with Steve.

When I walked into the meeting room I was shaken. Steve looked thin and haggard with an unhealthy color, like someone’s grandfather.

Just as unsettling was his demeanor. He seemed tired and without his usual focus.

We all knew Steve was sick. He had told us about the cancer. But until that time I didn’t realize how much it had ravaged him.

I don’t even remember the subject of that design review. When it was over, I left quickly and headed toward my office.

Realizing that what I saw had bothered me so intensely, I stopped at Darin Adler’s office rather than my own. I needed to talk to someone about it. As a manager, you should never share such things with someone who reports to you. But I had known Darin for years and trusted him not to freak out.

And he didn’t. But at the end of the day there wasn’t much for either of us to do except hope for the best and prepare for the worst. And get back to work.

Which is why, months later, I was actually relieved to hear that Steve would be getting a liver transplant. That idea scared a lot of folks, but I thought it felt hopeful.

When he returned from the operation, he still didn’t look like the Steve of old, but he looked much better than that last time. So much better that many of us hoped he would be with us for quite a while.

---

The last time I saw Steve we talked about Safari.

This was earlier in the Summer of 2011 before he resigned. Steve had been on another medical leave since January of that year. Getting thinner and weaker again, he still came into the office to do what he loved.

At a design review of a new Safari feature, the subject of the Windows version came up. Steve wanted to know what we could do to make it better and more competitive.

By this time I felt pretty relaxed being around Steve. So relaxed that I decided—what the hell—I’ll just be blunt.

Besides getting more folks at Apple to support development of Windows components the application depended on, I told him this wasn’t an engineering problem—I really needed advertising. And that Safari for Windows couldn’t compete with Chrome when Google put a download button for it on their home page and spent big on television, print and Web views.

Scott Forstall, also in the room, backed me up on this. Another reason Scott made a great boss.

Darin Adler, now running Safari and WebKit for me, had the presence of mind to add that the need for promotion wasn’t just a Windows Safari problem—Mac Safari would benefit from it too.

We were all huddled in the little design review room, some of us in chairs. I sat directly across and just a few feet from Steve.

He seemed to be thinking about the problem and the proposal for some time. He was actually considering this. And that was heartening. After all, Steve was famous for changing his mind.

But, in the end, he said no.

While not harsh about the decision at all, he didn’t really elaborate on the response. I assume his reason was focus. By then we had focused on iOS, iPhones and iPads. Hell, I don’t think we even advertised Macs or OS X on television at that time.

I wasn’t thrilled, but I could understand.

And when you can get the time for thoughtful reflection on your idea from a visionary like Steve—well, that’s a good day.

---

A few months later, I was home sick in bed with the flu, a little out of it due to medication and not at all aware of the news.

It’s not like all of us didn’t expect it, but it surprised me when Scott called to tell me that Steve had died. A courtesy that I’ve always greatly appreciated because I know how difficult it must have been to talk then.

And it seemed better that Steve passed away at home with his family around him. Because that’s how a good person goes.

After I called my staff and made sure they were aware and they were okay, I told them to let any of their team members leave for the day if they thought that was best. Most of them stayed anyway because they didn’t want to be alone.

Then I laid back down, alone, and selfishly realized how fortunate I had been to have known this man, if just for a little while.