Apple's week August 8: fealty to the rube

It's been a tough week for Apple as it can't escape criticism about Liquid Glass, Apple Intelligence, and its involvement in politics. As September gets ever closer, there's increasing talk about boycotting Apple for people's various complaints – which isn't unusual for the company.

What bugs me about such statements is I'm not sure what people expect to do. If there were a company with better interface design, more useful software, and actively opposed the US government, don't you think we'd already know about it?

The thing is, there's nothing else like Apple, not even close. And I'm not talking about monopoly control over a market, which is a different issue. I'm talking about a true replacement for Apple's products, leadership, and morals.

I've always advocated for the need of a proper Apple competitor. So far, even the most premium Android devices don't quite cut it simply because they lack some of the magic brought by Apple's vertical integration.

What Apple needs is a competitor that matches its need to have the best design, best software, and opinionated control over the entire ecosystem. Today, there just isn't a company like that and there may never be in our lifetimes.

Even if such a mystical company existed, I wonder if it would have the ability to go to war with governments we don't happen to like. Back when China was on everyone's minds pre-COVID, people called for Apple to evacuate the country or quite literally go to war with them.

While no one sane is saying Apple should leave the United States, they are suggesting that Tim Cook somehow go to war with Donald Trump and his administration.

I get it. Seeing Trump puff up his chest while Tim unwrapped a piece of cheap glass was awful. I hate it too. I wish more than anything that we didn't have a corrupt government that is openly asking for bribes and favors.

Those hopes and feelings don't change anything, though. If Cook openly defied Trump, worked every step of the way to push back against policy, and tried to take matters to court, it would be catastrophic for Apple.

The board would simply fire Cook and replace him with someone that not only would work with Trump, but likely worship him the way Zuckerberg, Musk, and Bezos do.

Instead, I think we have the absolute best middle ground we could hope for. Apple is still a company operating outside of government influence, it still has DEI programs and champions diversity and the LGBTQ community, and it has managed to maintain prices, so far, in spite of incredible economic upheaval.

Not only that, but Apple and Cook are actively keeping Trump at bay through empty promises and stupid gifts. The $600 billion in investments is nothing new; it is just more of what they've been doing for a decade. The press briefing just existed to make Trump feel like he accomplished something when he didn't.

I don't think that Cook's actions enable the President or somehow act as a kind of permission or support. Trump would behave despicably with or without Apple. No, I think Cook's playbook shows Trump for a fool and lets the company he runs breathe free from the idiotic administration.

It was gross seeing Cook in the Oval Office this week. But I know that there is literally no other way things could be handled. If there is, that doesn't involve Apple declaring itself the sovereign ruler of the new country of California, I'd love to hear it. 

Outside of that snafu, there's not much else to discuss from the week's news. We got developer beta 5 of the OS 26 releases, Perplexity tried to argue that it isn't destroying the internet, and AppleInsider shared some cool new iPhone Fold renders.

More thoughts on social media

Since there's only the one big topic for this week, I figured I could share some more of what's been on my mind lately – the future of socializing with technology.

Yes, I've discussed this ad nauseam, and I'm not sure my position has changed much. If you've heard me discuss this topic before, you're probably not going to see much new.

It was especially on my mind this week as school started again in our district. The usual first-day-of-school photos went out on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, etc., and I saw none of them. That's okay because I choose not to be on those platforms.

However, I find it odd that my family is more concerned with sharing photos of their kids with their audience of 500 strangers than they are with their actual family and friends.  Sure, some of their followers are people they actually associate with, but the rest are years-gone acquaintances that aren't involved in their life anymore.

That's not really a criticism of my family – they're welcome to do as they please even if I don't approve. It's more of an examination of the psychology and how they think about what they share and with whom.

I believe that modern social media, basically what's launched and survived since MySpace, has ruined our brains. It has trained everyone to believe they can be influencers that can become famous with one viral post. So, every post is about having the most beautiful photo or the most interesting thing to say, and not actual, genuine information about their lives.

Social media stopped being social and became performative and fake.

So I ask, why not share photos in a shared family album or via a messaging group chat? I know the arguments well:

• But (insert person) is on Facebook and not in our group chats or shared albums.
• What if I forget someone?
• I've always done it this way, why change now?

Well, the answers are simple:

• Not everyone needs to see everything you post. I know that's hard to hear for your ego, but trust me, they don't care.
• If you forget someone, then you don't care enough anyway, so why care that they missed something?
• Because Meta platforms and other modern social media are exploitative, addicting, and do more harm than good mentally. In any case, a majority of popular social networks these days are run by wannabe Nazis.

The more I contemplate this issue, the more frustrating it is. My sister mentioned that she's been waiting on whatever comes next after Facebook, Instagram, or Snapchat because she feels it'll be a platform that gets it right.

The problem is that nothing new can or will exist as long as Meta and the other billion-dollar corporations don't want them to. If anything mildly interesting rises up and gets popular, they're bought out and extinguished.

So, my offer is to rethink the whole thing. First, I still think that having multiple kinds of social networks isn't an issue.

In fact, I think that global communication platforms are important and serve a purpose, but they shouldn't be catch-alls. Bluesky, for example, works great when people use it as a way to share news, art, media, and interact with journalists, artists, and other personalities. It's not a personal bulletin board, it's more of a water cooler discussion.

Then everything related to our personal lives, relationships, friends, family, etc., should become micro networks. Separate group chats for every cluster and niche of people you associate with, shared photo albums where everyone can contribute and comment, and more like shared calendars, Game Center, etc.

Instead of sharing the photo of your kids to a social network that uses their faces to train image generation models all so strangers can ogle them, send them in the family group chat or chats.

Better yet, create a view-only shared photo album. You can invite people individually or create a public link for those family members that use Android or Windows devices.

There are lots of creative ways to create micro networks today, especially on iPhone. Between Messages, Find My, Photos, Calendar, and now Invites, Apple has quite the toolset for replacing almost every social media feature.

The one thing Apple lacks is a central historical timeline where updates, links, and more can be shared easily. A feed.

My solution to this isn't that complicated and could be quite interesting. Apple could upgrade its Contacts app into a new kind of micro network where users can build a profile of information they wish to make public or information that only appears when you're mutual.

For example, your photo, name, job title, Apple Music profile, Game Center, and public photo library could be shown by default. Then if you accept a friend request, more could appear based on user preferences along with a feed of updates.

That feed could have an infinite private history that allows specific events to be pinned as "always show." Then the rest could be set to only show back a week, a month, or however long the user desires.

The updates in the feed could include custom text posts, updates to photo albums or just image posts themselves, invites to join a multiplayer game, or check-ins via Apple Maps to various businesses.

Another alternative I've mentioned before, a more half-step measure, would be shared journals. The shared journal could act as a kind of timeline where the user posts updates and followers can leave comments – not totally dissimilar from how shared photo albums work now!

I understand Apple has no desire to be in the social media business. But if they could execute it correctly, they could provide users with the tools to create micro networks that remain a layer below public, making Apple no longer responsible for what information is available there.

Perhaps I'm the only person that wants this. And maybe even if it did exist, it would be hard to convince people to participate, but I do think we need some kind of new system.

Apple is in the best position to give us a new, better, more private, personal, ad-free, social media that focuses on the humans and their relationships. (Kind of like it is in the best position to create a private AI ecosystem)

We're so close, and we need it more than ever. Get off Meta, X, and other predatory platforms and get back to your family and friends.