[Hx] What I would like to send to Apple--please comment, rewrite, etc.

[James Mowery]

I have owned Apple products since 1984. Today I have Mac Books, iPads, iPhones, and air pods, but I am deeply disappointed.

 

Apple is a software giant, a behemoth that has forgotten the little people. Those of us who will NEVER have all that you and those that work for you have.

 

Some of the legacy programs that no longer run on the new computers were good enough for us and meet our needs. But more importantly, all we can afford.

 

But like a dictator and closed-minded ruler, it has been decided that the world must comply with Apple. Where is the Noblis Oblige of the benevolent rulers?

 

Sir, how hard would it be to develop a 32 bit emulator that would allow us to run our old products that will never be updated or will take years to update because of a lack of funds?

 

Please. Look at a Rosetta program that will allow us to run 32 bit on the latest and greatest macs.

[txercoupemuseum.org]

Wonderful Idea.  I do think it could be more focused.

Make it a open letter to Tim Cook.  Nobody else has the power to do what you/we want.

How about polishing the idea a bit and soliciting support signatures?

Like me, many have four and more Apple products…desktops, laptops, iPads and the like.  But increasingly Apple’s current priorities make it but a matter of time when I can no longer afford to ride the current hamster wheel.

Once Apple was the computer for “The rest of us”.  Apple makes unquestionably the best of the best, but that is of marginal value when its products are effectively retires again and again prematurely by planned obsolescence.  

Today Apple has become the provider for “the rich of us”.  There are more than a few people who do not need all the “bells and whistles” of 64-bit programs and have not the time to sacrifice to learn and keep up with ever-changing systems and commercial software previously purchased, fully amortized systems and more than adequate to current (and future?) needs.  

As one of the most successful commercial enterprises in history, would it really make much difference to Apple’s “bottom line” if it released “Rosetta” programs for its “latest and greatest” computers that would emulate, say Mojave?   These “bread and butter” customers need  the latest and greatest Macs to offer a 32 bit emulator to allow our old products (that will never be updated or will take years to update because of a lack of funds) to continue to be productive.

Apple is no longer a struggling alternative to the “dark side”, and it no longer has the legions of those who “think different”.  To the contrary, it now treats its costumers as “cash cows” to be milked, take it or leave it.  

The idea of being in any manner accountable to those innumerable purchasers that have contributed to Apple’s success over many years is conspicuously absent in their “business plan” going forward.  For a company that has always at least paid lip service to the concept of considering “everyone” worthy of participation in Apple’s future, it appears to have betrayed it’s earlier goals and promises.

I would place primary responsibility for this on Steve Jobs, and it is not a compliment that his successor has proven able to fill to overflowing his shoes and his ever-more expensive vision(s).  At least in the end Dale Carnegie saw fit to give back to the society from which his riches accrued.

 It’s pretty much up to you as to whether or not Apple will ever reach that level of maturity and responsibility.  I see no evidence at present that Apple feels the slightest need to burnish it’s present relentless pursuit of every available dollar.  

With all due respect, "Society be damned” isn’t a slogan any company should pursue.  This is no less appalling as unspoken and undeclared fact or merely the eventual result.  This is the road Apple is on today.  

Don't we all deserve better than that?

Best!

WRB

— 

[txercoupemuseum.org]

Oops!

See below

WRB

— 

On Sep 12, 2021, at 12:20 AM, txercoupemuseum.org <Hel...@gibhenry.com> wrote:

Wonderful Idea.  I do think it could be more focused.

Make it a open letter to Tim Cook.  Nobody else has the power to do what you/we want.

How about polishing the idea a bit and soliciting support signatures?

Like me, many have four and more Apple products…desktops, laptops, iPads and the like.  But increasingly Apple’s current priorities make it but a matter of time when I can no longer afford to ride the current hamster wheel.

Once Apple was the computer for “The rest of us”.  Apple makes unquestionably the best of the best, but that is of marginal value when its products are effectively

retired

 again and again prematurely by planned obsolescence.  

Today Apple has become the provider for “the rich of us”.  There are more than a few people who do not need all the “bells and whistles” of 64-bit programs and

reluctant to constantly re-learn the “ins and outs” of

ever-changing systems and commercial software previously purchased

And

 fully

paid for that are already sufficient for most, if not all,

current (and future?) needs.  

As one of the most successful commercial enterprises in history, would it really make much difference to Apple’s “bottom line” if it released “Rosetta” programs for its “latest and greatest” computers that would emulate, say Mojave?   These “bread and butter” customers need  the latest and greatest Macs to offer a 32 bit emulator to allow our old products (that will never be updated or will take years to update because of a lack of funds) to continue to be productive.

Apple is no longer a struggling alternative to the “dark side”, and it no longer has the legions of those who “think different”.  To the contrary, it now treats its costumers as “cash cows” to be milked, take it or leave it.  

The idea of being in any manner accountable to those innumerable purchasers that have contributed to Apple’s success over many years is conspicuously absent in their “business plan” going forward.  For a company that has always at least paid lip service to the concept of considering “everyone” worthy of participation in Apple’s future, it appears to have betrayed it’s earlier goals and promises.

I would place primary responsibility for this on Steve Jobs, and it is not a compliment that his successor has proven able to fill to overflowing his shoes and his ever-more expensive vision(s).  At least in the end

Andrew

[Gregory McGrath]

The idea of being in any manner accountable to those innumerable purchasers that have contributed to Apple’s success over many years is conspicuously absent in their “business plan” going forward. 

This is the most compelling statement I have read regarding Apple's foray into their most recent changes. It now appears that Apple must change for the sake of change. There is scant regard for affordability, retrospectivity or indeed the marginal usefulness of past supporters.

On another matter, I wonder how much more financially stable QSA might become ( I always assume that finance is limited) if they moved to a subscription model. I have purchased the minimal number of upgrades over the past 20 or 30 years just to get by. Helix RADE is such a profitable tool for non code programmers, like me, that it is almost essential. QSA might solve a few financial constraints by adopting a subscription model. At least it would provide some semblance of financial predictiability for future development perhaps.

Greg.

Gregory McGrath
ad...@australianbluegrass.com
http://australianbluegrass.com
Ph 0429 062 589
Ph 07 5494 7463

[Michael S. Scaramella, Esq.]

James and Bill,

Thanks to you and to all others who have heeded my call to action. On a few occasions I have been successful in getting Apple to do things that I thought were recommendable. That was easier when Apple was much smaller, yet the method of influence I have used successfully remains sound. This method is founded upon my experience as a professional advocate of nearly four decades. A successful appeal must help Apple to understand that what we are asking for would further Apple’s legitimate business goals. Arguments that seem like complaints, or which focus upon our needs and wants, are much less likely to be successful.

Apple accepted Intel’s promises about energy-efficient CPUs that Intel would deliver. Those promises remain unfulfilled. Worse yet, the CPUs that were delivered were defective. We needed Apple to end the dark days of Intel. The ARM-based systems on a chip (SoC) that Apple developed to power the iPhone and iPad product lines advanced so much faster than Intel processors that it became feasible to abandon Intel in the Macintosh product line. This is a work in process which Apple wants to move along. That means Apple wants us to purchase new ARM-based Macintosh computers and retire our Intel-based machines.

We want that too, but our need to run legacy applications to access legacy documents and data is stopping us. Apple developed Rosetta 2 to facilitate the transition to ARM, but Rosetta 2 does not support hypervisors that run on Intel CPUs. This prevents us from using new Macs to run virtual machines that run earlier versions of macOS that can run the legacy 32-bit applications which we still need, and which we will continue to need for some years. This causes us to expend resources to maintain our old Intel-based machines rather than to purchase new Macintosh computers which we would rather do. This argument presents a realistic mutuality of interest.

Apple has made it clear that its preferred way of accepting input from users is through the Apple Product Feedback page. From what I have been told multiple times, this submission method is the channel with the best chance reaching the most appropriate recipients. It is likely that there is a product manager for Rosetta 2. That person seems the probable recipient of feedback about Rosetta 2 submitted using the Apple macOS Feedback page. Having that product manager advocate for our request would significantly increase our chance of success. We are much more likely to enlist such an advocate if our feature request is consistent with the product manager’s job function.

I hope that these comments are helpful to anyone who wants to craft a feature request like the one that I submitted. Our need is great, and there is very little to lose by asking for what we need.

Regards,

Michael

On Sep 12, 2021, at 1:20 AM, txercoupemuseum.org <Hel...@gibhenry.com> wrote:

Wonderful Idea.  I do think it could be more focused.

Make it a open letter to Tim Cook.  Nobody else has the power to do what you/we want.

How about polishing the idea a bit and soliciting support signatures?…

<+>-=-<+>-=-<+>-=-<+>-=-<+>-=-<+>-=-<+>

SCARAMELLA & HOOFNAGLE

Computer Division

 ~  *  ~

Voice: 856-424-2100

Web: http://www.ScaraHoof.com

<+>-=-<+>-=-<+>-=-<+>-=-<+>-=-<+>-=-<+>

[txercoupemuseum.org]

Hi Michael,

No one can argue with what you say in your first paragraph.  And yet, we are where we are with essentially zero possibility of seeing significant change in an extremely profitable Apple “status quo”.  

The saying is that we can’t just keep doing the same things and expect materially different results.  There’s the joke about a fellow that bought a mule and couldn’t get it to do anything he wanted it to, so he took it back to the previous owner for help.  

That fellow looked at the fully relaxed mule, grabbed a six foot long 2x4, swung it high over his head and down hitting the mule squarely between the eyes.  The mule immediately collapsed, and then jumped up again.  The previous owner explained, “First you have to get his attention.  ;<)

The problem I see is that Apple doesn’t presently need to listen to anybody.  It’s products and cash flow are the envy of everyone else in the business world.  Its unrelenting pursuit of the mighty dollar is highly unlikely to ever see their “legitimate business goals” and what we need as compatible.  In  all honesty I would even go so far as to describe these perspectives diametrically opposed.

At a time when Mac computers are an ever-decreasing percentage of Apple revenue, simple login strongly suggests they should just keep doing what they’re doing and ignore riffraff like us.  Their “accepted form of accepting input from users” is specifically structured to filter out emotion, and I highly doubt that the product manager for Rosetta 2 swings much weight with Apple decision making simply because Rosetta 2 is not and unlikely to ever be a highly profitable Apple product.

On the other hand, I don’t think anyone has yet tried shaming Tim Cook into “doing the right thing”.  Remember when the motto of Google was “Don’t be evil.”  That kind of fell by the wayside long ago, like the original ideals of Jobs and Woz, the pirate flag, and the “Think different” ads.

It really doesn’t matter what one says if they don’t have the person’s attention (and support) that has the authority to order a change of course, however minor, that might be worthwhile in the long term.

I’ve thrown in my 2 cents worth, and I’m nobody and 81 years old…not exactly Apple’s dream customer of today.  So, like James, I offer my thoughts and words but leave it to younger and more accomplished individuals with the armor, horse and will to charge this windmill; or not.

Best!

WRB

— 

[Tim]

There may be worse problems than Apple - I went thru a phish attempt propagated by google pushing a paid ad link to the top of the list that i didn't catch when setting up amazon prime on a new roku device.



What is scarier to me is that Amazon at first identified the antra as legimitmate. It went to a bad site that had a phone number asked for info. They were not successful Google caught it and I changed the Amazon account info, but Google showed the spam link itself.

I submit that the cloud is totally insecure. IT people tell me over 50% of hospitals have paid ransomeware. Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Apple all no are contributiong to the holes. Part of the issue is Chrome and Safari have combined the search and url as one box in the the browser?

They wanted verifications involving phone call, text code, 2-tier vierifcation, computer sign on to amazon... everything referes to everything else and once in get it all? The Cloud is totally open.

Tim B.

___________________________________

[James Mowery]

Another attempt—please comment.

Mr. Tim Cook

CEO, Apple, Inc.                                          12 September 2021

 

I have owned Apple products since 1984 and I have always loved them until now. Our home and business database is 32 bit and I might add very secure.

 

I nor anyone in our family can upgrade to the new Macs because we use some very important 32 bit software and cannot afford to move to another application.

 

Please develop software that will allow us to continue to use 32 bit software on the new macs. It would allow us to upgrade our macs and phones and other products.

 

We would happily pay for the “translator” / Rosetta like software app that would run our legacy 32 bit programs.

 

Apple is a software giant, but please don’t be a behemoth that has forgotten the little people

 

Don’t be that dictator and closed-minded ruler, that thinks they know what we need and what is best for us. Show the Noblis Oblige of a benevolent ruler, and help us. Many of us do not have the funds to keep up with the rate of change going on at Apple.

 

Please develop a 32 bit emulator that would allow us to run our old products that will never be updated or will take years to update because of a lack of funds?

 

Please. Look at a Rosetta app, even if we have to pay for it, that will allow us to run 32 bit on the latest and greatest macs.

 

We want to buy all the latest and greatest but cannot because we need the legacy macs to run our programs. And although we can probably afford a 32 bit Rosetta app we simply cannot afford to totally rebuild our business and family databases.

 

 

Very Respectfully,

James L. Mowery, Ed.D.

[Tim]

In the 1990's I a attended the BMUG User Meetings on Berkeley Campus. Apple was in a different situation, and came to the meeting to ask what we wanted relative to the changes of OS10. The message they got was loud and clear - keep our applications running. They got burned allowing generic computers, but I believe they gave a crumb path for this problem that saved Apple's desktop hide.

Since that time compatibility and function has bee peeled away one layer at a time so that currently OS's are no more than graphiscal layers on the same basic Core - the Desktop one being abandoned ASAP. The issue is industry wide return to the UNIVAC/IBM MAinframe Architecture with Dumb Terminals, except now your computer wont even have any insite storage. THe main frame will always own all your data.

Pressure may make a difference, but more that the internet/wireless network problems have crashed everything if you look, and every attempt to plug the holes will not work in this persons view. Almost all my computer time is going into incompatibility and insecurity.

Wall Street has no representation of Developers, and even fewer Users.

Tim B

___________________________________________________________________

[Michael S. Scaramella, Esq.]

James,

My last message addressed tactics. This message focuses more on technical issues.

There were no surprises, except perhaps that Apple took so long to discontinue support of 32-bit code execution and transition away from Intel. Apple reasonably expects that after allowing many years for adaptation that our stack for running Helix on new ARM-based Macintosh computers would be:

Helix

Rosetta 2 (optionally and temporarily)

Current macOS

M-Series SoC

Since a version of Helix or its successor that can run this way seems as far away as the Andromeda galaxy after which it is now named, what we need and are asking for is:

Legacy Helix

Legacy macOS

Legacy Intel-based Macintosh computer, virtualized

Legacy third-party virtualization suite (Fusion/Parallels)

Legacy third-party hypervisor enabling virtualization

Rosetta 2 enhanced with support for Intel virtualization instructions

Current macOS

M-Series SoC

The only emulation in this stack is Rosetta 2, which is a foundational component of macOS for ARM. Rosetta 2 emulates an Intel CPU that can run object code compiled to run on the Intel x86 platform. This is done by translating Intel CPU instructions to instructions that ARM-based systems can execute. However, according to the Rosetta 2 documentation, the current Rosetta Translation Environment does not translate kernel extensions or virtual machine applications that virtualize x86_64 computer platforms. We are asking Apple to enhance Rosetta 2 to eliminate the second limitation.

That Apple has not already provided the capability to run the second stack above does not make Apple a “dictator” or a “closed-minded ruler.” It is Apple’s job to “know what we need and what is best for us.” We do not even know whether the complex stack shown above could be made to work; and if it could, whether it could be adequately stable and performant. What we know is that continued reliance upon Intel became untenable, that the first iteration of the M-series SoC is better than anyone expected, that future iterations are very likely to greatly outperform Intel CPUs while consuming much less power, and that it is unreasonable to expect macOS of 2021 to directly support execution of object code compiled by a long unsupported compiler used to compile source code written in a very old programming language in the 1980’s. We reasonably expected that Helix development would prioritize compatibility with macOS above things like support for AppleScript and data storage formats native to operating systems other than macOS. No one should try to ice a cake before it is baked. Doing so always makes a mess.

For those who have not read the PDF file of the feedback that I submitted, here is are the main sections:

Subject:

Support Intel Virtualization Technology in Rosetta 2

Comments:

Rosetta 2 should be enhanced to support Intel Virtualization Technology <https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/virtualization/virtualization-technology/intel-virtualization-technology.html> to enable running hypervisors for Intel on Macintosh computers with M-series SOCs. This would enable running earlier versions of macOS for Intel CPUs supporting 32-bit code virtualized on M-series SOCs. Businesses that have long used macOS will need to run legacy 32-bit applications for years to come to maintain access to critical data and documents. Since the Apple hypervisor for M-series SOCs only supports ARM instructions, maintaining the needed legacy application support now requires maintaining Intel-based Macintosh systems. This is highly undesirable and impedes migration to M-series SOCs.

The Comments field of the macOS Feedback form is limited to entry of 800 characters, so economy of language is necessary when writing your feedback. Focusing upon precisely what we are asking for and why providing it is consistent with Apple’s business interests should help your feedback to fit within 800 characters.

I continue to appreciate your willingness to support my feature request with your own. I hope that this message has helped you to do so.

Regards,

Michael

On Sep 12, 2021, at 11:33 AM, James Mowery <Hel...@gibhenry.com> wrote:

Another attempt—please comment.

…I nor anyone in our family can upgrade to the new Macs because we use some very important 32 bit software and cannot afford to move to another application.

…We would happily pay for the “translator” / Rosetta like software app that would run our legacy 32 bit programs.

…Don’t be that dictator and closed-minded ruler, that thinks they know what we need and what is best for us. Show the Noblis Oblige of a benevolent ruler, and help us. Many of us do not have the funds to keep up with the rate of change going on at Apple.

…Please develop a 32 bit emulator that would allow us to run our old products that will never be updated or will take years to update because of a lack of funds?…

James L. Mowery, Ed.D.