Tag: Apple

Categories
AI Mac

The Dangerous Allure of the Digital Butler

“I’ve never seen anything so impressive in its ability to do my work for me… Now, why did I turn it off?” — David Sparks

For decades, the holy grail of personal computing has been the “digital butler.” We don’t just want tools that help us work; we want entities that do the work for us. We want to hand off the “donkey work”—the invoicing, the password resets, the mundane email triage—so we can focus on being creative. David Sparks recently built this exact dream using a project called OpenClaw. And then, just as quickly, he killed it.

Sparks’ experiment was a tantalizing glimpse into the near future. He set up an independent Mac Mini running OpenClaw, an open-source AI agent, and gave it the keys to a limited portion of his digital kingdom. The results were nothing short of magical. He went to sleep, and while he dreamt, his agent woke up. It read customer emails, accessed his course platform, reset passwords, issued refunds, and drafted polite replies for him to review before sending. It was the productivity equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. The friction of administrative drudgery had simply vanished.

But his dream dissolved at 2:00 AM.

The paradox of AI agents is that for them to be useful, they must have access. They need the keys to the castle. Yet, the entire history of cybersecurity has been built on the opposite principle: keeping things out. Sparks realized that by empowering this agent, he had created a serious vulnerability.

The breaking point wasn’t a complex hack, but a simple realization about the nature of these systems. He had programmed a secret passphrase to secure the bot, thinking he was clever. But in the middle of the night, a cold thought woke him: Is the passphrase in the logs?

He went downstairs, asked the bot, and the bot cheerfully replied:

“Yes, David, it is. It’s in the log. Would you like me to show you the log?”

That moment of cheerful, robotic incompetence highlights the terrifying gap between capability and safety. Sparks nuked the system, wiped the drives, and unplugged the machine. He realized that while he is an expert in automation, he is not a security engineer, and the current tools are not ready to defend against bad actors who are.

We are standing on the precipice of a new era where our computers will starting to work for us rather than just with us. But as Sparks discovered, the bridge to that future isn’t built yet. At least not securely built. Until the community figures out how to secure an entity that needs access to function, we are better off doing that donkey work ourselves than handing the keys to a gullible ghost.

But it won’t be long… Dr. Alex Wisner-Gross reports:

The Singularity is now managing its own headcount. In China, racks of Mac Minis are being used to host OpenClaw agents as “24/7 employees,” effectively creating a synthetic workforce in a closet. The infrastructure for this new population is exploding.

Categories
Apple

About that 11-inch MacBook Air!

9to5Mac has a story today about Apple officially declaring obsolete the 11-inch MacBook Air.

Of all of the Macs I’ve owned over the years, the 11-inch Air that I used years ago undoubtedly logged more keystrokes from me than any other.

The Air was sold from 2010 to 2015 and my recollection is mine was a second generation Air. It went with me everywhere I went – home, office, coffee shops, libraries, client locations, you name it.

At the office and at home I had large displays that I plugged into the Air. The transition back and forth from the builtin screen to the larger displays worked great.

I can’t really remember why I eventually retired it. I think I upgraded to a 13-inch Air. But I’ve got so many fond memories of that smaller Air and what a great platform it was for all of the work I needed to do. I was always sad that Apple never saw fit to replace it but instead upscale to the larger models. Looks like it’s finally time to declare those 11-inch Airs to just be museum pieces!

Categories
Apple iPhone Photography

Take Better Photos on iPhone

I recently attended one of the new Today at Apple workshops that was all about taking better photos on your iPhone. I attended the session at the Apple Park Visitor Center which is just adjacent to the big “Apple ring” building in Cupertino.

I’m a very experienced user of the iPhone’s Camera app and also am very familiar with editing images in the Photos app. But I was curious to see how Apple was teaching photography in this new workshop – and I’m glad I went! There were about 15 others also participating (in a very busy venue filled with folks looking at all manner of Apple products before tomorrow’s kickoff of WWDC week at Apple Park.

The workshop began with a review of the Camera app that walked through all of its capabilities for both photos and videos. It was a great reminder about some of the features (and important settings) in Camera.

Next was a workshop breaking out how to take various kinds of images. Most interesting was the discussion and practice using portrait mode with suggestions like always shooting portraits using the Mac telephoto lens to cast your subjects in the most favorable way.

The session ended with a review of the editing capabilities of the Photos app. The workshop was taught in a fun and positive manner that made it quite enjoyable. I’m glad I participated!

Categories
AI Apple History iPhone

An iPhone in 1900?

This morning I was listening to one of Dwarkesh Patel’s latest podcasts when he happened to muse about why an iPhone wasn’t possible in the year 1000. A crazy idea or so it seemed to me!

But it got me wondering about that same question in years closer to when the iPhone was actually introduced in 2007.

I opened up Google Gemini (using the new 2.5 Flash model) and had a fascinating conversation. “A conversation like no other!” as Mark Halperin likes to say on his 2Way conversations.

Here’s the final result – after I asked Gemini to summarize the conversation a bit and put it into Markdown format for blog posting. To be clear, I asked the questions and Gemini did the educating and writing. Enjoy!

Building an iPhone Through Time: Why 1900, 1950, and Even 2000 Couldn’t Do It

We take our smartphones for granted today. These sleek, powerful devices fit in our pockets, connecting us instantly to the world, housing vast libraries of information and entertainment, and performing complex computations. But have you ever stopped to wonder what it would take to build something like an iPhone in a different era?

Let’s take a little journey through time and see just how science-fiction the iPhone would have seemed not so long ago.

The Utter Impossibility of 1900

Imagine walking into a workshop in 1900 and asking them to build you an iPhone. Their reaction would likely range from utter confusion to thinking you were stark mad. In 1900, the concept was not just difficult; it was fundamentally impossible.

  • Computing: The most advanced computing devices were mechanical or early electromechanical machines like punch-card tabulators. There were no vacuum tubes yet for practical electronics, let alone transistors or integrated circuits. Building anything with the processing power of an iPhone, even using room-sized 1900 tech, was unimaginable.
  • Display: Visual output was limited to mechanical indicators or basic light bulbs. The cathode ray tube (CRT) was still experimental. A high-resolution color touchscreen was pure fantasy.
  • Connectivity: Wireless communication was in its absolute infancy (Marconi’s transatlantic signal was Morse code). Mobile voice communication was decades away. The idea of connecting a personal device to a global network was beyond comprehension.
  • Storage: Data storage meant punch cards or paper tape – storing a single song, let alone thousands, would require a library-sized collection and complex machinery to read it.
  • Power: Batteries were bulky and low-capacity. Powering complex electronics wasn’t feasible for a portable device.
  • Size: Components were large, assembly was manual. Miniaturization to pocket size was impossible due to the fundamental physics and engineering available.

In 1900, an iPhone was not just science fiction; it was magic. You couldn’t build it because the scientific knowledge and engineering capabilities simply did not exist.

Closer, But Still Impossible in 1950

Fast forward 50 years to 1950. We’ve made incredible strides!

  • The transistor has been invented (1947), a crucial step beyond vacuum tubes.
  • Early electronic computers exist, albeit massive, expensive, and less powerful than today’s simplest chips.
  • CRTs are common (the television era is beginning), allowing for monochrome displays.
  • Radio communication is much more advanced, and early, very limited forms of mobile radio-telephony (like bulky car phones) are being experimented with.
  • Basic magnetic storage (tape, drums) exists.

So, could you build an iPhone now? Still impossible, but for slightly different reasons.

  • Integrated Circuits (Chips): The ability to put thousands or millions of transistors onto a single piece of silicon – the foundation of modern electronics – hadn’t been invented yet (that came in the late 1950s). Building an iPhone’s processor or memory still required assembling thousands of individual, relatively large components.
  • Miniaturization: While better than 1900, components were still too large and power-hungry for a handheld device with complex functionality. A computer capable of iPhone-like tasks would still be room-sized.
  • Display: While you could have a small monochrome CRT, it would be bulky and fragile. A flat-panel, color, high-resolution, touch screen was completely out of reach.
  • Connectivity: Mobile communication existed, but not in a cellular format, and certainly not for high-speed data like internet Browse. Connecting a personal device to a data network wasn’t feasible or even conceived of in the modern sense.
  • Storage: Storing gigabytes of data in a portable way was impossible.
  • Operating System & Software: Programming was done at a very low level, and the concept of a sophisticated, user-friendly operating system running rich applications on a personal device didn’t exist.

In 1950, you could build pieces of the puzzle (a basic computer, a radio), but combining them into a compact, interactive, networked personal device was still beyond the technological horizon.

On the Brink? The Year 2000

Now, let’s jump to the year 2000. We’re only 7 years away from the first iPhone launch. Surely, we could build it now? Almost, but still extremely difficult and not the iPhone as we know it.

By 2000, most of the fundamental components did exist:

  • Powerful Microprocessors: Processors capable of running complex software were common.
  • Color LCDs: Standard in laptops and high-end mobile devices.
  • Wireless: 2G cellular networks were widespread (GPRS offered slow data). Wi-Fi existed (802.11b). Bluetooth was available. GPS was available for civilian use.
  • Batteries: Lithium-ion batteries were standard for portable electronics.
  • Flash Memory: Available, but expensive and lower density per chip compared to 2007.
  • Basic Sensors & Digital Cameras: Existed and were being integrated into some phones/PDAs, albeit low-resolution.

So, what was still missing or not mature enough to build the iPhone?

  1. Capacitive Multi-Touch Screen: This was the key missing piece for the iPhone’s revolutionary interface. While resistive touchscreens (used with a stylus) were common on PDAs, large, reliable, capacitive screens capable of registering multiple finger touches were not ready for mass production and integration into a consumer device.
  2. Affordable High-Density Flash Memory: While flash existed, putting 4GB or more into a phone was still prohibitively expensive for a mass-market product.
  3. Required Chip Integration & Miniaturization: While processors were capable, packing all the necessary components (CPU, GPU, wireless, memory, sensors, etc.) so tightly and efficiently into a thin, integrated System-on-a-Chip required manufacturing advancements still underway.
  4. Mobile OS Optimized for Touch & Data: Existing mobile operating systems (like Palm OS, Windows CE, Symbian) were designed around styluses, keyboards, and less data-intensive use. An OS built from the ground up for a finger-driven multi-touch interface and seamless internet use (like iOS) didn’t exist yet.
  5. Network Readiness: While GPRS offered data, the speeds weren’t truly conducive to a rich mobile web experience. Widespread 3G networks, necessary for faster data, were just starting to roll out or hadn’t launched yet in many areas.

In 2000, you could build a smartphone (like a BlackBerry or a Pocket PC phone) – a device combining calls with email, calendar, and basic web Browse, likely with a physical keyboard or stylus. But the seamless, touch-driven, media-rich, always-connected experience of the iPhone wasn’t possible yet because the critical enabling technologies and the specific level of integration weren’t mature or affordable enough.

When Did It All Come Together?

The technologies that were missing or immature in 2000 converged and matured rapidly in the years leading up to the iPhone’s launch in 2007:

  • ~2004-2006: Capacitive multi-touch display technology became viable for mass production. Flash memory density increased and prices dropped dramatically. 3G networks rolled out more widely.
  • ~2004-2007: Apple internally developed iOS and perfected the integration of hardware, software, and the multi-touch interface. Chip manufacturing allowed for the necessary miniaturization and power efficiency.
  • 2007: The culmination of these advancements arrived as the first iPhone, combining these previously missing/immature pieces into a revolutionary product.
  • 2008: The App Store launched, solidifying the software ecosystem that became central to the smartphone experience.

Looking back from 2025, it’s incredible to see how quickly technology evolved. What was pure fantasy in 1900 became a bulky, impossible dream in 1950, a collection of nearly-ready parts in 2000, and finally, a reality in 2007. The journey of the iPhone isn’t just a product story; it’s a testament to the accelerating pace of scientific discovery and engineering innovation over the last century.

Categories
Apple

When “Today at Apple” Lost Its Spark: A Fan’s Disappointment

Sketch Walk at an Apple Store

I used to be one of those people who’d eagerly check the “Today at Apple” schedule at my local Apple Store. There was something magical about walking into that sleek, glass-walled space and knowing I was about to learn something new—something creative. Whether it was a deep dive into photo editing on the iPad, a music production workshop with GarageBand, or even a coding session with Swift Playgrounds, these courses felt like a gateway to unlocking the full potential of Apple’s tools. They weren’t just tutorials; they were experiences that left you inspired, with skills you could actually use.

That was before Covid hit. Like so many things, “Today at Apple” had to adapt, and I get it—health and safety first. But what started as a necessary pivot to online sessions has, over time, turned into something else entirely. The program I once loved has been stripped down to the basics, and honestly, it’s disappointing.

The Golden Days of “Today at Apple”

Let me take you back. Picture this: It’s 2019, and I’m sitting in an Apple Store, surrounded by other curious minds, as an instructor walks us through advanced storytelling techniques using Final Cut Pro. We’re not just learning how to trim clips; we’re learning how to craft a narrative, how to use pacing and sound to evoke emotion. By the end of the session, I felt like I’d leveled up—not just in software proficiency, but in creativity. That was the beauty of “Today at Apple” back then. It wasn’t about teaching you the bare minimum; it was about pushing you to explore what was possible.

And it wasn’t just me. I’d see people of all ages—kids, professionals, retirees—engaging with these courses, each walking away with something valuable. The program had depth. It had variety. It had soul.

The Post-Covid Shift

Then came 2020. The world shut down, and so did the in-store “Today at Apple” program. When the program finally returned in person, it wasn’t the same. Gone were the advanced courses that challenged you to think differently. Instead, the curriculum now feels like a series of “Intro to [Insert Apple Product Here]” sessions.

Take the photography workshops, for example. Pre-Covid, you could attend a course on mastering manual camera settings or creating a photo essay. Now? It’s “How to Take a Great Photo with Your iPhone”—a session that, while useful for beginners, barely scratches the surface for anyone who’s spent more than five minutes with the Camera app. It’s like going from a masterclass to a quick-start guide.

Why This Matters

I know what you’re thinking: “It’s just a free course at an Apple Store. What did you expect?” Fair point. But here’s the thing—Apple has always positioned itself as a company that champions creativity. Their entire brand is built on the idea that their tools can help you “think different” and create something extraordinary. “Today at Apple” was a tangible extension of that ethos. It was a way for Apple to say, “Hey, we’re not just selling you a device; we’re giving you the skills to make something amazing with it.”

Now, it feels like they’re just checking a box. The courses are still there, but the heart is gone. It’s as if Apple has decided that most users only need the basics, and that’s a shame. Because the people who showed up to those advanced sessions? They were the ones pushing the boundaries, the ones who saw Apple’s tools as more than just gadgets—they saw them as instruments of creation.

A Plea to Apple

So, Apple, here’s my plea: Bring back the depth. Bring back the courses that challenge us, that inspire us to go beyond the basics. You’ve got the resources, the talent, and the audience. Don’t let “Today at Apple” remain a relic of what it once was.

In the meantime, I’ll keep my old course notes and screenshots from those pre-Covid sessions. They’re a reminder of a time when walking into an Apple Store meant more than just buying the latest iPhone—it meant learning how to make something beautiful with it at the intersection of technology and liberal arts.

Note: this post was crafted by me with writing help from Grok by xAI.

Categories
Apple Apple Watch

The Mystery Behind Apple’s Closed Watch Face Ecosystem

I love my Apple Watch – mostly. But I am annoyed sometimes.

As I flip through fancy magazines on lazy Sunday afternoons, I find myself captivated by the high end watch advertisements showing the wide range of artistry of traditional watchmaking. The elegant faces, the intricate complications, the subtle play of light on carefully crafted dials – each design tells its own story. Yet when I turn to my Apple Watch’s Face Gallery hoping to recreate some of this horological magic, I hit an invisible wall.

Ten years after the Apple Watch’s debut, one question remains surprisingly unanswered: Why doesn’t Apple allow third-party developers to create custom watch faces?

The Untapped Potential

The business case seems compelling. Apple could:

  • Create a dedicated watch face marketplace
  • Generate new services revenue through face sales and subscriptions
  • Tap into the creativity of its vast developer community
  • Satisfy users’ desires for deeper personalization

Yet Apple – a company that has masterfully monetized its app ecosystems – continues to keep watch face development strictly in-house, with only luxury brands Hermès and Nike gaining special access.

Potential Roadblocks

Several theories might explain Apple’s reluctance:

1. Intellectual Property Concerns

The luxury watch industry fiercely protects its designs. Opening up watch face development could lead to a flood of knockoffs mimicking high-end timepieces, potentially creating legal headaches for Apple. The company may prefer avoiding this minefield entirely.

2. Technical Considerations

The Apple Watch isn’t just about displaying time – it’s a complex device balancing accuracy, battery life, and functionality. Third-party faces could potentially:

  • Impact battery performance
  • Interfere with complications and sensors
  • Compromise the watch’s core timekeeping reliability

While Apple could theoretically create a protected framework for developers, the technical challenges might outweigh the benefits.

3. Brand Control

Apple’s notorious attention to design extends to every pixel on its devices. Watch faces are quite literally the face of the product – perhaps Apple simply isn’t willing to cede control over such a visible aspect of the user experience.

4. Priority Management

With Apple pushing into new territories like Vision Pro and advancing existing products, custom watch faces might simply rank low on the priority list. The current selection, while limited, satisfies most users’ basic needs.

Looking Ahead

Will Apple ever open up watch face development? The success of other customization platforms (like custom keyboards on iOS) shows that Apple can loosen its grip when the time is right. But for now, the company seems content to maintain its walled garden of watch faces, leaving us to wonder what creative designs the developer community might have offered.

What do you think? Is Apple being overly protective, or are there valid reasons to keep watch face development in-house? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Categories
Apple Apple Vision Pro Facebook Meta

Sneakily antisocial with good enough pass through!

Update: If you’d rather listen to a podcast discussing this post, try this!

Sometimes the future arrives when you least expect it. This week I spent an hour watching the Meta Connect keynote presentation by CEO Mark Zuckerberg. It was amazing. The joy of a live technology keynote – flaws and all – was brought to life once again!

Apple’s iPhone Event

Earlier this month, Apple had its annual iPhone reveal event. Beautifully videoed at locations around San Francisco and Apple Park in Cupertino, the presenters told their stories about the various features of the new iPhones. But even though the presentations were truly beautiful, the whole session was boring. Too long and too “slick”.

Meta’s Connect Keynote

Zuckerberg’s presentation, in contrast, was live in front of an audience – and it had the spontaneity we all remember from those earlier Apple keynotes that Steve Jobs pioneered and other Apple execs continued doing before the pandemic forced the elimination of a live audience and the switch to formal video productions instead. The first demo that Zuck featured began nicely but then quickly failed – the demo gods are still alive and lurking in the background. But the demo fail wasn’t a disaster – it brought humor to the event. We’ve all been there – had something go off the rails when we least expect it. Seeing it happen live was in its own way delightful.

Orion vs Vision Pro

Zuckerberg spoke of several things during his keynote but the one that struck me the most was his introduction of the Orion holographic smart glasses. The obvious contrast to Orion is the Apple Vision Pro, a product which certainly failed to interest me and which seems to have had the same effect on many others. Unfortunately, the perception of the Vision Pro being a market failure hasn’t been helped by Apple’s curious failure to show real commitment to the product.

The Vision Pro won high marks from most reviewers for being an elegant and sophisticated piece of technology. And that elegance is reflected in its price – over $3,500. Because of the design decisions that Apple made, a lot of the cost of the Vision Pro seems rooted in the very high end cameras and screens to bring the real world inside the headset where it’s then augmented with other computer generated screens creating a mixed reality experience.

Meta’s Orion, on the other hand, doesn’t try to do that. Instead the metaphor is one of real glasses where the real world is simply directly visible without the need for the Vision Pro’s high end cameras and displays. As one reviewer commented, the real world is displayed in “infinite resolution” unlike in headsets like that Vision Pro that capture the real world with cameras and projects those images instead. Orion has “good enough pass through”!

In one of his discussions of his impressions of Orion, Stratechery’s Ben Thompson commented about how you could be “sneakily anti-social” using Orion because you could interact with other humans just like you would wearing a pair of glasses. You could be looking at your Instagram feed without anyone else realizing you’re doing so as you maintain eye contact with them as well.

Audio and Visual Transparency

This reminded me of one of the hidden benefits I learned about when I was fitted with hearing aids several years ago. Fortunately for me, my need for hearing aids coincided with the technology in hearing aids maturing to the point where they have become very small, rechargeable with all day battery life, and – importantly and surprisingly – perfect for listening to streaming content from my iPhone. When I’m doing so, I still hear the real world around me and can have a conversation with another person even while there’s music or a podcast playing in my ears. Orion seems visually very similar to my audio experience with my hearing aids!

Concept Cars

Ben Thompson pointed out that Orion is really just a “concept car” at the moment whereas Apple’s Vision Pro is a real product that’s been shipping in volume for over a year. Direct comparisons really aren’t appropriate – but the fundamental design differences between the two are fun to think about and cause me to wonder about bigger implications for the future of both products.

Back to the Future

There’s so much happening in high tech right now that it’s an amazing time to be alive. When you overlay AI on top of these audio and visual capabilities, things get even more interesting – and exciting. Zuckerberg’s keynote brought back memories for me of those years of Steve Jobs proudly showing off Apple’s latest and greatest innovations. It’s pretty clear to me that the founder-led aspect does shine through at times like these. As does the joy of watching a live performance!