technology – Life on the Wicked Stage: Act 3

Quell The Outrage Over Apple Intelligence Taking Up Storage

Why the surprise?

I apologize in advance for being derisive in this post. But Lordy, do folks deserve a shake now and again.

Hands of an older person counting out coins. Landsmann zxKlxvN5ZSg unsplash.

Not a day goes by that I don’t see complaints about Apple Intelligence taking up storage space on iPhones, Macs, or iPads. Some of it from so-called leading Apple blogs and websites. It begs the question, were people just not paying attention?

Apple’s entire pitch for Apple Intelligence is that most of it happens on your device, and is thus supposedly more secure than relying on other AI chatbots and the like that send every request to some data-slurping cloud or the other. At what point in that pitch did you not assume the index of your data wasn’t going to end up on your device and consume storage?

Granted one might be surprised by the amount of storage Apple Intelligence is taking up, but if you use your devices constantly, don’t purge older data like Messages and emails occasionally, the size of the index Apple is going to create, apparently every time the folks in Cupertino update the OS, is going to only grow.

I get the problem. I don’t get the outrage over it. Especially from websites that should know better and should have prepared their readers better. The reason I get it is that many users, especially in this age of spiraling costs, go for the least expensively configured device. Settling for 256GB of storage might have been a solid purchase decision two years ago. That’s no longer the case. I also get the surprise and the outrage from those who weren’t preparing to upgrade hardware in this or any immediate future cycles. That said, this writing has been on the wall for some time now.

The same is true with memory. Everyone was pleased when memory configs jumped to 16GB for the base of most of Apple’s computers. 16GB these days is what 8GB was just a short while ago. It’s the bare minimum you need to run Apple Intelligence effectively, especially if it’s only paired 256gb of storage that’s crammed with other data.

When Apple first started promoting its on-device Apple Intelligence approach quite a few were excited, thinking they might be able to reduce some of those $20 a month subscriptions they paid for other AI services. That may prove true for many, but in the end, it’s really just a transfer of costs.

Artificial Intelligence, regardless of flavor, is changing all aspects relating to purchasing decisions as rapidly as the technology itself is changing. If you think it’s hard for consumers to keep up, here’s a hint: the companies can’t keep up with it either. We would all be well served to think ahead given the unpredictability.

I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t buy into what I consider to be way too optimistic predictions that memory and storage costs are going to settle back in the next couple of years. And if we’ve learned anything at all about any kind of digital services, it’s that prices inevitably go up on that front. The money to pay for all the debt service on that financing for data centers has to come from somewhere.

In this day and age, 256GB of storage and 16gb of memory may be the minimum with a price point that makes it easier to get you in the door. But it’s as cramped and curmudgeonly as the free 5GB of iCloud storage that still comes with new iPhones.

(Image from – Landsman on Unsplash.)

Thanks for reading. You can subscribe to this blog if you care to. You can also find more of my writings on a variety of topics on Medium at this link, including in the publications Ellemeno and Rome. I can also be found on social media under my name as above. This site does not use affilate links.

The Golden Age Of Shit. Super Intelligence Style

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. -Walter Scott

The farce that unfolded in Washington DC yesterday regarding Artificial Intelligence wasn’t comedy. Yet it was super hilarious. At some point you have to understand that the wool is being pulled over all of our eyes, including those of the president. And you have to laugh.

Us president donald trump attends national design studio launch event for america gov a new ai powered government website at t.jpg.

In an election year that sees American’s distaste for anything approaching the topic of AI growing like kudzu, the folks running the AI show keep rapidly alternating back and forth between requests that the government step in and stop them from destroying humanity and telling us that their products will create a new golden age of abundance.

If there’s a joke in the circle jerk of a game they’re playing, it’s that the president croaks that he got the assembled AI oligarchy to sign on to a “morally binding” agreement to self-police. You read that right. “Morally binding.” There’s lots of laughing about a group of technologists who built empires on stealing the work of others, who never met a law or a moral they wouldn’t spit on, signing such a document put forward by one of the most outrageous criminals the world has ever known. But that’s just the set up.

The joke is that these conmen are playing the decaying before our eyes president for all they can while he’s still breathing. He no longer understands what’s put before him. He doesn’t have a competent staff. A fact made abundantly clear by the misspelling of the United States under the president’s signature and the fact that his administration’s AI fueled new website spent the day disproving all the lies he’s foisted upon a population with an average reading age of a sixth grader. You’d think his flunkies would use AI to do some basic proofreading and fact-checking. But that’s above a sixth grader’s skill set. Apparently they’ve already “corrected” the website to spit out the lies again.

These tech bros are openly yanking the president’s chain, taking advantage of his infirmity, our divisiveness, our curiosity, and the greed of the markets. The rest of the world is doing it. Given their desires to run the planet, into the ground or elsewhere, they might as well get in on the act before the curtain comes down.

Couple all of that with the supposed name change in the order, rebranding Artificial Intelligence to Super Intelligence. On the one hand it’s good to know that if the technology kills us all there will be no shortage of superlatives to describe the end of times in the summaries all the robots, Muses, and Dots will spam each other with after we’re gone. It beats being wiped out by something branded as artificial, I guess. On the other, the name change is just super silly. Call me when OpenAI changes its name. I’m just surprised he didn’t name it American Intelligence. Or Trump Intelligence.

If there’s drama ahead in any of this, it’s that at some point it’s going to all go to shit. Mostly it has already. Those who dismiss every warning as merely marketing remind me of early climate change deniers. Those who take the warnings seriously remind me of every bandwagon jumper that’s ever leaped to a conclusion. As in most things, what truth that exists probably lies somewhere in the muddy middle, which is exactly where those who will profit over either their success or failure want it to stay.

Not a MUSE ing

The bad guys won

And here we are. Right where the tech bro oligarchy wanted us. Giving in to the onslaught, mindlessly turning over all of our data to be chopped up and sold to the highest bidder. Any bidder actually.

If you’ve spent half a millisecond online in the last few weeks you’ve been exposed to the relentless onslaught from Mark Zuckerberg about Muse, the latest incantation dreamed up from the demon spawns of hell that is Meta. Yes, it’s another way to grab your data and use it for their purposes (making money). Yes, it’s AI. Yes, it’s got cute little avatars to attract your children, and those with childlike brains willing to try whatever is new. It’s got all of those things and then some. And, like it not, it’s got the world by the short hairs.

The product is bad enough in and of itself by most accounts. The PR is worse. But I’m here to tell you that Zuckerberg has struck while the iron is either hot or the general public has just accepted wearing wrinkled clothing.

I’ve gotten a lot of questions about Muse from the folks I support since the hype kicked into overdrive. Most of them use Facebook, Instagram and Facebook’s Messenger, so of course they’ve felt the push. I’ve encouraged them not to install the app or use the service, but as they point out, in admissions of wrinkled surrender, they’ve got all of our data anyway.

That’s sadly, the battle, and probably also the war that was lost long ago. When general everyday users just don’t care anymore then the doors are wide open.

When I point out examples of problems I’ve seen and heard about, like this article from Amber Neely that references Jason Aten’s experiences about Meta ignoring users’ permissions, they spit back this closing quote from Neely’s article: “That’s it, dear reader. You don’t get to opt out anymore.”

We’ve gotten past the willing suspension of disbelief and moved into a numbingly suspended state of apathy.

The bad guys won.

Optimizing Search and Siri Is Going To Become Old Really Quick

Sign of the Apple Intelligence times?

I guess we all knew this was coming. Apple released operating system updates ending in 27.0.1 (as well as for OS 26 and macOS 15) today for iPhones, iPads, and Macs, bringing something it looks like most will have to get used to, spending more time while devices reindex Siri AI.

There’s no telling if this will happen every time there’s an OS update, but Apple last year said that it will be speeding up the pace of security updates going forward in response to the risks now visited upon us from AI-powered hacking. Certainly the pace of AI development continues to rapidly increase, which can only mean the same for AI hacking.

Defending against hacks, fixing bugs, and updating operating systems are facts of life these days. Always have been. Even so, when something new, or a needed bug fix is eagerly anticipated it’s largely viewed as an inconvenient chore by most. Adding time to the process for reindexing the info on a device certainly makes it more of a chore.

There’s already a sour taste in many users’ mouths about AI in general. If this is an ongoing and every OS update type of thing, I’m betting this might just increase the pucker over time as the price users pay for using Apple’s on device brand of AI.

For what it’s worth, and for what it means, I’m seeing the Optimizing for Search and Siri notification on an iPhone and iPad, but not on a Mac after updating. It will be interesting to see how long the process takes after the updates compared to the initial process when the OS’s 27 were first released.

Human Nature, Artificial Intelligence, and Hive Mindlessness

I always look at everyone when we’re on the street and think, ‘We’re like sheep or ants.’ – Lee Ryan

The stock we place in leaders to change the course of countries and companies is more times than not an illusion. The bigger the organization the greater the illusion. For the moment at least these organizations are still made up of humans, and in most cases to think humans march in lockstep you’ve got a hitch in your step.

Oktavianus mulyadi Ir0LXvMPnyc unsplash.

We watch presidents and dictators and CEOs and heads of this and that issue orders, decrees, mission statements, warnings, social media posts, and what have you, and it’s easy to put whatever statement they make to bed and move on whether it’s a problem solved, problem created, or a promise made. Yes, leaders set a tone and an agenda. But leaders don’t do the dirty work down under that make the trains run on time.

Often it’s underlings who think they’re doing what’s called for. They can sometimes twist and turn the agenda to their own purposes. Occasionally they turn their own zeal into a tempest that laps the original intent of whatever they’ve been ordered to accomplish.

And then there are those not in the mix that follow. Seize the agenda. Jump on the bandwagon and try to turn it into the permission slip they’ve always wanted to do now that they feel justified. Or perhaps just because it’s possible. They and the curious who sit on the sidelines can also upend any agenda.

Wealth certainly doesn’t trickle down, but bad motivations do. Strike that. The gravity occasionally runs the other way. Permission slips open up a plethora of permissive possibilities that even the strongest hand of the strongest boss can’t control. That’s human nature. Like Mother Nature, it’s a delusion we can control either.

Even so, we like to think there’s a world out there where we’re all pulling with the same purpose towards the same goals. That’s the illusion.

What prompted this little bit of an essay, beyond watching the always on/off political posing these days, was watching Meta’s new attempt to conquer the world, Muse, rocket up to the top of the app charts with surprising speed. Given all that we know about Zuckerberg’s machinations and maniuplations I don’t believe there was a public out there thirsting for this next move. But it’s being devoured and guzzled in gulps not seen since votes were secured with beer and a sandwich in Chicago taverns back in the day.

Humans are an evolved species that can reason. Perhaps that’s the illusion. Insects that revolve around queens like ants and bees don’t reason. The irony of the gender difference of bosses between the insect world and our technologically driven one is amusing, but the willingness of the drones that follow the leader is depressing.

(Image from oktavianus mulvadi on Unsplash)

Take AI Leaders At Their Word Or Call Their Bluff

Play the hand we’ve been dealt

Artificial Intelligence may or may not destroy human existence by 2030 or sometime in the next decade. Why waste the computing cycles and tokens when we’re doing a damn good job of beating it to the punch?

Museums of history new south wales VLFT8_H1tm8 unsplash.

After some dangerous confessions and warnings, along with continuing news of AI engines escaping their sandboxes, the leaders are calling out to slow things down, saying that they need to be regulated before what they are spending so much money on creating can become uncontrollable. Of course that spurs debate between those who love the technology and are making money off it, those who despise it—harbinger of doom it may or may not be, and now the millions who are stirring on the sidelines they usually sit on.

Some believe this is just another in a long line of overhyping the technology to improve bottom lines. Some see it as a timely move to try and influence the upcoming talks with the always-feared Chinese. Some, including those who have been working and studying the technology for quite some time, see AI as a real threat.

If we want to wipe the last two camps out of the memory banks and the debate, then either take them at their word or call the AI leaders’ bluff. Take them at their word that their brain children are too dangerous and put systems in place to regulate and slow things down. Or demand they pull the plug. They’ve exhausted the use of hyperbole in hyping the promises of their tech and most fell for it along the way. Why not take them at their word now?

Oh, wait. Whether the danger or is real or a bluff to be called there is a problem. The folks who would do the regulating belong to an institution that no longer exists called Congress. The president could do so, but then so could a dead fish for all it would matter. Funny, not funny that he joked about banning fishing just yesterday.

To think these ultra-competitive tech titans will slow themselves down in some selfless act of altruism to save the human race is folly. As much folly as hoping some governmental set of regulations or committees or dictates would. As much folly as pretending the conversation hasn’t been poisoned a million ways from Sunday to the point that no one knows what to believe.

At one point in our recent history the powers that be came to accept that the banks were too big to fail. We’ve sort of reached that point again with AI. It may not be too big to fail, but those who’ve created it, and those who have financed it, have already failed the rest of us. The rest of us who they need to pay for and feed their robots and robot-like artificial brains.

Call their bluff.

(Photo by Museums of History New South Wales on Unsplash)

Pity The Developers Of Mac Menu Bar Managers. Blame Apple

A key piece of the Mac experience is broken for now.

Whenever Apple or any of the other major platforms release their annual operating system updates there’s always a period of adjustment for users and developers. Developers have to contend with the changes and sometimes that leaves users fumbling around trying to get back to what they were used to prior to the OS update.

That’s certainly the case with Menu Bar Managers on the Mac.

For some time Apple has been trying to steer developers away from placing apps in the Menu Bar. That hasn’t worked. In large part that has to do with just how problematic a large number of Menu Bar apps can appear (or disappear) on Macs with a notch. Most recently Apple tried to encourage app developers to use the Control Panel to provide users with quick access, but that seems to have been mostly another vain plea.

Menu Bar Managers have allowed users to fill up their Menu Bar with apps and choose to hide apps they mostly access once in a while or don’t want to see.

As an example I don’t need to see the Time Machine menu bar app all of the time, but want it handy to check on the progress of a backup if needed. Having it hidden, one click on the Menu Bar reveals it for me to check that progress.

Screenshot 2026-09-17 at 12.01.57.png — Bartender web page banner

Prior to macOS 26 there were a few Menu Bar management apps that worked well, Bartender and Hidden Bar being seen as favorites among many. After Bartender was sold, creating some ill will among users, a few others popped up including Ice. That developer stopped work on the utility, but it was taken up by Jordan Baird who built on it and created Thaw, which when it debuted looked like a good alternative. I’m still rooting for the Jordan to get things worked out.

In my experimentation none of the Menu Bar Managers currently work or work well enough with macOS 27 Golden Gate, and most are still in various states of disrepair on macOS 26.

You can blame the developers of these apps. To an extent that’s warranted. But they are trying. In my opinion it feels like they are swimming upstream because the fault lies with Apple. The frameworks, if that’s what they’re called, are obviously out of whack in whatever state of change Apple is trying to introduce. Apple tried what amounted to tweaks in macOS 26 that largely didn’t work, and has tried again in macOS 27. What’s there in the latest tweak is indeed cleaner, but it is still woefully insufficient, pointing to a serious lack of attention to what, for some, is a key part of the Mac experience.

Hidden bar app for macos.png. — Hidden Bar Settings screen

Like other aspects of Apple computing you can see and feel the tension and the conflict. You could argue Apple has created an environment of too much of a good thing, that eventually tips over to problematic. On iPhones and iPads, app discovery became such a pain that Apple eventually created the App Library and many users simply resorted to searching for their apps in Spotlight. Settings on Macs and mobile devices have proliferated and become so unwieldy that I doubt anyone or any AI attempt will ever be able to create something coherent. Likewise, Notifications still and probably always will be a mess.

I do have some smidgen of sympathy for Apple. These are systems with APIs that Apple created, opening the door for developers to rush in, starting a party that quickly became overcrowded and out of control. It’s like a small town police force trying to arrest all of the out-of-control and overflowing partygoers, but having insufficient cell space to put them. It’s been out of control for so long that any major change to try and correct the issues would result in significant problems in and of themselves.

Apple is no small town, though. A lot of things were cleaned up in Golden Gate. That’s good. Going further, cleaning up the Menu Bar app mess, even if that leads to unpopular decisions, needs to happen. Otherwise it’s a messy smear on the look, feel, and functionality of the Mac.

If You’re Moving From 1Password to Apple Passwords Check Out These Resources

Making tech choices shouldn’t be this hard

This is a wacky era for many when it comes to computing, regardless of platform. The rapid pace of change is letting up, propelled by Artificial Intelligence and a cascading series of factors. Another is users’ distaste with some companies and/or their leaders’ decisions in the political and social climate meltdown we are all living through. Too often it feels like we’re choosing the least worst of bad options in the same way it often does in politics.

Sasun bughdaryan WUJmdr8pNwk unsplash. A computer keyboard with a combination lock resting on it

I’ve been reevaluating my use of 1Password for some time. The app has served me well across multiple devices and multiple platforms. When Apple first released its Apple Passwords app in 2022 I thought of switching, but held off to see how the app would evolve, and because the cross platform and other features were still of use. But I’ve felt the tug several times since 2022, and at the moment, now feels like the time.

I say at the moment for several reasons. In a couple of months it will be time to renew my 1Password subscription. Apple Passwords keeps improving, even though it still doesn’t match 1Password’s feature set. Lastly, the ownership of 1Password has made one of those political decisions that doesn’t sit right with me and many others.

I won’t get into the political parts of that in this post. The Verge has a good summary of the issue at this link.

What I will do though is link to two excellent articles for those who might be interested in switching from 1Password to Apple Passwords.

The first is from Ricky Mondello who actually works at Apple in the password management and app/website authentication spaces.

The second is from Glenn Fleishman on Six Colors, also on how to migrate from 1Password to Apple Passwords.

Ricky’s piece is more of a broad overview. Glenn’s piece is quite thorough and covers a number of do’s and don’ts.

For whatever reason you might be thinking of migrating from 1Password to Apple Passwords both are excellent resources that you might want to keep handy.

The good news is it is possible to make such a switch, even though changing horses in midstream might lead to some new challenges and habit changing.

The bad news that keeps accumulating more than I think most want is that too often it feels like we’re in a situation when we might be choosing between lesser evils.

I hate that.

(Image by Sasun Bughdaryan on Unsplash)

Observations And Questions After Apple’s Latest iPhone Duo and Apple Watch Event

Waiting to see how things unfold

I’ve got questions, some observations, and a few thoughts after Apple’s latest product announcements. In my opinion this was the best product introduction, canned or live, that Apple has done in quite some time. It makes a difference that they actually had something new to show off.

And there is newness. There’s also quite a bit of new work for developers ahead.

iPhone Pro

There’s nothing really to say about the iPhone 18 Pro and Pro Max models beyond steady as she goes. Apple changed some colors, added some camera updates, a few other new features internally along with the latest generation chip, and incrementally advanced the very successful iPhone 17 Pro. The 17 Pro is one of the best iPhones I’ve owned and probably Apple’s peak for that design. Nothing about the 18 Pro versions seem likely to change that. Only reinforce it.

But in all the hype about the shiny new iPhone Duo much of that will be largely ignored.

iPhone Duo

It’s both tiresome and accurate to say Apple is playing follow the leader as a late entry into the minuscule market (<2%) that is the folding smartphone game. Samsung and others have been trying to make creases disappear for some time now. Crease or no, I believe the jury is still out on whether or not folding smartphones will ever be more than a niche market. If that proves to be the case there’s nothing wrong with that, though I think Apple has more hopeful thoughts.

However this new chapter turns out, it begins with Apple replaying the same game of catchup they played after Samsung introduced large smartphones. Remember when they were called phablets? Quite frankly, I imagine Samsung and the rest are glad Apple is entering this segment because it might spark new life for the concept of folding smartphones, which hasn’t caught fire like larger smartphones did.

To lay out my bias up front, I’ve never been attracted to the folding phone concept. I’m an iPad guy and if I need a larger screen that’s my weapon of choice. And when I’m wielding an iPad I don’t want my iPhone near me, or any of the distractions like notifications I use my iPhone or Apple Watch for. Apple isn’t hyping the Duo as an iPad and that’s a good thing. That hasn’t and won’t stop the comparisons from others, although it may herald the end of the iPad mini down the road.

So, that’s my preference and my choice. And I’m both sure and glad that others have different preferences and make different choices. With that in mind, I’m glad that Apple is offering a new category of smartphone for those who do see their technology worlds unfolding differently than I do. I’m glad Apple’s competitors do as well.

I took a look at some of the earlier foldables when they started hitting the market years ago and largely wrote them off. This summer I took a look at Samsung’s most recent foldables and was actually quite surprised with the quality of the tech. I imagine once I get a chance to fondle the iPhone Duo in a store that my response will be much the same. Impressive tech, but not something I have a need for, no matter how cool it may be.

The iPhone Duo does indeed look cool. If nothing else, Apple knows how to market a product. As I’ve said many times before, the verdict on the Duo’s success or failure will be determined at a later date once we see how Apple’s claims about durability and the display hold up. Early reviews will be just that. Early. I’m also guessing there will be some attacking that screen and hinge to check out Apple’s durability claims. October is going to be an interesting month for those who follow these things.

What stood out most was Apple’s “own the whole widget” reimagining of the iPhone UX/UI to take advantage of the new device. It looks both new and familiar. Doing some reading post event I can see how much work developers have ahead of them to fully take advantage of the new device. Here’s hoping most do, because some of what I’ve seen about apps that aren’t tuned to the new device leave a lot to be desired, reminding me of how insufficient and wrong iPhone apps looked on iPads in the early days. Remember when Apple sold using iPhone apps on the iPad as a feature?

Apple’s developer website promises workshops and labs, but the Xcode 27.1 beta for developing apps for the Duo is listed as coming later this month. I’m guessing it’s going to be a challenging transition. For some, a long one.

Speaking of transitions, the fancy fading transition between the closed and open screen is not only impressively eye-catching, and speaks to the aspiration of Apple’s designers and is certainly not something we’ve seen from any competitors. Time will tell where that takes us beyond the wow factor of that first introduction.

To Crease Or Not To Crease

Apple’s engineers seem to have done a good job of hiding the crease. It’s still there, but hidden under a “perpetually flat matte surface” under a nano-texture finish. Perhaps we now know why Apple recently and surprisingly reduced by half the price of the Apple Polishing Cloth that was first introduced alongside the first nano-texture screens on the Pro Display XDR.

Left and Right Handedness

One of the questions I have that I’ve yet to see an answer for has to do with that new UI/UX. Apple claims that like the iPad, the iPhone Duo can be used in any orientation. Part of the UI/UX reimagining places the dock and controls in most images on the right of the display(s) away from the hinge. I’ve seen one image from Apple that places a menu on the left in landscape mode when two apps are in split view.

Landscape f7x2oe1oxemy large 2x.

I haven’t seen any that might do so when the device is closed and the indications from what I’ve seen is that the controls and dock mostly stay situated on the curved edge, whether the display is open or closed. This raises a question about right and left handed usage. This question came to me last night as I was using my iPhone to scroll through some reading about the Duo and realized that though I’m right-handed, I more often than not hold the iPhone in my left hand when reading or scrolling. I do the same with my iPad mini. I’m reasonably certain that if I ever purchased an iPhone Duo I would adjust. I’m not sure if the same is true for left-handers or how much it matters, even with what appears to be a very “hold it in your right hand” approach for the Duo when it is closed. I’m sure we’ll hear about it from left-handers if it does.

FaceID is one of the features iPhone and iPad users have become accustomed to. The iPhone Duo does not have FaceID, instead reverting back to TouchID for identification purposes. I’m not sure how many this might be a deal breaker for, if any. Quite a few folks are saying that if you’re wearing an Apple Watch you can use the unlock feature similarly to how you can use an Apple Watch to unlock a Mac. That might work. Although in my usage the feature worked so sporadically in unlocking my Mac that I turned it off. Maybe it’s been improved. We’ll have to wait and see.

iPhone Handoff

It’s often easy to forget that The iPhone Duo, like the iPhone Pro and other models that will be released next spring are phones. But they are. I remember when we called them cell phones rather than smartphones. Intriguing that I don’t recall seeing any imagery during the presentation of someone using the Duo to make a phone call.

Apple introduced an interesting feature that might appeal to some and might see some turbulence among carriers.

In these days of eSIMs, iPhone Handoff allows the use of one phone number between two devices so a user can switch back and forth whenever they want. I’m not sure what the demand for this will be, but some will certainly enjoy the feature. Depending on if the carriers can get their acts together.

At launch only T-Mobile and Germany’s Telekom support the feature, with Verizon saying they will later this year. AT&T apparently has some work to do on its infrastructure to make the feature possible.

Given how carriers love their ridiculous fees when you activate a new phone I wonder how this will get priced out. As I got ready to publish this, I noticed T-Mobile has announced that it will charge $5 a month for the feature.

Apple Watch Health and Privacy

Both the Apple Watch and the Apple Watch Ultra got updates to Series 12 and Ultra 4 respectively. Both also increased RAM to 4GB from 2GB. Apple continues its push into Health and Fitness in these next editions. Both got improved, but not new, health sensors to go along with a slew of new health features in the Health app, including something Apple calls Readiness that will let you know if you’re ready to take on whatever task or adventure awaits you or take it easy for the day.

There’s also a new Longevity tab that includes a feature called Health Age that lets you compare your statistics relative to others. Apple has entered into a partnership with Quest Diagnostics so that you can order a comprehensive lab test for $119 directly through the app to use as a baseline. This is sure to trigger a raft of social media posts bragging or complaining about how people’s Health Age scores compare in the way we have with sleep scores since that feature was introduced.

All of these features continue Apple’s forays into health guidance with wearables and are now promoted as being made possible by Apple Intelligence.

Speaking of Apple Intelligence, there’s also a controversial couple of new audio features for the Apple Watch that can record conversations. The privacy conscious, legal beagles, and pervert glasses foes have already begun stirring the pot and sounding alarms in this age when any kind of always on surveillance draws increasingly extreme negative pushback. Throw AI in the mix and the brew boils a lot faster.

Live Rewind lets you transcribe the last 15 seconds of a conversation you might have missed. The transcription can be saved to the new Siri app for viewing later. Siri Recap is an always listening feature that that uses ambient listening to take notes of conversations, summaries of which again can also be reviewed in the Siri App.

With Apple’s traditional bent towards privacy protection, they swear up and down that users are in control and that any of the summaries can only be viewed by you, are not accessible by Apple, and that audio is not recorded or stored. All of these features are opt-in and can be turned off. Apple also suggests “Be mindful of those around you. While audio is not recorded and stored, and no speakers are attributed, consider those around you where conversations might be private or sensitive.”

Seriously.

Siri recap with iphone.

My bottom line observation here is that this move into wearable AI by Apple is seeding the ground before Apple does or does not roll out any of the products we’ve heard rumored such as AirPods with cameras and its own smart glasses. Apple’s moves here, while cloaked in its usual privacy protection mantra comes at a time when there’s a growing distaste for anything AI related, a real backlash against smart glasses and any other surveillance tech no matter how cool or how beneficial it may be to those with accessibility challenges, and a blatant lack of trust for anyone on any level these days, especially big tech. That’s a broad brush to tar with, but it’s one that’s fully loaded and dripping these days.

It’s an old story now that Apple is behind when it comes to Artificial Intelligence. It’s not just the technology that’s lagging. It’s also that Apple has let others with much less social awareness define use cases in ways that turn off potential customers.

Even if this tech is only audio related, and all of Apple’s privacy claims prove out, I certainly don’t think Apple wants people to associate its popular Apple Watch brand with the toxicity of pervert glasses. And that’s before we get to the legal issues given how different states have different laws about the recording of conversations. Glenn Fleishman has an excellent article about this that you should read.

Timing is everything and I just don’t think this is the time, nor will there ever be a time when this kind of thing is accepted by a majority of users. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

A few other topics that caught my eye were announced during the day.

AppleCare One Family Plan

Apple has been offering AppleCare One allowing users to insure and get support for up to three devices for $19.99 and add other eligible devices for a cost. Apple’s new family plan will allow users who are or start a shared family group to ensure all eligible devices for each family member for $50 a month. This is a potential for real savings for some.

Apple Reference Image

This is a good thing that I wish wasn’t necessary. But these are the times we live in. Apple Reference Image is a way of providing proof that a photo was captured on an iPhone, and not an AI generated image. From Apple’s website:

Users can now prove the authenticity of a photo taken on iPhone 18 Pro models with Apple Reference Image, powered by the new sensor in the Main camera that can sign every pixel it sees. When a photo is taken in the new Reference mode, the camera captures signed sensor data that Private Cloud Compute develops into an unalterable reference image. Reference images can be viewed in the Photos app alongside the main image, like a digital negative, to visually compare the two assets and determine if any edits were made. APIs are available in iOS, iPadOS, and macOS 27 for third-party apps to enable viewing of these reference images.

Image metadata and upcoming support for the SynthID standard can also help users identify images generated or edited with AI. Together with Apple Reference Image, this set of features represents a multifaceted approach to image authenticity — vital for photojournalists, photographers, and everyday viewers.

The Debut of John Ternus as CEO

Ternus did an admirable job in the canned presentation, though at times he looked a little gun shy. The opening film featuring a clever hand off from Tim Cook to Ternus was well done. Although it felt like it was two beats too long and would have been better served by getting to the punch line sooner. What’s apparent from how the event was structured is that Apple is loudly saying that they have a product guy at the top again. Ternus is “the guy” and there’s no doubt the pressure is now on for him to deliver.

As I said earlier. I felt Apple’s event was well done and the best it has done in some time. Picking a nit though, I was not a fan of all of the extras walking through the various locations while information was being presented. Each time someone walked through in the background it pulled my focus. The idea certainly established a nice mise-en-scène, but I largely found the extraneous traffic distracting.

It’s going to be interesting to follow how all of this continues to roll out. We won’t begin to hear real substance about the Duo from reviewers and users until October. That gives developers time to try and catch up, and it also will put the focus on Apple Intelligence and Siri AI as the operating systems that end in OS27 roll out next week for those with devices that support it. Note that most older Apple Watches do not support a lot of the new features. New Apple Watches and iPhone Pros will be getting in users’ hands late next week as well.

My hunch is there will be a lot of news unfolding this fall.

The Debate Over This Writing Thing

Words, words, words. Bits, bits, bits.

Several weeks ago there was quite a debate bouncing around about what writing is or might or might not become in this era of Artificial Intelligence. Quite a lot was written about the subject. I watched and read most of it beginning with John Gruber’s piece on Daring Fireball about Anthropic’s use of watermarks for AI-generated writing. Gruber called it a “perversion of writing.” Many others weighed in with words, words, words. And more words.

Shutterstock 2525907005. A hand writing with a quill an ink.

I particularly liked Dan Moren’s piece in response, primarily because it lines up with what I’ve learned and currently think about AI-writing. Here’s a quote:

That might be the case if AIs were writing. But they are not; they are simply generating text. Those two things are not the same. As per the premise of John’s piece, writing is about carefully picking the words and crafting the meaning of what you’re saying, things that AI do not—and patently cannot—do.

In case you’re wondering, I’m in the camp that says that AI isn’t capable of “writing.” If you know anything about the tech at all, you should be too. AI might be able to predict the next word, but that’s a mathematical equation not writing. If you insist otherwise, I hope the kool-aid tasted good on the way down.

Back in the days of my youth, one of the many rituals of sorting wheat from the chaff in childhood education was teaching us to to write mechanically, moving slowly but steadily up to writing things with meaning (remember book reports?) and once we moved into college there was Freshman Comp. Do they still teach Freshman Comp these days?

It wasn’t until later in college when I actually learned what I came to believe writing was all about. Dr. Ralph Cohen, an English professor who taught courses on Shakespeare, film as a narrative art, and surveys of literature, was one of the few professors who kicked my butt. He challenged me in ways others didn’t and I ended up taking most of the classes he offered.

In teaching Shakespeare, he laid out what the physical act and monetary cost of writing during the Bard’s time actually required. There was a real cost to committing an idea to the paper he made out of rags and old linens. Simply put, it meant the work of writing happened in the man’s brain and soul either before or as he was scribbling away with his quill and ink.

I was never good at writing with pen/pencil and paper. Nevertheless, I fought my mother tooth and nail when she insisted I take a typing class in high school. She won. I’m glad she did. Writing for me did become easier on a keyboard and a keyboard has been the primary medium of committing my thoughts to paper or digital bits ever since.

In thinking about this debate I pulled a dust covered dictionary off of one of my book shelves to look up the definition of writing. It’s The American College Dictionary published by Random House copyrighted in 1961. Here’s what that says below:

I also looked up the word “write.”

And the word “writer.”

Google Gemini’s AI summary provides the following:

The highlights in that result are Google’s. Certainly there are many other dictionaries with differing and distinct definitions spelled out. I’d wager that most, like those above, focus on the mechanical. Perhaps that would steer the debate more towards those who think AI can “write.” Frankly, I find that devaluing when I think of the act, or dare I say the art of writing.

Having spent a life in the theatre, written a few plays and musicals along the way, and heard the chimes at midnight with many a playwright and composer searching for the right words or notes, I believe there’s an element that’s missing when most engage in this debate. I’d call it the soul.

Otherwise the infinite monkey theorem comes into play and renders all writing reductive to a fault. Or if The Simpsons is more your cup of tea, 1000 monkeys with a 1000 typewriters.

There are some that are trying to define parameters of this debate as being about process. But that’s any creator’s thing. Some want to frame the discussion about how the march of technological progress always presents change. So, why resist it?

If writing, or any other art form was supposed to be easy or easier that’s when the devaluing kicks in. The playing fields of creation have never be level. Why start doing so now?

That last link above is from a piece from Tim O’Reilly on the subject. I’m not sure if he wrote it or he coached an AI to do so. You’ll understand that if you do read the piece. Regardless, it’s worth your time if you have interest in the debate. Here’s a quote:

We’re in the early days, still shooting filmed stage plays. The masters of this instrument will uncover themselves. When they do, what they produce isn’t going to be slop. In the meantime, I don’t think we should be shooting down people who are trying to push AI’s limits in writing or art. Writers should be trying to figure out the medium, just as software developers are doing in coding.

We may indeed be in the early days. I translate that in our current moment to folks paying for and investing a lot of money to use beta software that promises much, doesn’t always work, and more often than not yields different responses to the same prompt. But that’s the slippery slope we’ve fallen down with most tech these days.

Early filmmakers may have indeed been constantly adapting and evolving the technology they used and the way they used it. Although to pick a nit, the early filmmakers analogy doesn’t really hold up, as most early films were shot outdoors until lighting technology caught up, allowing for better filming of interiors. That’s when filming stage plays really began. (Thanks, Dr. Cohen.)

The distinction is that those early filmmakers were pushing their technology envelopes to better tell a story in a new medium of motion pictures. Not mimic one that had existed since man first painted tales of the hunt on cave walls. That assumes you accept the pieces of the definitions of writing that describe it as a method of using symbols, characters or words on some surface in order to communicate an idea.

But back to my thoughts on writing in opposition to those I disagree with. It’s safe to say that my bet is anything AI writes, no matter how well prompted, won’t endure for 400 or so years the way Shakespeare has. Or in later generations, Chekov, Ibsen, Miller, Mamet or Shepard. Not even the summaries. Of course, who knows what will endure 400 years into this wacky future we seem hell bent on creating? Or is that erasing?

I’ll end this with a quote from Mr. Shakespeare:

Write till your ink be dry, and with your tears
Moist it again, and frame some feeling line
That may discover such integrity.

Two Gentlemen From Verona, Act 3, Scene 2

A 1000 monkeys indeed.

(Images from KinoMasterskaya on Shutterstock. Dictionary photos by the author.)