Apple at 50: the good and the bad | The Vergecast
TL;DR
On Apple's 50th anniversary, veteran analyst Jason Snell evaluates the company as being at peak hardware performance due to Apple Silicon and manufacturing excellence, but currently struggling through a 'butterfly keyboard era' of software design where aesthetic ambitions like liquid glass are undermining usability across platforms.
🏆 Hardware Manufacturing Excellence 3 insights
Apple Silicon drives unprecedented Mac success
Apple-designed chips (fabbed by TSMC) have driven Mac sales to 40-year highs and enabled aggressively priced products like the $599 MacBook Neo that wouldn't exist without custom silicon.
Manufacturing mastery under Tim Cook
Apple's rare insistence on custom fabrication techniques rather than off-the-shelf parts has resulted in hardware quality across iPhone, iPad, and Mac lineups that Snell considers 'never better' in the company's history.
Mac rescued from legacy neglect
After years of treating the Mac as a 'legacy product' during the 'iPad is the future' era, Apple has returned the Mac to priority status, steering out of the skid with coordinated hardware and chip design.
🐛 Software Usability Crisis 3 insights
The 'butterfly keyboard era' of interfaces
Current software prioritizes aesthetic 'liquid glass' design over daily usability, mirroring the 2010s hardware mistake where thinness was prioritized over the typing experience.
Liquid glass forced across inappropriate platforms
The interface paradigm designed for Vision Pro's augmented reality environment has been mechanically applied to iOS and macOS despite reducing usability on traditional flat-screen devices.
Repeat of historical design overreach
Apple is repeating the butterfly keyboard pattern where a solution created for one specific product (the 12-inch MacBook) was shoved into every product line regardless of fit.
🎨 Design Culture & Leadership 3 insights
Post-Jobs design imbalance persists
The post-Steve Jobs decision to retain Jony Ive at all costs gave design teams excessive power, creating a persistent cultural imbalance between visual aesthetics and engineering practicality.
Alan Dye's departure creates turning point
The surprise defection of software design head Alan Dye to Meta—after executives had approved his aesthetic-focused vision—opens opportunity for new leadership to rebalance software design with engineering needs.
Hardware-software disconnect exemplified by Touch Bar
The Touch Bar demonstrated Apple's broken process: hardware shipped with software that was never meaningfully updated throughout the product's entire lifecycle.
Bottom Line
While Apple currently manufactures the best hardware in its 50-year history, its software urgently needs to abandon the pursuit of aesthetic uniformity in favor of platform-appropriate usability as it enters its next era under new design leadership.
More from The Verge
View all
Google I/O 2026 keynote in 35 minutes
Google I/O 2026 unveiled a comprehensive shift from reactive AI to autonomous agentic systems, introducing Anti-Gravity 2.0, the persistent Gemini Spark agent, and Gemini 3.5 Flash alongside multimodal creation tools and a redesigned search infrastructure that promises to handle complex tasks continuously in the background.
Everybody wants to rule the AI world | The Vergecast
The Elon Musk vs. OpenAI trial reveals a toxic power struggle driven by control battles and self-dealing, with damning text messages and journal entries exposing how personal conflicts between a handful of tech leaders shaped the AI industry's trajectory while highlighting terrifying future legal risks of AI-assisted discovery.
What an AI-designed car looks like | The Vergecast
Automotive journalist Tim Stevens explains how AI is compressing the traditional 5-6 year car design process into potentially 3 years by automating 3D modeling and wind tunnel simulations, while warning that eliminating entry-level creative tasks could break the talent pipeline for future designers.
Elon Musk had a bad week in court | The Vergecast
Elon Musk's testimony in his lawsuit against OpenAI backfired dramatically as he struggled under cross-examination, admitting that his AI company xAI distilled OpenAI's models and conceding he failed to read key contractual documents before contributing $44 million.