Much has been said about the abysmal experience of using the Apple TV’s Siri Remote for anything more than accidentally turning on the TV. I often feel the way Merlin Mann and many others do: that I use the Apple TV and its atrocious remote an order of magnitude more often than the folks at Apple who are responsible for its design. Lately, rumors of a redesigned Siri Remote have been circulating in anticipation of the next-generation Apple TV — including the discovery of a new-but-not-actually-new remote design, complete with actual buttons. There’s no argument that the current Siri Remote is terrible and desperately needs a replacement — but I’m here to remind everyone that the software Apple TV Remote built into all of our iOS devices is also horrendous, perhaps even more so than it’s slippery sofa side-kick.

Is This The “Revolutionary User Interface”?

Apple has long prided itself on both designing remarkably intuitive user interfaces and seamlessly integrating software and hardware — the iOS Apple TV Remote is a failure on both fronts. For starters, when you compare the software remote to the widely-panned hardware Siri Remote you’ll quickly notice that the software remote actually has one fewer button (it gains the Search button but loses both volume buttons). This is in spite of the fact that by its very nature, the software Apple TV Remote could have 10 or 20 or 100 buttons if it wanted to — or if we’re being reasonable, maybe just a few more useful ones? The obvious and painful dedication to replicating the “feel” of the physical Siri Remote in the UI of the digital iOS Apple TV Remote only serves to transport one bad experience to an environment with a higher quality ceiling, making that experience comparatively even worse. There’s a reason why folks like Matthew Cassineli make complicated Siri Shortcuts to entirely replace their Apple TV Remote as best they can.

All the power of the iPhone and its spacious screen real estate, and this is all we get?

And speaking of integrating software and hardware — why on earth can’t the Apple TV be controlled via an entirely mirrored UI on the iPhone? It’s perfectly possible to take advantage of the entire iPhone screen and duplicate tvOS’s interface, allowing users to navigate Netflix and YouTube and Apple TV+ directly with their fingers — the current iOS Apple TV Remote already takes over the entire screen when in use! Why swipe around on a glass diving board (or a digital one) when your iPhone screen can show you your list of tvOS apps and just as easily allow you to tap one? Forget complicated ideas like a dynamic software remote UI that changes based on what tvOS app is open (although I would happily welcome that) — just let me directly tap the icons and menus on my Apple TV through the “revolutionary user interface” in my pocket. Add some volume buttons and the Menu/Home button to one side, and you’ve got yourself an intuitive UI.

I once heard a really great quote about no-good hardware user interfaces and the flexibility of good software UI from this quirky guy named Steve Jobs:

And, what’s wrong with their user interfaces? ...they all have these control buttons that are fixed in plastic and are the same for every application. Well, every application wants a slightly different user interface, a slightly optimized set of buttons, just for it. And what happens if you think of a great idea six months from now? You can’t run around and add a button to these things. They’re already shipped....Well, how do you solve this? Hmm. It turns out, we have solved it! We solved it in computers 20 years ago. We solved it with a bit-mapped screen that could display anything we want. Put any user interface up.

It’s been more like 30 years now since this problem has been solved, Apple, and yet the iOS Apple TV Remote insists upon remaining mystifyingly married to its displeasing hardware cousin. It’s a bad UI citizen completely failing to live up to its potential — and to the promise of the iPhone that Jobs laid out way back in 2007.

It’s the night before WWDC, and tomorrow Apple nerds the world-over will tune in to the keynote address and see what changes are in store for our iPhones, Macs, and other fruit company devices and services in the year ahead. WWDC 2020 also serves as an unfortunate first for both Apple and its community: a fully-virtual conference amidst the threat of a deadly pandemic, combined with the cultural backdrop of righteous anger in the face of continued racial injustice.

It’s a strange year for WWDC in so many ways, but I have a feeling it might become one of the most impactful (both technologically and emotionally) in the company’s history. I’ve felt unusual as details surrounding the event have been released and as the traditional rumor mills began spinning up; hinting at iMac redesigns, major changes in iOS 14, and the mammoth undertaking of the ARM processor transition on the Mac. I’ve come to realize that my “unusual feeling” is just an emotion that has become a rarity recent months: excitement. I’m excited for WWDC. I’m excited for all the changes slated to be announced for my favorite devices. I’m excited for the meta-conversations with friends and on podcasts about these changes and the way they were announced. And yes, I’m excited for the possibility of shiny new hardware to ogle and then probably not actually buy.

Excitement for the week of WWDC is not new to me — it’s the unusually-joyless six months preceding the conference that have made my excitement feel almost shameful, somewhat stolen. It feels very wrong to become engrossed in subtle home screen changes on my $1,000 iPhone, as so much bad news continues to surround me. But in many ways, not relishing in the joys of life can stifle our ability to endure (and eliminate) the hardships. That’s the way I’m choosing to interpret WWDC week this year: as another bulwark against madness in these especially maddening times.

And I don’t think these feelings are even remotely exclusive to me — in fact, I think Apple has considered not only how they can use one of their biggest stages to address both the coronavirus and racial injustice, but what stops they can pull to spark some extra joy in spite the difficult circumstance. It’s these same circumstances that have many people speculating about to what degree Apple will scale back WWDC due to manufacturing deadlines slipping or simply the consequences of a fully-remote developer workforce for most of the last six months. Others still believe Apple has the strength (and certainly the resources) to execute an event that matches its typical high standards even with the barriers posed by prudent coronavirus restrictions. But I think Apple has an opportunity to blow everyone’s expectations out of the water in a time where being excited about something again is so desperately craved. There are even signs from within Apple that this year’s WWDC is one for the history books. After all, Apple loves to put on a show — and we all desperately need something compelling to watch.

Today's continuation of the Hey.com In-App Purchase drama in the form of a widely-circulated response from Apple (and a Phil Schiller interview) inspired me to write a slightly different version of Apple's response letter:

---

Attention, Residents of Apartment #428:

We are writing to inform you that your appeal of our decision to evict you from The Orchards at Calabazas Creek (hereby referred to as “The Properties”) has been denied. Our investigation has uncovered clear and repeated violations of the Terms of your Lease Agreement that fully justify our decision to terminate your residency at The Properties. We have itemized your violations below:

Item 3, Section 1, Subpart 1 - Pet Weight Restrictions:

Per your Lease Agreement, you are allowed to have one dog in your apartment home at any given time. In addition, that dog must be subjected to regular weight-checks to ensure compliance with our strict 35lb weight limit. At last weigh-in, your dog weighed 42lbs, and as such is in violation of your Lease Agreement.

Item 3, Section 1, Subpart 3(a) - Pet Weight Restrictions by Breed:

Certain breeds of dog may be exempt from the weight restrictions listed in Item 3, Section 1, Subpart 1. Exempted breeds include (but are certainly not limited to) Golden Retrievers, Australian Shepherds, Yellow Labs, Black Labs, German Shepherds, Great Danes, Siberian Huskies, Alaskan Malamutes, full-sized Poodles, and other large breeds subject to an additional $20 per-pound-per-month surcharge. As your dog is a Golden Doodle and not included on the above list (and you have declined the large breed surcharges), you will not be granted an exception to the aforementioned weight limit.

Item 3, Section 1, Subpart 3(b) - Apartment Guests:

Per your Lease Agreement, guests may visit your apartment without prior written approval of The Properties provided they are residents at another Fruit Company Holdings property. However, guests in your apartment unit who do not meet this criteria must sign-in at one of the Guest Registration Kiosk located in each apartment building. You have instead been logging your visitors on an individual basis and sending them to Fruit Company Holdings via unapproved channels. This is a clear violation of your Lease Agreement.

Next Steps:

To resolve these issues and reacquire ownership of your apartment unit (and the personal belongings therein), please refrain from violating the Lease Terms itemized above (as well as the many other items delineated in your lengthy Lease Agreement).

There are a number of ways that you could revise your behavior to adhere to these Terms. For instance, you could reduce the number and/or amount of daily feedings your dog receives to encourage rapid weight loss — thereby adhering to the 35lb weight limit. Alternatively, you could re-home your dog in any of our cities’ local animal shelters and acquire a new dog from the list of weight limit-excepted breeds (or perhaps keep no pet at all) in order to be in compliance with the above Terms. Lastly, you could have your guests sign in to your apartment building using the approved Guest Registration Kiosks — or choose to not entertain guests for the duration of your Lease.

We are here as a resource as you explore these or other ideas to return to compliance with the terms of your Lease Agreement.

Thank you for being a resident of the Orchards at Calabazas Creek. We understand that you have been a resident of a Fruit Company Holdings property for over eight years, and have been diligent in paying your monthly rent on time. That said, you have opted out of our Deluxe Cable Subscription Package valued at $40/month, and have avoided any infractions that would have allowed us to seize your deposit in the last eight years of your tenancy. We are happy to continue to provide you with mediocre housing at slightly-above market prices — so long as you follow and respect the the same Lease Terms that all Fruit Company property residents must follow.

We hope to assist you moving back into a forever-home at the Orchards at Calabazas Creek.

Sincerely, Fruit Company Holdings, LLC

Airmail, a very popular email client for Mac and iOS, announced this week that it was reshuffling its pricing strategy — the app is now free to download, with numerous "optional" features locked behind a new subscription ($2.99/month or $9.99/year). I say "optional" because included in this list of pay-walled features are notifications — something most consider an essential function of any email application. Another damning component of this rollout was the fact that users were notified in the app the day the changes went into effect — no forewarning or advanced explanation of the reasons behind this change took place. Naturally, many users of Airmail are incredibly frustrated with both the way these changes were announced as well as the changes themselves. Although I don't use Airmail personally, I'm still frustrated with how this went down because it muddies the waters for other independent developers also considering subscription pricing.

There have been a lot blog posts and podcast segments about this situation (and yet here I am adding to the pile) — but I think the conversation that best captures how I feel was on this week's episode of Connected. Stephen, Federico, and (half of) Myke excellently explain the blowback to this pricing change, and even share some advice that developers considering subscription pricing plans might benefit to hear. Stephen hits the nail on the head as to why this decision hurts so badly:

Stephen Hackett sums up my feelings on this Airmail situation on the latest episode of Connected.

When your strategic advantage is being a thoughtful, independent developer with a devoted user base, mistakes like this can easily be deadly. Hopefully Airmail reassess this decision and considers what steps they can take to regain their users trust — and hopefully other developers will learn from Airmail's mistake.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This article was written when this story was more timely (although Facebook and privacy violations always seems to be a timely topic). Since I've just published the site, I wanted to include this note to clarify this article.

A Little Background

You might have heard about a big privacy scare in the news in recent weeks that many iPhone users are furious about — and no, it has nothing to do with FaceTime. TechCrunch broke the story that Facebook was paying users (including minors) to install a VPN with root-level access to their phones with the intention of tracking all their usage, encrypted or otherwise. If that wasn't bad enough, Facebook instructed those users to install this app using Facebook's enterprise certificate to circumvent Apple's app store review (which had already booted the same app for privacy violations in August of 2018).

Apple promptly revoked Facebook's enterprise certificate (which turned out to be their only enterprise certificate), crippling this internal-yet-oh-so-external spyware app as well as many other internal Facebook applications. Facebook has acknowledged that they misused their enterprise certificate to distribute an app to consumers, but Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg also claimed that users who downloaded the app "knew they were involved and consented" in the so-called "Facebook Research App". As a researcher myself, I was pretty skeptical that Facebook's practices would even come close to meeting the benchmark of "informed consent", and it didn't take long for my worries to be confirmed: Dave Lee with the BBC demonstrated just how easy it was to sign up for the app as a 14 year-old and receive a link to download it — no parental consent required.

Lets Talk About Consent

I think Facebook (and many other big tech companies) throws around the word "consent" a little too loosely — whether it be in their inscrutable Terms of Service or in examples as grotesque as this data-tracking app. In my field, "consent" means a full understanding of the risks and benefits, and a willing acceptance of those risks and benefits without any sort of coercion. In addition, minors are not typically allowed to give consent for most things in the field of research (though assent is required depending on the circumstance). The idea that a web-form with a few blurbs about "agreeing to the Terms of this program" is sufficiently "informed" for a self-proclaimed research app is ludicrous to me, especially given the significant (and likely misunderstood) amount of data users handed over. I'm sure most users of the Facebook Research App don't fully understand what a VPN is, let alone how much of their private data it allowed Facebook to see.

Informed consent is a big deal in my line of work (and in general) — our team's research is focused on pregnant women and their newborn infants, so the rules for consent are even more strict. For example, if I would like to do a study on placental tissue from deliveries at our hospital (tissue that is normally disposed of after delivery) there is a rigorous process I have to go through before I get started. I have to write up a lengthy Institutional Review Board application, explaining the reason for my research and the ways I am minimizing any unnecessary risk to patients. I have to write a consent form in lay-terms so that a patient could read it and have good understanding of the studies risks and benefits. I have to explain why I'm researching minors in the first place, or why I'm not using an alternative that avoids involving minors all together. Then, assuming that same Review Board actually approves my study, when I actually consent a patient I have to confirm that they understand the risks and benefits before enrolling them in the study. Oh, and I have to specify exactly how I plan to use their tissue, and not go beyond that without asking for their consent again.

Needless to say, the Facebook Research App would fall laughably short at all of these steps (and the myriad I didn't list in my simplistic example). Then again, Facebook's malicious appetite for user data is what motivates them, not any desire for basic ethics in the way they gather it. Perhaps Facebook's blatant disregard for the standard of "informed consent" belies a defining characteristic of their business model: they prefer their users uninformed.