WHY would you fade out the ONE thing I need to see clearly in the middle of the night?
Last night, sometime after dinner, a dialogue box appeared on my iPhone screen. It wanted to install an update. With reckless abandon, I allowed it to do so.
I agreed on the basis of vague concern that something I rely upon might not work right in the future, at a moment when I really needed it, if I didn’t go along. In other words, the device was saying to me, “Nice setup ya got heah. Shame if sometin’ was ta happen to it…”
Unfortunately, this wasn’t one of those discreet, unobtrusive, polite updates. This iOS 26.1 is more of a tear-down-everything-you-like-and-replace-it-with-something-far-less-appealing update.
A lot of my problem had to do with what I sometimes refer to as my Tory sensibility — my instinctive conservatism. I’m like those Age of Sail foremast jacks Patrick O’Brian describes. Their daily existence might be strenuous and harsh, but it “was what they were used to, and they liked what they were used to.”as
Amen. I like new things well enough — nothing like a new toy. As long as I don’t have to throw away my old toys to get one.
This time, they’ve messed with the visual appearance of practically everything that is completely within Apple’s control– camera, clock, settings and such. Worse, they’ve messed with the functionality. Actually, I’m exaggerating a bit. The visual and functional design of only a few things have changed. But they’re the things you most often use quickly, without having to think about it. Now you have to stop and think.
As I often say, nothing wrong with thinking. But I’d rather spend that mental energy on more important, complex matters than setting my alarm clock.
Example: When I wake up in the middle of the night, I’m used to glancing at my phone’s lockscreen, without putting on my glasses, to see what time it is. Not the date, not the weather forecast, just the time. In previous iOS versions, they made the time the biggest thing on the screen, apparently recognizing that’s what people needed to see. NOW, it’s the one thing on the page that’s faded into the background. This is a pain. (And don’t dismiss this as an old man’s complaint. I’ve been nearsighted since I was in the third grade.)
But rather than give you a list of all the things I don’t like about it, I’ll push myself to be positive and name the one improvement (and remember, there’s no reason to change things except to improve them) I’ve found so far:
In the past, those alternative camera settings that can be fun but which you seldom use — time lapse, slo-mo, cinematic, portrait, etc. — sometimes got in the way when you didn’t want them. Your finger might have accidentally touched that part of the screen and ruined your shot. Sometimes, I would swear it would drift to those settings on its own.
That won’t happen now. After a fraction-of-a-second glimpse when you first open the app, those settings disappear, leaving only “VIDEO” and “PHOTO” readily available.
As someone on the boob tube used to say, that’s a good thing. But it’s the only one of those I’ve noticed so far…
Oh, wait, I almost forgot the nut graf. Here goes: Why won’t technology companies leave their wonderful products alone and let customers enjoy them? Why do they have to create a constant state of unsettled confusion by gratuitously chaning them? I can only think of one good excuse: Their beancounters would make them fire all the R&D folks if they didn’t keep producing these visible changes.
Hey, I want people to keep their jobs. But a wise company would employ these people to constantly seek ways to improve their products by addressing actual existing problems. Just don’t let them make the change unless it is undeniably an improvement, rather than change for change’s sake.
Related Posts
Long press the lock screen, tap Customize, and you can make all kinds of adjustments to the clock, including dragging from the bottom right corner to make it larger.
HZH
The latest iOS update is unwelcome in our house, but the bigger problem is absolute immunity. Presidential immunity is not stated in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court of the United States erred in finding a constitutional basis for absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for presidents. The 2024 Supreme Court decision granting the President absolute immunity for official acts runs counter to a long-standing legal principle in both English and American law: the Monarch is subject to the law of the land, just like everyone else. When the Monarch signed the Great Charter of the Magna Carta, it established the principle that the King is not above the law, and this idea became part of American legal tradition with the nation’s founding, lasting until 2024.
I am not an attorney, nor were 18 of the 39 delegates who signed the US Constitution. History is interesting and instructive. Current events suggest that the Supreme Court’s decision carries risks to the rule of law and justifies amending the Constitution, which can be done in two ways, as provided for in Article V.
It is not an easy process. However, in light of the killing of suspected drug smugglers by Navy SEAL Team members, Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor’s remarks on the decision seemed prescient. She said, “When he [the president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military dissenting coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune…”
The ruling on presidential immunity has opened Pandora’s Box wide. There’s no simple way to fix it permanently except through amending the Constitution, which is at best a ten-year process. Several proposals have emerged and deserve consideration. The most common method, used for all 27 amendments, involves two steps: First, Congress proposes an amendment when both the House and the Senate approve it by a two-thirds vote. Then, the proposed amendment is sent to the states and must be ratified by three-fourths (38) of the state legislatures or by three-fourths of state ratifying conventions, whichever method Congress chooses.
The Constitution provides limited immunity for members of Congress under Article I’s Speech or Debate Clause. Similarly, a comparable approach could be applied to presidential immunity, offering protection in specific, limited cases while permitting prosecution for serious crimes. The idea is that minor infractions should not be used to distract a president, even though it’s uncertain how that might happen given the presidential security. For example, political opponents might attempt to file traffic charges against a president, but since they don’t drive and are escorted by police, such charges are unlikely. Still, a false charge, such as disorderly conduct, could be imagined, especially given the often rowdy crowds encountered.
The nation wouldn’t want its president to face a summons for a minor charge. However, a serious crime is a different matter. Presidents, like everyone else, should be held accountable for serious offenses and allegations that are either proven unfounded through investigation or prosecuted and decided by a jury. This principle is fundamental to criminal justice and relies on the ability to pursue prosecution.
An amendment to the Constitution that would shield presidents from minor criminal charges used to harass or interfere with them, while also protecting citizens from a corrupt president, might follow the model of the Speech or Debate Clause.
The Speech or Debate Clause (Article I, Section 6) of the U.S. Constitution states members of Congress “shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace (emphasis added), be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” It protects members while they speak on the floor or vote, ensuring legislative independence and preventing intimidation. Courts, relying on the exception, have excluded non-legislative communications.
Potential amendment language, aligning with the basic reasoning outlined in Article I for Congress, could guide when the president is either immune from or liable to prosecution: “The President shall be immune from criminal prosecution, except for a felony. If any true bill be returned against the President, whether from a state or federal grand jury, it shall be reviewed by and is subject to the approval of a panel established by the chief justice of the Supreme Court.” It would support the principle of equal justice and restore the tradition of no official being above the law.
Thanks for that thoughtful comment, Mark. It’s always good to hear from you…
The Republican Supreme Court invented Trump’s “out of jail” card to protect Trump.
As other law professors have already pointed out, the same court has not and will not be as permissive with a Democrat president. A few like Thomas and Alito have actually alluded to that reality in some of their opinions.
Too bad the only attorney that really ever posted on here (long gone now) seemed to reflexively repeat whatever Donald Trump’s claim to the court happened to be at the time, no matter how inconsistent.