lenir17 wrote:
To Iris Seabright: I love your contributions, but I think your suggestion here is a little shortsighted. Apple should be expanding the options, like Steve Jobs did with typefaces, not limiting them. People lived happily with Courrier on their typewriters for decades, until innovation was brought in. In my opinion, the spirit of Apple is to meet the needs of a larger group, making things easier and more efficient for all, not limiting itself to the simpler requirements of a smaller number of individuals, especially after Apple let us get used to what is possible. (I got a little long winded here...this is becoming an emotional issue.)
Mr. Jobs was not a big fan of giving customers options. More choices meant a less "elegant" OS. He had to be talked into including a keyboard for the original Mac because he was so enamored of the mouse. He gave typeface options because he liked them (he was a calligrapher).
But, I'm not making a judgment on what Apple should or should not do. What I'm saying is that they may have reasons that, being Apple, they have not told us about for doing what they've done. Or, for all we know, everyone at Apple may prefer it this way. What I'm bemused by are the people who are insisting that only stupid or incompetent people might find the current set of features acceptable.
It is also my understanding that the user data that is generated and sent back to Apple (by all the people who are allowing that) informs a number of Apple's user-interface choices. So, another possibility is that, in fact, this wasn't a feature used by most people. Does that make it any more pleasant for the people who depended on it? No, of course not.