 |
|
|
|||||
Apple has killed the future of computing. With iPadOS 26, it turned the dream of computing visionaries like Alan Kay and Jef Raskin (and of Steve Jobs and Jony Ive, too) into an overpriced touchscreen MacBook with an optional keyboard. Back when it launched in 2010, the iPad was meant to be the escape hatch from the cluttered, file-strewn, window-management hellscape of traditional computing. It was the ultimate expression of Kay’s Dynabook, a book-like device that was mostly screen. Kay, a legendary Xerox PARC computer scientist, imagined that the Dynabook would democratize access to computers without people having to learn arcane coding languages. Today, though, the iPad has become a cluttered compromise. Apple has transformed the iPadOS into MacOS with some touch UX details. Now you can make apps run in windows that can overlap each other, just like the way you can run many iOS and iPad apps in the Mac. There are menus and submenus too, which run across the top of the screen in some apps, just like the Mac (but, unlike the Mac, they are not a permanent UX element, appearing and disappearing depending of the app you are running). Windows can tile, turning it into a finger-clickable oversize pop-up window. [Image: Apple] The power of modal UX Apple believes that all this brings more power to the user. I would argue that it detracts from it, like Raskin discovered while developing the first Macintosh computer before Jobs took it away from him in 1981. He was a computer engineer, artist, writer, and human interface expert, who originally advocated leaving the command line interface for computers with a single purpose that anyone could use without training, like a toaster or an immersion blender in the real world. These information appliances would have the right buttons, software, and network connectivity to perform specific tasks effortlessly. Raskin envisioned them becoming invisible to userspart of their daily life. Eventually, he realized that having one gadget for each task was impractical. His answer was the mouse and graphical user interfaces, which he believed could bring computing a bit closer to his original idea. A computer could have programs focused on specialized taskslike word processors, painting programs, or a calculatorwith specialized interfaces designed so people could understand them intuitively. He started the Macintosh project at Apple in 1979, hiring legends like Bill Atkinson, the father of the menu bar and countless other fundamental graphic UX elements (who sadly recently passed away), Andy Hertzfeld, the main architect of the Mac’s system software, and Burrell Smith, who created the Mac’s hardware. He brought on other luminaries like Steve Capps (who later helmed the Newton project, the origin of the iPhone and the iPad), Bruce Horn (who created the Finder), and Susan Kare (who designed all the Mac’s icons and made all things wonderful in the pixel world), and they went on a mission to realize Raskin’s vision. Their genius ushered in the second computing revolution. And yet, the Mac wasnt the solution Raskin had in mind. It required users to manage files and windows. It required them to learn conventions and navigate through menus, even if it was orders of magnitude more intuitive than the command line. Soon, it got too complicatedand still is to this day. No matter how many clean-up attempts Apple has tried, it’s fundamentally too complex. It wasnt until the iPhone and touchscreens that Raskins idea materialized thanks to apps that turned to the phone into a specialize device for each task. Later, the iPad became the ultimate expression of that powerful idea. It embodied Raskins core philosophy: an immersive device focused and modal, that could transform instantly into the tool you neededa sketchpad, a typewriter, a comic book reader, a video editor. Billions of people around the planet instantly got it. One app, full screen, your mind uncluttered. The complexity was hidden; its purpose was clear. The iPad was, as I wrote back for Gizmodo when it came out, the future. It wasnt perfect by any means, but it had the potential to become the ultimate computing device. Years later, I changed my Mac for an iPad Pro. I loved it. The iPad put me in the zone and minimized distraction. I used it exclusively for several years and only changed to a Macbook Air because I needed to use Premiere for new projects. [Image: Apple] A squandered golden opportunity Which brings me back to iPadOS 26 and trying to understand its very existence. Fifteen years after Apple first introduced the iPad as a new form of computing we’ve landed back on the Mac. The company that once championed simplicity against the tyranny of overlapping windows and nested menus has now bolted those things onto the iPad. With iPadOS 26 the iPad is not a truly liberated information appliance anymore, free from desktop baggage. And its certainly not a full-fledged Macas it still lacks the power-user features, the robust file system, and the sheer flexibility of macOS. We didnt need a decade and a half to arrive at a mediocre compromise. If Apple had truly lost faith in the iPads unique visionthe vision that differentiated itthey should have had the guts to kill it. Just kill the damn thing and make a MacBook Air with a detachable keybard. Go ahead. Slap touchscreens on every Mac in the line and call it a day. Just dont make an iPad thats less than it was meant to be, clumsily aping the thing it was supposed to replace. Perhaps clinging to the original idea of a new computing paradigm is an untenable idea. But this compromise feels particularly bad right now, right at the very moment where theres a clear window of opportunity for Apple. Maybe the iPad should have gone totally away from the Mac and doubled down on AI. Maybe the iPad was already in the right place to become the true future of computing. It was a blank canvas. The right opportunity to reimagine computing around AI, to make it useful in a more natural way that is not constrained by the size of the iPhone (which I still think is the only true AI device, just too small to be useful for many things). And no, I don’t know what that looks like. That’s why Apple’s UX designers get paid. What I do know is Apple might have squandered its chance to create a completely new AI-based computer user experience.
Category:
E-Commerce
While the world and private enterprise are adopting AI rapidly in their workflows, government isnt far behind. The U.K. government has said early trials of AI-powered productivity tools can shave two weeks of labor off a years work, and AI companies are adapting to that need. More than 1,700 AI use cases have been recorded in the U.S. government, long before Elon Musks DOGE entered the equation and accelerated AI adoption throughout the public sector. Federal policies introduced in April on AI adoption and procurement have pushed this trend further. Its unsurprising that big tech companies are rolling out their own specialist models to meet that demand. Anthropic, the maker of the Claude chatbot, announced last week a series of models tailored for use by government employees. These include features such as the ability to handle classified materials and understand some of the bureaucratic language that plagues official documents. Anthropic has said its models are already deployed by agencies at the highest level of U.S. national security, and access to these models is limited to those who operate in such classified environments. The announcement follows a similar one by OpenAI, the makers of ChatGPT, which released its own government-tailored AI models in January to streamline government agencies access to OpenAIs frontier models. But AI experts worry about governments becoming overly reliant on AI models, which can hallucinate information, inherit biases that discriminate against certain groups at scale, or steer policy in misguided directions. They also express concern over governments being locked into specific providers, who may later increase prices that taxpayers would be left to fund. I worry about governments using this kind of technology and relying on tech companies, and in particular, tech companies who have proven to be quite untrustworthy, says Carissa Véliz, who researches AI ethics at the University of Oxford. She points out that the generative AI revolution so far, sparked by the November 2022 release of ChatGPT, has seen governments scrambling to retrofit rules and regulations in areas such as copyright to accommodate tech companies after theyve bent those rules. It just shows a power relationship there that doesnt look good for government, says Véliz. Government is supposed to be the legislator, the one making the rules and enforcing the rules. Beyond those moral concerns, she also worries about the financial stakes involved. Theres just a sheer dependency on a company that has financial interests, that is based in a different country, in a situation in which geopolitics is getting quite complicated, says Véliz, explaining why countries outside the United States might hesitate to sign on to use ClaudeGov or ChatGPT Gov. Its the same argument the U.S. uses about overreliance on TikTok, which has Chinese ties, amid fears that figures like Donald Trump could pressure U.S.-based firms to act in politically motivated ways. OpenAI didn’t respond to Fast Company‘s request for comment. A spokesperson for Anthropic says the company is committed to transparency, citing published work on model risks, a detailed system card, and collaborations with the U.S. and U.K. governments to test AI systems. Some fear that AI companies are securing those big DoD bucks, as programmer Ashe Dryden put it on Mastodon, and could perpetuate that revenue by fostering dependency on their specific models. The rollout of these models reflects broader shifts in the tech landscape that increasingly tie government, national security, and technology together. For example, defense tech firm Anduril recently raised $5 billion in a new funding round that values the company at over $30 billion. Others have argued that the release of these government-specific models by AI companies isnt [about] national security. This is narrative laundering, as one LinkedIn commenter put it. The idea is that these moves echo the norms already set by big government rather than challenging them, potentially reinforcing existing issues. I’ve always been a sceptic of a single supplier for IT services, and this is no exception, says Andres Guadamuz, an AI researcher at the University of Sussex. Guadamuz believes the development of government-specific AI models is still in its early phase, and urges decision-makers to pause before signing deals. Governments should keep their options open, he says. Particularly with a crowded AI market, large entities such as the government can have a better negotiating position.
Category:
E-Commerce
This year has not been kind to retailers in terms of store closures. But brick-and-mortar shops are not the only retail category that has experienced a decline in 2025. Banks are closing retail locations, too. One of Americas largest regional banks, Flagstar, closed 24 branch locations on May 30. The closures come after the banks parent company, Flagstar Financial, announced in January that it would be shuttering 60 branches this year. Heres what you need to know about the latest Flagstar branch closures. Whats happened? On May 30, Flagstar shut 24 bank branches for good, according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), which is an independent bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The OCC regulates national banks in the United States. In its weekly bulletin for the period from May 25 to May 30, 2025, the OCC says that 24 Flagstar Bank branches were closed. However, the closures did not come as a surprise, as the company announced in January that it would shutter 60 branches. As Banking Dive previously reported, Flagstar Financial announced it would close the locations in an effort to consolidate its retail footprint and cut $600 million in operating costs from its balance sheet by the end of the year. Running physical locations incurs significant operating costs, and as more people turn to online banking first and try to avoid visiting branches if possible, those branches are used less, leading to a reduced return on investment for banks. Which Flagstar Bank branches have closed? According to the OCC, 24 Flagstar Bank branches closed on May 30. The branch closures impact locations in five states: Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio. New York saw the most Flagstar Bank branches close in this round, with nine locations shutting down. Michigan and New Jersey saw six locations each shutter. Indiana saw two close and Ohio one. Fast Company reached out to Flagstar for comment and to ask if additional closings are expected. Here are the locations of the closed branches in each state. Indiana 5770 COVENTRY LANE FORT WAYNE IN 2926 MISHAWAKA AVENUE SOUTH BEND IN Michigan 210 WEST HURON STREET ANN ARBOR MI 29049 JOY ROAD WESTLAND MI 914 CHARLEVOIX DRIVE GRAND LEDGE MI 4675 32ND AVENUE HUDSONVILLE MI 5151 CORPORATE DRIVE TROY MI 500 WOODWARD AVENUE, Detroit, MI New Jersey 949 BROADWAY BAYONNE NJ 142 BROAD STREET ELIZABETH NJ 36 FERRY STREET NEWARK NJ 198 JEFFERSON STREET NEWARK NJ 2624 MORRIS AVENUE UNION NJ 133 S. LIVINGSTON AVENUE LIVINGSTON NJ New York 30TH AVENUE, ASTORIA, NY 625 ATLANTIC AVENUE BROOKLYN NY 102 DUFFY AVENUE HICKSVILLE NY 1608 KINGS HIGHWAY HOMECREST (BKLYN) NY 66-77 FRESH POND ROAD RIDGEWOOD NY 65-30 KISSENA BLVD. FLUSHING NY 509 OLD COUNTRY ROAD PLAINVIEW NY 194-02 NORTHERN BOULEVARD FLUSHING NY 100 JERICHO QUADRANGLE JERICHO NY Ohio ONE NORTH HAWKINS AVE. AKRON OH Flagstar’s stock price soars since closure announcement While many people prefer the ease and convenience of online banking, closures of physical bank branches can still have a negative impact on communities and certain groups of individuals. This is particularly true for older individuals who may not be as adept at using the internet or app-based banking, or who may simply prefer to visit a physical branch location to discuss their banking needs with a representative. Still, financial companies looking to cut costs often turn to branch closures as the quickest way to do so (that, and employee layoffs). And investors in those banks generally react favorably to those types of moves. Indeed, since Flagstar announced in January that it would close 60 branches, the companys stock price (NYSE: FLG) has soared. At the start of the year, FLG stock was trading in the $9 range. But by the end of January, after the company announced the branch closures, FLG stock jumped to nearly $12 per share. Year-to-date, FLG stock is currently up over 27% as of the time of this writing. On April 25, Flagstar Financial announced its Q1 2025 earnings, in which the company revealed that its operating expenses declined 22% year-over-year. The company says that as of March 31, Flagstar Bank held $97.6 billion in total assets, $73.9 billion in total deposits, and operated approximately 400 locations. Its online branch locator tool shows that as of today, there are 363 Flagstar Bank locations in the United States.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||