Human edits and add the Pelican Headers

'

src/content/apple_the_anti_dev_platform.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+Title: Apple And The Anti-Dev Platform
+Date: 2025-08-28 20:00
+Modified: 2025-08-28 20:00
+Category: Tech, Software, Apple
+Tags: Tech, Software, Apple
+Slug: apple-anti-dev
+Authors: Andrew Ridgway
+Summary: Apples requirements for developers are onerous, I detail some of the frustrations I've had whilst dealing with the platform to deploy a small app as part of my day job
+
+## Introduction: Why I Hate Loving to Hate Apple
+
+This week, I found myself in the unenviable position of using MacOS for work. It was like revisiting an old flame only to realize they’ve become *that* person—still attractive from afar, but toxic up close. Let me clarify: I’m not anti-Apple per se. I appreciate their design aesthetic as much as anyone. But when you’re a developer, especially one with a penchant for Linux and a deep love for open-source, Apple’s ecosystem feels like walking into a store where the sign says "Employee Discounts" but they charge you double for the privilege.
+
+## 1. The Hardware-Software Tie-In: Why Buy New Every Year?
+
+Let’s talk about my borrowed MacBook from 2020. It was a kind gesture, right? But here’s the kicker: this machine, which was cutting-edge just five years ago, is now deemed too old to run the latest MacOS. I needed Xcode for a project, and guess what? You can’t run the latest version of Xcode without the latest MacOS. So, to paraphrase: "Sorry, but your device isn’t *new enough* to develop on the Apple platform anymore." This isn’t just inconvenient; it’s a deliberate strategy to force upgrades. It’s like buying a car that requires you to upgrade your entire garage every year just to keep it running.
+
+## 2. Forced Obsolescence: The New "Upgrade" Cycle
+
+Yes, Microsoft did the whole TPM 2.0 thing with Windows 11. But Apple takes it to another level. They’ve turned hardware into a subscription model without you even realizing it. You buy a device, and within a few years, it’s obsolete for their latest software and tools. This isn’t about security or innovation—it’s about control. Why release an operating system that only works on devices sold in the last 12 months? It creates a false market for "new" hardware, padding Apple’s margins at the expense of developers and users.
+
+## 3. High Costs: The Developer Fee That Keeps On Giving
+
+I honestly believe this actually boils down to money? To develop on Apple’s platform, you need an Apple Developer account. This costs $150 AUD a year. Now, if I were to buy a new MacBook Pro today, that would set me back around $2,500 AUD. And for what? The privilege of being able to build apps on my own device? It’s like paying a toll every year just to use the road you already own. It’s enough to make you consider a career change and become a sheep farmer.
+
+## 4. Lack of Freedom: Who Owns the Device Anyway?
+
+Here’s where it gets really egregious: Apple’s developer review process. It’s like being subjected to a TSA pat-down every time you want to build something, even if it's just for your own device. To deploy ANYTHING onto an IOS device I need to hand my Government issued license over to Apple and let them "check I'm a real person". And no this isn't just for the app store deployments, which I can understand. This is for any deployment, it's the only way to get a certificate to cross sign on the app and device... Google might be heading down a similar path, but at least you'll be able to on custom Android ROmS. On Apple, it feels like every step is designed to remind you that you’re dancing in their sandbox—and they call the shots. If you use IOS you have to dance to their tune AT ALL TIMES. 
+
+## 5. The "Apple Tax": A Future Job Requirement
+
+I think all developers and consultants should demand an "Apple Tax." It will be simple:
+
+*   $5,000 AUD for new Apple hardware.
+*   An additional 25% markup on development hours spent navigating Apple’s ecosystem.
+
+Why? Because it's time developers passed on these costs to the users. It's time to make this hurt the consumers who insist on using these products with predatory business models for developers. Yes, developers go where the market is, but it's time to start charging that market so it understands the true cost to be there.
+
+## Conclusion: Why I’ll Keep Hating Loving to Hate Apple
+
+Apple’s ecosystem feels like a love story gone wrong—a relationship where one party keeps raising the stakes just to remind you of how much they control everything. Developers are supposed to be the disruptors, the rebels who challenge the status quo. But when your tools are designed to keep you tethered to a specific platform and its outdated business model, it feels less like innovation and more like indentured servitude. If you’re still enamored with Apple’s ecosystem and think it’s “just part of the game,” I urge you to take a long, hard look in the mirror. Because if this is your idea of progress, we’re all in trouble.

src/content/gpt_oss__is_it_eee.md

@@ -3,12 +3,13 @@ Date: 2025-08-12 20:00
 Modified: 2025-08-14 20:00
 Category: Politics, Tech, AI
 Tags: politics, tech, Ai
-Slug: social-media-ban-fail
+Slug: gpt-oss-eee
 Authors: Andrew Ridgway
 Summary: GPT OSS is here from Open AI, the first open weight model from them since GPT-2. My question is... why now?
 
 # Human Introduction
 This has been a tough one for the publishing house to get right. I've had it generate 3 different drafts and this is still the result of quite the edit. Today's blog was written by:
+
 1. Gemma:27b - Editor
 2. GPT-OSS - Journalist
 3. Qwen3:14b - Journalist
@@ -53,7 +54,7 @@ Now, I’m not accusing OpenAI of anything here—just pointing out that they’
 
 * OpenAI has dominated the consumer AI market with their **ChatGPT** and other tools.
 * They’ve been losing ground in the developer market, where models like [Gemini](https://deepmind.google/models/gemini/pro/) and particularly [Claude (Anthropic)](https://claude.ai/) are gaining traction in the proprietary space.
-* Now they’re releasing open-source models that promise to compete at GPT-4 levels to try and bring in the Deepseek and Qwen crowd.
+* Now they’re releasing open weight models that promise to compete at GPT-4 levels to try and bring in the Deepseek and Qwen crowd.
 
 The timing feels a bit too convenient. OpenAI is essentially saying: “We get it. You want local, affordable, and flexible AI? We’ve got you covered.” But will this be enough to win back the developer community? Or are they just delaying the inevitable?