I’m a firm believer that a diverse ecosystem surrounding a particular platform correlates with its level of innovation, and the web is a prime example of this.

From highly collaborative apps to technologies that transform web browsers into virtualization platforms, there are countless people building for the web and pushing it in myriad directions. This diversity can sometimes be a drawback—especially if you’re trying to build a company—but it lays the groundwork for unprecedented innovation. People feel invited and inspired to tinker with new ideas.

Apple, too, built an ecosystem—an ecosystem of apps—and invited developers to join. They provided tools, frameworks, and a language, creating a foundation upon which developers could build their apps. Innovation flourished at the application level. This approach worked well for many years while Apple focused on expanding its hardware offerings and, more recently, its services. However, it never felt truly inviting, and it still doesn’t.

First, it excludes those who can’t afford the hardware and prefer platforms like the web, which are universally available and accessible from anywhere. Second, it alienates developers who don’t want their capabilities limited by proprietary tools, frameworks, and even an open-source language that remains tightly controlled. They prefer platforms offering greater freedom. Finally, it distances those who don’t align with Apple’s mission and view contributing to its open-source components as indirectly supporting Apple itself. They don’t see these building blocks as true commons.

This is creativity left untapped—creativity that could have advanced Apple’s build system, making it more deterministic and optimizable. It’s people who might have better understood the issues with LLDB and proposed solutions to ensure developers can effectively debug their apps, or who could have taken SwiftUI to other platforms by integrating it with native rendering technologies. While we’ve seen sporadic efforts from individuals trying to drive change, these initiatives often fade because they ultimately depend on Apple’s approval—a “yes” or “maybe” that requires internal discussion and rarely materializes.

I believe Apple’s current struggle to keep pace with innovation is a direct consequence of this missing creative energy. Their ecosystem can no longer ignore the outside world or the advancements happening beyond its walls, and developers naturally expect a response from Apple that never arrives.

Some suggest that throwing money at the problem might be a solution, and while that could yield short-term gains, Apple would soon find itself back in the same position. The momentum of more inviting ecosystems compounds over time in ways money alone can’t replicate.

I firmly believe Apple needs a mindset shift to make its environment more welcoming to this creative energy. If they succeeded, people would not only work to advance the ecosystem but also become stewards of it, much like Apple itself. Recent job postings from Apple seeking engineers to focus on Windows are a promising first step, but I’d love to see an approach centered on inspiring people to take Swift to Windows. What motivates Windows developers? What drives them to contribute to Swift in the context of Windows every day?

Microsoft nailed this with VSCode and TypeScript. They built an ecosystem that sparked countless ideas and laid the foundation for the AI-based code editors we enjoy today. It took recognizing that open source is an aspiration for many and that showing you care can profoundly shift how people perceive you.

This creative energy is absent from Apple’s ecosystem due to its closed, proprietary nature and the tight coupling of its toolchain, paired with Apple’s firm control over the direction of its projects. We also lack a visionary—someone to oversee and communicate where things are headed, assuring everyone that Apple cares about Swift breaking free from its ecosystem. Imagine someone saying, “Yes, SwiftUI should have been open source, and we’re taking steps to make that happen. It’ll be open source because we want people to take it to new platforms.”

This is a long-term investment that’s hard to justify because the returns are distant in both time and impact. A brilliant idea born from a more open toolchain might emerge years from now, and its connection to that openness might not be immediately obvious. Will it happen? Who knows—it’s Apple. But I believe it will require new leadership that embraces a more open, ecosystem-building approach. A leadership that shares a vision for their technologies beyond Apple devices.