Dustin Bluck:

Independent podcast apps are not growing as a category. This is not a particular secret, but perhaps you haven’t seen it stated explicitly. It’s the sort of thing that has to be inferred, but there’s plenty of available data if you look for it. While the podcasting sector has seen growth, this has occurred almost entirely on platforms like YouTube, and the independent podcast app userbase has mostly just stood still.

[…]

I’m sure somewhere out there a 21-year-old just downloaded Castro or Pocket Casts for the first time and thinks RSS feeds are awesome (if you are this person, please email me). But every number I can see indicates the userbase is both static and aging. Every new customer I talk to has used some combination of Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Pocket Casts, or Castro for at least the last 5 years if not the last 10.

[…]

Perhaps there are healthy businesses that get very few new users but instead gracefully age with the ones they have. Ferrari maybe? Buddy, smartphone apps are not one of those businesses.

[…]

I would rather work on flashy features to capture new users, but, reality being what it is, I have to think about things in terms of both the health of the ecosystem and what will actually help retain existing podcast app users.

Nick Heer:

Anil Dash wrote, in 2014, that the simple phrase wherever you get your podcasts is a “radical statement”:

[…] Because what it represents is the triumph of exactly the kind of technology that’s supposed to be impossible: open, empowering tech that’s not owned by any one company, that can’t be controlled by any one company, and that allows people to have ownership over their work and their relationship with their audience.

Video podcasting changes that. In its simplest form, it is just a YouTube channel, which means it is siloed and controlled by Google. Spotify also supports video but only in its app.

Ilya Birman:

So Marco described a problem. What if someone manually asks to download an episode when they already have three downloaded? You can’t just immediately delete it to keep things tidy. So what do you do? Marco added a special hidden “episode downloaded manually” flag to the database, so those episodes would not count towards the limit.

This is one more example of how even the most seemingly trivial features require thinking through and accounting for different cases that may not be obvious at first glance. Every user interface designer and product designer should collect and absorb examples like this.

[…]

Finally, Marco’s wife Tiff suggests a solution to all the problems: just don’t let users download more episodes, she said, and show them a message, roughly: “Your episode limit is three, but this would be the fourth, denied”.

Marco liked the solution. I didn’t. Sure, it solves Marco’s problems, but not the user’s.

Marcin Wichary:

Birman presents this as “Let me click,” but I wanted to offer two alternative/​complementary principles that helped me before:

• Let me do things in any order. Here’s Google Home app, where I can change the temperature and the time for holding – but if I change the time first, it frustratingly resets when I subsequently change the temperature. It forces one specific order in an interface that suggests any order is okay[…]
• The current action has the most momentum. The user is right there, active, tapping on things, wanting to get stuff done. If Overcast indeed throws a “your episode limit is three” message, then it forces the user to remember how to get to the settings and change it. The momentum is lost. The decisions of past me should not be as important as the decisions of present me.

Marco Arment:

FWIW, the entire strict-limit feature is gone in the pending update (awaiting App Store review). EVERYONE hated it.

Now I’m just displaying the added-manually status in the UI and allowing it to be toggled manually in the “…” menu.

Marco Arment:

I’ve needed to evolve my expectations for what my role in Overcast is.

After building up a large, passionate userbase over a very long time, it’s not really entirely mine anymore. I can’t just do whatever I want with it.

And the growth era of open/RSS/indie/whatever podcast apps is over. The business is now about serving and retaining my existing customers for as long as possible.

So I can add things here and there, very carefully, but I can’t really change anything significant.

Previously:

• Castro’s Customer Support Lessons
• Overcast Transcripts
• Official Overcast Reddit
• Apple Podcasts on the Web
• Google Podcasts Is Gone
• Spotify Now #1 Podcasts Platform
• iTunes Podcast Directory Now Hiding Feed URLs
• Joe Rogan Moves to Spotify
• Overcast Rejected for Listing Competing Podcast Apps

Marco Arment:

Unforgetful isn’t a new productivity system to learn.

[…]

This is designed for a small number of short-term tasks. What do you need to do today, tomorrow, this week, or this month?

[…]

If you want tagging, folders, archives, or other ways to organize or file away tasks, this isn’t the app you’re looking for.

Unforgetful is for people who know that if they file away a task, it never gets done.

I’m an OmniFocus person. I love tagging, folders, and archives; I never want to see a notification for a to-do item. I prefer pull to push. So this is absolutely not the right tool for me. But I like the fresh thinking behind this app and how the various design choices interact to make it an opinionated tool for the right type of person.

Marco Arment:

Calendar alarms changed my life. Events without alarms don’t happen.

[…]

Most of my Reminders interaction has always been via Siri and notifications. And that fits me very well, with three major exceptions:

1. If I say “Remind me to buy milk,” but I forget to specify a time (or Siri misses it), Reminders will never notify me, and I’ll never check the app, so it’ll be lost.
2. If I inadvertently dismiss a Reminders notification without snoozing it, Reminders will never notify me about it again, so it’ll be lost.
3. When I do snooze a Reminders notification, which I do a lot, the snooze options suck.

He has good solutions to these and other problems. I’m tempted to try out Unforgetful just for the purported quick capture of dictated reminders, however there’s no watch app.

Listen to Accidental Tech Podcast to hear about unfortunate limitations of EventKit. Reminders itself is interesting to me in that the (private) data model is now so rich, but I’m put off by the UI, the lack of export, and the limited support for driving it from the keyboard.

Previously:

• TabControl Scam and the App Review Queue
• OmniFocus 4.8.10
• Dictating Literal Reminders to My Apple Watch
• CKSyncEngine
• Bulk Setting “Catch Up Automatically” in OmniFocus
• Overcast’s New Foundation
• Adventures in Siri Failures: Reminders Edition

Lily Hay Newman (via Ben Lovejoy):

As AI models gain advanced capabilities to find vulnerabilities in software, develop ways to exploit them, and even carry out autonomous hacking sprees, researchers offered a sobering new example on Tuesday, disclosing vulnerabilities in the video conferencing platform Zoom that could have been exploited to take over targets’ devices. Anyone on a call that involved screen sharing, whether participants or the host, would have been vulnerable to a silent attack that could be carried out with no indication and no interaction from the victim.

Researchers from the digital defense firm A Security say the bug was discovered in early June using publicly available AI models, and that it took fewer than 20 prompts to uncover the vulnerabilities and create a working attack. Zoom issued a security advisory on Tuesday, including details about fixes the company has already begun rolling out to address the flaws, which affected devices running all operating systems that Zoom supports—Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, and Android.

[…]

The vulnerabilities were specifically in the protocol used to facilitate real-time annotation during screen sharing.

I don’t understand how it could take over an iOS device when Zoom’s iOS screen sharing feature only allows observation, not control.

Previously:

• macOS 26.6.1
• Zoom Security Improvements
• Every Zoom Security and Privacy Flaw So Far

Jeff Johnson:

Despite my history of uncovering App Store frauds, I rarely go looking for these things intentionally! They’re just so pervasive and obvious, they jump out at me. In this case, I was looking at the list of top paid Safari extensions in the Mac App Store, because two of my own extensions are currently on the list, when I noticed the TabControl Extension.

[…]

The Mac App Store “screenshot” for the app is not actually a screenshot at all. If you look closely, that’s not the real Safari: the toolbar elements are wrong. I suspect that the image was AI-generated.

[…]

Another thing you should note in the fake screenshot is the “4.9 out of 5” stars, giving the impression that this is the App Store user rating of the app.

[…]

These purported reviews, all but one of which is 5 stars, are all in English. Yet none of them is in the US App Store. […] If you’ve ever looked through App Store user reviews, it’s unusual to find this naming format. […] the dates on the reviews, such as “Mar 12,” predate the release of TabControl Extension in the App Store!

John Gruber:

God only knows what this obvious AI slop scam is doing with the data from users’ Safari tabs. It’s currently the 12th or 13th most popular Safari extension in the App Store.

Jeff Johnson:

Coincidentally, on the same day well-known developer Marco Arment complained on social media that his new, unreleased Mac App Store app had been waiting 12 days for review by Apple.

Arment ended up waiting on hold—listening to an odd choice of music—to talk to App Review, which I didn’t realize was an option. His Unforgetful app is now approved.

Johnson continued browsing Safari extensions in the store:

The apps’s privacy policy is again on Google Drive, but the developer website link goes to https://aee5e5015.app-ads-txt.com, a suspicious URL. This website is barren and simply redirects back to the App Store[…] Did App Store review ever bother to click the developer website link?

[…]

In addition to the 41 apps, each of which required at least one submission to App Store review, I count across those 41 apps at least 327 updates, almost all of which have the same generic description for what’s new in the update: "Bug fixes and performance improvements." So that’s at least 368 submissions to App Store review, most within the past 12 months, from a single developer. In other words, the developer is averaging almost one submission per day. We can count only approved submissions; we have no idea how many submissions by the developer were privately rejected by App Store review.

I get the impression that Apple is asleep at the wheel. Is anyone at Apple counting submissions per developer? How many is too many? How many resources is one developer allowed to consume?

[…]

You may view it as a noble, democratic ideal to treat every app developer the same, but in reality this is the path to the crApp Store, full of scams and slop.

John Voorhees:

There’s no doubt that there is spam on the App Store, but the way to remove it is to target the spammers, not new developers, students, and hobbyists looking to build their ideas. I know that being an indie developer isn’t an easy way to make a living, but erecting barriers to submitting apps is the surest way to starve Apple platforms of fresh, innovative ideas.

John Voorhees:

I’d like to see App Store spam cleaned up as much as anyone, but the way to do it isn’t preferring well-known developers and those who can afford to pay more for special treatment.

Marc Palmer:

I don’t agree with paid tiers either. However it feels like there should be a natural brake applied to new developers and new apps. It’s no big deal if your first app takes a week or two to review (often did 10y ago), and as it matures & receives meaningful updates in the store, turnaround increases as trust and “value” (active users?) builds up. Like “tarpitting” new accounts. I think limiting the # of new apps you can add per month to say 1 or 2 would also help…

Jeff Johnson:

I was a new App Store developer myself ten years ago. My previous article didn’t propose any new barriers for those groups. To be clear, I did imply that no developer, whether new or not, should have more than 40 apps and average a new App Store submission every day of the year. I’m not aware of any prominent developer who has that many. Apparently, checking just now, Microsoft by my count has 38 App Store apps between iOS and Mac, which is a lot but still less than the 41 apps of the developer I discussed in my previous article who is definitely not one of the largest software developers in the world along with Microsoft. I do think it’s reasonable for Microsoft to pay a significantly higher developer fee to have those 38 apps reviewed than a smaller developer pays to have one app reviewed by Apple.

[…]

My contention is that Apple is actually wasting its own resources treating every developer like a potential spammer or scammer, even the developers who are known to be trustworthy, and this wasting of resources makes it harder on everyone, including new developers, students, and hobbyists. App review is grossly inefficient, and it’s clearly failing to scale to the increase in App Store submissions. What I propose is not raising the gates but rather lowering the gates for developers who have already proven trustworthy, so that Apple can focus its review efforts where they’re most needed.

I’m not sure that paying more would help anything. If scams are profitable, surely it would be worth them paying more, and then we’re back to square one. And I don’t want to create another situation like App Store Search Ads where providing poor service makes the revenue numbers go up. But I like the general idea of considering the account’s history, e.g. the way the Discourse forum gradually increases trust over time. It should count for something if you have a long history of following the rules and submitting updates to a small number of apps on a reasonable schedule vs. frequent spamming of submissions that don’t even have real release notes. It would not be fair for Microsoft to be able to cut in line, but giving spammers equal access to the review queue means they’ll use more than their share of Apple’s resources. That also seems unfair. The current system encourages frequent submissions, which also increases the overall load on the reviewers. I think the incentives need to be changed somehow. Maybe each account should get a certain number of “fast” submissions per month or year, after which you can still submit but it goes into a lower priority queue.

William Gallagher:

Even among more legitimate-seeming apps, though, Apple is ignoring clear problems. In AppleInsider research, for instance, we found that many price tiers listed for the “Simply Piano” app bore no relation to what the developer actually charges.

[…]

You shouldn’t have to be the one to investigate apps you want to try. That is the future of third-party App Stores, and that is a future to be fought.

But that future is here with the first-party App Store we already have. And this inability to trust an App Store is here, right now, because Apple will not do what it keeps saying it is doing and what it is charging developers to do.

Previously:

• Dark Hours Rejected From the App Store
• Chrome Browser Default at the Top of the Mac App Store
• Hidden Gambling Apps in Brazilian App Store
• San Francisco Demands Removal of Nudify Apps
• Small Ways the App Store Could Be Improved for Developers
• Mac App Store Review Times Increasing
• Deluge of Fake Mac App Store Reviews

Update (2026-08-20): Eric deRuiter:

I wonder if there is already a separate queue, not for Marco or other established indies, but for the huge companies: Facebook, Spotify, Google, etc.

Jeff Johnson:

Apparently the App Store developer in question saw my article in the news, because the fake App Store reviews posted on the developer’s website were quickly removed, as reported by AppleInsider and confirmed by me. Until yesterday, the misleading “4.9 out of 5 stars” claim remained in the App Store. However, the developer released an update only hours ago with new screenshots that no longer include the misleading claim, thereby erasing all evidence of the previous fraud. Apple approved the developer’s update and, needless to say, did not remove the app from the App Store.

[…]

There are 59 reviews [of Authenticator ℠], 54 of which are 1 star, and 3 of which are 2 stars. Two of the reviews are 5 stars; of those, one is titled “space jam” and goes on to say, “i believe i can fly and touch the sky.” Anyway, the question is, how did the app manage ratings of 4.1 out of 5 when the reviews average 1.2 out of 5? (That’s a rhetorical question. I think we all know the answer.)