The iOS 27 beta has overall been a very positive experience for many beta testers, but if you have installed iOS 26 beta onto your iPhone or iPad and decided that it’s no longer for you, perhaps due to some incompatibility, critical bug, or other issue, then you can downgrade your iPhone from iOS 27 ... Read More
The post How to Downgrade from iOS 27 Beta to iOS 26 appeared first on OS X Daily.
Last April, Brazilian officials notified Apple and Google over an alleged lack of age controls in betting apps on their respective app stores.
Brazilian users browsing the App Store rankings in categories such as Navigation, Travel, and Weather have noticed a growing number of poorly made games appearing among the top results, many of them featuring AI-generated illustrations of animals as their app icons. Many carry an AL age rating, making them available to users of all ages, including children.
As it turns out, these are so-called jacket apps, which are just a front for hidden betting and gambling apps.
[…]
The repository also includes explicit instructions intended to prevent the apps from being flagged as suspicious during App Store review. These include giving each app uniquely named startup and remote-configuration codes, making it harder for reviewers to identify them as part of the same group.
Ironically, the App Store’s own recommendation system appears to have little trouble grouping the apps together, as the “You Might Also Like” section on several of these apps points users toward other suspicious apps more frequently than they point to genuine apps.
Obviously the main problem is that these apps disguise themselves Trojan Horse-style, and slip through App Store review undetected. I don’t think it’s reasonable to think App Store review could catch every attempt at this sort of thing though — if the horses are disguised well-enough, some of them are going to slip through. That’s actually fine.
I agree that it’s unreasonable to expect App Review to catch all those, but then Apple should not be pretending that it can. This was all obvious from day one. The public perception of App Review is completely at odds with what it actually can and does do.
But the first example 9to5Mac cites isn’t well disguised at all. What sense does it make that “PotatoPlot Puzzle” — a game featuring a rabbit potato farmer — is a weather app? How is that not a red flag right there?
[…]
I always mention that the point of such a squad shouldn’t be to make the App Store 100 percent scammer-free — which I believe is an impossible goal that would set the team up for failure. The point should be only to make the App Store free of successful scams. Focus on the most popular apps and the most lucrative apps.
The App Store is more than 18 years old. The idea of patrolling the top charts probably occurred to Apple before it even shipped. They just don’t want to do it.
Apple only took 24 hours to approve my iOS app update that crashed instantly on launch. Such a blessing to have that extra level of reliability and security that only a manual review process can provide 🙏
Incidentally, the crash was due to a missing dylib - something that could easily have been detected by the automated scan process, if only that scan were designed to protect users’ and developers’ interests instead of Apple’s.
There is simply no other way to maintain a modern, healthy software ecosystem without making sure that apps that have been around for 7 years and 20 major versions can’t get a build looked at within 48 hours. There’s no other way. Probably needs to be longer, honestly.
I had to file an Expedited Review Request because this update is a legitimate emergency. Four hours later, App Review rejected the build because they didn’t follow the first sentence of the testing instructions (which haven’t changed in 7 years). Back to Waiting for Review! There’s no other way.
Previously:
Update (2026-07-30): Kyle Hughes:
We got rejected in the Expedited Review again, this time for not having an account deletion feature. Except we do, and it’s one button press away from the screen that the reviewer was on. And it has always existed. Is this how the expedited review works? Malicious incompetence?
Update (2026-07-31): Kyle Hughes:
If you were wondering how long one of the “you can ask us to approve this build and can fix this issue in the next release” App Review errors takes to resolve when you’re in the Expedited Review Queue… me too! So far, 18 hours. (Ignoring the fact that we have the feature the rejection was for.)
Certainly it means “within a week,” right? “Within a month,” please? “In your lifetime,” I can only hope.
Apple (Hacker News):
Apple today announced Apple Upgrade, a new product leasing program provided by Klarna for iPhone, Apple Watch, Mac, and iPad available on the Apple Store online, in the Apple Store app, and at Apple Store locations in the United States.
[…]
Apple Upgrade offers 12- and 24-month leasing options for iPhone and Apple Watch, and 24- and 36-month leasing options for Mac and iPad. Leasing prices start as low as $17.99 per month for iPhone, $11.99 for Apple Watch, $24.99 for Mac, and $11.99 for iPad.
The $17.99/month gets you a base model iPhone 17e for 24 months. This is a total of $431.76 vs. $599 for buying a new one today, but then you have to make a decision:
At the end of the lease term, customers can upgrade their device to the latest generation, purchase it with a one-time payment, or simply return it and exit the program.
I used to get a new phone every other year, but I kept my iPhone 12 mini for three years and will likely keep my 15 Pro for four years. In addition to making it easier to buy phones without the up-front payment, Apple is probably hoping this will encourage more customers to get back on the two-year cycle. Given the choice between continuing a small monthly payment and getting a new phone or making a larger payment to keep their old phone, many may opt to upgrade.
The payoff amount is the difference between what was paid during the leasing period and the retail price of the device, minus any remaining trade-in credits. Klarna is not charging a fee for the leasing program, so an iPhone that’s $1,099 can be leased and then purchased for $1,099 with no extra cost beyond taxes.
I guess this means that, for a bit of hassle, you can essentially buy the device for the list price at 0% interest.
Lease participants can opt to end a lease early and return a device, but Apple says there may be “substantial fees” for terminating a lease before the end of the term.
[…]
Customers must upgrade, end the lease, or purchase the device at the end of the lease term. If that doesn’t happen, the lease converts to a month-to-month lease for up to six months.
[…]
Damage to an iPhone, losing an iPhone, or having an iPhone stolen could incur fees.
The rollout of the program comes as Apple has been struggling with supply chain issues related to “RAMageddon,” which refers to the industry-wide shortage of memory chips that is driving up the price of hardware. As a result, Apple recently announced price hikes for its Mac and iPad lineups, sparing the iPhone for now. The new Upgrade program seems to be Apple’s answer to making those higher prices more manageable for consumers.
Customers can manage their lease directly in the Klarna app, where they can view their billing schedule and track remaining payments.
With the launch of the new Upgrade program, Apple is discontinuing its existing in-house financing and installment programs in the U.S., which include the iPhone Upgrade Program and iPhone Payments.
For iPhones, you have to have a carrier and can’t use a prepaid plan.
[…]
For iPads, the starting prices range from $12.99/month to $24.99/month, Macs range from starting prices of $24.99/month to $48.99/month, and the Apple Watch ranges from starting prices of $11.99/month to $47.03/month. But again, these are just starting prices. You can configure a fully loaded 16-inch MacBook Pro that is just under $230/month, and it won’t include AppleCare.
As a point of comparison, under the current program that is being discontinued, I pay $69.50/month for an iPhone 17 Pro Max, but I have a 512GB model, so my lease price for the same phone would be $40.83/month, significantly lower, but keep in mind that doesn’t include AppleCare+, which would add $13.99/month or $139/year for that iPhone. On a monthly basis, that puts a new iPhone 17 Pro Max with 512GB of storage and AppleCare+ at just under $55/month. Still a superior deal, but not nearly as good as the landing page might initially lead you to believe.
[…]
If you lease accessories for your device, those don’t have to be returned. Why? Presumably because they have no value to Apple or Klarna.
9to5Mac can now confirm that code found in the iOS 27 beta appears to reveal a broader system for managing a financed iPhone, including the ability to restrict apps and services when payments are missed.
The code describes a system called App Managed Features, which allows an authorized financing or provider app to enroll an iPhone and perform ongoing status checks.
If the contract is no longer in good standing, Apple’s system services can place the iPhone in “Restricted Mode,” which blocks access to most apps until the payment or contract issue is resolved, while keeping a small set of apps available.
I bet there are some governments that would love to commandeer that for their own purposes.
Finally, the new framework also introduces a new type of activation lock called “Partner Finance Lock,” which is meant to prevent users from erasing, reselling, or stripping a restricted device for parts.
Previously:
Update (2026-07-29): Emma Roth:
Apple says it won’t limit the capabilities of devices leased through its new Upgrade program if you miss a payment. In an emailed statement to The Verge, Apple spokesperson Brian Bumbery says, “There will be no restricted mode and/or there will be no limitations put on device functionality due to missed payments or default with the Apple Upgrade program.”
So then what is the code that 9to5Mac found for?
One possibility is that it was developed for financing programs offered by carriers, retailers, or other partners outside Apple Upgrade, potentially including markets where device restrictions are already used to enforce installment agreements.
See also: Mac Power Users, TidBITS, MacRumors, Slashdot.
Update (2026-07-30): Ryan Christoffel:
Here’s what every eligible product costs with Apple Upgrade.
Here’s a breakdown of how much you’d pay for the devices included in the Apple Upgrade program, as well as how much more you’d pay to purchase the devices outright at the end of your lease[…]
[…]
Klarna doesn’t say what will happen if you don’t pay the outstanding balance.
[…]
During the lease, Klarna owns your device. You’re responsible for any damage, and will get charged a fee if you don’t return the device in “good condition.” That’s why Apple is encouraging customers to sign up for an AppleCare subscription that could drive up the cost of your lease even more.
[…]
Apple also notes that you’ll have to pay an early termination fee if you want to return the device before your lease ends or if you want to upgrade early.
Eyes:
If you lose the leased phone you have to pay Klarna for the phone plus early lease cancellation fees.
The Apple Card Monthly Installments aren’t going away, so I’ll keep using that.
[…]
When you finance using the Apple Card Monthly Installments, you pay a fixed amount to own your device. There are no savings here — aside from the 3% cashback — the monthly payment is the purchase price divided by either 12 or 24 months.
When you lease an iPhone through Apple Upgrade, you need a cellular account on one of the big three U.S. carriers: AT&T, T-Mobile, or Verizon. That kind of stinks, and I’m not quite sure I understand why.
Eyes:
The iPhone upgrade program always required it. For a time you could do Apple Card installments without a carrier if you bought it online but never in store. I assume there is carrier pressure to tie the phones to the carriers. Activating iPhones on carriers was a key metric at the Apple Store.
Previously:
Update (2026-08-03): John Gruber (Mastodon):
Credit-risk assessment is seemingly part of it. There’s a lot of fraud in iPhone purchases specifically and cell phone service generally. The big three carriers do a significant amount of risk assessment before letting you open a new postpaid account; that you have an active account with one of them is a signal that you’re not trying to lease an iPhone using phony credentials in order to sell it.
But the bigger reason is the complex nature of the contracts between Apple and each of the big three carriers.
Juli Clover (iOS/iPadOS release notes, security, enterprise, developer):
iOS 26.6 and iPadOS 26.6 include security fixes for the iPhone and iPad. The updates also optimize the Spotlight index in preparation for iOS 27 and iPadOS 27.
There are a lot of security fixes.
Yay, iOS 26.6 is out. And it fixes a privacy leak I filed in April that allowed malicious apps/Ad SDKs to track a user across apps.
Previously:
Update (2026-07-29): Kirk McElhearn:
Yesterday’s iOS update fixed the battery problem that I’ve had for the past couple of months. My iPhone 16 Pro Max would not make it a full day on a single charge.
Make a quick tweak to the settings on your iPhone, and a Bluetooth speaker will never again steal the audio from your AirPods.
(via Cult of Mac - Your source for the latest Apple news, rumors, analysis, reviews, how-tos and deals.)
Joe Rossignol (PDF):
The complaint alleges that Apple violated California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act and other laws by failing to adequately review and monitor apps distributed through the App Store, despite marketing it as “a safe and trusted place to discover and download apps.” Due to these assurances in Apple’s marketing, the complaint said the plaintiffs trusted that a Sparrow Wallet app they downloaded from the App Store on iOS was legitimate, when in reality it was a fraudulent spoof designed to steal Bitcoin from users.
Sparrow Wallet is only available on Windows, macOS, and Linux. The popular Bitcoin wallet is not available on iOS, but scammers have released fake lookalike apps in the App Store that can trick users into giving up control of their funds.
[…]
Even when victims reported fraud, the lawsuit alleges that Apple often took little to no action, and it says other fake Sparrow apps remain in the App Store.
Sparrow Wallet developer Craig Raw has publicly addressed Apple’s slow response to multiple fake versions of his app appearing in the App Store. In a January 2024 social media post, for example, he said “there is still a scam ‘Sparrow Wallet’ app on the @Apple App Store, despite myself and others having reported it weeks ago.”
My attempt to protect users from scam apps on the @AppStore has gotten my Apple Developer account flagged for termination - ironically, for “dishonest activity”.
[…]
I’m the developer of the real Sparrow Wallet, a desktop app, and I hold the registered US trademarks for the name and logo. I have publicly warned @Apple and the community about these fake apps from early 2024, but they keep appearing.
The app @Apple flagged was a placeholder that was never published. Its only purpose was to warn users that Sparrow is desktop-only and that other “Sparrow” apps aren’t mine. This approach may have been misguided, but there was nothing dishonest about it.
In response to our request for comment, Apple said it has taken swift action to remove any apps impersonating Sparrow Wallet[…] Apple says it takes immediate action against apps that do not comply with its guidelines.
Previously:
Update (2026-07-28): Sarah Perez:
The complaint targets one of Apple’s longtime competitive arguments: that its tight control over its App Store makes its platform safer than those offered by its rivals. The company has used this claim to push back against deregulation of the app ecosystem, including third-party app stores and sideloading.
“As part of a sustained marketing campaign, Apple has positioned itself, its products and services, as offering a level of security and trustworthiness superior to any competing technology company,” the new filing states. “This includes assurances about the safety of applications distributed through its App Store. By retaining exclusive control over which apps are permitted on Apple devices, Apple has structured its platform to ensure that consumers depend entirely on its promise of safety and reliability,” it reads.
With third-party app stores, there would be an incentive to do better vetting than Apple, and with sideloading it would be clear that the app was not being downloaded from sparrowwallet.com.
Update (2026-07-29): Jeff Johnson:
What struck me about Apple’s response is that it places the burden of curating the App Store on developers and users rather than taking responsibility for it. After all, Apple reviews every version of every app before it can be published to the App Store. If Apple is curating the App Store, then why do scams have to be reported and removed? One wonders how the scams get past Apple review in the first place, and even if Apple review “is not perfect” (a gross euphemism), how the second line of defense, Apple employees patrolling the App Store for scams that the review team missed, also fails. The burden of App Store curation should not fall to me, a lone indie developer.
Apple’s response also ignores that the indie developer did report the scams, multiple times.
Previously:
Apple has released iOS 26.6 for iPhone, along with iPadOS 26.6 for iPad. The software updates are focused mostly on security enhancements for the devices, and there is also some included preparations for the upcoming larger iOS 27 and iPadOS 27 releases coming later in the year. Separately, Apple has also released MacOS Tahoe 26.6 ... Read More
The post iOS 26.6 Update Released for iPhone & iPad appeared first on OS X Daily.
iOS 26.6 brings no major new features, but quietly strengthens Apple Maps security and adds an alert for users who reach the blocked contacts limit.
(via Cult of Mac - Your source for the latest Apple news, rumors, analysis, reviews, how-tos and deals.)
This to me is proof that Apple leadership is suffering from cognitive dissonance over their slide into advertising. They’re conflating cause and effect. The Apple brand stands for high-quality superior user experiences because the devices and software Apple makes traditionally deliver high-quality superior user experiences. The work Apple ships is what makes the brand what it is. But now they’re stricken with the mindset that it’s the Apple brand that makes something a high-quality superior experience.
[…]
If you refuse to admit that the ads make these services worse, you also can’t admit that there’s a reason to offer an ad-free experience. So the thinking is something like “Apple always focuses on the user experience, and never deliberately makes the user experience worse. Therefore, if an Apple service shows ads, those ads are high quality and don’t detract from the quality of the product or the experience of using it. Therefore, there’s no reason to offer users a paid ad-free tier, because there’s no reason to want to avoid Apple’s ads.”
What a brand stands for can change over time. It’s eventually determined by the products, not the mantras.
Manton Reece (2010):
I feel bad admitting it, because some of my friends are betting on iAd revenue to feed their family, but I’m just not on board with Apple running an advertising network. I don’t want to see ads in my apps, and I don’t want Apple to ever lose even a little of what it means to be a product-driven company.
Previously:
Update (2026-07-28): John Gruber (Mastodon):
The whole thing is funny because at a fundamental level we all just know in our bones that Apple never even considered putting “Intel Inside” stickers on Macs.
[…]
Apple still treats its hardware with that level of respect. With reverence. iPhones don’t even say “iPhone” on the hardware. No model or serial numbers. No small print. Just an Apple logo on the back.
[…]
Putting themselves in customers’ shoes today, how many ads do Apple’s executives want stuck in the results when they search for an app in the App Store? We know the honest answer. But the answer evidenced by the actual App Store is “Two really big ones, including one in the first spot.”
At least you could peel off the stickers.
While Apple can spin adding ads to Apple Maps as a revolutionary new way for businesses to be discovered, it’s telling that its initial announcement was hidden inside a press release about an entirely different product, and introduced as “Enhanced Discoverability in Apple Maps.” Those choices show that this isn’t something Apple is actually proud of—and that the people in charge of communicating and explaining Apple’s decisions to the world are at odds with those who are making the decisions about expanding revenue.
[…]
To this day, you’re confronted with an ad for Creator Studio every time you create a new document in those apps, and their default toolbars contain buttons that won’t work unless you subscribe to the bundle. As a result, Apple has essentially turned its free productivity suite—software that was designed to enhance the inherent value of Apple’s products—into a freemium package with upsell to a creative professional subscription bundle that’s irrelevant (and a terrible value!) for most of its existing users.
[…]
There are many more examples. Using notifications to promote subscriptions and badging the Settings app to push AppleCare plans are among the ways Apple has chosen to intervene in the user experience to drive revenue. I’m actually not opposed to the idea that Apple should communicate opportunities for its customers to get more out of their devices—but it should be careful not to cross the line into actively annoying those customers. If someone doesn’t want to see what you offer, you need to accept that and go away—not keep needling them. Apple often falls on the wrong side of that line.
[…]
It makes me wonder if the people making these decisions at Apple have lost track of the Apple brand and what it stands for.
What Snell’s column makes clear is that the incremental revenue Apple is gaining from putting shitty ads in its software comes at a price. They’re withdrawals from Apple’s brand equity. And I would argue that the value they’re detracting from the brand far out-values the dollar amount they’d padding to Apple’s bottom line.
[…]
If your competitors’ stores all smell like dogshit, don’t aim to have the store that smells the least like shit. Aim to have a store that smells pristine. “Our stores only carry a vague whiff of dogshit” is not insanely great.
Hotelling’s Law, like I was saying.
This is not an “update”. This is an advertisement.
Update (2026-07-29): John Gruber:
The people haven’t changed, but Apple has. Strong leaders inevitably shape the personality — the spirit — of organizations over time. Apple in 2011 was peak Steve Jobs Apple. Apple in 2026 is peak Tim Cook Apple. But it was Cook who popularized the “you’re not the customer, you’re the product” argument against “free with ads” online services. But that was in 2014.
“Slippery slope” is a perfect term. But I wanted to add something here. In my experience, in the realm of UI, there is no middle notch. I’ve seen it time and time again… the moment you open the door to One, Infinity starts exerting its pull[…]
Previously:
Update (2026-08-03): Jon Snader:
I HATE, HATE, HATE having ads pop up when I’m trying to do something else. It’s bad enough on Web sites where at least they have the excuse of having to make money some how but it rises to intolerable when they put them up on a device I’ve already paid for.
The annoyance is reason enough to dislike Apple’s ads but for me the worst thing is that they’re corrupting and inevitably lead to the user being replaced by the advertiser as the customer.
Update (2026-08-05): John Gruber:
Only search engines that agree to pay Apple for the traffic are in the list, and there’s no option for users to add custom ones.
It says a lot about modern Apple that I can’t find an unsubscribe link in this marketing email.
Apple News ads have been going down the toilet for years, but it didn’t used to be literal.
The iOS 26.6 release date is likely next week! Here's what to expect when Apple introduces the next new iPhone software update.
(via Cult of Mac - Your source for the latest Apple news, rumors, analysis, reviews, how-tos and deals.)
Om Malik (2023):
One of the key advantages of MacWhisper, as it utilizes the Whisper technology, is its superior accuracy in transcriptions compared to other services I have used. I was an early adopter of Rev.com and eventually switched to Otter.ai, for which I paid approximately $100/year. However, I have since canceled my subscription.
[…]
After comparing the audio transcripts from MacWhisper and Otter, I found that while Otter’s formatting is superior, there is hardly any difference in the transcriptions. I started with the free model, which was sufficient for my needs, and eventually upgraded to the large models. Nowadays, I primarily use MacWhisper to transcribe my voice memos, which I then import into Lex.Page.
Whisper, which is made by OpenAI, has the distinct advantage of allowing you to transcribe audio in almost any language you may ever need to. For the time being, Otter can only transcribe English. The benefits of better accuracy and accurate punctuation that the service already holds over Siri hold up across other languages as well. If you’re looking to transcribe non-English audio accurately, Whisper is definitely the best option available on Mac.
By taking advantage of OpenAI’s Whisper framework, Audio Hijack can now take any audio it’s recording and generate a text transcript. While this process was possible before—see Jason’s lengthy post about his workflow—it required a lot of fiddling and several different tools to accomplish; it’s certainly a lot easier to simply drop Audio Hijack’s block into your existing session. If you record multiple sources, it can even appropriately label each one—though if you record multiple people via one input, say the other end of a Zoom call, it can’t distinguish between the various participants.
Inscribe (2026, Hacker News):
Apple’s new SpeechAnalyzer is the most accurate on-device speech engine we tested. It beat every Whisper model we ship, including Whisper Small, on both the clean and the noisy half of LibriSpeech, while running roughly three times faster than Small. And the API it replaces, SFSpeechRecognizer, came last on clean speech: behind even Whisper Tiny, a 40MB model.
[…]
The new API cuts word error rate by 3.5 to 4x on the same audio: from 9.02% to 2.12% on clean speech, and from 16.25% to 4.56% on noisy speech. There is no accuracy trade-off to weigh; the new API wins everywhere we measured, and it produces punctuated, cased text where the legacy engine’s output is rougher.
[…]
All five engines ran comfortably faster than real time: between roughly 12x and 40x on the M2 Pro, meaning an hour of audio transcribes in about 1.5 to 5 minutes on-device. SpeechAnalyzer was about 3x faster than Whisper Small per second of audio while beating it on accuracy.
Yuki:
SpeechAnalyzer’s
ReportingOption.fastResultsreads like a knob you’d reach for when you want to trade power for latency. That framing is what cost me the afternoon.[…]
If a recording matters — and in a notes app, a lost meeting is the worst thing that can happen to a user — then the container you write while recording has to be PCM in CAF. Not m4a, and not AAC-in-CAF either.
[…]
AVAudioEngine’s inputNode silently ignores your device selection
[…]
I wanted summarization to run on-device. Everything else in Nib’s transcription path does, the audio never leaves the machine, and it would have been a much cleaner story to tell.
But 4,096 tokens for the Foundation Models isn’t enough.
Previously:
I’ve used Day One for more than a decade. It was an excellent journalling app. Private, minimal, easy to use, with excellent features such as geolocation, weather, ‘On this Day’, and book printing. Features that got out of the way and either worked quietly in the background or appeared only when you summoned them. That’s changed.
Now there are new subscription tiers. Previously, the tiers were Free and Premium. Simple. Premium included sync and a few other things that I can’t remember, but it was compelling enough that I’ve been a Premium subscriber from the beginning. Now, without consultation, I’m Silver (not Premium), and there’s a new, more expensive AI-driven tier, Gold. I don’t object solely on that basis. You would think I could just choose to remain on ‘Silver’ and all would be well. But no. Even with these features turned off in settings, I’m visually prompted in the app to upgrade to Gold and use the Daily Chat (with AI), which I’ve turned off and can only use if I upgrade. And yet, there it is, taunting me.
Via Eric Schwarz:
Even Apple is guilty of doing this in the Settings app and the former iWork apps.
Previously:
Matt Burgess (MacRumors, ArsTechnica):
On Thursday, San Francisco city attorney David Chiu sent legal notices to Apple and Google demanding that they remove from their app stores 13 face-swapping apps, which allow users to create AI-generated nonconsensual nude images. The letters say the Silicon Valley giants should stop “aiding and abetting” the sale of explicit deepfake images and “sever” business relationships with the app developers.
[…]
Researchers have repeatedly found and reported apps in Apple’s App Store and Google’s Play Store that allow people to generate sexual images using AI—including some apps being rated as suitable for use by children. While new laws and bans aim to tackle the scourge of explicit deepfakes online, technology and social media companies consistently direct millions of people toward the harmful tech.
Both Apple and Google have developer policies that prohibit pornography, abuse, and harassment on their platforms.
Burgess gives the impression, which is my base assumption, that these 13 apps were clear about what they do, so App Review has no excuse for missing them. But I’m sure it’s keeping us all safe in other regards.
Meanwhile, in a preprint research paper published in May, researchers from Cornell University and Georgetown University identified 420 apps offering general face-swapping capabilities on Google’s and Apple’s app stores. They tested 155 to see if they could be used to create face swaps with nude images; in 70 percent of cases, it was possible, with the apps not including safety measures to prevent this.
Previously:
Update (2026-07-21): Danny Bradbury:
Chiu isn’t arguing that hosting an app automatically makes a platform liable for what it does. Platform operators already won that battle with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That 30-year-old law says websites generally aren’t responsible for content posted by users, allowing platforms to host user-generated content without getting sued every time someone defames someone in a comment thread.
Courts have often extended those protections to cover app stores too. Apple and Google are treated as distributors of whatever a third-party developer uploads, rather than publishers.
Chiu is attempting to sidestep that argument by focusing on the companies’ payment systems, noting that Apple and Google collect a cut of every in-app purchase. According to the Tech Transparency Project (TTP), that means they profit from apps that generate revenue by creating non-consensual intimate imagery.
Flickr recently updated their iOS/iPadOS app to version 5 (App Store link) and, while it’s not radically new, for a service whose changes have been incremental over recent years it contains a lot of differences. However I’ve yet to find any official changelog or update information.
[…]
When displaying multiple grouped photos from a person you’re following, it is no longer possible to view all the subsequent ones, other than the three or four initially displayed.
In the list of your Followers’ photos, their name now appears under their photos, so you must scroll down beyond the photos to see who took them.
[…]
When zooming into a photo the app no longer loads a higher resolution version, so now the zoomed-in version will be very pixellated.
He has a long list of missing features that may or may not be coming back. And there’s what seems like a major change: tags can no longer use capital letters.
The main changes I noticed were:
In the Home/Discover view, when there’s a large group of new photos, you can only go into the group and view them individually, swiping to see each one. There’s no longer a way to see the whole group at once and scroll through it. (And tapping on the group icon or number of photos doesn’t do anything.)
Double-tapping to favorite doesn’t work in some situations.
The interface is more busy, showing more interaction chrome like other social media sites, rather than focusing on the photos.
Swiping/navigation seems more clear than before, though without the old app side-by-side I can’t be exactly sure what’s changed.
Update (2026-07-16): Wesley Moore:
The Android version has been updated too:
“Flickr is back and better than ever — rebuilt from the ground up with a fresh new look and feel.”
I would guess it’s been built with cross-platform technology as it looks the same and came out the same time as iOS. The performance is terrible on Android. Scrolling my Photostream is juddery on my Pixel 9a (120 Hz display). It’s worse on my Android tablet.
Scrolling between photos swipes the whole UI (not just the photo), there’s also a flash of white loading the new photo. Needs some serious iteration.
See also: Reddit.
Update (2026-07-27): A. Lee Bennett Jr.:
Hooray! #Flickr restored a thumbnail view of all items from a specific post.
It turns out that Flickr 5.0.3 reverts back to the 4.x codebase.
We know the new app hasn’t met the bar you expect from Flickr. Since launch, we’ve heard your feedback about bugs, missing features, and rough edges, and we want to acknowledge that directly. Here is where we currently stand:
iOS: We’re in the process of rolling back the iOS app to the previous version while we address these issues. You should see this reflected in the App Store shortly.
Android: The Android app will remain on the updated version. Due to technical limitations and the risks involved in reverting, a rollback isn’t possible on this platform. Instead, expect frequent updates as we fix bugs and restore preexisting features.
Across both platforms, this app refresh represents a significant, long-term investment in the Flickr app. The app was long overdue for an update and getting it right matters to us. Thank you for your patience, and for continuing to share what’s missing and not working. It’s shaping exactly what we address next.
Apple’s challenge against the EU’s designation of its App Stores and iOS platform as “gatekeepers” was dismissed by Europe’s top court on Wednesday, reports Reuters.
[…]
The company also disputed the classification of iMessage as a number-independent interpersonal communications service, or NIICS, which would subject the app to EU telecoms rules. But the General Court said Apple’s actions regarding the iMessage service are inadmissible.
Back in 2023, Apple acknowledged that it qualified under the then-new definition of being what the EU called a gatekeeper service. But key to that is the size of the operation, and since 2024, Apple has been claiming it runs five smaller App Stores rather than one large one.
[…]
“Irrespective of the devices in question,” ruled the judges, “those stores have the same purpose, namely to connect app developers with end users in order to facilitate the distribution of software applications.”
Apple disagreed with the decision but didn’t say yet if it would appeal. “We firmly believe the DMA’s mandate goes beyond what is lawful and proportionate, threatening to erode decades of privacy and security protections we’ve built and leaving our users vulnerable to new risks,” an Apple spokesperson said in a statement to multiple outlets. “We will continue advocating for the innovation and privacy our European customers deserve.”
Apple still has two cases pending with EU courts. The first is a challenge to the EU Commission’s decision last year forcing Apple to open iOS to third-party developers, and the second is an appeal against the €500 million fine imposed in April last year for anti-steering violations.
Previously:
Pressure is now much easier to read. A new Pro trend strip under the chart shows whether pressure is holding steady, rising, or falling. Fast changes stand out with stronger marks and colour, so you can spot a front moving in sooner - useful for hiking, sailing, flying, fishing, or weather-sensitive heads and joints.
You can now also design the chart more freely with the new theme editor. Mix palette, style, sky detail, and accent colour, or start from a preset, to make Weathergraph fit your style.
This is an example of what it looks like:
Previously:
In an exclusive conversation with The Deep View ahead of WWDC 2026 in June, Doug Brooks, senior product manager of Apple silicon, discussed how Apple’s long-term investments in neural processing, unified memory, power-efficient computing, and hardware-software integration have positioned its devices for the AI era.
He also explained why Macs have become a favorite platform among AI developers, why Mac minis and Mac Studios are emerging as the preferred AI agent machines, and how Apple sees the future of on-device AI across iPhone, iPad, and Mac.
[…]
“We build a chip knowing exactly what systems it’s going to go into. The chip can influence the system design, and the system design can influence the chip requirements. They’re married together very tightly. I’d actually go a step further and include software in that equation. As we enable new capabilities in the chip, we want to make sure those capabilities are exposed all the way through the software stack so developers can benefit and customers can benefit. Because if those transistors go unused, what’s the point? It’s not about adding something and hoping somebody finds a use for it. We want those capabilities available to solve real problems. I think that’s what allows us to build better systems and ultimately better products.”
It seems like a lot of it is just that developers like macOS.
Previously:
Update (2026-07-10): See also: Hacker News.
Dustin Bluck (archive link, Hacker News):
I had an idea when I bought Castro that human support based around actual user experience was an easy differentiator. I’ve rarely gotten useful answers from support from services I use. I thought if I used my own product every day, read every email and answered it thoughtfully, people would appreciate this, and it would build some degree of loyalty and appreciation.
[…]
However, what I found is this whole thing didn’t work as I thought it would. Sure sometimes we were able to wow customers, particularly when we responded right away with an exact fix for them. But the vast majority of our honest, thoughtful answers were deeply unsatisfactory to users, and it often annoyed them more than anything else.
[…]
Customers email us with confusion about how podcasts work, how the App Store works, how their Mac works, and any number of tangential issues. What tends to happen is the same users do this over and over, and once they find out we answer, the requests get more frequent and more burdensome.
[…]
To the user, any response aside from “Okay, we’re going to build that right now” is meh-to-negative. Various honest responses, such as “I thought about this or tried it in the past and it unfortunately didn’t work very well” are not going to knock their socks off. These just don’t do much in terms of loyalty and rapport.
[…]
Avoiding explanations and specifics tends to get a neutral response and doesn’t suck anyone in or waste too much time. In other words, the best approach for us is what most companies do. Because building loyalty or rapport at the moment something isn’t working and the user is frustrated hasn’t worked. The real positive experience comes when you actually improve the product, so that’s where we’re spending our time.
I have definitely seen all these categories of customer interactions, but I don’t agree with the conclusion. Yes, in the end you want to be improving the product, but I don’t think that’s fully separable from interacting with customers as humans. I’ve found spending time on customer support incredibly valuable for making my products better. Even a lone report of an issue can often lead to a fix and learning something important that has wider implications. It’s also enjoyable and motivational to hear about real people making use of what I’ve built or to turn around someone who started with a negative view. And it seems to help with marketing, too.
I also see a correlation with the apps that I use—the better ones tend to also have good support. That said, I use a podcast app that famously doesn’t offer support. There are different situations, and there’s more than one way to a good product and a successful business.
I do think there’s an art to all this. Not everything can be measured, and there’s more to it than just committing to answering e-mails thoughtfully. You need to set boundaries and steer the interactions to make them productive, efficient, and satisfying for both sides. I’m still learning.
Previously:
Update (2026-07-07): Jeff Johnson:
This is what you get from the free with IAP business model: most of your support emails are from freeloaders!
My apps are upfront paid, thus most of my support emails are from customers. I don’t get overloaded with emails, and paid customers are more incentivized to solve issues with you, because they’ve invested money into the app.
I find myself agreeing with you that customer support is valuable and we should do it. But over the years I have also realised that, in a way, being good at support is punishing. I’ll explain[…]
The EU required Apple to permit third-party app stores, while a US court ruled that developers have the right to direct iPhone users to third-party payment platforms for app purchases and subscriptions. Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is now proposing to apply this latter rule in the UK.
The U.K.’s competition regulator has proposed letting app developers direct users to payment options outside Apple’s App Store and Google’s Play Store, in a move aimed at increasing competition and reducing the fees charged by the two companies.
[…]
The regulator said any fees Apple and Google charge developers for enabling such “steering” must be fair and reasonable, remain below existing App Store and Play Store commissions, and allow developers to either pass savings on to consumers or reinvest them in innovation.
Requiring Apple to allow apps to steer users to the web to make payments is, I’ve long argued, sensible regulation. I’ve also long argued that Apple has been obstinate in disallowing it. If in-app payments — through Apple’s system — can’t compete with out-of-app payments on the web, something is wrong with IAP. But it’s wrong to assume that payments outside IAP will result in lower prices and better policies for users.
They may increase prices when costs grow but that does not mean they do the opposite. But who cares? Lower costs permit more flexibility on pricing and, even if that money ends up in the pockets of developers instead of Apple, is that supposed to be a bad thing? Is there a reason why someone should be upset that they might pay the same amount but an indie developer gets to keep more of it?
The proposed policies are pretty straightforward from what I can see. Among other obligations, Apple is not allowed to use or require scare tactics when users are routed to an external payment mechanism and, while it is allowed to charge a steering fee, it is not allowed to count services not used by developers offering third-payments nor double-count for services already accounted for by other developer fees. Also, the CMA calls bullshit on Apple’s claim that third-party payments are particularly risky[…]
Previously:
Update (2026-07-30): Juli Clover:
Apple said new UK App Store rules would give regulators a “highly intrusive” role dictating how it runs its business, reports Reuters. Apple submitted feedback to the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority as it considers forcing Apple to change its App Store rules around steering.
[…]
UK regulators said Apple can charge developers a fee, but it must be fair and reasonable, and below existing App Store commissions, so developers can pass savings to customers or reinvest them in innovation.
According to Apple, the CMA’s proposed rules would undermine innovation and investment, and would amount to price regulation because of the restriction on fees.
Joseph Cox (MacRumors, Hacker News):
A vulnerability in Apple’s “Hide My Email” tool lets almost anyone discover a person’s real email address that is supposed to be hidden by the feature, and Apple has failed to fix it for more than a year, according to a security researcher and 404 Media’s own tests.
[…]
“Apple Hide My Email is leaking email addresses that are supposed to be hidden. We reported the issue and replication instructions to Apple over a year ago. We don’t know why it hasn’t been fixed, but we don’t feel comfortable waiting any longer. Hide My Email users deserve to know that it may be possible for attackers to discover their hidden email addresses,” Tyler Murphy, the co-founder of EasyOptOuts, which discovered and reported the issue to Apple, told 404 Media.
“Free, publicly accessible people-search sites make it easy to link an email address to other personal details, so people relying on Hide My Email for safety may be at risk,” Murphy added.
[…]
To test the issue I generated a new Hide My Email address and provided it to Murphy. Around five minutes later, he replied with my real email address linked to my Apple account which was supposed to be hidden.
Murphy said that he reported the issue to Apple in June of last year, and the company told him it was looking into it. Apple said it had been fixed in March of this year, but Murphy found that wasn’t the case. He again contacted Apple, with the company saying that it would appreciate him not revealing the existence of the flaw until it had been resolved.
Apple then said it planned to address the issue in June, but since it still hasn’t been fixed[…]
March 19, 2026: Using the reproduction instructions from our initial report, we determined that the vulnerabilities hadn’t been fixed.
May 22, 2026: We realized that the vulnerabilities may have greater severity and scope than we thought initially and reported this to Apple. Apple never acknowledged the report of increased severity.
June 30, 2026: Apple again reported that the vulnerabilities were fixed and asked us to verify. We determined that the vulnerabilities hadn’t been fixed.
This is every fucking Feedback I file.
Not good. Especially the “We reported the issue and replication instructions to Apple over a year ago” part.
This is becoming a pattern. At least Apple still allows third-party e-mail providers.
Very few details are available right now. I have seen speculation that the original email address is revealed when someone replies using their hidden email address, but the impression I get from Cox’s reporting is that no user interaction is necessary[…]
[…]
I am also unclear about how, as of May, the EasyOptOuts guys found the “vulnerability may have greater severity and scope” than initially reported. Ominous, though.
Previously:
Update (2026-07-13): Jeff Johnson:
I don’t know whether I’ve accidentally stumbled upon that vulnerability, or perhaps in this case the Hide My Email user just messed up in some way, but I’ve definitely discovered a bizarre and troubling Hide My Email bug in Mail app (on macOS Sequoia 15.7.7).
[…]
Bizarrely, however, Mail app displayed an alert that I’ve never seen before, “This message was forwarded to you by Hide My Email,” despite the fact that I have previously received many emails from people using Hide My Email.
[…]
- Why I am seeing two different
@icloud.comemail addresses, one of which appears to be the sender’s unhidden address?- Why are the
To:andFrom:fields in my reply disabled?- Why is my reply not from my
@underpassapp.comemail address but rather displayed falsely as from the sender’s@icloud.comaddress and really from my unrelated Apple Account address?
Update (2026-07-16): Joe Rossignol:
Apple this week was sued over a reported “Hide My Email” flaw that could expose a user’s real email address. The proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Apple violated California’s false advertising law and other consumer protection statutes by knowingly offering a feature that does not work as advertised.
This is interesting in that the June 2025 bug report is the evidence that Apple “knew” the feature didn’t work, while “Apple continued to represent to consumers that Hide My Email would actually hide users’ email.” How long are they supposed to get to fix a bug?
Update (2026-07-20): Jeff Johnson:
The misleading user interface elements in Mail app are a bug, but by themselves they’re not a vulnerability. The vulnerability is that when I send a reply to my maliciously crafted email, my Apple account email address is disclosed in the “From” field of the sent reply! In other words, the Mail app interface lies, fails to show the true sent value of the “From” field.
There are a couple of crazy aspects to this information disclosure vulnerability:
- It does not require that the victim actually use Hide My Email! I never use it. As I mentioned in my previous blog post, I don’t even have an
icloud.comemail account.- It does not matter which of the victim’s email accounts receives the email from the attacker. If your Apple account email address is
a@foo.com, but you receive a maliciously crafted email addressed tob@bar.com, Mail app will still send your reply froma@foo.com, thereby disclosing your Apple account address.
Update (2026-07-21): Juli Clover:
Apple addressed a vulnerability in Hide My Email that exposed a user's real email address, reports 404 Media. Apple told the site the issue was fully fixed in a patch released on July 3.
[…]
While the bug has now been addressed, email logs that pre-date the fix could still expose user email addresses.
Update (2026-07-22): See also: Hacker News.
It appears that the vulnerability I discovered, and which still occurs, is different from the vulnerability reported by others[…]
Login