iOS 27, iPadOS 27, and macOS 27 Golden Gate support adding new reminder tasks and calendar events simply by typing in natural language.

Learn how to prevent your iPhone reminders from syncing to your other devices and sending duplicate alerts everywhere.

Com o site do iCloud, os usuários de dispositivos da Apple podem acessar diversos dados da sua Conta Apple (Apple Account), como suas fotos, vídeos e arquivos.

No caso do app Lembretes (Reminders), é possível escolher qual lista será exibida na tela inicial do site — para visualizar aqueles que considera mais importantes sem precisar abrir o web app.

Veja como escolher! 😉

1. Abra o iCloud.com no seu navegador preferido;
2. Localize o quadro do Lembretes;
3. Clique nos três pontinhos;
4. Marque a lista que deseja que seja exibida.

Simples, não?! 😄

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

Microsoft:

Exchange Web Services (EWS) is approaching end of service in Exchange Online. We first announced this change was coming in 2018, when we announced that Exchange Web Services (EWS) will no longer receive functionality updates. In 2023, we announced that EWS will be disabled in Exchange Online in October 2026.

Today we’re announcing we will use a phased, admin controllable disablement plan that starts in October 2026 and concludes with a complete shutdown of EWS in 2027.

Apple:

Microsoft announced the upcoming end of service for Exchange Web Services (EWS) in Exchange Online. Apple is actively working with Microsoft to update Mail, Calendar, Contacts, Notes, and Reminders to use the Graph API in a future update to macOS 27, including a declarative configuration for device management services.

I’ve been eagerly awaiting Apple’s migration to Microsoft’s newer Graph API because EWS support in Apple Mail has long been buggy. It seems to have gotten worse in recent months, presumably due to server side changes as Microsoft prepares to shut it all down. Unfortunately, Apple is not as far along in the transition as I’d expected.

Jonathan Harbourne (and, alas, Claude):

What made a Mac feel like a Mac at work was the software that came with it. Mail that you could actually scan. A Calendar that was a separate application, so it could live permanently on a second screen instead of hiding behind a tab. Quick Look. Smart mailboxes. Spotlight that found things. Share sheets that worked everywhere. The system behaving as one coherent thing rather than a collection of vendor silos.

[…]

iOS and iPadOS Mail no longer depend on EWS. macOS Mail still does. Same company, same deadline, same protocol, and only one of the two platforms got the work done in time. Microsoft ended up writing the guidance Apple should have written, telling administrators in February that Apple Mail for Mac users would have to switch to Outlook until the applications were updated. […] Apple had years. It had a public deadline. It had, by Microsoft’s own account, one of the most widely used EWS applications in existence. And it let the clock run out.

[…]

Somewhere in every one of these migrations is a line in a change log that reads “users to move to Outlook”, as though a mail client were a fungible commodity, like swapping a stapler. […] This is not the death of the Mac at work. […] It is the death of the Mac experience at work.

Outlook for Mac feels very different from Apple Mail, and users are being squeezed from the Microsoft side, too. Microsoft will be ending the transition to New Outlook in October, but the new version is still missing many features that were present in Legacy Outlook (as well as Apple Mail). Microsoft had long promised that it would implement AppleScript in New Outlook before dropping support for the old version, but last week it changed course:

AppleScript workflows vary widely across organizations and often depend on behaviors from the classic app that don’t exist in the New Outlook. Because these patterns can’t be standardized, full compatibility isn’t feasible. We have decided not to move forward with this feature. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Back to Harbourne:

Access only ratchets one way. Mail was allowed because it worked, quietly, for years, over a protocol nobody was auditing. It has now been formally removed under a named cybersecurity policy. Getting it back would require someone in a security function to write a positive case for re-admitting a broad-permission third-party client to the corporate mail estate, and then put their name on it. Nobody’s career improves by doing that. Saying no costs nothing and is never wrong in hindsight.

So if Apple ships Graph support in Mail next year, the people who lost it will not get it back. The door didn’t swing shut. It was bolted, and the reason it was bolted is now written down in a policy document that will outlive the protocol that prompted it.

Apple has no leverage to change that, either. The organisations deploying Macs by the tens of thousands are not Apple partners in any meaningful sense. They are customers who buy boxes. There is no relationship to call on, no joint roadmap, no account team, nobody at Apple whose job it is to notice that a hundred thousand people just lost Mail.

October is when administrators will have to opt back into allowing EWS for a few more months, but some (like Harbourne’s) will be switching off support sooner.

Apple Mail and Outlook aren’t the only options, though. MailMaven supports both Graph and AppleScript.

Previously:

• MailMaven 1.2
• Bricking Microsoft Office 2019
• SpamSieve 3.2
• Microsoft Adds Free Outlook Tier
• “New Look” Outlook Shipping in October

Update (2026-08-21): See also: Reddit and Mac Power Users.

Update (2026-08-24): See also: Mac Power Users.

Previously:

• The Best Worst E-mail Client

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.)

O aplicativo Lembretes (Reminders) da Apple certamente é bem útil para a maioria dos usuários convencionais, mas um tanto quanto limitado para quem tem problemas sérios de esquecimento ou transtornos como o TDAH ¹Transtorno do Déficit de Atenção com Hiperatividade..

Isso porque ele não notifica o usuário sobre lembretes definidos com a Siri sem um horário, simplesmente esquece lembretes quando as notificações são descartadas e conta com opções um pouco duvidosas de soneca.

Criado por Marco Arment (desenvolvedor responsável pelo famoso Overcast), o Unforgetful é um app desenhado para resolver esses três problemas. Ele usa os lembretes já cadastrados no app nativo da Apple e adiciona uma camada própria de notificações para ajudar o usuário a lembrá-los sempre.

Com uma filosofia minimalista (nada de pastas), o app entrega notificações que se repetem até que a tarefa seja concluída ou excluída. A soneca, por sua vez, tem intervalos que escalam à medida que o usuário cochila mais.

E tudo isso sem a necessidade de importar ou de cadastrar novos lembretes: basta substituir as notificações do app nativo pelas do Unforgetful para que tudo funcione de fato — inclusive com suporte à criação de lembretes por voz usando a Siri.

Além disso, o app conta com diferenciais como a captura rápida de lembretes com o Ditado, notificações espaçadas, backlogs de tarefas que não acumulam e lembretes baseados em localização com atraso configurável, para não notificar você antes da hora certa.

Disponível para iOS e macOS como um aplicativo universal, a assinatura unificada do app custa R$130/ano e quem baixá-lo tem direito a um teste gratuito de um mês.

Notas de rodapé

• 1
  Transtorno do Déficit de Atenção com Hiperatividade.