Link Log

Sponsor: Magic Lasso Adblock: YouTube Ad Blocker for Safari ⇥ magiclasso.co

Do you want to block all YouTube ads in Safari on your iPhone, iPad, and Mac?

Then download Magic Lasso Adblock – the ad blocker designed for you.

As an efficient, high performance and native Safari ad blocker, Magic Lasso blocks all intrusive ads, trackers, and annoyances – delivering a faster, cleaner, and more secure web browsing experience.

Best in class YouTube ad blocking

Magic Lasso Adblock is easy to setup, doubles the speed at which Safari loads, and also blocks all YouTube ads — including all:

  • video ads

  • pop up banner ads

  • search ads

  • plus many more

With over 5,000 five star reviews, it’s simply the best ad blocker for your iPhone, iPad, and Mac.

And unlike some other ad blockers, Magic Lasso Adblock respects your privacy, doesn’t accept payment from advertisers, and is 100% supported by its community of users.

So, join over 350,000 users and download Magic Lasso Adblock today.

Apple Sues Jon Prosser and Michael Ramacciotti for a ‘Coordinated Scheme’ to Leak iOS 26 Redesign ⇥ macrumors.com

Jon Prosser’s many videos showing mockups of this year’s redesign on iOS were accurate. Very accurate, in fact — it was easy to surmise he had seen screenshots and videos of what it looked like in the real world. That part was not really in question. What would be, from Apple’s perspective, is if those demonstrations were obtained legitimately, and the company is now arguing they were not.

Eric Slivka, MacRumors:

Apple’s complaint outlines what it claims is the series of events that led to the leaks, which centered around a development iPhone in the possession of Ramacciotti’s friend and Apple employee Ethan Lipnik. According to Apple, Prosser and Ramacciotti plotted to access Lipnik’s phone, acquiring his passcode and then using location-tracking to determine when he “would be gone for an extended period.” Prosser reportedly offered financial compensation to Ramacciotti in return for assisting with accessing the development iPhone.

Apple says Ramacciotti accessed Lipnik’s development iPhone and made a FaceTime call to Prosser, showing off iOS 26 running on the development iPhone, and that Prosser recorded the call with screen capture tools. Prosser then shared those videos with others and used them to make re-created renders of iOS 26 for his videos.

Prosser, for his part, says he “certainly did not ‘plot’ to access anyone’s phone and was unaware of the situation playing out”. He also tweeted what seems to be a Signal screenshot as — I guess — proof, but it is a brief segment of a conversation with only implied context. I am not sure it is a great idea for Prosser to keep talking about this in public or post screenshots of what appears to be a discussion with a source.

The complaint filed by Apple contains a little more information, including a screenshot of a partly-redacted April email tipping the company off. It appears it was sent to several people at Apple, judging by the amount of redactions in the “to” field, and it implicates three others in this leak, though their names are redacted. It also suggests Prosser was sloppy with protecting his source. Finally, the tipster claims someone “has leaked iOS information” before to a party with a redaction almost the same length as the third “involved” party. (Also, at least one of these redactions is trivial to guess if you line up the characters.)

Three days after this email was sent, Prosser published even more comprehensive renders of iOS 26, which were representative of the version shown at WWDC.

There are shades and echoes here of Apple’s 2004–05 lawsuits against several rumour sites — most notably Think Secret, and also Apple Insider and O’Grady’s PowerPage — and their unnamed sources. Despite working my PACER account from every angle, I cannot seem to find Apple’s original complaints.

However, they were summarized by Joseph M. Tartakoff, writing for the Harvard Crimson in 2005:

Apple’s lawsuit alleges that Think Secret is illegally soliciting Apple employees to violate confidentiality agreements and disclosing that information online without Apple’s permission.

Offering tipsters “complete anonymity,” the website contact page urges visitors to submit “news tips” and “insider information.”

Nearly three years later, the lawsuit was settled and Think Secret was shut down.

The details of Apple’s suit against Prosser and Ramacciotti allege the latter took advantage of a friendship. At what stage Prosser was made aware of this and to what extent, if any, he played in pushing Ramacciotti further seems to be a key question. Also, one has to wonder about the difference between what Prosser revealed and Mark Gurman’s obviously well-sourced repeated scoops.

I am also looking forward to Apple trying to explain how it has suffered “damage and loss in an amount to be proven at trial but, in any event, exceeding $5,000 aggregated over a one-year period”. This multitrillion-dollar company was financially injured by a few YouTube videos showing the redesign of its operating system? Sure, okay.

Does Google Maps Make Money? ⇥ placing.technology

Ingrid Burrington:

So even though there isn’t really a smoking gun here, I think it’s worth playing out what Google Geo being break-even or not-especially profitable means for both Google and for geospatial technology as a sector. Google Maps really warped public perception of the business of geospatial by making what had previously been consumer products totally free to consumers. Why do that — why undercut a revenue source — in order to maintain other revenue sources that aren’t necessarily profitable or certainly not hundreds of billions of dollars profitable?

Burrington’s attempts to answer this question reinforce how much of Google is unsustainable if it were fractured into standalone businesss. Maps, Docs, YouTube, Gemini — it seems unlikely any of these work on their own without the backing of Google’s monopolistic digital advertising business. That is, not just any digital ads, but specifically the vast control Google has over online advertising is, seemingly, what props up products that would otherwise struggle to remain afloat as they grew.

Airlines Are Using Generative A.I. to Set Individualized Prices ⇥ fortune.com

Bruce Parkinson, TravelPulse Canada, in June 2024:

The WestJet Group has partnered with Tel Aviv-based tech startup Fetcherr to implement what it is calling the industry’s first AI-driven pricing, inventory and publishing engine.

WestJet will implement Fetcherr’s ‘Large Market Model’ technology, described as a “market engine that understands market dynamics, precisely forecasts demand and market trends and generates the best market moves based on the predicted actions of all market variables.”

Alex Cruz, the vice-chair on WestJet’s board, is also on the board at Fletcherr.

Irina Ivanova, Fortune:

By the end of the year, Delta plans for 20% of its ticket prices to be individually determined using AI, president Glen Hauenstein told investors last week. Currently, about 3% of the airline’s flight prices are AI-determined, triple the portion from nine months ago.

Over time, the goal is to do away with static pricing altogether, Hauenstein explained during the company’s Investor Day in November.

North American airlines, including Delta and WestJet, are apparently doing just fine for customer satisfaction, which is surprising. Canada has two major airlines and, because I live west of Ontario, I have to deal with WestJet whenever I go pretty much anywhere. I expect only the basics and still find myself disappointed. But I guess their reputations have enough leeway to permit the kind of dynamic pricing future described with caution in science fiction novels. Or maybe our standards are simply too low.

By the way, in case you are unsure who this dynamic pricing benefits — you are not, but stick with me — it is the airlines. Fletcherr’s co-founder said at a conference last year that the company’s technology generated 10% additional revenue for participating airlines, considerably more than the 4–5% found by the less-sophisticated dynamic pricing examined in a 2022 working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research (PDF).

‘Marc Andreessen Is a Traitor’ ⇥ liberalcurrents.com

Natasha Tiku, Washington Post:

Influential tech investor and Trump adviser Marc Andreessen recently said universities will “pay the price” for promoting diversity and allegedly discriminating against supporters of President Donald Trump, according to messages he sent to a group chat with White House officials and technology leaders reviewed by The Washington Post.

The messages the Post obtained were sent after Ben Smith of Semafor exposed other Andreessen group chats. Those chats, according to Smith, were described by current White House official and former Andreessen-Horowitz partner Sriram Krishnan as “the memetic upstream of mainstream opinion” — a frank acknowledgement of the power these rich guys have.

Adam Gurri, Liberal Currents:

Since “the Deal, with a capital D” had been broken, Andreesen and his cohorts had no choice but to throw their lot in with Trump, who now is making those dealbreakers pay the price. And it’s going swimmingly, from Andreesen’s point of view. He is no longer bound by the terms of “the Deal,” which required him to pay lip service to “all the fashionable and appropriate social causes” such as human rights and equal dignity.

To his dying day, Andreessen will surely believe that they are the traitors, that he was the one who was betrayed. But the only traitor is Andreessen himself.

Quibble with Gurri’s summary of Netscape’s task as “relatively easy” — Andreessen, Eric Bina, and others “created one piece of software that performed a simple task well enough to deliver to the market, and they successfully achieved mass adoption” is a notable effort but, to steelman Gurri’s argument, considerably less notable than the technical foundation on which it rested. But Andreessen is a quintessential example of pulling the ladder up now that he has reached the top. He got his — his education, his billions, his mansion — and, because he does not want more traffic in his neighbourhood, other people get screwed.

G/O Media Has Sold Off Just About All Its Sites Eighteen Months After Denying It Was Selling Off All Its Sites ⇥ defector.com

In January 2024, Mark Stenberg reported for Adweek that G/O Media was “shopping around its portfolio of editorial assets” — which normal people call “publications” or “websites” — “in hopes of securing buyers for individual titles”. Stenberg included a statement from G/O Media in which a representative said “[y]our reporting is largely incorrect”.

Jim Spanfeller, CEO of G/O Media, in an “epilogue” published earlier this month, just a year and a half later:

This week the sale of Kotaku to Keleops, the buyers of Gizmodo, was announced. Coming on the heels of Redbrick, a Canadian company, buying both Quartz as well as The Inventory, this leaves G/O Media with just The Root. And while The Root is a wonderful site and a very good business it is now abundantly clear that G/O Media is and has been working towards a full wind down.

No kidding?

I am a little worried for the Root, a publication that deserved better than being hollowed out, and will probably get unceremoniously offloaded to some other private equity firm to run it into the ground like its siblings. But it is the last remaining part of this group after the downfall of G/O was triggered by the company’s demand that Deadspin stick to sports.

That, with time, brought us Defector, where Samer Kalaf writes:

As Defector approaches its five-year anniversary in September, here’s a message for Jim Spanfeller: I’m glad that this still eats at you. You overplayed your hand, and everyone watched you destroy your already flimsy reputation. The unnecessary cost was that you hounded talented people out of their jobs, but many of them have gone on to thrive elsewhere. Meanwhile, what you did to a bunch of beloved publications will be the defining moment of your career, maybe even the defining moment of your parasitic life. I’d say that it’ll be the first line of your obituary, but let’s be honest: No one’s writing one of those for you.

Spanfeller’s hubris can take credit not only for Defector, but also the Autopian and Aftermath, launched by former writers from Jalopnik and Kotaku, respectively. Meanwhile, the Onion is in better hands and is still trying to buy Infowars. Spanfeller’s meddling may have ruined a lot of jobs, but at least his influence over a “future driven in in great part by digital content” — his words — is minimal.

On A.I. Video Watermarks ⇥ technologymagazine.com

I dropped something about the tiny watermarks used by Google and OpenAI in generated videos, and I wanted to expand on it:

[…] Surely this is a marvel of technical achievement. Google’s technology generates convincing video and synced audio to match. That is incredible. So, why not shout about it? Make that watermark bigger, I say, and make it say what it is — “A.I. generated by Google Veo”, or something similar.

I think I know why Google and OpenAI are not doing this, and I think you do as well. […]

Instead of leaving this hanging, let me answer why I think videos generated by Google’s Veo and OpenAI’s Sora embed subtle visual watermarks instead of more obvious ones.

This is going to sound more cynical than I think it really is, but here goes: both Google and OpenAI are happy to remove that watermark for users of their most expensive paid plans, marketed to professionals who want to use A.I. in their work. Stories like the one I linked to basically serve as advertisements for these subscriptions, even though they are also illustrations of how the technology can be abused. Someone using A.I. in a professional workflow might be less likely to use it in this manner.

But the watermark needs to be small because otherwise people would be less likely to use these services. Even if it was not very obnoxious, it would feel like an advertisement to post videos generated by these tools if they contained a more honest disclaimer of their origins. Hence, the truly incredible feat of generating video and synced audio from a text prompt is buried and, therefore, only comes up when it is being used to further scams, fraud, hatred, or advertisement campaigns.

Sponsor: Magic Lasso Adblock: Block Ads in iPhone, iPad, and Mac Apps ⇥ magiclasso.co

Do you want to block ads and trackers across all apps on your iPhone, iPad, or Mac — not just in Safari?

Then download Magic Lasso Adblock — the ad blocker designed for you.

Magic Lasso: No ads, No trackers, No annoyances, No worries

The new App Ad Blocking feature in Magic Lasso Adblock v5.0 builds upon our powerful Safari and YouTube ad blocking, extending protection to:

  • News apps

  • Social media

  • Games

  • Other browsers like Chrome and Firefox

All ad blocking is done directly on your device, using a fast, efficient Swift-based architecture that follows our strict zero data collection policy.

With over 5,000 five star reviews, it’s simply the best ad blocker for your iPhone, iPad, and Mac.

And unlike some other ad blockers, Magic Lasso Adblock respects your privacy, doesn’t accept payment from advertisers, and is 100% supported by its community of users.

So, join over 350,000 users and download Magic Lasso Adblock today.

Elon Musk Gives Himself Another Handshake ⇥ wsj.com

Berber Jin and Becky Peterson, Wall Street Journal:

Elon Musk’s SpaceX has agreed to invest $2 billion in his artificial-intelligence company xAI, investors close to the companies said, nearly half of the Grok chatbot maker’s recent equity raise.

This comes just a few months after xAI acquired X, one year after Musk shifted a bunch of Tesla-bound Nvidia GPUs to xAI, and just a few years after he used staff from Tesla to work on Twitter. So, to recap: he has moved people and resources from a publicly traded company to a privately owned one — twice — has used funds from one of his privately owned companies to buy another one of his privately owned companies, and is now using one of his publicly traded privately owned companies to give billions of dollars to (another) one of his privately owned ones.

(Update: SpaceX is privately owned, not publicly traded. Thank you, Matt.)

This feels wrong. This feels like a crime. I am not saying a crime was committed, nor do I know what laws may possibly have been broken here. But it certainly has a flavour of something that must — or, at least, should be — illegal. At the very least, it cannot be helping convince E.U. regulators that Musk’s businesses are, indeed, separate entities.

The Apple Style Guide Game Show ⇥ youtube.com

Via Myke Hurley, who also serves as host, comes the hot (?) new game show about Apple’s style guide. I thought this was really well done and, also, appropriately absurd. I did not keep track of my own score, but I cannot imagine I did very well after the first round.

One of the peculiarities of the style guide (PDF), comprehensive as it is, is when you stumble across something that is not defined. I have never been able to figure out what to call the bar across the bottom of iOS since the iPhone X, something I again realized when I linked to Craig Grannell’s piece this week. In the official “Designing for iPhone X” video, Apple’s Mike Stern simply calls it “an indicator”. In the iPhone user guide, it is not even given a name; users are simply told to “swipe up from the bottom edge of the screen” to go to the Home screen. “Home indicator” is what Grannell called it, and I have also seen people refer to it as the “Home bar”. But I am not sure it has an official term.

Racist Job Hunter Is Actually an A.I. Ad for A.I. Recruitement Software ⇥ cbc.ca

David Michael Lamb, Ashley Fraser, and Andrew Kitchen, CBC News:

Most of the videos feature what looks like a white man in his 20s named “Josh,” who speaks to the camera and makes racially charged statements about immigrants and their role in the job market. In fact, “Josh” is created by AI and doesn’t exist.

[…]

It’s part of a trend known as “fake-fluencing.” That’s when companies create fake personas with AI in order to make it look like a real person is endorsing a product or service. The company in this case is Nexa, an AI firm that develops software that other companies can use to recruit new hires. Some of the videos feature Nexa logos in the scene. The company’s founder and CEO Divy Nayyar calls that a “subconscious placement” of advertising.

These videos are not massively popular on TikTok, so I am not sure how effective this is as an advertisement for this company. Perhaps this story is the marketing they were hoping to get. That seems desperate.

In any case, the videos still had the tiny Google Veo watermark in the lower-right corner, and that got me thinking: why are these A.I. video generators being so coy about the origins of their products? Surely this is a marvel of technical achievement. Google’s technology generates convincing video and synced audio to match. That is incredible. So, why not shout about it? Make that watermark bigger, I say, and make it say what it is — “A.I. generated by Google Veo”, or something similar.

I think I know why Google and OpenAI are not doing this, and I think you do as well. In any other industry, hiding or masking the origins of a product raises suspicions. When a clothing company does not want to talk about their factories, we understand why that is a problem. It is the same thing here. Traceability matters in physical goods and digital ones, too.

Oh, and I doubt anyone is calling this trend “fake-fluencing”.

U.S. Tech Giants Face Pressure Over Data Sovereignty ⇥ restofworld.org

Damilare Dosunmu, Rest of World:

Developing nations are challenging Big Tech’s decades-long hold on global data by demanding that their citizens’ information be stored locally. The move is driven by the realization that countries have been giving away their most valuable resource for tech giants to build a trillion-dollar market capitalization.

[…]

South Africa is the only African country where Amazon, Microsoft, and Google have built their own data centers, adding to a market valued at $2.28 billion in 2023, according to market research firm Arizton Advisory & Intelligence. […]

It is difficult for me to believe each of the two-hundred-ish worldwide states will have an entirely localized data centre, even for just the named giants. Also, a requirement for local data storage may be a roadblock for new contenders. But the U.S. has repeatedly blown up any trust the world may have had in allowing it to steward all our data, so it is unsurprising to see moves in the direction of more sovereignty. Sure makes the internet feel less connected than it used to be, though.

Canada Should Build Public Cloud Infrastructure Rather Than Relying on U.S. Tech Giants ⇥ policyalternatives.ca

Paris Marx, in an article for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a progressive think tank:

As [Prime Minister Mark] Carney looks to reduce Canada’s dependence on the United States, we can’t ignore the extent of our technological dependence — and the cloud is a great place to start. Carney’s statement during the election suggested he would look to Canadian companies to supply more of the computation and storage needs of the federal government, but he should be far more ambitious.

Instead of simply encouraging the buildout of a private Canadian cloud, the government should invest in the expansion of a public cloud — built and run by a Crown corporation with public financing to serve government needs, but potentially to expand beyond that too. The government already has data centres of its own, but in recent decades it’s more often looked to the private sector to supply more of its computational needs instead of developing in-house capacities as it did with older forms of information technology.

This would be a hard sell to the public, but it is a very good idea; similarly, we should not cede our physical communications system to private businesses. This seems unlikely under Carney, who is too busy embracing neoliberal fiscal positions to take on such a bold project, but it is the kind of big idea we need to counter U.S. tech dependence.

Grok Shows How Centralized Tech Can Be Manipulated ⇥ techdirt.com

Mike Masnick, Techdirt, reacting to Grok’s Nazi turn:

We need to take back control over the tools that we use.

Especially these days, as so many people have started (dangerously) treating AI tools as “objective” sources of truth, people need to understand that they are all subject to biases. Some of these biases are in their training data. Some are in their weights. And some are, as is now quite clear, directly in their system prompts.

The problem isn’t just bias — it’s whose bias gets embedded in the system. When a centralized AI reflects the worldview of tech billionaires rather than the diverse perspectives of its users, we’re not getting artificial intelligence. We’re getting artificial ideology.

I am half compelled by this argument, and half concerned. I obviously believe we should be skeptical of how much trust we place in corporations. After all, they have given us ample reason to be suspicious of them.

Even before it was “X”, Twitter did not have the best reputation for quality discussion. And then it was bought by Elon Musk. I still do not believe there is sufficient evidence for bias in users’ feeds during the recent U.S. presidential election, but the anti-“political correctness” written into Grok is a plainly obvious problem. Even so, a new version of Grok was launched this week, which consults Musk’s tweets when it gets stuck on a query. All of this should undermine the little bit of trust anyone might have left in X and xAI.

A company with a much better reputation, historically, is Google. Even though it has faced decades of scrutiny and questions about its secret website rankings, it has generally gotten things more right than not. To be clear, I can point to dozens of times when it has been bad at search — especially in the last five years — but it remains what most people think of when they think of searching the web. Yet, because it feels to some like A.I. works like magic, that reputation is on the line with good criticisms and very dumb ones. The Attorney General of Missouri — the state that nearly prosecuted a journalist for viewing the source of a website — is investigating Google, Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI for being insufficiently supportive of the president’s record on Israel–U.S. relations. The Attorney General approvingly cites Missouri v. Biden, which the state lost.

Yet, even with all this in mind, we need to be able to trust institutions to some extent. This is the part of me concerned about Masnick’s piece. I think it is a great suggestion that we should control our own tools, where anyone can “choose your own values, your own sources, and your own filters”. However, most people are unlikely to do these things. Most of us will probably use something from some big company we do not really trust, but it is what ships with the system or is built into the apps we use most, or whatever. We need to ensure the areas where we have little control are trustworthy, too.

What that probably means is some kind of oversight, akin to what we have for other areas of little control. This is how we have some trust in the water we drink, the air we breathe, the medicine we take, and the planes we fly in. Consumer protection laws give us something to stand on when we are taken advantage of. Yes, there are places where this is done better than others, and I think we should learn from them instead of throwing up our hands and pretending this problem will be solved on an individual basis. To be clear, I am not reading Masnick’s writing as some kind of libertarian fantasy or an anti-regulation screed, nor do I interpret that in Alex Komoroske’s manifesto either. But I also believe there should be some regulation because we need to be realistic about the practical limitations of how much time and effort people will invest into controlling their experience.

Columbia University Applicant Data Stolen in Politically Motivated Attack ⇥ theverge.com

Cameron Fozi, Bloomberg:

Personal information about Columbia University students and applicants — including whether they were accepted or rejected by the school — has been stolen, according to a Bloomberg News review of data provided by a person who claimed to have hacked the school in June.

[…]

The alleged hacker, speaking via text and claiming to work alone, said they sought to acquire information about university applications that would suggest a continuation of affirmative action policies in Columbia’s admissions, following a 2023 Supreme Court decision that effectively barred the practice. The Columbia official said the school’s admissions processes are compliant with the Supreme Court decision.

Elizabeth Lopatto, the Verge:

And yet, there has been precious little reporting on the Columbia hack. Wired hasn’t covered it, and, until this story, neither has The Verge. Nor have The Chronicle of Higher Education, CyberScoop, 404 Media, TechCrunch, or Krebs on Security. These — including The Verge — are small to medium-size entities, and there’s any number of possible reasons why they didn’t pick it up. (On our end, it was partly because we were short-staffed during a national holiday, and partly because we didn’t immediately piece together how extraordinary this particular hack is.) But coverage at the much bigger, well-resourced institutions is also scanty. The Wall Street Journal passed on the story. Reuters has a brief on the initial outage; AP has a short write-up as well, which The Washington Post ran as part of their syndication deal.

The most extensive reporting comes from Bloomberg and The New York Times.

It is remarkable how little — and, from the Times in particular, how poor — coverage is of this attack. According to Fozi, the same person has claimed responsibility for two other politically motivated university data breaches. That is an interesting story.

Grok is Made Nazi ⇥ gizmodo.com

Matt Novak, Gizmodo:

Elon Musk recently promised to “fix” his AI chatbot Grok after it gave some answers that he thought were too liberal. But it seems Musk cranked up the far-right extremism dial with this last update, as Grok is now parroting Nazi talking points about Jews. In fact, Grok approvingly invoked the name of Adolf Hitler and seemed to suggest a second Holocaust was needed in tweets on Tuesday.

Bruna Horvath, NBC News:

In the same post, xAI said it would begin publishing Grok system prompts on GitHub so users could see when the company makes changes to the chatbot’s prompts. Under changes that have been made in the past day, the chatbot has been instructed that its responses “should not shy away from making claims which are politically incorrect,” as well as to “assume subjective viewpoints sourced from the media are biased.”

In her exit post today, Linda Yaccarino praised xAI as a “new chapter” for X, which is one way of putting it.

Update: After some thought, I changed the title of this post from “Grok Goes Nazi” to “Grok is Made Nazi”. The former is too passive, as though it decided on its own to become Nazi. The latter is closer to the truth: some person or people made Grok far more likely to respond with hateful and dehumanizing language. It was instructed to be okay with being “politically incorrect”. I regret my original phrasing.

Linda Yaccarino Steps Down As X CEO ⇥ axios.com

Linda Yaccarino:

After two incredible years, I’ve decided to step down as CEO of 𝕏.

Sara Fischer, Axios:

Once the ultimate cheerleader for Madison Avenue, Yaccarino’s relationship with the advertising community shifted when she became CEO of X, then Twitter.

Under Yaccarino, X waged a high-profile lawsuit against a major advertising industry coalition and its members, alleging the group abused its influence over marketers and ad agencies to discriminate unfairly against X, prompting an ad boycott.

I have never gotten a clear sense of whether Yaccarino is a true believer in the Musk vision for X, or simply an opportunist. After so many years in the advertising industry, it is surprising to see what looks like a heel turn to run an ad-supported company so antagonistic toward advertisers. Yet the tense relationship and this lawsuit have been a blueprint for the current U.S. administration. What a legacy.

On the other hand, if Yaccarino was regularly at odds with the owner of X, I am looking forward to the inevitable tell-all book.

The Quiet Exit of the Home Indicator in iOS and iPadOS 26 ⇥ reverttosaved.com

Craig Grannell:

In the ’26’ dev betas, Apple hasn’t provided an off switch in Settings [for the Home indicator], but it has introduced the next best thing. Actually, it’s arguably created something better. When you switch to an app, the Home indicator now elegantly fades. Further interaction with the app doesn’t make it reappear. Instead, you have to make a deliberate upwards swipe from the bottom of the screen to bring it back.

I am not saying I disagree with the change, but I think it is interesting to make this shift just as the Home indicator has gained additional functionality. It also makes it even odder to me that it is one of the things which remains constantly visible on a sleeping iPhone with an always-on display.

Apple Formally Appeals DMA Penalty ⇥ 9to5mac.com

When Apple recently tried again to comply with European competition laws, I noticed some peculiar phrasing in its announcement:

The European Commission has required Apple to make a series of additional changes under the Digital Markets Act: […]

The wording of this sentence makes it sound like the list of specific policies following it were dictated by the European Commission, but I am not sure that is true.

This was not an accidental implication, as it turns out, if you believe Apple’s side of the story.

Chance Miller, 9to5Mac, reporting on Apple appealing the fines issued in April:

Furthermore, Apple says that the EU mandated that the Store Services Fee include multiple tiers. […]

Apple says that it was the EU who dictated which features should be included in which tier. For example, the EU mandated that Apple move app discovery features to the second tier.

Manton Reece:

Something isn’t adding up here. If the EU is dictating anything, it should be a 0% fee tier in addition to the standard App Store paid tier. Why would the EU be moving features to the second tier? Either Apple isn’t communicating the full story, or negotiations between Apple and the EU are very dysfunctional.

If regulators have taken on such an involved role in App Store policy, one has to wonder when that started. Was it the result of the April penalty, or has it been an ongoing conversation? If it is the latter, it suggests many other questions.