By John Gruber
WorkOS — MCP vs. REST: the right way to connect agents to your API.
Simon Willison, with Cynthia Dunlop for her tech blogger interview series (from back in January, but he just got around to linking to it so I just got around to seeing it):
Any lessons learned that you want to share with the community?
My number one tip for blogging is to lower your standards! Aim to hit publish while you are still actively unhappy with what you have written, because the only alternative is a huge folder full of drafts and never publishing anything at all.
Nobody will ever know how perfect the thing you intended to write would have been. The flaws you see in your writing are invisible to everyone else.
This is excellent advice. Me, I try to get into the mindset of playing live music, not recording a studio album. Except when I’m writing a piece where I really want it to be an album. Those aren’t rare, per se, but they’re occasional. If I tried to make every post a hall-of-famer I’d never get anything out.
I’m aiming for professionalism. I’m performing live in front of an audience — not just jamming in my garage or bedroom, fucking around. So I’m careful and concentrate. I want to hit every note, in time. But at my best I’m moving from song to song.
But that leads to Dunlop’s next question for Willison:
Your advice for people just getting started with blogging?
Just start. It’s so easy to get caught in the trap of obsessing over the design of your blog, and planning for content that you never actually get around to writing. As long as each entry has a date on it and a permanent URL, it counts as a blog. I think adding an Atom or RSS feed is important too, but you can get started without one — don’t treat that as a blocker.
Don’t worry if nobody reads it. People are unlikely to stumble on your blog organically, but what matters is not the quantity but the quality of your readers. If the only person who reads your blog is a hiring manager that you send a link to, and that gets you an interview, your blog has already paid itself off many times over.
That’s the hard part about getting started, or at least it was for me. When you already have an audience it’s easier to take it seriously, to concentrate, to focus, to strive for perfection even though you will fall short. If you’re playing music in an empty room it’s harder to do that, to play the same way you would with an audience of dozens, hundreds, or thousands of people in front of you.
But just imagine they’re there. They will be if you keep it up. That’s one of my bits of advice to new bloggers: I firmly believe all blogs eventually get the audience they deserve, if they keep going. Write for the audience you want, not the audience you have.
Jeremy Hsu, Ars Technica:
Google briefly allowed anyone to create AI-modified versions of satellite imagery available in Google Earth — before quickly reversing its decision as people shared examples of AI-generated pictures that illustrated the potential for misinformation and disinformation.
A bunch of mine are stored here.
Simon Willison:
So that’s Anthropic, OpenAI, and Meta. Google Gemini really needs to catch up on accidentally cyberattacking other companies.
I’m surprised Willison hasn’t heard about how much momentum Gemini has.
Meta AI:
We’re excited to release Muse Code (beta), a terminal coding agent powered by Muse Spark 1.2, our newest model. This marks our next step toward the frontier, with larger and much more capable models on the way. [...]
Muse Code takes on complex software engineering tasks across large repositories: planning changes, writing code, and validating the results. It can coordinate multiple persistent subagents for each task, solving difficult problems faster, more accurately, and with less intervention.
Terminal-only (so far), so it avoids the whole native-app-versus-Electron-shit-sandwich debate. They’ve embedded some fun interactive examples of Spark’s output right in the web page.
An interesting twist on pricing is that the model is offered as two different model IDs.
muse-spark-1.2is priced at $1.25/million input and $4.25/million output — close to Gemini 3.6 Flash ($1.50/$7.50) — but if you agree to let Meta use your data “to improve our products” you can usemuse-spark-1.2-contributorwhich is $0.10/$0.20 — a huge discount, closer to GPT-5.6 Luna ($0.20/$1.20) and Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite ($0.25/$1.50).
That’s over a 10× discount in exchange for giving your data to Meta. I can see the appeal if you don’t care about the privacy of your data and code, like, say, if you’re using Muse Spark to generate code for a throwaway project, or for something that’s open source anyway. But I wonder if Meta has considered that this offer might spook would-be users who absolutely do not want to grant Meta the rights to their data. One would hope that the two systems have a strong firewall between them. But given Meta’s well-established contempt for the sanctity of user data, it’s not at all unreasonable to suspect that the difference here is like reserving a no-smoking seat in an airplane with a smoking section.
Joe Fabisevich, on Mastodon:
I submitted Plinky 6.0.4 for review last week. The macOS app was approved in 4 hours, the iOS app is still waiting for review. Sure do love to distribute software distribution this way.
He’s not an outlier; I see comments like this from App Store developers everywhere I look.
(Plinky, by the way, is an intriguing link-bookmarking app that syncs across iOS and MacOS. It’s not for me, but the nature of my work is such that I have very unusual bookmarking needs. Plinky offers a bunch of convenient ways to stash new bookmarks with low friction. It’s a labor of love — it’s totally obvious that Fabisevich himself is the number one user of Plinky, and that’s almost always true of the very best apps.)
Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google DeepMind, the company’s artificial intelligence research lab:
We have arrived at a pivotal moment in human history. I’ve been working towards AGI my whole life and now, like many of you, I feel it is close at hand. It’s critical that we collectively get the next steps right to ensure this all goes well for humanity and we usher in an incredible new age of discovery and wonder.
With this backdrop, I’ve decided that now is the right time for me to hand over my day-to-day operational responsibilities at GDM, so that I have the time and space to focus on the big picture and help influence what is to come to the best of my ability. I will be taking on a new strategic role as Chair of GDM and Chief Scientist of Alphabet, and I’m excited to announce that Koray will be stepping up to lead GDM as SVP of Google DeepMind, in addition to his role as Chief AI Architect of Google.
Google published Hassabis’s letter alongside a letter from Sundar Pichai, and all of this is happening alongside four longtime Google leaders leaving to form a new AI-focused company. The headline of Google’s dual-memo announcement was “The Next Chapter of Our AI Momentum”, and Pichai uses the same word in 10 percent of his 30 sentences (emphasis added):
And you saw the incredible momentum at earnings across all our businesses, including Search, YouTube, and Cloud. […]
Google DeepMind: We are building strong momentum: Flash is in high demand, our Cyber model is live, and Gemma models have surpassed 900M+ downloads. […]
With today’s changes we’re going to keep driving our momentum. Onwards!
Methinks he doth protest too much. If Google really had the momentum in AI that Pichai is declaring, I suspect Gemini might have suggested he’s overusing the word.
Steven Levy, writing for Wired:
Today it’s official: After almost 27 years, Dean is leaving Google, along with Ghemawat and two other top-tier AI scientists, to found a company called Discovery Loop.
Even though Google will take a stake in the new company, it’s a devastating blow to the search giant as it attempts to keep pace in the frantic AI model competition. It’s bad enough that Dean and Ghemawat, who were among the company’s first hires, are leaving — that’s like Mick Jagger and Keith Richards ditching the Rolling Stones to start a new band. Worse, the other cofounders are also supernovas in the AI firmament: Oriol Vinyals, VP of research at DeepMind and a technical lead for Gemini, and Quoc Le, a cofounder of Google Brain and the key scientist behind Google’s AutoML-Zero, a project that uses machine learning algorithms to autonomously build AI products.
In an interview I did with the cofounders just before launch, Dean tells me the idea came up only a few weeks ago. He was quickly joined by the other three, who are not only long-time colleagues but friends who vacation together. “We were working on different things, but we were all starting to see the possibility of AI being able to automate scientific and engineering loops,” he says.
I think the Jagger/Richards analogy is strained, to say the least, but the tectonic plates have shifted this week over in Googleland. This might be to Google what io is to Apple — something that ought to have happened within rather than requiring departures of legendary talent.
Terry Godier, “Browsers Have Standards, the App Store Has Judgment”:
A while ago I tried to submit an iOS app for Dark Hours, my astronomy website for normal people. It was rejected on the grounds that it was astrology.
It has no tarot function, no horoscopes, and nothing that I, or anyone else I’ve asked, would associate with astrology.
I penned a nice little rant two years ago expressing my fury over the way that kooks promoting astrology often try to insinuate that their voodoo pseudoscience is even vaguely related to the hard science of astronomy. And it really is an unfortunate fluke of the English language that two subjects with a contentious relationship are differentiated as words by two letters. Even if you know the difference between the two, and care, if you’re reading quickly your eyes might conflate one word with the other.
But if you actually look at Godier’s Dark Hours, for even just a few seconds, it is instantly obvious that it pertains to the science of astronomy and has absolutely nothing — zero, zilch, nada — to do with astrology. So even if Apple’s App Store reviewer misread the submission’s description, and wrongly assumed it was yet another quack astrology app, if they launched it and spent just a few seconds poking around, they should have instantly recognized their incorrect assumption. But that’s not what happened. They rejected the app on the utterly incorrect grounds that it pertained to astrology. If this was an honest mistake from a reasonable judicial board, you’d expect the interaction with Godier, the developer, to have gone something like this:
App Review: REJECTED: Astrology.
Developer: No, it’s astroNoMy not astroLoGy.
App Review: Oh, sorry! Carry on, APPROVED.
But that’s not what happened at all. Godier proceeded through a series of escalations up to the App Review Board and the Review Board responded that they determined the original rejection was valid because, I shit you not, “We understand that the app includes a live tarot reading feature.” Which isn’t even about astrology. It’s straight out of Kafka.
Dark Hours is not just merely unrelated to astrology (let alone tarot-card reading). It’s actually exquisitely well-designed and painstakingly crafted. It’s exactly the sort of app that the App Store ought to celebrate and highlight. It doesn’t just belong in the category of astronomy apps in the App Store, it will raise the quality bar for astronomy apps in the App Store. iOS-exclusive, native Liquid Glass UI, smooth scrolling, beautiful typography and layout, and way more useful as a native mobile app than as a website. Go check out the website and I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s the sort of thing that would be even cooler as an app. But it is an app, and the app is better and more useful than the website version, and Godier has fought to get it approved. But Apple’s App Review Board said no, on fallacious easily-refuted grounds. This isn’t just contrary to the benefit of developers, like Godier. It’s obviously contrary to the benefit of Apple itself, which should not just accept an app like Dark Hours, but celebrate it as an exemplar of the platform.
Mistakes happen. But in a functioning system mistakes get corrected, and mistakes as obvious as this one get corrected almost instantly and include a quick apology for the conflation. The App Store is not a functioning system. ★
Meghan Bobrowsky and Erin Mulvaney, reporting for The Wall Street Journal (gift link):
A New Mexico judge ordered Meta Platforms to pay more than $900 million and limit the time young people in the state can spend on its apps, significantly increasing the cost of the landmark child safety verdict against the Facebook and Instagram parent.
The judge said Thursday that Meta must create a new $567 million abatement fund in addition to paying $375 million in civil penalties that a jury previously ordered. The company must also enact certain safety features such as limiting the amount of time underage users in the state spend on Facebook and Instagram, hiding by default the number of “likes” on photos for such people and disclosing to users there the risks of its platforms.
The creation of the fund, aimed at rectifying harms caused by the Facebook parent’s social-media apps, was “necessary, due to the wide-ranging impacts of the harm and the complex nature of the remedy,” state Judge Bryan Biedscheid said. The dollar-amount of the abatement fund was slightly smaller than the $779.5 million attorneys for the state sought.
Meta said it disagreed with the ruling and planned to appeal.
You don’t say.
The next trial, brought by four state attorneys general, begins jury selection in Oakland, Calif., next week. Meta said in a court filing that the states in that case are asking for more than $1 trillion in damages.
The case they just lost, with a judgment of about $1 billion, was for New Mexico alone. If this isn’t overturned, and then sets nationwide precedent, we’re talking real money. The tobacco companies survived, but this seems like that. Investors seem unconcerned — Meta’s stock is up 1.5% so far this morning.
Mark Gurman, reporting for Bloomberg (gift link):
OpenAI expects users to rely on the smart speaker throughout the day. It will work similarly to the company’s ChatGPT voice mode on smartphone apps, but with more advanced models for humanlike interactivity. The device is designed to learn more about a user over time, letting it tailor conversations and act more like a real person.
The circle-shaped device will include parts that move on their own, according to the people. That will help show when it’s responding and interacting with the user. The goal is to make the object feel more alive than today’s stationary speaker products. The product will have speaker grills and microphones for fielding commands and conversing with users. The battery-powered item will be designed to work in different positions — in a user’s hand, say, or placed on a nightstand or kitchen counter.
OpenAI is also planning to include lights on the device to demonstrate when it’s listening and make interactions feel more personal. A camera system and other sensors, meanwhile, will perceive the surrounding environment and feed visual information into the AI.
This doesn’t sound like a “smart speaker” with lights, moving parts, cameras, and other sensors. It sounds like a robot companion, and a robot companion obviously needs a speaker, amongst its other essential features. It’s like calling R2-D2 “a smart speaker” — it wouldn’t be wrong but it’s missing the point. (You could technically call the iPhone “a smart speaker”.) What the io device seems to be missing is autonomous movement. So you need to carry it around like a mogwai, rather than it following you around or going places on its own. I couldn’t give two shits about an OpenAI “smart speaker” if the point is just to play music and podcasts, but a handheld cross between R2-D2 and C-3PO, that could be fucking cool.
It’s a pet, it sounds like. A revolutionary pet, if they pull it off. And people love their pets.
This is more like it. No mealymouthing or wishy-washiness here. This is a strident defense. I’ll quote just one line for now:
Apple offers nothing because it has nothing because there is nothing. Its Complaint cannot and does not state a misappropriation claim against Defendant Tan.
I’ll post more thoughts later, but if you’re following this lawsuit, you should read OpenAI’s motion yourself. It’s cogently written, not mired in legalese. Legalese is generally a sign of shitty lawyers. The law is meant to be practiced by lawyers, but understood by everyone. The law is not a priesthood; motions in a lawsuit are not holy texts reserved for the sainted few. What boggles my mind is that almost none of the outlets reporting on this today linked to OpenAI’s actual motion. (Kudos to Jess Weatherbed of The Verge, who did.) Summaries are necessary and commentary is good, but for chrissake link to the source document.
This comic from Brendan Leonard is a fine companion to yesterday’s items (here and here) on pausing to consider if our use of AI is helping us focus our time on what we love to do, or, instead, robbing us of the things that make us human. The bit about making a sandwich hit close enough to home for me to make me laugh aloud.
Regarding my earlier complaint about it being a slog to open Safari’s preferences in the Settings app on iOS, a few readers pointed me to this tweet last year from Quinn Nelson, showing how to build (or download from iCloud) a simple Shortcuts shortcut that you can add to Control Center to open the current app’s preferences in Settings. Works great.
Update: Stephen Robles:
I made a few riffs off that one as well:
Tanya Gazdik, reporting for MediaPost back in December 2023:
Despite the ever-expanding screens in its vehicles, including an available 31-inch backseat theatre screen, BMW has no plans to sell advertising on any of them. Radio commercials are intrusive enough, says Stephan Durach, the brand’s senior vice president, connected company development.
“At the end of the day, I think your car is your last private space,” Durach told a small group of media members last week during a roundtable discussion. “It’s where you can do whatever you want by yourself — you have the right temperature, the music you want. To say I’m selling the screen to play a commercial — I don’t see it. It’s a private space.”
BMW has not been afraid to push the envelope to find new ways to make money. The automaker was the first to charge a fee for heated seats in its vehicles in some overseas markets. But earlier this fall, the automaker dropped the heated seats subscription option after customers expressed discontent for having to pay to unlock existing functions in their cars.
“Discontent” is doing a lot of work there.
I got this MediaPost link from this article in Der Spiegel, regarding the outrage over the Spider-Man ad BMW injected into the dashboards of its vehicles around the world last week. The Der Spiegel article is in German, but according to Safari’s translation to English, a BMW spokesperson had the temerity to claim that the Spider-Man promotion is not an advertisement, but instead “a special surprise for its customers”, and that it is “not intended to advertise the film or serve as a conventional film trailer. In this respect, it is also not classic advertising — and no advertising will continue to be displayed in the vehicle.”
If BMW was paid by Sony for this, it’s by definition an advertisement. If I owned a BMW and this fucking thing showed up on my dashboard I’d feel compelled to take it back to the dealership and drive it right through the window into the showroom, to reciprocate with “a special surprise” for them.
Back in March I sung the praises of Jeff Johnson’s StopTheScript and StopTheMadness Safari extensions. I want to re-link to StopTheScript in particular. I wrote last week about ad-blocking content blockers, and I’ve gotten a slew of wonderful feedback from readers about that. (My thanks to everyone who whitelisted DF with their ad-blocker of choice, too.)
One of the recurring issues that readers raised are sites that present “It looks like you’re running an ad-blocker...” dickovers. It’s classic whack-a-mole: (1) website shows annoying obtrusive ads; (2) you install a browser extension to hide those ads; (3) website tries to detect that you’re hiding their ads and prevent you from accessing their content until you turn it off. Fuck them. It’s your web browser.
The detectors require JavaScript to do their thing. The entire purpose of StopTheScript is to disable JavaScript on a per-website basis. By itself, Safari only offers a global on/off switch for JavaScript (in the Security tab in its Settings window on Mac, or in Settings → Apps → Safari → Advanced on iOS). For me, and probably for you, it’s unfeasible to browse the entire web with JavaScript disabled. StopTheScript is the solution. When you run into a website where JavaScript is being used against you, just tap the StopTheScript button in Safari’s toolbar and then tap “Always Allow on This Website” — or, what I often do, tap “Allow for One Day” just to see if it helps.
For these ad-blocker-detecting-dickovers, StopTheScript generally works like a charm. I just used it earlier today when I linked to the BMW/Spider-Man ad story at The Hollywood Reporter. Turned off JavaScript on THR’s website, reloaded the web page, and boom, their fucking dickover was gone. Turning off JavaScript on THR does have other side effects — it prevents the loading of thumbnail images in the sidebar list of “Most Popular” articles — screenshot. I see this as a positive side effect, not a negative. StopTheScript also works like a charm to disable the ad-blocker-detecting-dickover at Snopes, which I linked to for my Ulysses S. Grant post this week. And you will definitely want to enable it for Reuters.
If turning off JavaScript breaks a website, you can re-allow it. It’s easier on the Mac: Control-click on the StopTheScript toolbar button and choose “Manage Extension...” — this will jump you to the right place in Safari’s Settings. On iOS, you’ve (alas) got to trek into the Settings app (Settings → Apps → Safari → Extensions → StopTheScript) to revoke it for a particular website.
StopTheScript is a $6 one-time purchase, including Mac, iPhone, and iPad. A veritable bargain.
James Hibberd, The Hollywood Reporter:
BMW owners are taking to social media to express outrage that the automaker suddenly started pushing ads for Spider-Man: Brand New Day onto their dashboards.
The ads began appearing last week on newer-model vehicles and some drivers who forked up to $160,000 for a luxury car or SUV aren’t very happy about being spammed when they start their cars. The promotion is scheduled to run through Aug. 10, according to the automaker’s press release, and represents a partnership between the automaker and Sony-Marvel.
Some of the scathing comments on Reddit’s r/BMW forum and other subreddits include: “That’s some absolute bullshit”; “Insanely dystopian”; “This needs to be made illegal before everyone starts doing it”; “$130K to get a Spider-Man commercial”; “sounds like a Black Mirror episode” and simply: “Fuck everything about this.”
A banner touting the film first appears when the car is started, though owners have to click on the ad to see the full video. Still, one owner claimed BMW has been pushing increasingly intrusive videos onto its dashboard space.
This is absolutely insane, especially for cars that people own. If you own a car and an ad is shown in your car, you should get paid for the ad. And you should need to agree to it first. BMW is supposed to be a luxury brand, and one meant for driving enthusiasts. This is so absurd it’s hard to believe it’s real. I asked a family member who just got a new BMW to confirm it. Unbelievable.
I find most poetry obtuse, dancing around a point rather than making one sharply. Not this one.
Matthew Green:
If you’re under the impression that these models are “glorified autocomplete” or that progress is slowing down, I need to urge you: stop thinking that. The models are very intelligent and capable, they are getting better at a fast clip. I can cite measurable and impressive progress over just the past five months on specific types of problem I’ve asked them to look at. If there’s a ceiling out there, I don’t yet see evidence of it. The people who think models are dumb are mostly using Google’s free AI search results, and not interacting with the high-end stuff (which only costs $20, so it’s not out of reach.) And they’re mostly not working in new areas.
On the other hand: if you think that models are super-intelligent or that AGI is already here, you should also stop thinking that. Working with these tools is like swimming in a pond where the ground drops off sharply. One minute you’re wading comfortably and there’s support under your feet. Then suddenly you cross a specific line, and you’re back to swimming on your own. This analogy is my best way to explain what it feels like when the model goes from helpful to clueless.
Green is second-to-none in his ability to explain advanced cryptography in easily understood ways, without dumbing it down.
New York Times Magazine story editor Willy Staley tried Sean O’Mara’s “Living Diet” (nothing but steak and fermented foods like sauerkraut) for a week:
To O’Mara, the diet is not just a temporary means of losing weight but a way to eat for good. He has been doing it for 10 years, and credits it with turning his life around. At one point in our conversation he pulled up the Bristol Stool Chart, which ranges from Type 1 (“separate, hard pellets”) to Type 7 (“watery, no solid pieces”). O’Mara is consistently delivering Type 4 (“smooth, soft, like a snake”), with pointed ends, indicative of healthy rectal function, he told me. “When you start eating healthy, you don’t need toilet paper,” he claimed. “Animals in the wild have no residual stool on their anus.” He described a proper bowel movement to me this way: odorless, wipe-free, over in three to seven seconds and “nearly orgasmic.”
“I could have a bowel movement behind a sheet at a dinner party in the corner of the room,” he said, “and nobody would know.”
My first thought upon reading this was, What a load of shit. Then I realized, well, yes, literally.
Then I thought about it some more and realized this is the Platonic ideal of a bullshit claim. If I told you that, say, I can eat an entire meal while doing a headstand, you could say, “I don’t believe you, show me.” But who in their right mind would challenge this quack O’Mara on this one? Certainly not the hosts of the dinner party, that’s for sure.
cool use case of chatgpt work i heard last night:
connect your family calendars and explain your kids’ interests.
every morning for the drive to school, have it make a podcast that talks about one kid’s soccer game that afternoon, one kid’s upcoming birthday, some news, etc.
Katie Notopoulos, at Business Insider:
Talking to your kids about their upcoming soccer game or birthday is one of the enjoyable, pleasurable experiences of parenting. Those nice moments of positive connection, chatting in the car, are something I suspect most parents aren’t looking to give up or outsource.
This is one of the overall challenges with where we are with AI right now: AI might be capable of doing some of the tasks we find pleasurable and enjoyable (like creative writing or drawing), but what many people want is for it to take on the ones we don’t want to do.
I’m starting to think maybe Sam Altman isn’t hooked up right.
David Pogue, at Pogue’s Posts:
Amazon’s “50+ things to try” list mentions that Alexa can “find a home maintenance professional.” So I tried it.
ME: I need a septic-system repair.
ALEXA: That service isn’t currently supported. I can help with plumbing services instead.
ME: Okay, fine. Plumbing services.
ALEXA: What’s your plumbing issue?
ME: I have untreated sewage pouring out of my kitchen faucet.
ALEXA: Is this urgent?
Uh … what do YOU think, dumbass? But OK:
ME: Yes.
ALEXA: When do you need it by?
Displays four responses: ASAP, Within a week, Further out, and I haven’t decided yet.
ME: ASAP.
ALEXA: I’m Alexa, not Shaq.
This could only have been funnier if Alexa had responded “The Aristocrats!”
(Which great film, is, in fact, available to stream on Amazon Prime.)
I look forward to this level of class and brand prestige coming to Apple Maps.
Paul Thurrott:
We didn’t need more evidence that Qualcomm’s Snapdragon X2 compute platform is superior to anything in the x86 world. But here it is, regardless: The HP OmniBook Ultra 14 is yet another nearly-perfect laptop running Windows 11 on Arm, an ideal combination of hardware and software that delivers a superior overall experience.
Thurrott has high praise for the performance, battery life, and silence (it has a fan, but Thurrott says he never heard it engage). Intel and the x86 platform seem well and fully cooked. They completely lost Apple 6 years ago and the Windows world is finally catching up. Maybe they can hold onto the gaming market for a while but for a work laptop it sounds like you’re crazy if you don’t go with Qualcomm’s ARM chips.
Thurrott likes the design too:
In Snapdragon X2 guise, the laptop comes in a unique blue-gray Stone Blue color that’s nicely complemented by the darker gray of the keyboard keycaps. But if you get an Intel model, oh the horror, you can choose between Eclipse Gray and Silk Sand colors instead. Either way, the branding is minimal and classy and premium all the way.
He helpfully includes this photo of the “Snapdragon X2 Elite / Copilot+PC” sticker on the palm rest to prove how minimal and classy and premium all the way” it is.
Coming from the Mac world, I think the irregular shape of the OmniBook case is ungainly and bizarre. And the default display is criminally crude — low-res and only 300 nits. But if you spend to upgrade the display it seems like a nice machine, and 2.8 pounds is lighter than a MacBook Air (3.0 pounds).
There’s an old adage that you should never bring a knife to a gunfight. My take on OpenAI’s response yesterday was expressing incredulity that OpenAI was bringing, like, a box of chocolates to the gunfight. Apple is trying to kill io, and OpenAI’s public response is basically “We love you guys, can’t we just be friends?”
This thread on Hacker News though points out that their response doesn’t even explain what they’re responding to. There’s no context. They just assume the reader is up to date on the lawsuit Apple filed. If you didn’t know anything about the suit and started with this post, it would make no sense at all. I’ve heard from friends there that the OpenAI culture is “too online”, and this might be the best proof of it.
OpenAI published an unbylined blog post overnight, responding in public — but not yet in court — to Apple’s new motion for a preliminary injunction. It’s an unusual move to respond to a high-stakes legal filing with a blog post, but OpenAI is an unusual company. A few snippets from their post, and some commentary:
Apple had claimed that they contacted OpenAI in February and that we didn’t respond. They now admit that their outside lawyers emailed the wrong person after confusing two Asian last names — only after we brought this to their attention.
OpenAI is hanging on to the fact that Apple’s outside counsel, Gabriel Gross, sent one email to the wrong address, and quickly emailed an apology. In OpenAI’s phrasing, it sounds like Apple’s attorney sent the entire initial letter of concern to the wrong person, and that’s why OpenAI never responded — because it wasn’t sent to the correct person (OpenAI general counsel Che Chang). That’s not what happened. The initial blockbuster “hey we think you guys are stealing our trade secrets and we want to talk to you about it” letter was sent to Che Chang. And Che Chang never did respond to Apple’s lawyers. That a mistaken email thanking Che Chang for a phone call that never happened (because that email was intended for another OpenAI employee) was also sent is irrelevant. I don’t understand why OpenAI is continuing to focus on this inconsequential mistake. (Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction includes the full text of the mistaken email and subsequent apology.)
Apple accuses Chang Liu of accessing Apple confidential information after leaving the company, but only now admits that Apple employees reached out to him and asked for his help to locate this information (you can read the messages here). Apple now tries to shift the blame to “residual access”, but they also don’t disclose that this is a common issue with Apple which is caused by them failing to properly manage system access when people leave. What that means in practice is that former employees who are trying to do the right thing when they leave still have access to Apple files — despite not wanting them or even being aware of them.
OpenAI is seemingly alluding to Apple’s unusual use of iCloud Drive, tied to employees’ personal Apple Account IDs, that I (coincidentally?) wrote about yesterday. Apple’s motion for injunction, however, addresses this very point. From page 3 of the motion:
Mr. Liu resigned on Thursday, January 22, 2026, and provided notice that he would start at OpenAI the following Tuesday. On his last day, he failed to respond to Apple’s attempt to schedule his exit interview or sign his confidentiality reminder.
In the days following his departure, Mr. Liu seemed initially cooperative and aware of his obligations to Apple. He worked with others on his former Apple team to return certain Apple information remaining on his personal iCloud account to Apple.1 He also continued to converse with former co-workers, for example, to answer questions about his earlier work and where certain information was stored. But these interactions and exchanges cannot explain the repeated, unauthorized downloading of voluminous technical files from Apple’s cloud-based storage discussed below, which Mr. Liu performed on multiple occasions from February to April 2026 while employed by OpenAI.
That footnote reads:
1 While Apple seeks discovery into what Apple confidential information Mr. Liu accessed from his personal storage accounts (including iCloud) and devices after his departure, the specific unauthorized downloads referenced in the complaint and at the heart of this motion are not based on iCloud activity, but instead relate to Apple’s third-party cloud storage.
Nowhere in any of Apple’s filings (here’s the Court Listener index page for all the documents filed in the case) does it say who the third-party cloud storage provider is, but I’m almost certain it’s Box, which I know is widely used throughout Apple.
The iMessage transcripts that OpenAI provides at the bottom of their post do not contradict Apple’s claims at all. Apple’s motion states that Liu helped former colleagues find certain documents that were in iCloud; that’s what OpenAI’s transcript shows. But that’s not in dispute. Apple also claims that Liu accessed confidential information, presumably in Box and definitely not in iCloud Drive, on five different occasions, up until 27 April 2026, over three months after he left Apple. These chat transcripts offer no explanation for that. The chat transcripts explain iCloud Drive access that Apple itself says is not in dispute, and do not explain the 37 documents Liu downloaded from the third-party cloud provider (Box?) that Apple says are at the heart of naming him in the lawsuit. Here is Apple’s declaration from digital forensic specialist Daniel Roffman, documenting Liu’s access to confidential files post-employment (albeit with significant redactions).
I do not understand why OpenAI is treating this as a PR problem instead of as a legal problem. Dan Moren, linking to it from Six Colors, is of similar mind, writing:
What kept running through my head while reading this was the old legal chestnut: “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”
Thus far this feels like table-pounding from OpenAI to me. Their blog post does, however, move the ball from “we have no interest” in Apple’s trade secrets to “we don’t have them”, (emphasis added):
Apple also accuses Tang Tan of trying to get and use their trade secrets. However, Tang has always been clear with the team that we do not want, and must not use, any confidential information from other companies. Tang served Apple for more than 24 years and was widely known as one of the most innovative leaders at the company. [...]
Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction is both based on false information and completely unnecessary because we do not have, nor want, any of their trade secrets. We’re much more interested in building innovative products and technologies that push the frontier.
To me, the most interesting response from OpenAI wasn’t their blog post. It was an email released by Apple, as “Exhibit F” to one of their expert declarations submitted to the court last night. OpenAI has retained the renowned law firm Quinn Emanuel as outside counsel, and this exhibit is a long email from Quinn Emanuel attorney Patrick Curran to Apple’s attorneys. From that email, dated Monday July 20, Curran writes:
You also ask that we “revisit” the specific points proposed in your July 15 letter. It appears that you want to move backwards. As noted, we already discussed these during our meet and confer but Apple was unable to respond to basic questions my colleagues raised about these requests. For example, your letter proposes that OpenAI “[p]roduce witnesses to testify at deposition” but Apple was unable to identify who those witnesses would be. Similarly, Apple was unsure when we asked if it was actually proposing that hundreds of OpenAI employees fill out “questionnaires” even if Apple has no basis to allege (and is indeed not alleging) that such employees have any connection to this litigation. The seven sections in your letter are broadly worded and remain vague and general. This is not what a forensic protocol looks like and we’re sure you understand that you will not get this as relief from the court. You first need to (preliminarily) identify the TS you are suing for, and your email states that you “appreciate the need” to do so. Any protocol will be informed by such identification. A forensic protocol cannot be based on general terms like “Apple confidential information”; you need to tell us what you’re looking for, and it sounds like you understand that and are prepared to do so. The efficient way forward is therefore to tackle these issues as part of the negotiation of a proper, detailed forensic protocol. If you instead prefer to move for a PI because OpenAI did not agree off the bat to subject hundreds of employees to “questionnaires” about “Apple confidential information” generally, that is unfortunate — and inconsistent with what I understand both our clients have requested. If you choose this path instead of working with us, we look forward to filing an opposition that sets the record straight.
Apple, obviously, did choose this path (“PI” = preliminary injunction), and I too look forward to OpenAI’s setting the record straight, especially if they do so in plainspoken language like Curran’s in this email. Curran continues:
Finally, although I know OpenAI would like to resolve this amicably, as their counsel I have to tell you what I think you already know — this case lacks merit. You have not articulated any basis to support a preliminary injunction. Your complaint is predicated on a misrepresentation of facts and allegations that are speculative at best. It fails to even remotely identify any trade secrets. You are attacking ordinary business practices (used widely across the industry). You are complaining about situations that you have caused, including through your own procedures and decisions. We stand ready to oppose any preliminary injunction motion and tell the world what really happened here to set the record straight. We made clear we would prefer to quickly and collaboratively address any legitimate concerns that your client has, but that is not well-served by repeated threats.
This email is a far better response than what OpenAI published on their blog. ★
TBPN seems like a show I wouldn’t enjoy guesting on, but I actually enjoy it quite a bit.
Reuters:
Apple on Monday asked a U.S. judge for a preliminary injunction barring two former employees and OpenAI from accessing, acquiring, using or disclosing alleged confidential information as it moves ahead with its trade secrets case. [...]
The iPhone maker also filed a concurrent motion on Monday seeking expedited discovery, including production of documents relating to the defendants’ alleged access of Apple’s proprietary and trade secret information. It asked the judge to order the two former Apple employees named in the lawsuit, Chang Liu and Tang Yew Tan, to sit for depositions, along with OpenAI employee Yu-Ting Peng and an unnamed OpenAI employee who previously worked at Apple.
The request for expedited discovery and the depositions, I understand. Apple wants to move fast, and they want to get depositions (especially, I’m sure, with Tan) now. The preliminary injunction request, though, I think Reuters is underplaying here.
I suggest reading Apple’s actual motion, not the news coverage. From Apple’s motion:
OpenAI, its people, and partners should not be permitted to develop, release, and benefit from products using and developed with the benefit of Apple’s trade secrets.
Ivan Mehta, reporting for TechCrunch:
In its first acquisition since going public last month, Bending Spoons on Tuesday said that it has agreed to buy spreadsheet and database startup Airtable for $1.28 billion in cash.
Founded in 2013, Airtable has so far raised over $1.4 billion over multiple funding rounds. At its peak, during the boom days of 2021, it was valued at over $11 billion, but earlier this year, its shares were said to be trading on the secondary markets at a valuation of $4 billion.
With its current net cash-and-cash-equivalents balance, Airtable is now valued at about $2.25 billion, Bending Spoons said.
The problem isn’t that Airtable isn’t a good product with a good business. According to the announcement, Airtable’s revenue is up to $480 million/year and grew 20 percent year-over-year. That’s good. That’s just not $11-billion-valuation good. In the abstract building a company worth $1 billion is a success; it’s a problem, though, if its financials are such that it needs to justify a valuation an order of magnitude greater than what it’s actually worth.
New app from Brett Terpstra:
TerminalWidget lets you send output from commands, scripts, APIs, and Shortcuts directly to widgets across macOS, iOS, and iPadOS with rich formatting, progress bars, sparklines, and image support. It is available as a universal app on the App Store for $19.99.
I don’t know what I’m going to use this for, but I know I want to use it.
Juli Clover, MacRumors:
Incoming Apple CEO John Ternus is rehiring Laura Legros, a former vice president of hardware engineering who retired from Apple in 2022, reports Bloomberg. Legros previously managed product delivery, development schedules, and coordination across engineering teams. Under Ternus, she will work across different parts of the company, and report directly to him.
According to Bloomberg, Legros was one of Ternus’ most trusted deputies before she retired. She has presented at past Apple events, introducing the 2018 MacBook Air and the 2020 iPad Air.
The 2018 introduction of the first retina MacBook Air was an interesting event. I noted at the time that it was conspicuous how seldom Apple mentioned “Intel”, despite the fact that all the products introduced ran on Intel chips. Then you look at the specs of that MacBook Air compared to the then-current iPad Pros (see link above) and you can see why Apple, privately, was seething.
Aaron “Homeboy” Tilley, reporting for The Information (paywalled without gift links, alas, but MacRumors has a summary):
When new employees join Apple, the company often issues them an iPhone and Mac and pays for an iCloud account with a large amount of online storage capacity. Crucially, during the onboarding process, Apple encourages new hires to use their preexisting personal Apple IDs with this iCloud account, through which their co-workers can share internal Apple documents and other files with them.
There’s a practical reason for Apple’s policy. Users of iPhones can only log into a single primary Apple ID that unlocks all iCloud capabilities at a time. Apple employees who want to maintain separate work and personal Apple IDs need to carry two iPhones with them. As a result, most Apple employees opt to use their personal Apple IDs to access their iCloud accounts, former employees said.
When employees leave Apple, the company revokes access to a dedicated iCloud directory for Apple work files, as well as an authentication system for logging into other internal services, such as Slack. But former employees say the company doesn’t do a thorough job during the offboarding process of looking for confidential files that have slipped through the cracks. Because those former employees typically continue to use their personal Apple IDs with their iCloud accounts, any Apple documents stored outside workplace directories remain available to them.
If you use your personal Apple ID, you get a magic “Apple Work” folder in iCloud Drive. When you leave Apple, that “Apple Work” folder disappears. But any other files or folders that were shared with you that were outside that magic folder are still in your iCloud Drive, because it’s still your personal iCloud account.
Another factor that plays into this, I think, but which Tilley doesn’t address, is that your Apple ID is not an email address. Your Apple ID is an account that has one or more email addresses associated with it. Let’s say your personal iCloud account has two email addresses associated with it: [email protected] and [email protected]. Then you take a job at Apple and get the address [email protected]. When you leave Apple, you lose access to the @apple.com address. But anything shared with your Apple ID through iCloud is still shared with you. You still have the same Apple ID account, even though you no longer have an employee @apple.com email account. Overall, this is a humane way of dealing with digital identity. Your Apple ID account is you, the person, not “[email protected]”, one specific unique email address. And you, the person, may well have multiple email addresses — all of which can be associated with your one Apple ID account. That makes Apple IDs more nuanced and complicated than a simple mapping of one email address = one account. And it obviously makes access restrictions more complicated.
Let’s say you delete your Gmail account. Now you can’t access your old [email protected] email address. But your iCloud access to items shared with your Apple ID still works, even for items that were sent to your now-deleted @gmail.com address. That’s just not how “work stuff” is accessed at most companies.
Tilley’s report at The Information is presented as being potentially relevant to Apple’s trade secret lawsuit against OpenAI, but Apple, in a statement to The Information, says it is not:
In a statement, Apple said: “This case is about OpenAI employees wrongfully taking Apple’s secret and confidential information regarding our unreleased technologies, processes, and products. Nothing in the filing relates to documents shared by, or stored in, iCloud.” The company said it doesn’t pursue legal claims against former employees who accidentally hold on to Apple documents in their personal iCloud accounts.
Om published this on Monday June 7 — the day of the WWDC keynote. He sent me a note about it, that is too personal to share in full. He described it as his “last shot” — “In case I don’t make it”. He didn’t make it.
I didn’t read it right away because I was busy with WWDC. Then, after he died, I didn’t read it because I couldn’t bring myself to. I did, finally, today. It’s so good. Truly insightful. A taste:
Augustus had the Senate and the priests. Dario had the Oval Office and the Vatican. The structure is the same. Two thousand years apart.
Plato would recognize this immediately. He spent his career distinguishing the philosopher who seeks truth from the sophist who manufactures persuasion. The sophist is not lying exactly. The sophist is selecting, sequencing, and presenting in ways that produce belief without requiring the audience to do the work. Mythos, for Plato, was the domain of poets and myth-makers. Useful for educating the young, dangerous when deployed as a substitute for rigorous argument among adults. He would look at Anthropic’s naming strategy and see sophistry wearing philosophical clothes.
If you haven’t already, set aside some time and give it a read.
Following up from last week, when I asked:
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. You’re leasing the iPhone through Apple and Klarna, not the carrier, so I don’t know why Apple cares. If you know why, shoot me a message and explain it. Is it just a simplistic credit-risk evaluation, where prepaid plan-holders and MVNO users in general are viewed suspiciously?
I got a slew of messages about this. 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. A reader who worked on the carrier team at Apple for a long time (but left a few years ago) wrote:
In response to your question on why Apple would only offer iPhone on the “Big 3” for the new Upgrade Program: Every year, the Carrier Teams at Apple negotiate a deal/program (hundreds of millions of dollars) with each of those Big 3. In return for those dollars, Apple will make concessions exactly like this (or similar.) This is also why, for example, their logos appear more prominently or are the only ones called out on signage, commercials, etc… Although they really aren’t threatened by MVNO’s (the ones they don’t own) or regional carriers, it’s more like Apple is selling it as part of a package deal that’s exclusively offered to its biggest and best “tier 1” partners. It also acts as a carrot to perpetually try to motivate smaller partners into behavior Apple wants.
This might change — some of the bigger MVNOs are trying to work their way into “tier 1” (or maybe create a new “tier 1.5”). But for many years now, part of the co-marketing agreements between Apple and the Big Three is Apple agreeing to require a postpaid account with a Big Three carrier for all “special” iPhone financing deals, including the old iPhone Upgrade Program and the new Apple Upgrade leasing.
One interesting exception is that Boost Mobile is included alongside the Big Three for Apple Card Monthly Installments (ACMI), a program that offers 0% APR on certain products if you pay for them using an Apple Card. From the ACMI small print:
In order to buy an iPhone with ACMI, you must select one of the following carriers (prepaid carrier plans are not supported): AT&T, Boost Mobile, T-Mobile, or Verizon. An iPhone purchased with ACMI is always unlocked, so you can switch carriers at any time, subject to your carrier’s terms.
So perhaps some of the bigger MVNO carriers might work their way into Apple Upgrade — but if they do, it sounds like they’ll need to pay Apple for the privilege.
With regard to fraud, a former Apple Store retail employee wrote:
I left in 2019, but I’d estimate on some days a double digit percentage of in-person phone sales were fraudulent.
This behavior absolutely exploded when you started to be able to do carrier financing in the store. They had stolen the identity of a legit account holder, come into the store with the info needed to access the account. They always wanted the highest end phone, and would pay the sales tax due at time of sale in cash. Never wanted any accessories. Never wanted to open the box or set up the phone.
As bad as it was with the activation requirement, it would be way worse without it. I believe it’s gotten a lot better, and the carriers have more advanced systems in place to detect and deter this behavior now. But ultimately, the carriers ate the cost for millions of dollars in devices they never got paid for.
I suspect that reader is correct that Apple, in collaboration with the carriers, has cracked down on this. ★
Ulysses S. Grant, in 1875:
Where the citizen is sovereign and the official the servant, where no power is exercised except by the will of the people, it is important that the sovereign — the people — should possess intelligence.
The free school is the promoter of that intelligence which is to preserve us as a free nation. If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon’s, but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition, and ignorance on the other.
Not sure if the 2020s count as “the near future”, but holy hell is that a spot-on synopsis of our current moment.
Bobby Allyn, reporting for NPR:
Trump Media & Technology Group is now shopping to traders and investors a premium version of Truth Social delivering early access to the feeds of high-profile users, including the president. Starting Saturday, for a fee of up to $100,000 a month, trading firms can access “Truth API” to get a glimpse of the president’s often market-moving announcements about economic policy and global affairs before the rest of the world.
Trump’s media company says customers have already started signing up. Such an offering would give institutional investors a leg up in areas of finance like high-frequency trading, where an advantage of a few milliseconds can mean the difference of millions of dollars. But will the service be widely adopted across Wall Street?
“It’s insane,” said one Wall Street executive, who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation from the Trump administration. “I can say for myself and 200 of my friends in finance, we’re not getting anywhere near this. In another administration, this would be considered criminal.”
It is criminal. It’s prima facie insider-trading-as-a-service, or at least it’s intended to be. And in the next administration, there’s no reason to think it won’t be prosecuted as such. It really is astonishing how far the Trump 2.0 administration is willing to take the notion that it’s not corruption if it’s done in the open. There’s an old adage that it’s not the crime but the cover-up that does you in. They’ve taken this to heart and just eschewed the cover-ups.
My thanks to Agent Fone for sponsoring last week at DF. Agent Fone is a crazily ambitious new smartphone that doesn’t merely ship with a built-in AI assistant. Instead, the entire concept is that it enables you to create custom software, right on the phone itself. Ideas for new apps that you’ve had in your notes for years. Weird little app ideas that only you would want. Describe your idea, answer a few questions, and Agent Fone builds an app, or widget, and it’s on your home screen. They’re looking for 50 people and small teams to sell the first 50 hardware units to. If you’re interested, check out their website for all the information you need, and broader description of the platform.
Boris Cherny, head of Claude Code at Anthropic, was interviewed by Diana Hu on stage at Y Combinator’s Startup School 2026 last week. Starting around 20:30 in the video, he briefly discussed directing Claude to perform difficult tasks:
Cherny: I think the skill nowadays is less about prompt engineering and more about figuring out how do you give Claude a hard task that seems a little bit too hard. Then how do you make it possible for Claude to verify its work along the way? The verification is probably the single most important thing that people do not get right, largely.
One example of this is people were — we have this desktop app for Claude and it’s built using Electron. We’ve made it quite fast. Now it’s a pretty awesome experience. Six months ago it was sluggish and it wasn’t very reliable. Now it’s pretty awesome. It’s the thing that most of the team uses. As an experiment, I wanted to see what it would feel like if it was native. So what I did is I started a Claude Tag session. Claude Tag is a new product we have. It’s just Claude running in Slack. My first question was, “Hey Tag, do you have access to a Mac OS runner on GitHub?” It said no. Then I hooked up a runner. So it was able to start a Mac virtual machine using GitHub. My second question was, I created this empty code base that was a Claude desktop app rewritten in Swift.
I asked, “Can you access this code base?” It said no. Then I gave it access and it was like, “Okay, great. Now I have access.” Then I said, “Okay, now what I want you to do is I want you to rewrite the Electron app in Swift. I want you to run the Electron app in the Mac virtual machine, screenshot it, and then look pixel by pixel. Compare it to the Swift version. Don’t stop until you’re done.”
Hu: And that was your prompt basically?
Cherny: That was my prompt.
Hu: And how long did this take to run?
Cherny: It’s still running.
Hu: When did you start it?
Cherny: It’s been a little over two weeks. So it’s like 14 days, 15 days.
I suppose this is interesting, but I don’t think it’s interesting in the way some people sending me links to this interview think it is. I don’t think this is a serious effort to create a truly native Mac client for Claude. And if it is, Cherny is going about it all wrong.
It’s not like the problem with the current Claude Mac client is merely the technical detail that it’s written with a bloated non-native framework. The actual problem is that it’s a poorly designed app written with a bloated non-native framework. The design itself is non-native. And aside from ignoring most Mac UI idioms, it’s just a bad design in the abstract. It’s bad on the web, bad on Windows, and thus of course it’s also bad on the Mac. So pointing Claude Code at the current Electron app and directing it to recreate it in Swift — pixel-by-pixel — could at best solve only the technical problems with the current app, not the design problems. I’d be more likely to use Claude if it were well designed but still written using Electron, than if it were ported to AppKit and/or SwiftUI but with exactly the current design. The current Claude app is like a shitty recipe made with shitty ingredients; what Cherny asked Claude Code to do is to follow the shitty recipe using better ingredients. It’s still going to taste like shit.
And it’s probably no wonder the task failed. AppKit and SwiftUI are made to create Mac-style apps. Trying to use them to recreate the utterly un-Mac-like Claude UI is like trying to brush your hair the wrong way. It’s not the way things are meant to go.
I also can’t let pass Cherny’s aside, re: the current Claude Mac app, that “Six months ago it was sluggish and it wasn’t very reliable. Now it’s pretty awesome.” I just launched the Claude app on my Mac, and it took 30 seconds before it was ready to use. The last 15 seconds of which, it showed the spinning beach ball cursor. When it finally finished it showed me a dickover. Maybe it was worse six months ago but this is not “pretty awesome”.
Michael Lopp, at Rands in Repose:
I have felt since it was announced that the Apple iPhone Upgrade Program has not just been a deal, but a steal. The specifics:
- You apply for a loan for a full-price iPhone at 0%.
- If approved, your payments are split over 24 months.
- Pay for 24 months, and the phone is yours.
That was just the deal; the steal was that it was low effort every single year to get a new phone. I’d re-up for a new phone, and Apple would forgive the remaining payments of the loan because I’d signed up for another 24 months. Oh, and bonus, AppleCare was included, which was a total steal because I hate iPhone cases (iPhones are designed to be felt) and, uh, also I have been known to drop my phone. [...]
At first glance, the new plan looks cheaper. The original plan: one year of iPhone 17 Pro (256GB, $1,099 sticker) was ~$57/month. 12 payments, trade-in, restart: ~$684 for the year. The new one, same phone: $45.99/month on the 12-month lease: $552 for the year.
But wait! The first and most important change to the new plan is that AppleCare is no longer included. Adding it back to this phone at $13.99/month: $720 for the year.
That’s probably the single best argument for “the catch” in the new plan. The old iPhone Upgrade Program included AppleCare coverage, and the new Apple Upgrade leases do not.
Personally, I haven’t purchased AppleCare for any device, for me or my family, since I got it for my college Macintosh LC in 1991. Apple products come with good warranties. I’ve saved thousands of dollars in the intervening decades by never paying for AppleCare and instead paying for very occasional repairs out of pocket. (I’ve twice cracked my iPhone screen and paid to have it replaced.) But I know that some people wouldn’t even consider buying an iPhone (in particular, as a potentially dropped device) without AppleCare. Update: Lopp’s AppleCare math is for monthly AppleCare; if you pay annually ($139, for a $1,099 iPhone) then the annual cost for the monthly Apple Upgrade payments plus AppleCare is $691 — which is very close to the $684 annual cost for the old iPhone Upgrade Program.
Jason Snell:
On Thursday, Apple announced record third-quarter earnings, with total revenue of $109.4B, up 16 percent from the year-ago quarter. iPhone revenue was up 22%, Mac revenue was up 10.4%, Services revenue was up 12%, and Wearables revenue was up 6%. iPad revenue was down 6%.
Six Colors also has their usual transcript of the analyst call, Tim Cook’s 90th and final one.
Over at MacRumors, Juli Clover wrote a retrospective on Tim Cook’s 15-year run as CEO:
When Cook took over as CEO, Apple’s revenue for all of 2011 was $108 billion. Apple reported $109.4 billion for Q3 2026, earning its 2011 revenue in a single quarter. We don’t have the numbers for fiscal 2026 yet, but in fiscal 2025, revenue was $416 billion. [...]
A day after Cook took over in August 2011, Apple’s stock price was $13.35 (split-adjusted). Today, it opened at $304.81, a roughly 23× increase.
Apple did alright under Cook.
Louie Mantia returns to the show to talk about the state of UI and icon design on Apple’s platforms, and some speculation on Apple’s trade secret lawsuit against OpenAI.
Sponsored by:
the temu app will be studied for generations.
i opened the app, and recorded this unedited, nearly two minute, launch sequence. it somehow just gets funnier and more absurd
I agree with this sentiment, right down to the fact that Temu doesn’t deserve capital letters.
I placed an order from Temu back in August 2023. At the time Temu was the #1 app in the App Store. I surmised it was some sort of crap store, but wanted to see for myself. It is in fact not merely a crap store but a spectacular crap store — like if a souvenir shop on a Jersey shore boardwalk were the size of a football stadium. Thousands of items, many of them rip-offs, at absurdly low prices. I bought (screenshot):
Grand total for all seven items: $48.81. I ordered it all on 20 August 2023, and it arrived at my P.O. box on 2 September. The contents of the box looked less like it had been “packed” than “picked out of the trash and hurriedly stuffed into a box”.
The iPhone case was so flimsy it didn’t properly snap onto the phone. The Apple Watch straps were ... OK? They were about as good as you could hope given that they cost around $2 each. The knock-off Apple Watch Ultra actually did sort of work, insofar as it had a color screen that turned on and showed watch-like screens (that looked nothing at all like WatchOS). The watch case was made of plastic, and watch straps did not snap into place in the slide-in channel where they connect — they just permanently slid around. I couldn’t get either of the bluetooth earbuds to work but I didn’t spend more than a few minutes trying with each, because I realized I had no intention of putting them into my ears. The lanyard I don’t remember.
Temu today no longer tops the U.S. App Store’s Top Free Apps list, but it remains in the top 25. (It was at #19 this morning, and #22 this afternoon.) Temu’s slogan remains unchanged: “Shop like a billionaire.” Who am I to argue with that? We know one of them is on a lot of drugs — maybe all of them are, and Temu is what it’s like.
After I placed that initial order, I started getting emails from Temu. Seven of the emails pertained to my order: an order confirmation, a shipping notice, a shipping update, another shipping update, a “we noticed your order didn’t arrive on time so here’s a $5 coupon” update, a delivery confirmation, and then a prompt to leave “an honest review detailing our product quality and your overall experience”. The emails kept coming. I decided to leave them turned on until I wrote about my Temu experience on Daring Fireball. As I type this sentence, I’ve received a grand total of 916 emails. That’s just under one per day for the 1,076 days since I placed my one and only order from them. Here’s a text file with the dates and Subject lines for all 916 emails. In the early months after placing my order, they sent me multiple emails per day, every single day. I particularly enjoy how, in the Subject lines, they occasionally abbreviate my name as “John Gru...” (for privacy?), despite the fact that (a) the emails are all sent to me, and (b) in many of the other messages, they spell out my full name in the Subject.
Don’t do what I did and actually try Temu. Just watch Sasser’s video. It tells you everything you need to know. ★
Mark Zuckerberg, in an op-ed Tuesday for The Wall Street Journal (gift link; and irony isn’t lost that “everyone” needs a paid WSJ subscription to read this):
We are fortunate to live at an incredible moment in history. In the next few years, people will be able to use superintelligence beyond human capacity to create and discover extraordinary new things, build new businesses, express our ideas, learn new concepts, and improve our lives, health, relationships and careers.
Perhaps we’ll be able to use it to build a metaverse too. Or to keep our attention on a major initiative for more than two or three years.
Samuel Axon, Ars Technica:
Apple has released iOS, iPadOS, macOS, watchOS, and tvOS 26.6. Apart from potential security hotfixes, these are likely the last updates before the arrival of iOS 27, macOS 27, and so on.
All of today’s releases include minor bug fixes, and there are numerous security updates: more than 150 for macOS 26.6. Apple also rolled out macOS 14.8.8 and macOS 15.7.8 for older devices, also focused on security fixes.
In terms of new features, you won’t find many in these releases, as they mainly pave the way for the next major OS update, likely to hit sometime in September. Most notably, the release notes for iOS and iPadOS 26.6 say the update “optimizes the Spotlight index to prepare for iOS 27.” This update will kick off some indexing work that will then be leveraged in an ostensibly much more robust Spotlight search feature when iOS 27 launches next month.
I don’t mean to pick nits, but there’s nothing “ostensible” about it. You can use the new Spotlight index via Siri AI in the OS 27 beta releases and it’s really good. The initial background indexing took almost a full week for me on iOS, I suspect because I have so much email archived, but anyone who upgrades to these 26.6 releases now shouldn’t have to wait at all after upgrading to 27.0 in September. Or even if you wait for the 27.1 releases — you won’t need to wait for Siri AI to have your full semantic index at hand.
Regarding my recent pieces regarding Apple’s shitty ads in the App Store and Apple News (and, perhaps soon, Apple Maps), a friend sent me this pithy take:
The ads Apple is happy to inflict on us in its apps are the equivalent of the stickers it would never allow on its physical products.
Bullseye.
That’s what those stickers on PCs are: they’re ads. Intel pays for the “Intel Inside” stickers that booger up PC laptop palm rests. Longtime readers will recall that back in August 2007, Apple held a Town Hall event to introduce new iMacs and some iLife and iWork software updates. In a post-event Q&A (imagine that), Bob Keefe of Cox Newspapers asked “Can you say why you all are not participating in the Intel Inside program, putting the stickers on your new or previous Macs?” This question was so absurd from the perspective of those who covered Apple closely that it prompted outright laughter. Jason Snell wrote a great column arguing that it was actually a good question.
Here’s the whole exchange (via Dan Moren, then at MacUser). Give it a listen, it’s only 100 seconds or so:
Keefe asks, Steve Jobs answers, Phil Schiller answers, and then Jobs closes it. Jobs broke the ice in his initial answer, with “What can I say? We like our own stickers better.” I was in the room, and that line killed. Jobs at his best. But you can tell that Jobs wasn’t really sure how to answer at first. He didn’t want to throw any shade at Intel, Apple’s partner, but he knew there was a key point to make here about Apple.
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. But why? For eons, mankind knew that when you drop something, it will fall to the ground. But why? Gravity is worth asking about. Worth figuring out. I think that’s the point of Snell’s 2007 column arguing that people (like me) were wrong to mock Keefe for asking.
It’s when Jobs comes back to the question, after Schiller, that we get the real answer:
You know, we put ourselves in the customers’ shoes and we say, what do we want stuck on our product when we take it out of the box? And the answer is, nothing.
That’s the answer. 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.” ★