2025 App Store Award Winners: Tiimo, Essayist, and Detail

Friday, 5 December 2025

Apple, today: “Announcing the 2025 App Store Awards”:

This year’s winners represent the best-in-class apps and games we returned to again and again. We hope you enjoy them as much as we do.

I did not enjoy all of them as much as Apple did.

Tiimo

iPhone app of the year Tiimo bills itself as an “AI Planner & To-do” app that is designed with accommodations for people with ADHD and other neurodivergences. Subscription plans cost $12/month ($144/year) or $54/year ($4.50/month). It does not offer a native Mac app, and at the end of onboarding/account setup, it suggests their web app for use on desktop computers. When I went to the web app, after signing in with the “Sign in With Apple” account I created on the iPhone app, Tiimo prompted me to sign up for an annual subscription for $42/year ($3.50/month), or monthly for $10 ($120/year). The in-app subscriptions offer a 30-day free trial; the less expensive pay-on-the-web subscriptions only offer a 7-day free trial. The web app doesn’t let you do anything without a paid account (or at least starting a trial); the iOS app offers quite a bit of basic functionality free of charge.

From Apple’s own description for why it gave Tiimo the award:

Built to support people who are neurodivergent (and anyone distracted by the hum of modern life), Tiimo brought clarity to our busy schedules using color-coded, emoji-accented blocks. The calming visual approach made even the most hectic days feel manageable.

It starts by syncing everything in Calendar and Reminders, pulling in doctor’s appointments, team meetings, and crucial prompts to walk the dog or stand up and stretch. Instead of dumping it all into a jumbled list, the app gives each item meaning by automatically assigning it a color and an emoji. (Tiimo gave us the option to change the weightlifter emoji it added to our workout reminders, but its pick was spot on.)

While on the move with coffee in one hand and keys in the other, we sometimes talked to Tiimo with the Al chatbot feature to add new tasks or shift appointments. When we felt overwhelmed by our to-do list, Tiimo kept us laser-focused by bubbling up just high-priority tasks, while its built-in Focus timer (accessible from any to-do with a tap) saved us from the pitfalls of multitasking.

But Tiimo really stood out when we faced a big personal project, like getting our Halloween decorations up before Thanksgiving. With the help of Al, the app suggested all the smaller tasks that would get us there: gathering the decorations from the garage, planning the layout, securing the cobwebs, and doing a safety check.

Aside from the web app, Tiimo is iOS exclusive, with apps only for iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch. No Android version. It seems to do a good job with native platform integration (Calendar integration is free; Reminders integration requires a subscription). Animations in the app feel slow to me, which makes the app itself feel slow. And, personally, I find Tiimo’s emphasis on decorating everything with emoji distracting and childish, not clarifying.

The app seems OK, but not award-worthy to me. But, admittedly, I’m not in the target audience for Tiimo’s ADHD/neurodivergent focus. I don’t need reminders to have coffee in the morning, start work, have dinner, or to watch TV at night, which are all things Tiimo prefilled on my Today schedule after I went through onboarding. As I write this sentence, I’ve been using Tiimo for five minutes, and it’s already prompted me twice to rate it on the App Store. Nope, wait, I just got a third prompt. That’s thirsty, and a little gross. (And, although I’m not an ADHD expert, three prompts to rate and review the app in the first 10 minutes of use strikes me as contrary to the needs of the easily distracted.)

Lastly, I have questions — some really hard questions — regarding Tiimo’s app icon. Such as, “What is that?”

Essayist

Mac app of the year Essayist bills itself as “The Word Processor designed for Academic Writing” (capitalization verbatim). Subscriptions cost $80/year ($6.67/month) or $10/month ($120/year). Its raison d’être is managing citations and references, and automatically formatting the entire document, including citations, according to a variety of standards (MLA, Chicago, etc.). Quoting from Apple’s own description of Essayist:

Essayist gives you an easy way to organize a dizzying array of primary sources. Ebooks, podcasts, presentations, and even direct messages and emails can be cataloged with academic rigor. Using macOS Foundation Models, Essayist extracts all the key info needed to use it as a source.

For example, paste a YouTube URL into an entry and Essayist automatically fills in the name of the video, its publication date, and the date you accessed it. Drag in an article as a PDF to have Essayist fill in the title, author, and more — and store the PDF for easy access. You can also search for the books and journal articles you’re citing right in the app.

Essayist is a document-based (as opposed to library-based) app, and its custom file format is a package with the adorable file extension “.essay”. The default font for documents is Times New Roman, and the only other option is, of all fonts, Arial — and you need an active subscription to switch the font to Arial. (Paying money for the privilege to use Arial... Jiminy fucking christ. I might need a drink.) I appreciate the simplicity of severely limiting font choices to focus the user’s attention on the writing, but offering Times New Roman and Arial as the only options means you’re left with the choice between “the default font’s default font” and “font crime”. The Essayist app itself has no Settings; instead, it offers only per-document settings.

The app carries a few whiffs of non-Mac-likeness (e.g. the aforementioned lack of Settings, and some lame-looking custom alerts). The document settings window refers to a new document, even after it has been saved with a name, as “Untitled” until you close and reopen the document. Reopened documents do not remember their window size and position. But poking around with otool, it appears to be written using AppKit, not Catalyst. I suspected the app might be Catalyst because there are companion iOS apps for iPhone and iPad, which seem to offer identical feature sets as the Mac app. Essayist uses a clever system where, unless you have a subscription, documents can only be edited on the device on which they were created, but you can open them read-only on other devices. That feels like a good way to encourage paying while giving you a generous way to evaluate Essayist free of charge. There is no Android, Windows, or web app version — it’s exclusive to Mac and iOS.

I’ve never needed to worry about adhering to a specific format for academic papers, and that’s the one and only reason I can see to use Essayist. In all other aspects, it seems a serviceable but very basic, almost primitive, word processor. ~~There’s no support for embedding images or figures of any kind in a document, for example.~~ [Correction: Essayist does support figures, but I missed the UI for how to insert them.]

Detail

iPad app of the year Detail bills itself, simply and to the point, as an “AI Video Editor”. The default subscription is $70/year ($5.83/month) with a 3-day free trial; the other option is to pay $12/month ($144/year) with no free trial. After a quick test drive, Detail seems like an excellent video editing app, optimized for creating formats common on social media, like reel-style vertical videos where you, the creator, appear as a cutout in the corner, in front of the video or images that you’re talking about. The iPhone version seems equally good. The iPad version of Detail will install and run on MacOS, but it’s one of those “Designed for iPad / Not verified for macOS” direct conversions. But they do offer a standalone Mac app, Detail Studio, which is a real Mac app, written using AppKit, which requires a separate subscription to unlock pro features ($150/year or $22/month). Detail only offers apps for iOS and MacOS — no Windows, Android, or web.

From Apple’s own acclaim for Detail:

When we used Detail to record a conversation of two people sitting side by side, the app automatically created a cut that looked like it was captured with two cameras. It zoomed in on one speaker, then cut away to the other person’s reaction. The app also made it easy to unleash our inner influencer. We typed a few key points, and the app’s AI wrote a playful script that it loaded into its teleprompter so we could read straight to the camera.

Most importantly, Detail helped us memorialize significant life moments all while staying present. At a birthday party, we propped an iPad on a table and used Detail to record with the front and back cameras simultaneously. The result was a split-screen video with everyone singing “Happy Birthday” on the left and the guest of honor blowing out the candles on the right. (No designated cameraperson needed.)

Detail has a bunch of seemingly genuinely useful AI-based features. But putting all AI features aside, it feels like a thoughtful, richly featured manual video editor. I suspect that’s why the AI features might work well — they’re an ease-of-use / automation layer atop a professional-quality non-AI foundation. Basically, Detail seems like what Apple’s own Clips — recently end-of-life’d — should have been. It turns your iPad (or iPhone) into a self-contained video studio. Cool.

Of these three apps — Tiimo on iPhone, Essayist on Mac, and Detail on iPad — Detail appeals to me the most, and strikes me as the most deserving of this award. If I were to start making videos for modern social media, I’d strongly evaluate Detail as my primary tool.

Apple still has no standalone category for AI apps, but all three of these apps emphasize AI features, and Apple itself calls out those AI features in its praise for them. It’s an obvious recurring theme shared by all three, along with their shared monetization strategies of being free to download with in-app subscriptions to unlock all features, and the fact that all three winners are exclusive to iOS and Mac (and, in Tiimo’s case, the web). ★

Friday, 5 December 2025

Alan Dye Was in Tim Cook’s Blind Spot

Thursday, 4 December 2025

NBC News, back in March 2018:

Speaking at a town hall event hosted by MSNBC’s Chris Hayes and Recode’s Kara Swisher, Cook said Facebook put profits above all else when it allegedly allowed user data to be taken through connected apps. [...]

When asked what he would do if he were in Zuckerberg’s position, Cook replied: “What would I do? I wouldn’t be in this situation.”

“The truth is we could make a ton of money if we monetized our customer, if our customer was our product,” Cook said. “We’ve elected not to do that.”

“Privacy to us is a human right. It’s a civil liberty, and something that is unique to America. This is like freedom of speech and freedom of the press,” Cook said. “Privacy is right up there with that for us.”

Perhaps Cook now needs to define “us”.

This was a rather memorable interview. Cook’s “What would I do? I wouldn’t be in this situation” is one of the stone-coldest lines he’s ever zinged at a rival company. (In public, that is.) That was just ice cold. Cook is a consummate diplomat. Most non-founder big company CEOs are. Satya Nadella, Sundar Pichai, Andy Jassy — none of them are known for throwing shade, let alone sharp elbows, at competitors. Cook has made an exception, multiple times, when it comes to Facebook/Meta (and to a lesser degree, Google).

So it’s not just that Alan Dye jumped ship from Apple for the chief designer officer role at another company.¹ It’s not just that he left for a rival company. It’s that he left Apple for Meta, of all companies. Given what Cook has said about Meta publicly, one can only imagine what he thinks about them privately. Apple executives tend to stay at Apple. The stability of its executive team is unparalleled. But Dye is a senior leader who not only left for a rival, but the one rival that Cook and the rest of Apple’s senior leadership team consider the most antithetical to Apple’s ideals.

It would have been surprising if Dye had jumped ship to Google or Microsoft. It would have been a little more surprising if he’d left for Amazon, if only because Amazon seemingly places no cultural value whatsoever on design, as Apple practices it. But maybe with Amazon it would have been seen as Andy Jassy deciding to get serious about design, and thus, in a way, less surprising after the fact. But leaving Apple for Meta, of all companies, feels shocking. How could someone who would even consider leaving Apple for Meta rise to a level of such prominence at Apple, including as one of the few public faces of the company?

So it’s not just that Alan Dye is a fraud of a UI designer and leader, and that Apple’s senior leadership had a blind spot to the ways Dye’s leadership was steering Apple’s interface design deeply astray. That’s problem enough, as I emphasized in my piece yesterday. It’s also that it’s now clear that Dye’s moral compass was not aligned with Apple’s either. Tim Cook and the rest — or at least most? — of Apple’s senior leadership apparently couldn’t see that, either. ★

I’d have thrown OpenAI in that list of companies where it would have been surprising, but not shocking, for Dye to leave Apple for. But that simply wasn’t possible given Jony Ive’s relationship with Sam Altman, LoveFrom’s collaboration with OpenAI with the io project, and Ive’s utter disdain for Dye’s talent, leadership, and personality. ↩︎

Thursday, 4 December 2025

Bad Dye Job

Wednesday, 3 December 2025

In my post earlier today on the then-breaking news that Alan Dye has left Apple to join Meta as chief design officer (a new title at the company¹), I wrote:

It sounds like Dye chose to jump ship, and wasn’t squeezed out (as it seems with former AI chief John Giannandrea earlier this week). Gurman/Bloomberg are spinning this like a coup for Meta (headline: “Apple Design Executive Alan Dye Poached by Meta in Major Coup”), but I think this is the best personnel news at Apple in decades. Dye’s decade-long stint running Apple’s software design team has been, on the whole, terrible — and rather than getting better, the problems have been getting worse.

Dye’s replacement at Apple is longtime Apple designer Stephen Lemay. I’ve never met Lemay (or at least can’t recall meeting him), and prior to today never heard much about him. But that’s typical for Apple employees. Part of the job working for Apple is remaining under the radar and out of the public eye. What I’ve learned today is that Lemay, very much unlike Dye, is a career interface/interaction designer. Sources I’ve spoken to who’ve worked with Lemay at Apple speak highly of him, particularly his attention to detail and craftsmanship. Those things have been sorely lacking in the Dye era. Not everyone loves everything Lemay has worked on, but nobody bats 1.000 and designers love to critique each other’s work. I’ve chatted with people with criticisms of specific things Lemay has worked on or led at Apple (e.g. aspects of iPadOS multitasking that struck many of us as deliberately limiting, rather than empowering), but everyone I’ve spoken to is happy — if not downright giddy — at the news that Lemay is replacing Dye. Lemay is well-liked personally and deeply respected talent-wise. Said one source, in a position to know the choices, “I don’t think there was a better choice than Lemay.”

The sentiment within the ranks at Apple is that today’s news is almost too good to be true. People had given up hope that Dye would ever get squeezed out, and no one expected that he’d just up and leave on his own. (If you care about design, there’s nowhere to go but down after leaving Apple. What people overlooked is the obvious: Alan Dye doesn’t actually care about design.)

What I struggled with in the wake of today’s news is how to square the following contradiction:

Dye apparently left for Meta on his own; he wasn’t squeezed out.
Apple replacing Dye with Lemay seemingly signals a significant shift in direction, replacing a guy whose approach was almost entirely superficial/visual with a guy who’s spent his entire career sweating actual interaction details.

If Apple’s senior leadership would have been happy to have Dye remain as leader of Apple’s software design teams, why didn’t they replace him with a Dye acolyte? Conversely, if the decision makers at Apple saw the need for a directional change, why wasn’t Dye pushed out?²

The answer, I think, is that the decision to elevate Lemay wasn’t about direction, but loyalty. Why risk putting in a Dye-aligned replacement when that person might immediately get poached too? We know, from this year’s AI recruitment battles, that Zuckerberg is willing to throw almost unfathomable sums of money to poach talent he wants to hire from competitors. Gurman reported that Billy Sorrentino, a Dye deputy who has served as a senior director of design at Apple since 2016, is leaving for Meta with Dye.³ I don’t have any other names, but word on the street is that other members of Dye’s inner circle are leaving Apple for Meta with him. But those who remain — or who might remain, if they’d have been offered the promotion to replace Dye — simply can’t be trusted from the perspective of senior leadership, who were apparently blindsided by Dye’s departure for Meta. They wouldn’t have given Dye a prime spot in the WWDC keynote if they thought he might be leaving within months.

So the change in direction we may see — that many of us desperately hope to see — under Lemay’s leadership might be happenstance. More a factor of Lemay being politically safe, as someone predating Dye and outside Dye’s inner circle at Apple, than from Tim Cook or anyone else in senior leadership seeing a need for a directional change in UI design. But happenstance or not, it could be the best thing to happen to Apple’s HI design in the entire stretch since Steve Jobs’s passing and Scott Forstall’s ouster.

Putting Alan Dye in charge of user interface design was the one big mistake Jony Ive made as Apple’s Chief Design Officer.⁴ Dye had no background in user interface design — he came from a brand and print advertising background. Before joining Apple, he was design director for the fashion brand Kate Spade, and before that worked on branding for the ad agency Ogilvy. His promotion to lead Apple’s software interface design team under Ive happened in 2015, when Apple was launching Apple Watch, their closest foray into the world of fashion. It might have made some sense to bring someone from the fashion/brand world to lead software design for Apple Watch, but it sure didn’t seem to make sense for the rest of Apple’s platforms. And the decade of Dye’s HI leadership has proven it.

The most galling moment in Dye’s entire tenure was the opening of this year’s iPhone event keynote in September, which began with a title card showing the oft-cited Jobs quote “Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.” The whole problem with the Dye era of HI design at Apple is that it has so largely — not entirely, but largely — been driven purely by how things look. There are a lot of things in Apple’s software — like app icons — that don’t even look good any more. But it’s the “how it works” part that has gone so horribly off the rails. Alan Dye seems like exactly the sort of person Jobs was describing in the first part of that quote: “People think it’s this veneer — that the designers are handed this box and told, ‘Make it look good!’”

I am not a Liquid Glass hater. I actually think, on the whole, iOS 26 is a better and more usable UI than iOS 18. But MacOS 26 Tahoe is a mess, visually, and I’m not sure there’s a single thing about its UI that is better than MacOS 15 Sequoia. There are new software features in Tahoe that are excellent and serve as legitimate enticements to upgrade. But I’m talking about the user interface — the work from Alan Dye’s HI team, not Craig Federighi’s teams. I think the fact that Liquid Glass is worse on MacOS than it is on iOS is not just a factor of iOS being Apple’s most popular, most profitable, most important platform — and thus garnering more of Apple’s internal attention. I think it’s also about the fact that the Mac interface, with multiple windows, bigger displays, and more complexity, demands more nuanced, more expert, interaction design skills. Things like depth, layering, and unambiguous indications of input focus are important aspects of any platform. But they’re more important on the platform which, by design, shoulders more complexity. Back in 2010, predicting a bright future for the Mac at a time when many pundits were thinking Apple would soon put the entire platform out to pasture, I wrote, “It’s the heaviness of the Mac that allows iOS to remain light.” That remains as true today as it was 15 years ago. But Liquid Glass, especially as expressed on MacOS, is a lightweight poorly considered design system as a whole, and its conceptual thinness is not sufficient to properly allow the Mac to carry the weight it needs to bear.

Perhaps more tellingly, there should have been no need for the “clear/tinted” Liquid Glass preference setting that Apple added in the 26.1 OS releases. Alan Dye wasn’t fired, by all accounts, but that preference setting was as good a sign as any that he should have been. And it’s very much a sign that inside Apple, there’s a strong enough contingent of people who prioritize how things work — like, you know, whether you can read text against the background of an alert — to get a setting like this shipped, outside the Accessibility section of Settings.

It remains worrisome that Apple needed to luck into Dye leaving the company. But fortune favors the prepared, and Apple remains prepared by having an inordinate number of longtime talented HI designers at the company. The oddest thing about Alan Dye’s stint leading software design is that there are, effectively, zero design critics who’ve been on his side. The debate regarding Apple’s software design over the last decade isn’t between those on Dye’s side and those against. It’s only a matter of debating how bad it’s been, and how far it’s fallen from its previous remarkable heights. It’s rather extraordinary in today’s hyper-partisan world that there’s nearly universal agreement amongst actual practitioners of user-interface design that Alan Dye is a fraud who led the company deeply astray. It was a big problem inside the company too. I’m aware of dozens of designers who’ve left Apple, out of frustration over the company’s direction, to work at places like LoveFrom, OpenAI, and their secretive joint venture io. I’m not sure there are any interaction designers at io who aren’t ex-Apple, and if there are, it’s only a handful. From the stories I’m aware of, the theme is identical: these are designers driven to do great work, and under Alan Dye, “doing great work” was no longer the guiding principle at Apple. If reaching the most users is your goal, go work on design at Google, or Microsoft, or Meta. (Design, of course, isn’t even a thing at Amazon.) Designers choose to work at Apple to do the best work in the industry. That has stopped being true under Alan Dye. The most talented designers I know are the harshest critics of Dye’s body of work, and the direction in which it’s been heading.

Back in June, after WWDC, I quoted from Alan Dye’s introduction of Liquid Glass during the keynote, and then quoted from Steve Jobs’s introduction of Aqua when he unveiled the Mac OS X Public Beta in January 2000. I wrote:

Re-watching Jobs’s introduction of Aqua for the umpteenth time, I still find it enthralling. I found Alan Dye’s introduction of Liquid Glass to be soporific, if not downright horseshitty.

One of the bits from Jobs’s Aqua introduction I quoted was this:

This is what the top of windows look like. These three buttons look like a traffic signal, don’t they? Red means close the window. Yellow means minimize the window. And green means maximize the window. Pretty simple. And tremendous fit and finish in this operating system. When you roll over these things, you get those. You see them? And when you are no longer the key window, they go transparent. So a lot of fit and finish in this.

After I published that post, I got a note from a designer friend who left Apple, in frustration, a few years ago. After watching Jobs’s Aqua introduction for the first time in years, he told me, “I’m really struck by Steve directly speaking to ‘radio buttons’ and ‘the key window’.” He had the feeling that Dye and his team looked down on interface designers who used terms like Jobs himself once used — in a public keynote, no less. That to Dye’s circle, such terms felt too much like “programmer talk”. But the history of Apple (and NeXT) user interface design is the opposite. Designers and programmers used to — and still should — speak the exact same language about such concepts. Steve Jobs certainly did, and something feels profoundly broken about that disconnect under Alan Dye’s leadership. It’s like the head of cinematography for a movie telling the camera team to stop talking about nerdy shit like “f-stops”. The head of cinematography shouldn’t just abide talking about f-stops and focal lengths, but love it. Said my friend to me, regarding his interactions with Dye and his team at Apple, “I swear I had conversations in which I mentioned ‘key window’ and no one knew what I meant.”

That won’t be a problem with Stephen Lemay. Understanding of fundamental principles will no longer be lacking. Lemay has been at Apple spanning the gamut between the Greg Christie/Bas Ording glory days and the current era. At the very least, Lemay running HI should stop the bleeding — both in terms of work quality and talent retention. I sincerely believe things might measurably improve, but I’m more sure that things will stop getting worse. That alone will be a win for everyone — even though the change was seemingly driven by Mark Zuckerberg’s desire to poach Dye, not Tim Cook and Apple’s senior leadership realizing they should have shitcanned him long ago.

Alan Dye is not untalented. But his talents at Apple were in politics. His political skill was so profound that it was his decision to leave, despite the fact that his tenure is considered a disaster by actual designers inside and outside the company. He obviously figured out how to please Apple’s senior leadership. His departure today landed as a total surprise because his stature within the company seemed so secure. And so I think he might do very well at Meta. Not because he can bring world-class interaction design expertise — because he obviously can’t — but because the path to success at Meta has never been driven by design. It’s about getting done what Zuck wants done. Dye might excel at that. Dye was an anchor holding Apple back, but might elevate design at Meta.⁵

My favorite reaction to today’s news is this one-liner from a guy on Twitter/X: “The average IQ of both companies has increased.” ★

Titles are just titles, and title inflation is a real problem at all big companies. But I always thought C-level executives by definition report directly to the CEO. That that was the whole point of a “chief whatever officer” title versus “senior vice president of whatever”. But according to Mark Gurman’s exclusive report at Bloomberg breaking this whole story (emphasis added):

With the Dye hire, Meta is creating a new design studio and putting him in charge of design for hardware, software and AI integration for its interfaces. He will be reporting to Chief Technology Officer Andrew Bosworth, who oversees Reality Labs. That group is tasked with developing wearable devices, such as smart glasses and virtual reality headsets. Dye’s major focus will be revamping Meta’s consumer devices with artificial intelligence features.

If true, Dye doesn’t even report directly to Mark Zuckerberg. Oddly enough, after the retirement of COO Jeff Williams this year, Apple claimed the company’s design teams transitioned to reporting directly to CEO Tim Cook. ↩︎
And man oh man am I curious who was involved with this decision, who had Tim Cook’s ear, and just how quickly they were forced to make it. Part of what made Stephen Lemay a popular choice within Apple’s ranks is that Lemay, by all accounts I’ve heard, isn’t a political operator and never angled for a promotion to a level of this prominence. His focus has always singularly been on the work. ↩︎︎
Sorrentino was featured in a two-minute-plus segment in this year’s WWDC keynote, starting at the 38:25 mark, introducing the new iOS Visual Intelligence features. His star was rising at Apple. And Dye himself, of course, was given the spotlight to introduce and effectively take credit for Liquid Glass itself. At least until recently, no one at Apple saw this coming. ↩︎︎
I have good reason to believe that Ive, in private, would be the first person to admit that. A fan of Liquid Glass Jony Ive is not. I believe he sees Dye as a graphic designer, not a user interface designer — and not a good graphic designer at that. I don’t think Alan Dye could get a job as a barista at LoveFrom. ↩︎︎
It’s worth recalling that Zuckerberg sorta kinda tried this poach-design-talent-from-Apple thing before. Mike Matas, the wunderkind designer who became a sensation with Delicious Library in 2005, soon thereafter moved on to work at Apple, where he designed such things as the “slide to unlock” interface on the original iPhone. Matas was a key designer on that glorious first version of the iPhone’s OS. He then left Apple and formed Push Pop Press, and wound up at Facebook in 2011 after Facebook acquired Push Pop — before it had even shipped its core product. (I saw a still-in-development version of Push Pop’s publishing system in 2011, before Facebook bought them and shut down the product, and it remains to this day one of the most impressive, exciting, “this is the future” demos I’ve ever seen. It’s not merely a shame but a goddamn tragedy that it never even shipped.) Zuckerberg wound up assembling around Matas an entire little superteam of “Delicious” era designers and design-focused developers. That team wound up shipping Facebook Paper in 2014 — an iOS-exclusive alternative client for Facebook that espoused the same principles of elegance, exquisite attention to detail, and, especially, direct manipulation of content in lieu of user interface chrome, that infused Push Pop Press’s publishing system. Facebook Paper was so good it almost — almost — made me sign up for a Facebook account just so I could use it. But Facebook Paper went nowhere, fast. Zuckerberg lost his boner for “design”, Facebook Paper was pulled from the App Store in 2016, and the team behind Paper disbanded.

Matas today works at LoveFrom, and remains, to my mind, one of the most singularly talented and interesting people in the field of interaction design. In some closer-to-ideal alternate universe, Matas would be running HI design at Apple today. ↩︎︎

Wednesday, 3 December 2025

Tuesday, 2 December 2025

Monday, 1 December 2025

Signal Secure Backups Are Now Available on iOS

Monday, 1 December 2025

Signal Support:

Signal Secure Backups can help you safely restore your chats if something unexpected happens to your device (like dropping your phone in a lake). When this optional feature is enabled, your device will automatically back up your message history so you won’t lose important data if you get a new phone or reinstall Signal.

Your Secure Backup Archive is end-to-end encrypted and protected by a cryptographically secure 64-character recovery key that is never shared with the Signal service. Without your unique recovery key, no one (including Signal) can read, decrypt, or restore any of the data in your Secure Backup Archive.

Signal’s cloud storage service is optional (of course), and available to all users free of charge. At the free tier, it will back up the complete text of users’ chat history and the last 45 days of file attachments (images, video, etc.). For $2/month (through in-app purchase in the iPhone app), Signal will remove the 45-day window on media attachments, and store up to 100 GB of attachments — which, for most users, should be their complete history. (I don’t remember how far back in time my iCloud iMessage storage goes, but, as I type this, it includes 772,004 messages and consumes 83.4 GB of storage. I have a lot of images in there. 100 GB of storage feels pretty good for $2/month. My personal Signal account backup size is just 408 MB, which jibes with my gut feeling regarding how much I use Signal compared to iMessage — about one-half of one percent as much.)

Signal first announced this feature back in September in a blog post that has a lot of technical details about how it works, but until a week ago, it was only available on the Android version. It’s still labelled as a “beta” feature on iOS. I enabled it over the weekend and signed up for the $2/month subscription — both to back up all my attachments and to support the Signal Foundation. Now that I’m paying $2/month, however, I wish they’d stop periodically badgering me for donations when I launch the app.

I’m glad this feature became available when it did, and that I enabled it over the weekend. Yesterday I set up my personal new iPhone this year, and this morning, when I tried to transfer my Signal account from my old iPhone to the new one, after claiming to reach “100%” of the transfer, and the Signal app reporting on both the old (source) and new (destination) phones that the transfer was complete, the app crashed on both phones. After that, the Signal app was in factory-fresh state on both phones, without any trace of my account history. I then restored the new iPhone from my brand-new online Signal Secure Backup, and that worked perfectly. And it somehow took far, far less time than the old device-to-device transfer — maybe one minute, versus 15 minutes or so for the device-to-device transfer that wound up failing.

Until now, transferring my Signal account history from one phone to another always felt like delivering a crate full of eggs while riding a rickety old bicycle without brakes on a bumpy cobblestone street. Every time I did it device-to-device, it felt like I’d be lucky if it worked. And my experience trying it this morning — for the last time — proved me right. Signal proponents often defended this architecture by arguing that remaining only on device was a security benefit. In some ways that’s true, but there’s nothing “secure” about a transfer feature that loses all of your data if the transfer fails. (Signal data, by design, isn’t included in iCloud backups because Apple holds a key to unlock iCloud backups for customer service reasons, unless the user has enabled Advanced Data Protection.) Permanently losing all your data is a different form of “insecurity” than having it exfiltrated by an attacker or exposed to law enforcement agencies via a warrant issued to the cloud backup provider, but it’s a form of insecurity nonetheless.

Signal’s top priority has always been protecting your data from being obtained by others. That’s a noble idea, and central to Signal’s brand. But by placing that priority so far above everything else, it meant, until now, that you’d lose your entire account history if you lost or broke your primary phone. This new secure backup system shows that your data can remain secure while also being backed up off device. I’m glad the feature is finally here, but it should have been here years ago. A user-hostile “lose your phone, lose your account history” architecture may well be “secure” in a technical sense, but it’s the sort of brittleness that’s kept Signal from achieving more mainstream use. ★

Meta Says Fuck That Metaverse Shit

Sunday, 7 December 2025

Sunday, 7 December 2025

Friday, 5 December 2025

2025 App Store Award Winners: Tiimo, Essayist, and Detail

Friday, 5 December 2025

Tiimo

Essayist

Detail

Friday, 5 December 2025

Alan Dye Was in Tim Cook’s Blind Spot

Thursday, 4 December 2025

Thursday, 4 December 2025

Bad Dye Job

Wednesday, 3 December 2025

Wednesday, 3 December 2025

Tuesday, 2 December 2025

Monday, 1 December 2025

Signal Secure Backups Are Now Available on iOS

Monday, 1 December 2025

Sunday, 30 November 2025

Saturday, 29 November 2025

Thursday, 27 November 2025

Wednesday, 26 November 2025

Monday, 24 November 2025

Sunday, 23 November 2025

Saturday, 22 November 2025

Friday, 21 November 2025

Thursday, 20 November 2025

Wednesday, 19 November 2025