Linked List: August 7, 2024

Wednesday, 7 August 2024

Overriding Gatekeeper Protections in MacOS 15 Sequoia Will Require Clicking Through Panels in System Settings 

Here’s a developer note from Apple confirming another change in MacOS 15 that many of us were hoping was a bug or glitch in the developer betas:

In macOS Sequoia, users will no longer be able to Control-click to override Gatekeeper when opening software that isn’t signed correctly or notarized. They’ll need to visit System Settings > Privacy & Security to review security information for software before allowing it to run.

Why? Is there any evidence that the Control-clicking shortcut was insufficient? If so, what is that evidence? It seems to me that the sort of technically unsophisticated non-expert users whom these features are meant to protect are the same users who have no idea the Control-click shortcut to launch non-notarized apps even exists.

I mean, if there are exploits running wild because unsophisticated Mac users are Control-clicking malware apps they’ve somehow downloaded, where are they? I can only see two possible explanations for these changes: (a) these decisions that are making MacOS increasingly annoying for expert and power users are being made by cover-your-ass bureaucrats for no good reason, and no one who knows better is shooting them down within Apple; or (b) there’s a serious rash of unreported abuse of these features and Apple is too timid to publicize them to justify the increased frequency and arduousness of these permission nags, lest they admit the Mac has any problems at all.

Neither is a good look.

MacOS 15 Sequoia Adds Weekly – That’s Right, Weekly – Nagging Permission Prompts for Screenshot and Screen Recording Apps 

Chance Miller, writing for 9to5Mac:

With macOS Sequoia this fall, using apps that need access to screen recording permissions will become a little bit more tedious. Apple is rolling out a change that will require you to give explicit permission on a weekly basis to these types of apps, and every time you reboot your Mac. [...] In the current macOS Sequoia beta, this prompt says:

“[App name] can access this computer’s screen and audio. Do you want to continue to allow access? This application may be able to collect information from any open applications on your desktop while the app is running.”

Users can then choose to “Continue To Allow” that app to have screen recording access, or they can click “Open System Settings” and immediately be taken to the preferences pane for screen recording permissions.

This prompt is designed to appear on a weekly basis. The first time you attempt to use the app each week, you’ll see this prompt and have to decide whether to “Continue To Allow” or change the permission settings. The prompt will also appear each time (for each app) when you use that app for the first time after rebooting your Mac.

I think it shows just how much care and thoughtfulness went into turning up the dial on these nags that the button label incorrectly capitalizes the “to” in “Continue To Allow”. You can say, well, that’s a little thing. But that’s exactly the sort of little thing that almost never shipped from Apple, even in beta, until the last few years.

Having to click through these confirmation nags every week, for every such utility you use, is not a little thing at all. It’s the sort of thing companies do when decisions like this are made by people looking to cover their asses, not make insanely great products.

The Verge: ‘Humane’s Daily Returns Are Outpacing Sales’ 

Kylie Robison, reporting for The Verge:

Between May and August, more AI Pins were returned than purchased, according to internal sales data obtained by The Verge. By June, only around 8,000 units hadn’t been returned, a source with direct knowledge of sales and return data told me. As of today, the number of units still in customer hands had fallen closer to 7,000, a source with direct knowledge said. [...]

Once a Humane Pin is returned, the company has no way to refurbish it, sources with knowledge of the return process confirmed. The Pin becomes e-waste, and Humane doesn’t have the opportunity to reclaim the revenue by selling it again. The core issue is that there is a T-Mobile limitation that makes it impossible (for now) for Humane to reassign a Pin to a new user once it’s been assigned to someone. One source said they don’t believe Humane has disposed of the old Pins because “they’re still hopeful they can solve this problem eventually.”

Starting to think maybe Humane is in trouble.

Flighty 4.0 

Big new update to the amazing flight-tracking app, with a particular focus on flight delays — both predicting them, and explaining them. I was using Flighty 4 in beta over the weekend, when my wife and I were in Montreal for a wedding. Our flight home Sunday was delayed by thunderstorms — both in Montreal and Philadelphia — and the information from American Airlines at the airport was all over the place. The information from Flighty was consistent, and spot-on. Wound up being about a 40-minute delay, no big deal — exactly as Flighty presented.

Flighty costs $48/year for an annual subscription, but has a super clever $4/week option for infrequent travellers. And if you don’t like subscriptions, Flighty offers fairly-priced lifetime purchases.

On the whole I continue to think it’s a tremendous advantage for Kamala Harris to drop into the race as a fresh candidate just three months ahead of the election, but I think this branding effort is one area that shows signs of being rushed. It’s not horrible but it’s not good. It’s just meh, and in no way memorable or distinctive. I don’t see how the two typefaces pair together at all. It’s has nothing like the cohesiveness of the Biden-Harris brand from 2020 (and the first half of 2024).

Also, I think the gist of this Fast Company story, suggesting the logo is a nod to the branding from Shirley Chisholm’s groundbreaking 1972 campaign for the Democratic nomination, is nonsense. “Harris” is presented in all-caps in a compressed sans serif typeface, yes, but it’s not even vaguely the same typeface. If anything, Chisholm’s branding was better, stronger, and more timeless — I wish the Harris branding was more like Chisholm’s. And it’s not like anyone in today’s US electorate actually remembers what Shirley Chisholm’s 1972 campaign posters looked like.