By John Gruber
Build anything with exe.dev. It’s just a computer.
Chess Peace — a new iOS game by Sam Shepherd — is my kind of logic puzzle. Each puzzle is a board with a few unplaced chess pieces. To solve you need to place all the pieces so that none of them attack each other. There’s a timer if you care, but I don’t. (And you can hide the clock.) Clever name too: the pieces need to be ... at peace with each other. You can download Chess Peace and try it out free of charge, and it’s just a one-time payment of $7 to unlock everything. Great simple premise, really well implemented.
Nick Heer:
If you do a little poking around in Adobe’s application bundles, a key reason for the jankiness of these user interfaces becomes apparent: it is because they are little webpages. These dialog boxes are HTML files that reference a chunky CSS file and oodles of JavaScript, and appear to be built with React. [...]
I was going to write about how this stuff should have been tried with people who actually use Adobe’s apps in a high-pressure environment, but I am sure it was and, also, it does not matter. Wichary has it right. These are fundamental principles of user interface design that Adobe is ignoring because its internal tooling has taken precedence.
I will quibble only with this line from Heer’s post:
Also, Adobe’s interface has always been unique and not quite at home on either MacOS or Windows.
You have to go back to the 1990s and classic Mac OS, but Adobe’s best apps used to have exemplary native UIs. Apps like Photoshop helped push the state of the art in Mac UI forward. Tabbed palettes were a revelation. Fire up, say, Photoshop 3.0 on MacOS 7.6 and see what I mean.
Also worth noting is how much this new “modern” UI isn’t just subjectively ugly, it’s objectively breaking the habits and expectations of users with literally decades of experience with Photoshop — users who, like me, remember when Adobe’s UI wasn’t just merely tolerable but actually good. It’s insane when you think about it.
How did Adobe lose that good sense of yore? Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.
Paul Thurrott:
I may or may not write and publish a short e-book about Markdown sometime this year, most likely as part of a monthly focus. But l’ve written small parts of it already, as I do, and I figured it might be interesting for at least some readers. And so here’s an early draft of an introductory chapter that may or may not be called “On writing.” We’ll see.
It’s odd how things turn out in life. Thurrott’s and my careers are almost uniquely parallel, but have seldom intersected. This book would have been a very surprising outcome to me, if you’d told me about it 20 years ago. Sort of a fun outcome, though, and I must admit to being curious what comes of it.
The New York Times, back in March last year (gift link):
To win the artificial intelligence race, Google not only has developed its own technologies, but has also pumped money into prominent A.I. start-ups. And to preserve its competitive edge, Google has kept its ownership stakes in those start-ups a secret.
Court documents recently obtained by The New York Times reveal Google’s stake in one of those start-ups, Anthropic, as well as how its investment in the young company is set to change. Google owns 14 percent of Anthropic, according to legal filings that the A.I. start-up submitted as part of a Google antitrust case. But that investment gives Google little control over the company. The internet giant can own only up to 15 percent of Anthropic, according to the filings, and Google holds no voting rights, no board seats and no board observer rights at the start-up.
Still, Google is set to invest an additional $750 million in Anthropic in September through a type of loan known as convertible debt, according to the filings. The companies agreed to the convertible note in 2023. In total, Google has invested more than $3 billion in the A.I. company.
Anthropic’s latest funding round — a rare Series G — valued the company at $380 billion. So let’s say Google has invested $4 billion to date, and Anthropic really is worth $380 billion. Google’s slice of that would be worth a little north of $50 billion, quite the return on investment. And competitively, there’s a heads-they-win (with Gemini), tails-they-don’t-lose (with Claude) aspect. Maybe that’s not the best metaphor, since OpenAI would make it a three-sided coin, but still.
(Via today’s subscriber-only Stratechery update, where Ben Thompson noted this in the context of Google last week reporting a 30% increase in operating profit year-over-year, but an eye-popping 81% increase in overall profit. The difference was the growth in their investments, almost certainly Anthropic in particular.)
Jeremy Provost, on the blog for Think Tap Work, his mobile app development company:
iOS App Store search is no longer about relevance. It’s about ad inventory. With Apple’s introduction of a second search ad, for any query where we weren’t #1, we’ve effectively moved down one position. [...] If you’re counting at home, roughly 70% of the interface is covered in ads. A casino ad, to boot.
That was a month ago. Two weeks later, he posted a follow-up, showing the effect on Think Tap Work’s apps in the App Store:
I wanted to share some updated numbers from our own apps. To isolate the impact, these numbers only include App Store Search impressions from iOS devices, comparing Mar 26–Apr 8 to the prior two weeks. In other words: how much visibility we’ve lost in search.
- Morpho Converter: 26% decrease
- Pop Out Timer: 23% decrease
- Attendant for Zoom: 30% decrease
- Participant: 3% increase. As previously mentioned, we advertise Participant using Search Ads. It’s not surprising that it might be getting a bump from this change.
The screenshot in his follow-up shows another casino ad, this time in a search for “Roblox”. Kinda gross.
Here’s Wikipedia on the “Zero-One-Infinity Rule”:
The zero-one-infinity (ZOI) rule is a rule of thumb in software design proposed by early computing pioneer Willem van der Poel. It argues that arbitrary limits on the number of instances of a particular type of data or structure should not be allowed. Instead, an entity should either be forbidden entirely, only one should be allowed, or any number of them should be allowed.
In Apple Notes, you can only have one main window open. In Apple Mail, however, you can open as many Viewer Windows as you want. Both are compliant with the Zero-One-Infinity rule. An app that allowed you to open multiple viewer windows — but no more than some arbitrary limit — would not be. ZOI is a very good rule of thumb.
I feel like a variation of Zero-One-Infinity is a good rule of thumb for ads, too. From the perspective of users — and probably developers — zero was the best number of ads for Apple to show in App Store search results. One was worse but acceptable. But now that they’re showing more than one, they’re on their way to infinity. They’ve started down the slippery slope. Remember when Google only showed one ad in search results?
Anyway, who’s looking forward to ads in Apple Maps this summer?
Jake Adelstein (author of Tokyo Vice) on his blog Tokyo Paladin:
For decades, Japan’s Oreos weren’t made by Nabisco at all. They were produced domestically by Yamazaki Biscuits, under a licensing arrangement with what eventually became Mondelez International. This was, by most accounts, a reasonable arrangement. The cookies were local. The quality was consistent. Nobody was complaining.
Then Mondelez did what corporations do when things are working fine. The license expired, and Mondelez moved production of the Oreos it sells in Japan to China, exporting them to Japanese wholesalers and retailers. A cost decision. A spreadsheet decision. The kind of decision made in a room with no windows and a very good projector.
Sensitive Japanese consumers noticed quickly — the taste had changed. Into that opening stepped the Noir, inheriting the flavor the old Oreo had left behind.
Yamazaki Biscuits launched Noir in December 2017 as the successor nobody had officially asked for and everybody apparently wanted.
I have a great affinity for Newman-O’s, which I’ve previously described as “the cookies Oreos pretend to be”. Turns out though I’ve mostly sung the praises of Newman-O’s on my podcast and social media, not here on Daring Fireball. I love Newman-O’s, never tire of them, and will fight any man who argues that Oreos taste better. In fact, late last night, when a friend texted me with a link to this story from Adelstein, I was by sheer happenstance eating a few Newman-O’s. True story.
But now I’m fascinated by the existence of these Japanese rivals. A spite Oreo called Noir. They look and sound delicious, but they seem difficult to obtain in the U.S.
Marcin Wichary at Unsung:
I’m angry. (Clearly.) We should all be angry in face of stuff like this. This is how people get fed up with software — because it feels unstable and deteriorates on its own without needing to.
I know I brought up that an existing power user base can be a huge pain in the ass, and I am a decades-old Photoshop power user. But this is different than other examples where the product needs or at least wants to evolve past its core audience or toward a different market. For Photoshop here, nothing I see indicates any change in course or clientele — and yet all of these good moments in UI that used to help me out no longer exist.
Plus, all those transgressions are solved problems. Those issues are not buried in pages of heavily litigated patents, or in seven collective brains of world-class interface designers whose driveways are presently occupied by cash-filled trucks sent over by frontier companies. This isn’t some long lost art that requires archaeologists to decipher. This feels like carelessness and laziness in face of basic UI engineering; in a likely internally-motivated effort to refresh the interface, the team threw an entire nursery worth of babies with the bathwater.
The before-and-after screenshots look like examples from a lecture on user interface design — if you swap them around make the new ones “before” and the old ones “after”. Better balance, better focus behavior, appropriate platform-native typography.
(Shades of Héliographe’s devastating critique of the history of the app icon for Pages: “If you put the Apple icons in reverse it looks like the portfolio of someone getting really really good at icon design.”)
Sam Sabin, writing for Axios one year ago:
Anthropic expects AI-powered virtual employees to begin roaming corporate networks in the next year, the company’s top security leader told Axios in an interview this week. [...] Virtual employees could be the next AI innovation hotbed, Jason Clinton, the company’s chief information security officer, told Axios.
Agents typically focus on a specific, programmable task. In security, that’s meant having autonomous agents respond to phishing alerts and other threat indicators. Virtual employees would take that automation a step further: These AI identities would have their own “memories,” their own roles in the company and even their own corporate accounts and passwords.
Unlike Anthropic’s ambitious prediction regarding the vertiginous rise in AI code generation, this one, I think we can say, has fallen flat on its face. This isn’t how companies are using AI — or at least they shouldn’t. But contra Axios’s year-ago headline (“Exclusive: Anthropic Warns Fully AI Employees Are a Year Away”), this wasn’t a warning. It was an advertisement — and exactly the sort of wink-wink-nudge-nudge software-brain “warning” that has tanked public sentiment regarding AI. It wasn’t an indication that Anthropic actually believed there would exist “fully AI employees” today, but rather that they wanted to build enthusiasm amongst the sort of ghoulish “let them eat cake” executives who really wish that they could “hire” fully AI employees.
Two months ago, revisiting Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s year-prior prediction that AI would soon be writing 90+ percent of all programming code, I wrote:
But where I think Amodei’s remarks, quoted above, are facile is that it hasn’t played out as simply that lines of code that would have been written by human programmers are now generated by AI models. That’s part of it, for sure. But what’s revolutionary — a topic I’ve been posting about twice already today — is that AI code generation tools are being used to create services and apps and libraries that simply would not have been written at all before. It may well be that the total number of lines of code that will be written by people today isn’t much different from the number of lines of code that were written by people a year ago. But there might be 10× more code generated by AI than is written by people today. Maybe more. Maybe a lot more? And a year or two or three from now, that might be 100× or 1,000× or 100,000×.
In that near future, human programmers are likely still to be writing — or at least line-by-line reviewing and approving — code. But as a percentage of all code being generated, that will only be a sliver.
Early in April we kind of got a number we can assign to this: 14×. GitHub COO Kyle Daigle posted on Twitter/X (alternative link):
Yup, platform activity is surging. There were 1 billion commits in 2025. Now, it’s 275 million per week, on pace for 14 billion this year if growth remains linear (spoiler: it won’t.)
GitHub Actions has grown from 500M minutes/week in 2023 to 1B minutes/week in 2025, and now 2.1B minutes so far this week.
No one at Apple is talking about it publicly (yet?), but judging by response times, App Store review is facing a similar deluge. And as for GitHub, yeah.
Press release last week:
SightMD, a leading ophthalmology practice in the greater New England area, today announced a historic milestone in surgical innovation. Dr. Eric Rosenberg, DO, MSE, has become the first surgeon in the world to successfully perform cataract surgery using the Apple Vision Pro, powered by ScopeXR, a groundbreaking mixed reality surgical platform co-developed by Dr. Rosenberg.
The initial procedure was successfully completed in October 2025, and since that time, Dr. Rosenberg and his team have performed hundreds of additional cases using the platform, demonstrating both its scalability and real-world clinical impact.
Not being ready for mass-market popularity is such a different thing from not being ready for niche practical use cases. Would be a weird thing indeed if Apple “gave up” on this platform.
Bryan Hoch, reporting for MLB.com:
A colorful personality who engaged and entertained fans with a distinct conversational style, Sterling called 5,426 regular-season Yankees games and 225 more in the postseason from 1989 until his retirement in 2024. After initially stepping away from the microphone in April of that year, Sterling returned to call selected games late in the ’24 season, including each contest of the World Series.
At the time of his initial retirement, Sterling said that he considered himself to be “a very blessed human being,” noting that he had lived out a childhood dream of broadcasting on the radio for more than 64 years.
“It’s your medium. You do what you want,” Sterling once said. “You have to paint the picture, which I love doing.”
That’s baseball, Suzyn.