As a longtime Gmail user, I prefer Mimestream’s speed and deep Gmail integration over Apple Mail. It offers several advantages.
(via Cult of Mac - Your source for the latest Apple news, rumors, analysis, reviews, how-tos and deals.)
I know there are options out there like Paddle, FastSpring, and Lemon Squeezy that have worked for many apps like mine over the years. But I also wanted something simple for my users. Not to mention Apple Pay was a must-have.
I believe all the services he mentions do support Apple Pay.
RevenueCat serves as the source of truth for whether or not a customer is licensed.
I create RevenueCat customer IDs from local iCloud identifiers (more specifically, calling
userRecordID()on myCKContainerin CloudKit).When the user makes a purchase, they earn an entitlement that I look for in Arborist to grant them a license.
He doesn’t need to run his own server, and the purchases are automatically tied to the user’s iCloud account, so there are no e-mails or serial numbers to deal with. On the other hand, well, it’s all dependent on the Apple Account.
The app, which helps manage Git worktrees, is shipping now.
Previously:
macOS 27 Golden Gate Beta 3 Release Notes:
Apple Intelligence for Home requires an iCloud+ subscription starting at 2TB.
Via Rajesh Pandey:
As part of the upgrade, the Home app uses AI to generate summaries of motion alerts from compatible HomeKit Secure Video cameras.
[…]
Apple likely requires the 2TB iCloud+ tier because HomeKit Secure Video already relies on iCloud+ storage tiers. The 2TB plan supports a larger number of cameras, and AI-generated video descriptions would add to Apple’s cloud processing costs.
That makes sense, but it seems odd because the iCloud tiers are named based on storage amounts, yet the feature isn’t tied to how much space you’re actually using. A lower iCloud plan with tons of free space doesn’t get the features, yet a nearly full 2 TB plan does. There are already restrictions where supporting more cameras requires higher plans, but that is at least quasi related to storage.
I reluctantly upgraded to a 2 TB family plan within the last year or so. We don’t store many files in iCloud, messages are set to auto-delete after a year, and I manually offload photos older than a year (except for hearted favorites). It’s hard to believe given how I remember the original 5 GB free tier once being sufficient, but staying under 200 GB became untenable without a lot of extra work. It doesn’t help that Live Photos sometimes gets inadvertently turned on, so that we’re storing all these little videos without realizing it.
Previously:
In a significant victory for Apple, a U.S. federal judge has dismissed a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing the company of failing to prevent the spread of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) through its iCloud storage service. The ruling relies heavily on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields online platforms from liability for user-generated content.
U.S. District Judge Noël Wise in San Jose, California, issued the decision late Monday, agreeing with Apple’s position that it is immune from the claims. The plaintiffs alleged that Apple did not take sufficient action to stop images of their childhood sexual abuse from being stored and shared on iCloud.
Key Details from the Case
The lawsuit, filed in 2024 by two plaintiffs using the pseudonyms Amy and Jessica, represented a class of 2,680 individuals with similar claims. It sought up to $32.8 billion in compensatory damages and a court order requiring changes to iCloud.
Judge Wise ruled that the claims treated Apple as an online publisher responsible for user content, placing them squarely under Section 230 protections. She emphasized, “Nothing in federal law requires Apple to proactively utilize available technology or develop new technology to identify and report child sexual abuse material on its cloud platform.”
In a notable statement, the judge added, “Lawmakers can fix this problem that is contributing to the exploitation of children. This Court cannot.”
The case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs cannot refile it.
Background and Apple’s Position
The suit claimed Apple knew about CSAM issues on iCloud, but chose not to deploy available detection tools. It referenced Apple’s 2021 announcement of the NeuralHash program for identifying such material, which was later abandoned in favor of end-to-end encryption—making detection more difficult. Apple has maintained that it has worked diligently to combat CSAM while prioritizing user privacy and security.
James Marsh, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said they are considering an appeal and exploring other legal avenues. He noted, “While the plaintiffs disagree with the judge’s conclusion on the law, we agree with her conclusion that Congress should do more to protect children online and address the skyrocketing harms from online exploitation.”
Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Broader Context
This ruling highlights ongoing debates over Section 230 and tech companies’ responsibilities regarding harmful content. Apple faces a similar lawsuit from West Virginia’s attorney general, described as the first of its kind by a government agency targeting iCloud’s role in CSAM distribution.
MacDailyNews Take: For those unfamiliar with the NeuralHash debacle, over which we were vehemently opposed, more here.
Please help support MacDailyNews — and enjoy subscriber-only articles, comments, chat, and more — by subscribing to our Substack: macdailynews.substack.com. Thank you!
Support MacDailyNews at no extra cost to you by using this link to shop at Amazon.
The post Apple wins dismissal of major lawsuit over child sexual abuse material on iCloud appeared first on MacDailyNews.
A future WhatsApp cloud backup service could free iPhone users from iCloud while making cross-platform chat transfers far less painful.
(via Cult of Mac - Your source for the latest Apple news, rumors, analysis, reviews, how-tos and deals.)
O caso remonta a 2024, com a associação britânica de defesa dos consumidores Which? a acusar a Apple de abusar da sua posição dominante no mercado ao “prender” os utilizadores do iPhone e de outros equipamentos ao iCloud. A empresa da maçã rejeita as acusações.
The post iCloud: Ação coletiva contra a Apple avança em tribunal no Reino Unido e pode custar 3 mil milhões de libras appeared first on Tek Notícias.
Forty million UK iCloud users could be owed up to $100 (£77) each after a $3.9 billion (£3 billion) class action lawsuit against Apple was cleared for trial — and the company’s problems may be just getting started.
For Apple, the worry is that this case could snowball to become yet another existential regulatory problem. The action was brought by consumer group Which?, which accused Apple of breaching UK competition law by giving its iCloud storage service preferential treatment and “trapping” customers with Apple devices into using iCloud.
Apple achieves this by encouraging its customers to sign up to iCloud for storage of photos, videos and other data while also making it difficult for them to use alternative providers to backup key data. The company also squeezes extra dollars out of customers by providing a stingy 5GB of storage for free, while putting important data including messages and photos inside that allocation. Even Google provides 15GB of storage in its free tier.
The problem is that the scale of Apple makes it difficult for competitors to reach customers with alternative solutions, while Apple’s control over the operating system gives it integration advantages third-party competitors don’t get.
While there may well be justifications for constraining access to some personal data, those privacy and security challenges don’t apply to all of it.
When it originally filed the claim, Which? explained that Apple could resolve the claim without litigation by offering consumers their money back and opening up iOS to allow users a real choice for cloud services. This is unlikely to happen.
This case has been slowly making its way through the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which last week finally gave permission for the case to go to trial.
Apple won’t be looking at a hefty fine just yet. The first available trial date is in October 2028 and the legal fight is expected to last nine weeks, which might, or might not, equate to a Christmas surprise for Apple’s then CEO. There’s no time to sit back, however, as the company must still file its defense papers with the court by the end of next month, July 31.
The UK is not alone. Italy has launched its own antitrust probe into Apple’s iCloud dominance under the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). The problem with that litigation is that since Italy has commenced the probe, other nations across the bloc might also act.
Italy is looking to see whether Apple has failed to open up its iOS and iPadOS ecosystems to rival cloud services, arguing that third-party providers are unable to access the same system components as iCloud. The DMA insists competitors should enjoy the same degree of access as iCloud because Apple is seen as a gatekeeper, which means it is required to meet a higher set of standards.
Apple, of course, will inevitably — and rightly — argue that customer privacy needs to be protected, and that open, free, access to some of the data its trusted iCloud service can use is not in the consumer interest.
The company has already proposed one way in which it can provide third-party services with access to confidential data with a trusted intermediary system that anonymizes that information in use.
That’s precisely what it offered Europe when it proposed a solution called Trusted System Agent — an intermediary that would allow virtual assistants to safely access the same features and capabilities as Siri AI for devices in the EU. Unfortunately, EU regulators didn’t accept Apple’s justification concerning the need to protect customer privacy, which is why Apple Intelligence won’t be available in Europe for a while, if at all.
In the event Apple’s iCloud service falls short of the Italian probe and therefore the DMA, the danger is that if EU regulators take the same evangelically hard-line stance with iCloud services as they have done so far with AI, customers might find themselves losing access to the service.
That’s in Europe, of course. But the UK case is likely to get to court long before litigation processes in Europe get going, making the UK action an important test case in which yet another important component of Apple’s offering to consumers is up for trial.
Please join me on social media at BlueSky, LinkedIn, or Mastodon, even better, please subscribe to The Core for your daily fix of human-curated Apple News.
Login