Experimente e explore um mundo devastado pela humanidade na pele da última raposa da Terra e de seus filhotes. Descubra toda a destruição, a poluição e os problemas causados ao planeta.
Explore várias áreas de rolagem lateral em 3D e defenda suas pequenas bolas de pelo, alimente-as, veja-as crescer, observe suas personalidades e medos únicos e, o mais importante, ajude-as a sobreviver.
Confira um vídeo:
Controles na tela serão as suas ferramentas. Proteja-se de ameaças, cace, esconda-se e teste o seu instinto de sobrevivência. Aproveite a oferta e compre esse belo título! 🦊
Confira outros jogos/apps que, juntos, somam mais de R$90 em descontos:
Jogos
Puzzle.
Torne-se um predador.
Controle de fronteira.
Aplicativos
Aprenda japonês.
Diversão educacional.
Observe a Terra.
Aproveite as ofertas e até amanhã! Lembrando que elas são sempre por tempo limitado, então é bom correr. 🛸
Nesta madrugada de quarta para quinta-feira — depois de um evento da Apple —, economize com a nossa seleção de promoções na App Store!
Apesar de já termos uma ferramenta semelhante nativamente no iOS/iPadOS, o Snap Markup – Annotation Tool é um bom utilitário para marcações em fotos.
Toque no canto inferior esquerdo da tela para escolher a origem do arquivo. Selecione uma imagem da sua biblioteca, tire uma foto ou abra uma página na internet.
Linhas, formas geométricas, setas, números e textos podem ser adicionados em imagens ao simples toque de um botão. Marque o que desejar e compartilhe tudo sem sair da tela do Snap Markup.
Se você procura um aplicativo que vá além do recurso nativo do iOS/iPadOS, baixe agora!
Confira outros jogos/apps que, juntos, somam quase R$140 em descontos:
Jogos
História interativa.
Jogo de tabuleiro.
Puzzles.
Aplicativos
Criação musical.
Utilitário para o tempo e estações.
Atividades físicas rápidas.
Aproveite as ofertas e até amanhã! Lembrando que elas são sempre por tempo limitado, então é bom correr. 🏎️
Depois de ganhar o Liquid Glass, a versão do WhatsApp para iPad começará a receber outra novidade de design para parte dos seus usuários: uma nova barra lateral.
A reformulação da interface aproximará a versão de iPad daquilo que é visto no macOS, com a nova versão da barra lateral abrangendo conversas, atualizações, comunidades, chamadas e Meta AI, além da seção “Mais” (que engloba conversas favoritadas, trancadas e arquivadas, bem como os status do mensageiro da Meta).
WhatsApp is rolling out a redesigned navigation interface for iPad!
WhatsApp is bringing the same sidebar from the Mac app to iPad, making it easier for users to navigate the interface on a larger screen. The update is also compatible with Liquid Glass.https://t.co/vVfpctrXulpic.twitter.com/uUYQ8cPak5
O WhatsApp está lançando uma interface de navegação redesenhada para iPad!
O WhatsApp está trazendo a mesma barra lateral do aplicativo para Mac para o iPad, facilitando a navegação dos usuários na interface em uma tela maior. A atualização também é compatível com Liquid Glass.
A quem desejar que a conversa ocupe mais espaço da tela, será possível ocultar a barra lateral por meio de um botão localizado no canto superior direito da interface. Para exibi-la novamente, bastará tocar no botão da barra lateral na barra de guias superior, exibido quando a barra lateral é ocultada.
Por ora, a novidade está sendo testada com os usuários da versão beta do WhatsApp via atualização mais recente do TestFlight, além de alguns usuários da versão mais recente do aplicativo da App Store. É provável que não demore muito para que a funcionalidade chegue a todos os usuários.
Pré-visualização de miniaturas em conversas
Para os usuários de iOS, a Meta também implementou um recurso que já vinha sendo testado na versão de Android: a pré-visualização de mídias e figurinhas em uma miniatura exibida na própria seção de conversas.
Imagem: WABetaInfo
Até o momento, a única forma possível de pré-visualizar mídias e figurinhas no WhatsApp era segurando a conversa, caso contrário o aplicativo só fazia uma menção textual ao material enviado.
Se você ainda tem o hábito de abrir links do X (antigo Twitter) para ler um post isolado, sabe como a experiência costuma ser irritante: ou o site pede login, ou carrega um monte de coisas que você não quer ver, ou simplesmente trava. Foi pensando nisso que Zhenyi Tan, desenvolvedor do site And a Dinosaur, criou o Litterbox.
O Litterbox é uma extensão para Safari (iOS, iPadOS e macOS) que abre links do x.com em um popup, permitindo ler aquele post específico sem sair da página em que você está — e sem precisar visitar o X de fato. A ideia, nas palavras do próprio desenvolvedor, é simples: abrir, dar uma olhada e fechar em seguida.
Alguns detalhes de funcionamento que valem a pena destacar:
A extensão usa a mesma API que o X utiliza para os embeds oficiais do site, então não depende de gambiarras que podem parar de funcionar a qualquer momento.
Nenhum cookie seu é enviado quando o popup é aberto — ou seja, o Litterbox não usa sua sessão logada no X para exibir o conteúdo.
Links que podem ser abertos dessa forma ganham uma pequena marcação ao lado (um pontinho), já que nem todo link do x.com pode ser incorporado dessa maneira — perfis de usuário, por exemplo, ficam de fora.
O Litterbox é gratuito na App Store, sem assinaturas, compras no app, anúncios ou rastreamento, e exige o iOS 18/macOS 15 ou superior.
Abrindo a semana — ontem foi feriado, então não conta! 😛 — de evento da Apple com a nossa seleção de promoções na App Store!
ELOH, criado pela Broken Rules, é um puzzle perfeito para relaxar e se divertir.
Trata-se de um quebra-cabeça no qual você deve escutar o groove e deixar que ele o guie pelas 98 fases. Controles intuitivos, belíssimas animações e uma trilha sonora desenvolvida especialmente por SCNTFC fazem parte deste jogo.
Confira um vídeo:
Aproveite o bom desconto e boa diversão!
Abaixo outros jogos/apps que, juntos, somam mais de R$60 em descontos:
A Metaanunciou hoje o Muse, um agente de inteligência artificial generativa pessoal e privado que foi projetado pela empresa para ajudar usuários a explorar novas ideias e cumprir suas metas.
Focado no público em geral, ele é bem simples de usar. Basta dizer ao Muse o que precisa ser feito para que ele execute a tarefa — sem curva de aprendizado ou necessidade de experiência.
Usuários podem pedir-lhe que faça tarefas como enviar um email ou até mesmo reservar uma viagem, graças à capacidade do Muse de abrir o navegador, preencher formulários ou clicar em elementos da tela.
Ele se conecta aos apps e serviços que você usa no dia a dia, um por vez e sempre por sua escolha, em categorias como email e calendário, pagamentos, fitness e saúde, música e eventos ao vivo, restaurantes e compras, e casa inteligente. Os conectores integrados estão disponíveis nas configurações, e outros estão por vir. Se um serviço não estiver lá, mas tiver uma API pública, seu Muse pode configurar uma conexão usando credenciais fornecidas por você; e se não tiver API nenhuma, ele pode usar o serviço por meio de um navegador, do mesmo jeito que você faria.
Com a capacidade de continuar trabalhando mesmo depois de os usuários fecharem o app, o Muse é capaz de realizar pagamentos via Stripe e, futuramente, também suportará o Shop Pay.
Bastante proativo, o Muse se lembra do que é importante para o usuário e pode fazer sugestões sem a inserção de um prompt ou atuar com base em detalhes mencionados apenas uma vez.
Construído com base no Muse Spark, o modelo mais poderoso da Meta, o agente também conta com mecanismos avançados de segurança para proteger a sua interação com o usuário final.
Ele é executado em seu próprio computador dedicado na nuvem — que é onde os dados e credenciais para qualquer serviço conectado a ele são armazenados com segurança.
O Muse foi lançado nos Estados Unidos para a web, iOS e Android. Ele é grátis “para a maioria do que as pessoas precisam”, com planos de assinatura para pessoas que querem “fazer mais”.
But when Apple implemented this change, they also changed the sort order of the list of apps you’re registered to test. Starting with this update, the list is sorted in alphabetical order. For as long as I can remember — perhaps dating back to when TestFlight was a third-party utility — the list was ordered by recency. The most recently updated app was at the top; the oldest at the bottom. Sorting by recency is really the only sort order that makes sense when you’re registered for dozens (or more) of apps. For me, trying to see if there is an update to a new app whose name starts with U now requires scrolling through over 100 items.
[…]
Also, if I consider the broader view, this really speaks to how much we’ve lost in terms of UI vocabulary. For decades, any list of items with names and dates could be sorted by name or date, ascending or descending, through the standard use of clickable headers at the top of every list. This was true for almost any such list in any app, on any platform — Mac, Windows, Unix, Amiga, whatever. This was just basic GUI stuff.
[…]
iOS in 2007 introduced a simplified UI vocabulary that omitted many of these baseline GUI features. That seemed like a reasonable trade-off for a device with a 3.5-inch display and fat fingers as the only input device. But then iOS became popular and Apple stopped bringing the richer UI vocabulary of the Mac to iOS[…]
And it starting bringing iOS limitations to the Mac.
It certainly shouldn’t have taken until July 2026 to be able to search in TestFlight, either. And being able to search, and see the results sorted alphabetically, shouldn’t mean you can no longer view the full list sorted by recency.
Whatever is going on with this sort order, it isn’t affecting everyone. John Siracusa, amongst many others, has the same problem I do — his list is now alphabetical, and it’s driving him nuts too. Ryan Booker, amongst many others, still has his list sorted by recency.
Returning to reverse chronological order may seem like a small thing, but it’s made a world of difference in keeping up with the apps I test.
Search was near the top of my list of TestFlight wishes for years, and its addition made a meaningful difference to the app’s usability. But I’ve had a lot of TestFlight wishes over the years that are scattered across multiple articles, so I thought I’d share what else I’d like Apple to tackle with TestFlight[…]
The Schiller exit is a bit more notable. Unlike Maestri, he still had a real job: The veteran executive ran the App Store and Apple Events. The App Store portion alone is no joke. It generates an estimated $30 billion a year and can be very challenging to manage. Apple’s app marketplace is loved by many consumers, but often criticized by developers and subjected to increasingly onerous regulations. It was a busy, all-encompassing gig and nowhere near a semiretirement.
[…]
But there’s a bit more to the story, I’m told. Ternus and services chief Eddy Cue want to make even more money from the App Store and figure out ways to raise margins and squeeze additional recurring revenue from the platform. Schiller, on the other hand, seems to believe that such moves will only further irk developers and governments. While there was no internal blowup or anything like that, it’s something he wanted no part of.
“Product guy” dreams about margins, forgets that people buy Apple hardware because of the software.
Apple admitted during its July earnings call that regulatory changes have started to weigh on its Services growth. Apple reported services revenue of $30.7 billion for the June quarter, a record for the period but short of the $31.4 billion that analysts expected.
App Tracking Transparency is at the center of a new UK lawsuit seeking approximately $2.7 billion (£2 billion), putting one of the most recognizable iPhone privacy features under fresh legal pressure. The claim follows earlier challenges to the tracking system in France, but this action seeks compensation for developers who say Apple imposed unfair restrictions on their businesses while favoring its own advertising services.
Filed on September 3 at London’s Competition Appeal Tribunal, the case represents another dispute over the rules behind the familiar permission prompt. Apple rejects the allegations and maintains that it follows the same App Tracking Transparency requirements as other developers.
The amount being sought is not a fine or an awarded payment. It is the claimants’ estimate of losses, which Apple disputes.
What the App Tracking Transparency Lawsuit Alleges
The action was brought by ATT Collective Action Limited, whose director, Ann Pope, previously led antitrust enforcement at the UK Competition and Markets Authority. Law firm Hausfeld is representing the proposed class.
According to Hausfeld’s announcement of the claim, developers argue that Apple introduced the framework unfairly, without adequate consultation, and applied more burdensome requirements to outside businesses than to its own services.
The complaint focuses partly on consent. It alleges that third-party developers must obtain permission under data-protection law and then secure an additional approval through the iOS tracking prompt. Apple’s advertising services, the claimants argue, operate under a less demanding process.
Developers also contend that the introduction left them insufficient time to adapt business models dependent on advertising.
These are allegations about how the system was designed and introduced—not established findings in this UK case. The claimants’ stated position is that privacy protections should remain compatible with fair treatment of businesses.
Image Credit: AppleMagazine
What the Tracking Prompt Actually Protects
For someone using an iPhone, App Tracking Transparency offers a direct choice about a practice that previously could be difficult to see.
An app may want to connect information about your activity with information gathered through other companies’ apps or websites. That connection can help advertisers build a profile, target advertisements, or measure whether an advertising campaign led to a purchase.
Under Apple’s explanation of the tracking rules, apps must request permission before carrying out the tracking covered by the framework. Choosing “Ask App Not to Track” blocks access to the system advertising identifier and prohibits using other identifying information to perform that tracking instead.
The feature arrived with iOS 14.5 in 2021. It does not remove advertisements, make an app anonymous, or serve as a universal switch for every kind of data collection.
That boundary matters. A retailer remembering purchases made within its own service is not automatically doing the same thing as an advertising company linking activity across unrelated businesses.
The disagreement concerns whether those distinctions, and the consent processes built around them, give Apple an unfair commercial advantage.
Apple Says the Same Rules Apply to Everyone
Apple has responded directly to the lawsuit, defending the feature as a way to give people control over tracking across other companies’ services.
In a statement reported by AFP, a spokesperson said: “Apple is bound by the exact same requirements as all developers under ATT.”
The company also pointed to support for the feature from customers and privacy advocates.
That response challenges the foundation of the developers’ case. Apple presents App Tracking Transparency as a rule based on the type of data activity involved. The claimants argue that its practical operation places competing advertising businesses at a disadvantage.
Resolving that disagreement requires more than comparing the appearance of two permission screens. The underlying data uses, consent requirements, and commercial effects all matter.
Why Free Apps Are Part of the Dispute
Advertising can support both sides of an app business. A developer may sell advertising space inside a free app while also buying advertisements elsewhere to attract new users.
A change to tracking can therefore affect how much an app earns and how confidently its developer can measure spending on promotion.
Consider a small game studio. It needs to know whether an advertising campaign brings in players who keep using the game. If measurement becomes less precise, deciding where to spend the next marketing dollar becomes harder. Separately, advertisers may value the game’s available ad space differently when less information is available for targeting.
That explains the commercial concern without proving the legal claim. Losing revenue after a privacy change does not, by itself, establish that the change was unlawful.
There is also a consumer interest that cannot be reduced to advertising performance. Someone choosing not to be tracked is expressing a preference about personal information, not making a promise to preserve a developer’s previous income.
The difficult question is whether that preference can be protected through a system that treats competing businesses fairly.
France Has Already Examined the Consent Process
The UK action arrives after a separate French competition investigation found problems with the implementation of App Tracking Transparency.
In its March 2025 decision, France’s Autorité de la concurrence distinguished between the legitimate objective of protecting privacy and the way Apple pursued it.
The authority criticized multiple consent requests and differences in treatment between Apple and outside publishers. It also highlighted the position of smaller businesses that lack the extensive first-party data available to large platforms.
Importantly, the French authority did not argue that people should lose the ability to refuse tracking. It said adjustments to the framework could address competition concerns while retaining privacy protections.
That distinction leaves room for changes to wording, consent flows, or implementation without automatically requiring the removal of the feature. The French decision, however, does not determine liability or compensation in the separate UK proceedings.
The Claim Is for Developers, Not iPhone Owners
The official claim website describes a proposed action for UK-based app developers affected since April 2021. It estimates losses across the group rather than offering a fixed payment to everyone who owns an iPhone.
The proposed scope includes developers earning advertising revenue from third-party iOS apps and developers spending money to attract users to those apps. Whether compensation becomes available depends on the proceedings and their outcome.
For U.S. readers, the filing does not announce a change to domestic iPhone settings or create a consumer refund program. There is no reason to grant an app tracking permission simply because its developer objects to the framework.
Businesses following the case should also distinguish registering interest from receiving compensation. The claim website currently invites affected organizations to provide their details; it is not distributing a settlement.
I don’t appreciate being forced by Xcode 27 to drop support for macOS 10.13-11.0. It’s my decision which OSes I want to support, not Apple’s. Yes, I can keep Xcode 26 around until submissions require Xcode 27, but what then?
Originally, Xcode 27 was documented as supporting Big Sur on Intel Macs, but now the earliest is Monterey.
I’m frustrated, too, but it’s more honest than the recent releases that claimed to support deployment on older macOS versions when Apple clearly hadn’t tested that it actually worked. I filed bugs, and Apple kept responding that they’d fixed it, when they hadn’t.
Using old versions of Xcode isn’t a great solution because they aren’t supported on Golden Gate. Swift also makes it more difficult to call newer APIs when using an older SDK. You can’t just copy/paste a method prototype or constant value and conditionally use it when running on a newer OS.
I eventually found a hidden workaround that changes the errors back into warnings. That is good news, but it does not make the concern disappear. The setting is undocumented, absent from the normal Xcode interface, and currently being tested only in a beta toolchain. The larger question is what Apple intends to enforce when Xcode 27 is final and, later, when App Store submission requirements move to its SDKs.
[…]
Apple’s current Xcode system requirements list Xcode 26 with deployment targets beginning at iOS 15 and macOS 11. Yet developers have been able to enter older targets manually. In an Apple Developer Forums discussion about Xcode 26, an Apple product manager explained that the published deployment target range is aligned with simulator support and on-device debugging. The accepted answer confirms that an iOS 13 target can still build even though it falls below the range in Apple’s table.
My own tests went further. Xcode 26.5 compiled a project targeting iOS 9.0. It warned that the target was older than the supported range, but the build succeeded. On macOS, I have compiled current apps with deployment targets as old as macOS 10.9. Xcode warned me, but it still produced working applications.
[…]
For iOS and iPadOS, staying on Xcode 26 is not a lasting option. Apple has repeatedly made a current Xcode and SDK mandatory for new App Store submissions. […] If any one of those conditions fails, iOS and iPadOS developers will have no normal App Store path for publishing new updates that still support versions older than 15.
Just want to remind you guys that if you move to Xcode 27, the only “officially” supported and sanction Xcode for GG, UIDesignRequiresCompatibility is no longer respected across the 27 OSes (apps built with older Xcodes still are). So you might suddenly find out you have a lot of work ahead of you, adding support for the dreaded Glass. And 27 Glass is not the same as 26 Glass. That can be an issue if you skipped 26 altogether but still want to support it.
I mostly ignored the Xcode 27 betas (mainly due to the barely-usable Device Hub) so I didn’t realize the passive-aggressive prompts to drop support for iOS < 15 that you get when submitting apps is being backed up by Xcode 27 refusing to compile apps at all unless you bump the deployment target 😧
As Apple Fellow, Schiller continued to oversee the App Store and Apple events, but the role may not have left him with sufficient time for his own endeavors. In 2024, The Wall Street Journal said Schiller was working close to 80 hours a week.
[…]
Schiller is stepping down from overseeing the App Store and Apple product launches just as John Ternus is set to take over as Apple CEO.
[…]
Apple is moving the App Store to Eddy Cue, who oversaw it until 2015. Cue is Apple’s services chief and will reportedly be taking a more influential role under Ternus’ leadership. Carson Oliver, who has long been on the App Store team, will oversee its day-to-day operations.
From baby-monitors to smart watches, from apps to computer programs, connectable hardware and software are omnipresent in our daily lives. Less apparent to many users is the security risk such products may present.
The Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) aims to safeguard consumers and businesses buying software or hardware products with digital elements. The CRA addresses the inadequate level of cybersecurity in many products, and the lack of timely security updates. It also tackles the challenges consumers and businesses currently face when trying to determining which products are cybersecure and in setting them up securely, making it easier to identify hardware and software with the proper cybersecurity features.
The CRA introduces mandatory cybersecurity requirements for manufacturers, covering the planning, design, development and maintenance of such products. These obligations must be met at every stage of the value chain. The CRA also requires manufacturers to handle vulnerabilities during the lifecycle of their products. Some products of particular relevance for cybersecurity may need to undergo a third-party assessment by a notified body before they are sold on the EU market.
[…] the extremely heavy future requirements that are due on December 11, 2027.
For example, free security updates must be provided for at least five years without changes regarding the operating system requirements—a period that resets every time someone purchases an app of a particular version.
These changes resolve Apple’s disagreements with the Commission over business terms and alternative distribution. They also reduce complexity by moving every developer that distributes apps in the EU to a single set of business terms.
[…]
The Core Technology Fee, a per-install fee for developers that achieve extraordinary scale, will be replaced by the Core Technology Commission, a simple 5 percent commission on digital transactions in apps distributed outside the App Store. The new terms also eliminate the initial acquisition fee and store services fee.
[…]
Under the updated terms, developers can now offer Apple In-App Purchase alongside alternative payment options, which had not previously been permitted in the EU.
[…]
Apple is also expanding who is eligible to operate an alternative app marketplace or distribute apps via the web in the EU.
[…]
Apple will continue to require every alternatively distributed app to go through Notarization[…]
Apple will charge a 26% fee for apps distributed through the App Store that use in-app purchase.
[…]
Apps in the App Store that use in-app alternative payment processing will pay 20%.
[…]
Apps that link to a website purchase option will pay 15%.
Apps using Web Distribution or App Marketplaces would pay the 5% CTC (and report transactions). I like that the new terms are simpler and that the fees are slightly lower, but it seems like the EU got tricked or surrendered here.
This is bonkers, I can’t believe the EU Commission agreed to it. The main issue that the DMA was about still remains: Apple retains ultimate control over app developers’ dealings with users.
The status quo that the EU should have pushed for, and which Article 6(7) of the DMA requires, is one where a developer can distribute iOS apps to users without ever entering into any contractual relationship with Apple.
All in all, still extremely anti-consumer. If I can download and run arbitrary code on my Mac--even if I have to jump through scary warnings--why should I not be able to do so on my phone? Why would one computing platform be different from the other?
However, while Apple hopes it will be allowed to charge these lower commissions, it has admitted in a new regulatory filing that it may not be allowed to charge any commission at all on purchases made through third-party app stores and other external platforms.
The commission Apple earns from the App Store is shrinking in markets where it has been forced to relax its grip on in-app purchases, based on new analytics data.
Notably, this isn’t a proposal, it’s the announcement of actual changes that Apple will implement (starting October 1) after “close collaboration” with the EC. And lest we think Apple is overplaying that last aspect, that group gave a statement to Bloomberg backing up the assertion[…]
[…]
This feels like mainly a way to keep the all-important big gaming fees – which make up most of in-app payments, and as such, most App Store fees – mostly intact.
[…]
It sure looks like Apple knew this EU deal was coming down the pike and that the bloc agreeing to their terms would bolster the case that these are “fair”. The US judge still gets to decide that, and Epic has already pushed back as Apple seeks to negotiate directly. One big reason for pushing? Epic wants to ensure any changes Apple tries to negotiate be put in place for all developers.
The European Commission has since confirmed that it approves of Apple’s changes to its App Store policies, giving a statement to the Irish Independent[…]
Epic Games, a longstanding critic of Apple’s App Store practices, called the scheme “junk fees,” adding that the plan did “nothing to open up the mobile app ecosystem to competition, as required by Digital Markets Act.”
“The law makes it clear that Apple must allow developers to offer link outs to the web for purchases ‘free of charge’ and has to allow ‘effective use’ of competing stores,” the company wrote.
I hope this isn’t the end of DMA. Apple taking a cut of out-of-store apps revenue makes as much sense as app developers taking a cut of iPhone revenue.
[…]
And also I still want to live in a world where anyone can write a program and run it on the devices they own and send it to friends, without having to pay $100/year of developer account and do the whole notarization thing (which considering the amount of scam in the app store we know is pretty useless in terms of security). Not everybody is a professional programmer, some people are just doing programming as a hobby, some are also young people that don’t even own a credit card yet.
I have refused to sign any of Apple’s EU DMA agreements thus far, because I think they are illegal, and they have been optional.
I still think their new terms are illegal — they don’t meet the minimum requirements of the DMA, and will not be approved by stakeholders — but they are no longer optional, so the choice now becomes accept the updated developer agreement or stop being a developer.
Thanks to the DMA’s sprawling scope, complexity, and overreach, Apple came out of this conceding only 4 percent of the App Store’s 30 percent commission, and no reduction at all to the 15 percent for subscriptions after the first year.
The CTC is preferable to the CTF in much the same way that a fire burning down your kitchen is preferable to a fire burning down your entire house.
[…]
The Digital Markets Act was introduced to ensure that sideloading would be an available alternative, to essentially force open platforms that have been closed. Debates about the wisdom of this notwithstanding, in the biggest case, and up until recent developments in Android app marketplace governance also only case, it has failed to deliver the promises that were the entire point of the law.
I’m sure some of you think I’m all wet in my argument that the point of the DMA was merely to impose ongoing bureaucratic complexity. But my view jibes with the reality of how it’s worked out.
In other words, maybe we who had high hopes were the ones who got tricked, not the EU Commission.
I don’t recall seeing POSIWID before, but I love the concept. A friend sent this to me, with the quip that I forgot to include a link to it in my “What Is the Point of the DMA?” piece this week. Indeed, it encapsulates my arguments about the DMA specifically and the European Commission generally. The purpose of the DMA is what it does, not what you imagine it is intended to do.
I admit to being primed by seeing Jeff Johnson’s post, but I’m certain that my mind would anyway have immediately gone to our favorite scam promoting toll booth, the place that “gives people around the world a safe and trusted place to discover apps that meet [Apple’s] high standards for privacy, security, and content.”
Also consider which apps have to pay the toll and which ones show their own ads for free.
Apple has again failed to earn a stay for fee calculations in its ongoing legal fight with Epic Games. Apple's case will be heard by the Supreme Court in the term that begins in October, and Apple asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to pause proceedings until then, but the court said no [PDF].
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan today granted Apple a one-day stay in its legal fight with Epic Games, giving Apple more time to outline the fees it wants to charge developers for linking out to purchase options on the web.
Apple tried to freeze the entire thing while they appealed to the Supreme Court – and the Supreme Court denied the freeze. But they didn’t deny hearing the case – yet. That’s why they’re pausing the proceedings for now (after Judge Gonzalez Rogers denied the same request), while they weigh Apple’s appeal. But before they do that, they’re basically likely to decide today – again, it was just a 24-hour delay – whether they should grant a longer stay. Presumably if the court thinks they’re unlikely to hear Apple’s appeal, they may not grant that longer stay. Or if they think Apple filing their number won’t harm their business, they’ll let it proceed. But Apple will argue that if the longer stay isn’t granted, it will cause major harm to their business because again, it will effectively end the App Store cut as we know it.
Apple today submitted a court-ordered proposal outlining the commission it believes is reasonable to collect from U.S. apps that link to purchase options outside of the App Store.
Apple is asking for half of its commission on standard apps, so apps that would pay 30 percent for an in-app purchase would pay 15 percent when linking to a web purchase option. Small Business Program participants that would normally pay 15 percent would pay 5 percent.
[…]
The appeals court suggested the commission could be limited to the direct costs of facilitating link-outs, and under that approach, the fee would be zero. Apple says a zero commission would not reflect the value that it provides developers, and its suggested commission gives it fair compensation for the App Store platform.
[…]
The district court will now evaluate Apple’s fee proposal and hear a response from Epic Games , and Apple will need to implement the fee the court sets.
Unlike cost-only based commissions, Apple’s revenue-based commissions incentivize
continued investment. Apple charges developers a $99 annual fee for the Apple Developer
Program. May 17, 2021 Trial Tr. at 2762:21–2763:13. This modest fee—designed to prevent fraud
and expressly not intended to compensate Apple for the use of its IP-protected tools, technologies,
and services (id.)—allows developers to build apps using Apple’s offerings and deliver experiences
to iOS and iPadOS users worldwide.
The annual developer fee is nominal. Apple relies on percentage-based commissions to
recoup and profit from its investments. See id. ¶¶ 87–93. Apple is incentivized to invest in IP-
protected tools, technologies, and services that generate revenue for developers (and benefit users).
[…]
Dr. Carlton explains that “reduc[ing] Apple’s incentive to invest and provide the technology and services that benefit users and developers” would harm users and developers, as well as Apple.
I like the part where Apple’s expert argues that its normal commission rates are so high that it would still be profitable for developers to pay the proposed linking commissions on top of what they would pay to Stripe or Paddle. In other words, paying Apple for “IP” almost twice what it admits the other companies charge for “full-service, turnkey payment processing.”
If the point [of the $99] is just to prevent fraud, why do we need to keep paying $99 yearly FOREVER? Is 10 years not enough to prove I’m not a fraud?!?
If the fee doesn’t help pay for Apple IP, then it’s even more blatantly unfair that a minority of apps have to pay for ALL apps to access Apple IP. Free apps, no matter how big or how much $ they make via ads, get access to Apple IP from OUR REVENUE CUT, and not even their $99 counts.
That’s what that enormous hardware margin from customers is already supposed to be paying for — Apple IP! In the early 00’s, I gladly paid the “Apple tax” (PowerBook G4) to get access to the Mac OS X software/ecosystem, including all the Unix and dev tools. I’m not sure why anyone thinks that double-dipping is fine on all the non-Mac platforms, App Store or not.
Schiller’s [previous] testimony about the previous program is extremely misleading, because the new program began in 2008 at the same time as the App Store, so there was no previous iOS developer program, and Mac Developer ID did not begin until 2012, so Apple Developer Program membership was not actually required to distribute Mac apps!
I want to quote another remarkable passage from Schiller’s testimony, again with questions from Apple’s own lawyer.
Q. And Mr. Jobs says, “And also just to make it a little
clearer, we don’t intend to make money off the App Store. I
mean, we don’t make a lot of money off iTunes, and the split
with the music companies is about the same, so in the case of
the iTunes Music Store, we give all the money to the content
owners, and we are basically giving all the money to the
developers here. And if that 30 percent of it pays for
running the store, well, that will be great, but we just want
to create a very efficient channel for these developers to
reach every single iPhone user.”
Is that a statement that Mr. Jobs made back in March 2008?
A. He did.
[…]
I won’t quote the following passage in which Schiller testifies about his internal email suggesting that Apple limit itself to $1 billion per year in profit from the App Store, hand-waving away the suggestion as merely “spurring conversation.” Of course the email also seems to contradict Schiller’s (absurd) testimony that Apple does not specifically calculate profit from the App Store, only company-wide profit. Apple’s public financial statements also appear to contradict Schiller’s claims.
On the same day, Apple submitted another motion, asking Judge Gonzalez Rogers to order the parties to attend a settlement conference.
[…]
Epic has now responded to Apple’s motion, stating that although the company “has been, and remains today, willing to entertain any direct approach from Apple with a serious settlement proposal that would introduce competition and benefit all developers,” it “does not believe the prospects of such settlement would be meaningfully advanced through referral to a settlement conference at this juncture.”
In addition to the proposal itself, Apple submitted supporting expert reports, alongside a request to seal portions of those filings containing financial data, link-out adoption estimates, developer survey results, and other information Apple considers commercially sensitive.
Epic has now filed an opposition to Apple’s request, arguing “Apple again seeks to conceal information from the public and unnecessarily hamper proceedings.”
The Mac App Store “screenshot” for the app is not actually a screenshot at all. If you look closely, that’s not the real Safari: the toolbar elements are wrong. I suspect that the image was AI-generated.
[…]
Another thing you should note in the fake screenshot is the “4.9 out of 5” stars, giving the impression that this is the App Store user rating of the app.
[…]
These purported reviews, all but one of which is 5 stars, are all in English. Yet none of them is in the US App Store. […] If you’ve ever looked through App Store user reviews, it’s unusual to find this naming format. […] the dates on the reviews, such as “Mar 12,” predate the release of TabControl Extension in the App Store!
God only knows what this obvious AI slop scam is doing with the data from users’ Safari tabs. It’s currently the 12th or 13th most popular Safari extension in the App Store.
Coincidentally, on the same day well-known developer Marco Arment complained on social media that his new, unreleased Mac App Store app had been waiting 12 days for review by Apple.
Johnson continued browsing Safari extensions in the store:
The apps’s privacy policy is again on Google Drive, but the developer website link goes to https://aee5e5015.app-ads-txt.com, a suspicious URL. This website is barren and simply redirects back to the App Store[…] Did App Store review ever bother to click the developer website link?
[…]
In addition to the 41 apps, each of which required at least one submission to App Store review, I count across those 41 apps at least 327 updates, almost all of which have the same generic description for what’s new in the update: "Bug fixes and performance improvements." So that’s at least 368 submissions to App Store review, most within the past 12 months, from a single developer. In other words, the developer is averaging almost one submission per day. We can count only approved submissions; we have no idea how many submissions by the developer were privately rejected by App Store review.
I get the impression that Apple is asleep at the wheel. Is anyone at Apple counting submissions per developer? How many is too many? How many resources is one developer allowed to consume?
[…]
You may view it as a noble, democratic ideal to treat every app developer the same, but in reality this is the path to the crApp Store, full of scams and slop.
There’s no doubt that there is spam on the App Store, but the way to remove it is to target the spammers, not new developers, students, and hobbyists looking to build their ideas. I know that being an indie developer isn’t an easy way to make a living, but erecting barriers to submitting apps is the surest way to starve Apple platforms of fresh, innovative ideas.
I’d like to see App Store spam cleaned up as much as anyone, but the way to do it isn’t preferring well-known developers and those who can afford to pay more for special treatment.
I don’t agree with paid tiers either. However it feels like there should be a natural brake applied to new developers and new apps. It’s no big deal if your first app takes a week or two to review (often did 10y ago), and as it matures & receives meaningful updates in the store, turnaround increases as trust and “value” (active users?) builds up. Like “tarpitting” new accounts. I think limiting the # of new apps you can add per month to say 1 or 2 would also help…
I was a new App Store developer myself ten years ago. My previous article didn’t propose any new barriers for those groups. To be clear, I did imply that no developer, whether new or not, should have more than 40 apps and average a new App Store submission every day of the year. I’m not aware of any prominent developer who has that many. Apparently, checking just now, Microsoft by my count has 38 App Store apps between iOS and Mac, which is a lot but still less than the 41 apps of the developer I discussed in my previous article who is definitely not one of the largest software developers in the world along with Microsoft. I do think it’s reasonable for Microsoft to pay a significantly higher developer fee to have those 38 apps reviewed than a smaller developer pays to have one app reviewed by Apple.
[…]
My contention is that Apple is actually wasting its own resources treating every developer like a potential spammer or scammer, even the developers who are known to be trustworthy, and this wasting of resources makes it harder on everyone, including new developers, students, and hobbyists. App review is grossly inefficient, and it’s clearly failing to scale to the increase in App Store submissions. What I propose is not raising the gates but rather lowering the gates for developers who have already proven trustworthy, so that Apple can focus its review efforts where they’re most needed.
I’m not sure that paying more would help anything. If scams are profitable, surely it would be worth them paying more, and then we’re back to square one. And I don’t want to create another situation like App Store Search Ads where providing poor service makes the revenue numbers go up. But I like the general idea of considering the account’s history, e.g. the way the Discourse forum gradually increases trust over time. It should count for something if you have a long history of following the rules and submitting updates to a small number of apps on a reasonable schedule vs. frequent spamming of submissions that don’t even have real release notes. It would not be fair for Microsoft to be able to cut in line, but giving spammers equal access to the review queue means they’ll use more than their share of Apple’s resources. That also seems unfair. The current system encourages frequent submissions, which also increases the overall load on the reviewers. I think the incentives need to be changed somehow. Maybe each account should get a certain number of “fast” submissions per month or year, after which you can still submit but it goes into a lower priority queue.
Even among more legitimate-seeming apps, though, Apple is ignoring clear problems. In AppleInsider research, for instance, we found that many price tiers listed for the “Simply Piano” app bore no relation to what the developer actually charges.
[…]
You shouldn’t have to be the one to investigate apps you want to try. That is the future of third-party App Stores, and that is a future to be fought.
But that future is here with the first-party App Store we already have. And this inability to trust an App Store is here, right now, because Apple will not do what it keeps saying it is doing and what it is charging developers to do.
Apparently the App Store developer in question saw my article in the news, because the fake App Store reviews posted on the developer’s website were quickly removed, as reported by AppleInsider and confirmed by me. Until yesterday, the misleading “4.9 out of 5 stars” claim remained in the App Store. However, the developer released an update only hours ago with new screenshots that no longer include the misleading claim, thereby erasing all evidence of the previous fraud. Apple approved the developer’s update and, needless to say, did not remove the app from the App Store.
[…]
There are 59 reviews [of Authenticator ℠], 54 of which are 1 star, and 3 of which are 2 stars. Two of the reviews are 5 stars; of those, one is titled “space jam” and goes on to say, “i believe i can fly and touch the sky.” Anyway, the question is, how did the app manage ratings of 4.1 out of 5 when the reviews average 1.2 out of 5? (That’s a rhetorical question. I think we all know the answer.)
Jeff Johnson has a knack for finding spam on the App Store. Yesterday it was review spam, and today it’s app submission spam. In a post where he called out an individual for releasing 41 apps, and presumably contributing to slow app review times, Johnson proposed a solution:
…bring back Apple Developer Program tiers and review app updates post-release for proven developers. Why should Marco Arment go into the same App Store review queue as AI slop? Does that make any sense for developers, for Apple users, or for Apple? Is there no way for developers to earn Apple’s trust, no matter how long they’ve been in the App Store, no matter how famous or beloved? Should professional software developers whose livelihood depends on the App Store go into the same review queue as hobbyists? Speaking for myself, I would be willing to pay a much higher developer program fee for improved service, including a separate review queue. I suspect that a much higher developer program fee might also deter scams and AI slop, typically looking for a fast, easy buck.
I’ve heard versions of this argument since before the App Store first opened its doors, and it’s never sat well with me. Maybe that’s because when I first heard someone argue that established developers or the ones who could afford it should get preferential treatment, I was an unknown hobbyist learning Objective-C and trying to build an app myself. It struck me as gatekeeping then, and it still does today.
There’s no doubt that there is spam on the App Store, but the way to remove it is to target the spammers, not new developers, students, and hobbyists looking to build their ideas. I know that being an indie developer isn’t an easy way to make a living, but erecting barriers to submitting apps is the surest way to starve Apple platforms of fresh, innovative ideas. That hurts everyone from users who would have fewer choices to the established developers who would find themselves writing apps for a stagnant platform.
On the web, if I build something that works within the standards, it works. Whether people use it is up to them. On iOS, there is another question entirely: whether Apple decides it should exist.
[…]
In the past couple of years I’ve built three apps that were rejected from the App Store on various grounds.
[…]
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.
[…]
I see countless ChatGPT wrappers with nearly identical icons and eye-watering subscriptions. I see astronomy apps requesting permissions that have nothing to do with looking at the night sky. My kids download games that interrupt play every few minutes to advertise the developer’s other subscription apps, each with their own $20–50 yearly plans.
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.
[…]
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.
[…]
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.
To the best of my recollection, this is the first post I’ve retracted in the 24 years I’ve been writing Daring Fireball. I hope it’s the last. I was misled, both overtly and through omissions[…]
[…]
The truth is, the app, as originally submitted by Godier to the App Store (under the name “Asterly”, not “Dark Hours”), was entirely dedicated to astrology, not astronomy, and did in fact include a “Tarot card of the day” feature amongst other occultist horseshit.
[…]
I wrongly took Godier at his word, both in his public blog post and in private iMessage correspondence yesterday, that the rejection wasn’t just merely debatable, but completely and rather preposterously ungrounded. Whether Godier ever submitted a build of “Asterly” to the App Store that contained no occult horseshit and only the hard-science astronomy features that were present in his “Dark Hours” website that was available for the last week, I don’t know. But I have no reason to believe that he did.
[…]
In an uncomfortable exchange between Beher and Godier on Bluesky, Beher pointed out that Godier’s Dark Hours had the same bug as Beher’s that routed people to “random fields in Mexico”. Earlier today, Godier took his web app down and redirected his darkhours.io domain to Beher’s darkhours.app.
I’m really unhappy about this, both for my role in spreading a false story and because I think it will hurt the cause of reforming App Review. I know there are many crazy rejections and have experienced some first-hand. This story was believable because of that well-known history and because Godier didn’t seem like a nobody trying to get attention—he was the developer of another highly regarded app. But now people are going to point to true developer stories and accuse them of being fakes, too.
BOTH projects were generated using Claude. So you have two people - both generating the same app from the same training data - having a public throw down over who copied who.
[…]
The “original” developer does claim to know how to code - which wasn’t clear from my research. That still doesn’t necessarily mean the original app was the source of the training data. They both may be a result of the same training data.
Holy shit, so the “Claude plagiarised an app” story is actually “Claude produced the same app twice when prompted to do so by two separate developers” 😅
It’s not clear to me exactly how much each developer relied on Claude or which training data was used, but I wanted to note this angle of the story.
With all this talk of an astrology app being rejected by App Store review I’m reminded there’s still a flat Earth/astrology app on the App Store that actively leaks the location of all of its users.
Apple briefly removed Telegram from the App Store on Monday night after a review found content that violated its guidelines against child sexual abuse material (CSAM), but restored the app a short while later, according to Reuters.
It seems like this was a symbolic gesture. Removing the app didn’t affect any of the customers who had already downloaded it. Probably none of them saw the image. And restoring the app doesn’t mean that it’s completely free from CSAM—probably none of the major platforms is. It just means that Telegram did the obvious thing after the violation was reported, which presumably they would have done, anyway.
And before even contacting the developer? Telegram banning the account is what actually prevented users from potentially seeing the CSAM. Apple’s action seems like either a mistake or trying to send them a message.
I would note, by the way, that the Telegram app was apparently never removed from the Mac App Store. Which goes to show how little Apple cares about the Mac App Store.
Because Telegram quickly removes illegal content from public groups using all kinds of moderation tools, the attacker had to resort to a technical trick. He inserted AI-modified illegal content by editing an old message in an active group chat. As a result the content was effectively hidden from the group’s members, preventing them from seeing/reporting it.
The attacker was a takedown extortionist: someone who demands ransom from group owners in exchange for not targeting their communities. These extortionists use automated accounts to plant illegal content in public groups and then report it directly to Apple, attempting to trigger the removal of legitimate communities whose owners refused to pay them.
[…]
Extortionists have found a way to manipulate Apple into overreacting. Apple removed Telegram from the App Store before contacting us. This creates a potential systemic risk for every mobile app that hosts user-generated content. If an app used by more than a billion people can be removed from the App Store without prior warning, any app can be.
During the time the app was unavailable, many speculated that the move was politically motivated, or perhaps in response to the recent discovery that Telegram has allegedly been using an obfuscated private UIKit API to animate its emoji picker.
It’s sad but kind of hilarious that both of these so disparate theories were considered possible. Durov really does have political enemies, and Apple really does seem to have it out for Telegram. But, also, using private API to animate emojis totally seems like something that Telegram would do and that Apple would overreact to.
Over the last nine months, Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta has run dozens of paid ads that include explicit AI-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and images of minors alongside sexually suggestive statements, according to details of the ads shared with WIRED. The ads, which in some cases reached several thousand accounts, were targeted at people living in the United States, United Kingdom, and more than a dozen European countries.
This is much worse than what happened with Telegram, yet Apple didn’t overreact.
Apple briefly removed Telegram from its App Store late on Monday after detecting child sexual abuse material (CSAM) in a public group. The messaging app was restored within about 40 minutes once Telegram deleted the content and banned the responsible user. Telegram CEO Pavel Durov later described the incident as the work of a “takedown extortionist” who deliberately planted AI-modified illegal content to trigger the removal and pressure online communities.
According to Durov’s statement on X (see below), the attacker edited an old message in an active public group chat to insert the prohibited material. Because the edit was backdated, the content remained effectively invisible to ordinary group members, limiting their ability to report it through normal channels and helping it evade some of Telegram’s automated moderation tools. The perpetrator then reportedly flagged the material directly to Apple.
Durov characterized the actor as a takedown extortionist—someone who demands payment from group owners in exchange for not targeting their communities. These operators, he said, rely on automated accounts to seed illegal material in public groups and then report it to platform gatekeepers such as Apple in an effort to force the removal of legitimate communities whose administrators refuse to pay.
“From a practical standpoint, illegal pornographic content in Telegram’s public groups is not a systemic problem,” Durov wrote. “Our moderation is effective. The fact that attackers must resort to backdated, effectively invisible content and other technical tricks proves this.” He emphasized that Telegram routinely removes illegal material from public groups using a range of moderation tools.
Apple confirmed that a content review had identified CSAM that violated App Store guidelines. The company stated that Telegram “promptly removed the content and banned the user,” after which the app was returned to the store. Apple has not publicly addressed Durov’s claim that an extortionist manipulated the process. Durov noted that Apple pulled Telegram before contacting the company.
Durov framed the episode as a warning for other developers. “Extortionists have found a way to manipulate Apple into overreacting,” he said. “This creates a potential systemic risk for every mobile app that hosts user-generated content. If an app used by more than a billion people can be removed from the App Store without prior warning, any app can be.” He also cautioned that the tactics used by such coordinated reporting groups are evolving and that other platforms may be less prepared to identify and counter them.
The incident underscores ongoing tensions between large platforms that host user-generated content, the moderation challenges they face, and the policies of mobile app marketplaces that can unilaterally restrict distribution. Telegram continues to operate normally on iOS following the short-lived removal.
Last night Apple briefly removed Telegram from the AppStore because a user had planted illegal porn in a public chat.
Telegram was restored within hours. But I want to explain what happened — to warn other app developers and help protect online communities from similar attacks.
Because Telegram quickly removes illegal content from public groups using all kinds of moderation tools, the attacker had to resort to a technical trick. He inserted AI-modified illegal content by editing an old message in an active group chat. As a result the content was effectively hidden from the group’s members, preventing them from seeing/reporting it.
The attacker was a takedown extortionist: someone who demands ransom from group owners in exchange for not targeting their communities. These extortionists use automated accounts to plant illegal content in public groups and then report it directly to Apple, attempting to trigger the removal of legitimate communities whose owners refused to pay them.
From a practical standpoint, illegal pornographic content in Telegram’s public groups is not a systemic problem. Our moderation is effective. The fact that attackers must resort to backdated, effectively invisible content and other technical tricks proves this.
However, there are two important lessons here for app developers and online communities:
— Extortionists have found a way to manipulate Apple into overreacting. Apple removed Telegram from the App Store before contacting us. This creates a potential systemic risk for every mobile app that hosts user-generated content. If an app used by more than a billion people can be removed from the App Store without prior warning, any app can be.
— The tactics used by takedown extortionists are evolving, putting communities across social platforms at risk. Telegram has extensive experience identifying the tricks used by coordinated reporting gangs and protecting legitimate communities (even when doing so risks our own app being temporarily removed from the App Store). Other platforms may not be equally prepared.
Stay vigilant!
MacDailyNews Take: Apple’s App Store really is one of history’s most profitable cans of worms.
It’s an astonishing money machine: the broader App Store ecosystem facilitated over $1.4 trillion in developer billings and sales in 2025 alone. Physical goods and services (retail, food delivery, travel, etc.) made up the bulk (~$1.1 trillion), where Apple takes no commission. Digital goods and services accounted for about $149 billion, and in-app advertising another $151 billion. On the digital slice Apple typically charges 15–30%, generating many billions in high-margin revenue that helps power its Services business.
Yet the same walld garden that produces those results is a perpetual source of headaches. Apple’s near-total control over iOS distribution and payments has fueled years of antitrust battles — Epic Games, the U.S. DOJ, EU Digital Markets Act enforcement, court findings of non-compliance, and ongoing developer lawsuits. Critics call the commission the “Apple Tax,” complain about arbitrary review decisions, limited sideloading or alternative stores (outside certain regulated markets), and the risk that a single content flag can yank a major app offline without warning.
The recent Telegram episode fits the pattern perfectly. A brief App Store removal triggered by planted illegal content (which Telegram says was the work of a takedown extortionist) showed how Apple’s gatekeeper power can be gamed or lead to rapid, high-stakes reactions.
Please help support MacDailyNews — and enjoy subscriber-only articles, comments, chat, and more — by subscribing to our Substack: macdailynews.substack.com. Thank you!
Login
