daring-rss

Tim Bray:

But those Ten Blue Links surfaced by the PageRank-that-was had a
special magic. I found them intensely human, a reflection of the
voices populating what remains of the Web, the only platform
without a vendor. This was true when I was there and I said so,
but was laughed at.

And now, in Anno Domini 2024, Google has lost its edge in search.
There are plenty of things it can’t find. There are compelling
alternatives. To me this feels like a big inflection point,
because around the stumbling feet of the Big Tech dinosaurs, the
Web’s mammals, agile and flexible, still scurry. They exhibit
creative energy and strongly-flavored voices, and those voices
still sometimes find and reinforce each other without being sock
puppets of shareholder-value-focused private empires.

That line: the Web’s mammals, agile and flexible, still scurry.

That resonates. I’d expand that to indie mammals, whether writing web or native apps — or often now, both. One of the indie mammals today, one that fits the bill for a “compelling alternative” to Google Search, is Kagi. I’d been using DuckDuckGo for many years as my primary search engine, but I switched to Kagi in the summer of 2022 and haven’t looked back. I’ve been paying $10/month for a Professional plan (unlimited searches per month, unlimited access to Kagi’s FastGPT and Universal Summarizer) and I’m this close to upgrading to the $25/month Ultimate plan just to support this crazy company.

Kagi search isn’t just good for a Google alternative, I flat out prefer its results to Google’s. Better results in a far better presentation. The only thing I find myself resorting to Google Search for are old links — when searching for news or specific articles that are, I don’t know, maybe more than 10 years old, no search engine seems able to compete with Google. But for everything else, I prefer Kagi. I go weeks at a time not using Google Search.

Kagi has no ads — it’s entirely supported by users paying for their excellent service. It’s never going to topple Google, but the man behind Kagi, Vladimir Prelovac, isn’t trying to. He’s just making a search engine — and web browser! — that are trying to be as good as they can possibly be. Just trying to make something great.

 ★ 

Tim Bray:

But those Ten Blue Links surfaced by the PageRank-that-was had a
special magic. I found them intensely human, a reflection of the
voices populating what remains of the Web, the only platform
without a vendor. This was true when I was there and I said so,
but was laughed at.

And now, in Anno Domini 2024, Google has lost its edge in search.
There are plenty of things it can’t find. There are compelling
alternatives. To me this feels like a big inflection point,
because around the stumbling feet of the Big Tech dinosaurs, the
Web’s mammals, agile and flexible, still scurry. They exhibit
creative energy and strongly-flavored voices, and those voices
still sometimes find and reinforce each other without being sock
puppets of shareholder-value-focused private empires.

That line: the Web’s mammals, agile and flexible, still scurry.

That resonates. I’d expand that to indie mammals, whether writing web or native apps — or often now, both. One of the indie mammals today, one that fits the bill for a “compelling alternative” to Google Search, is Kagi. I’d been using DuckDuckGo for many years as my primary search engine, but I switched to Kagi in the summer of 2022 and haven’t looked back. I’ve been paying $10/month for a Professional plan (unlimited searches per month, unlimited access to Kagi’s FastGPT and Universal Summarizer) and I’m this close to upgrading to the $25/month Ultimate plan just to support this crazy company.

Kagi search isn’t just good for a Google alternative, I flat out prefer its results to Google’s. Better results in a far better presentation. The only thing I find myself resorting to Google Search for are old links — when searching for news or specific articles that are, I don’t know, maybe more than 10 years old, no search engine seems able to compete with Google. But for everything else, I prefer Kagi. I go weeks at a time not using Google Search.

Kagi has no ads — it’s entirely supported by users paying for their excellent service. It’s never going to topple Google, but the man behind Kagi, Vladimir Prelovac, isn’t trying to. He’s just making a search engine — and web browser! — that are trying to be as good as they can possibly be. Just trying to make something great.

Read More 

Mark Gurman and Ashley Carman, reporting for Bloomberg (Gurman has been killing it this week on the Vision Pro apps beat — he’s breaking all of these stories):

Google’s YouTube and Spotify Technology SA, the world’s most
popular video and music services, are joining Netflix Inc. in
steering clear of Apple Inc.’s upcoming mixed-reality headset.

YouTube said in a statement Thursday that it isn’t planning to
launch a new app for the Apple Vision Pro, nor will it allow its
longstanding iPad application to work on the device — at least,
for now. YouTube, like Netflix, is recommending that customers use
a web browser if they want to see its content: “YouTube users will
be able to use YouTube in Safari on the Vision Pro at launch.”

Spotify also isn’t currently planning a new app for visionOS — the Vision Pro’s operating system — and doesn’t expect to enable
its iPad app to run on the device when it launches, according to a
person familiar with matter. But the music service will still
likely work from a web browser.

Spotify’s fuck-you to Apple I don’t find surprising, given the longstanding animosity between them. But YouTube is a surprise to me, and it’s a sign of how profoundly different the relationship is between Google and Apple today from the pre-Android era. In 2007, before third-party apps were even supported on iOS, YouTube was a built-in app on the original iPhone. (Apple designed and made the app; Google provided the back-end APIs and, obviously, the content.) Then-Google-CEO (and then-Apple-board-member!) Eric Schmidt was invited on stage by Steve Jobs to demo the YouTube app and sing the praises of both the iPhone and the Apple-Google partnership. That Apple-made Google-supported YouTube app was still a built-in default app on iOS when the iPad launched in 2010.

So for both the original iPhone and iPad, YouTube was part of the system software. For Vision Pro, there’s no app at all, not even the iPad app.

Regarding Netflix’s pass on Vision Pro, a little birdie informed me that until this week, the Netflix iPad app was available for those with access to Vision Pro hardware, and it worked just fine. This birdie still has the Netflix iPad app installed on their Vision Pro. Perhaps people at Netflix would disagree with just how well it worked — I don’t know — but I get the strong impression that the decision was political/strategic/spiteful, not technical. Entertainment is not the sole purpose of Vision Pro, but it’s a major one — and surely the primary one for many buyers — and it’s launching without the two biggest video entertainment apps in the world. Apple expected Netflix’s iPad app to be there on launch day.

This isn’t a dealbreaker — watching Netflix through Safari should be OK (albeit without offline downloads, a huge factor for using Vision Pro on airplanes), and many people think of YouTube as a website, not an app. But there’s no way around it: this is a bad look for Apple, not for Netflix or Google. The buck stops with Tim Cook on this. He should have been on the horn with Ted Sarandos and Sundar Pichai and worked this out. It’s his company that’s launching a $3,500 headset.

It’s also worth pointing out that these corporate pissing matches are reciprocal. I doubt we’ll see any calls for Netflix, YouTube, or Spotify to be investigated by antitrust regulators over their refusal to allow their iPad apps to run on Vision Pro. But imagine if Netflix and Spotify wanted to be on Vision Pro on launch day and Apple refused, to leave more room in the spotlight for Apple TV+ and Apple Music. People would lose their shit. We might even get a testy tweet from Elizabeth Warren.

 ★ 

Mark Gurman and Ashley Carman, reporting for Bloomberg (Gurman has been killing it this week on the Vision Pro apps beat — he’s breaking all of these stories):

Google’s YouTube and Spotify Technology SA, the world’s most
popular video and music services, are joining Netflix Inc. in
steering clear of Apple Inc.’s upcoming mixed-reality headset.

YouTube said in a statement Thursday that it isn’t planning to
launch a new app for the Apple Vision Pro, nor will it allow its
longstanding iPad application to work on the device — at least,
for now. YouTube, like Netflix, is recommending that customers use
a web browser if they want to see its content: “YouTube users will
be able to use YouTube in Safari on the Vision Pro at launch.”

Spotify also isn’t currently planning a new app for visionOS — the Vision Pro’s operating system — and doesn’t expect to enable
its iPad app to run on the device when it launches, according to a
person familiar with matter. But the music service will still
likely work from a web browser.

Spotify’s fuck-you to Apple I don’t find surprising, given the longstanding animosity between them. But YouTube is a surprise to me, and it’s a sign of how profoundly different the relationship is between Google and Apple today from the pre-Android era. In 2007, before third-party apps were even supported on iOS, YouTube was a built-in app on the original iPhone. (Apple designed and made the app; Google provided the back-end APIs and, obviously, the content.) Then-Google-CEO (and then-Apple-board-member!) Eric Schmidt was invited on stage by Steve Jobs to demo the YouTube app and sing the praises of both the iPhone and the Apple-Google partnership. That Apple-made Google-supported YouTube app was still a built-in default app on iOS when the iPad launched in 2010.

So for both the original iPhone and iPad, YouTube was part of the system software. For Vision Pro, there’s no app at all, not even the iPad app.

Regarding Netflix’s pass on Vision Pro, a little birdie informed me that until this week, the Netflix iPad app was available for those with access to Vision Pro hardware, and it worked just fine. This birdie still has the Netflix iPad app installed on their Vision Pro. Perhaps people at Netflix would disagree with just how well it worked — I don’t know — but I get the strong impression that the decision was political/strategic/spiteful, not technical. Entertainment is not the sole purpose of Vision Pro, but it’s a major one — and surely the primary one for many buyers — and it’s launching without the two biggest video entertainment apps in the world. Apple expected Netflix’s iPad app to be there on launch day.

This isn’t a dealbreaker — watching Netflix through Safari should be OK (albeit without offline downloads, a huge factor for using Vision Pro on airplanes), and many people think of YouTube as a website, not an app. But there’s no way around it: this is a bad look for Apple, not for Netflix or Google. The buck stops with Tim Cook on this. He should have been on the horn with Ted Sarandos and Sundar Pichai and worked this out. It’s his company that’s launching a $3,500 headset.

It’s also worth pointing out that these corporate pissing matches are reciprocal. I doubt we’ll see any calls for Netflix, YouTube, or Spotify to be investigated by antitrust regulators over their refusal to allow their iPad apps to run on Vision Pro. But imagine if Netflix and Spotify wanted to be on Vision Pro on launch day and Apple refused, to leave more room in the spotlight for Apple TV+ and Apple Music. People would lose their shit. We might even get a testy tweet from Elizabeth Warren.

Read More 

Lauren Goode, writing at Wired:

Apple seems to not want you to notice the battery. The external
battery pack barely appears on the product page on Apple’s
website, showing up only at the end of a photo gallery at the
bottom of the page. And in demo sessions this week, Apple told
journalists they were not allowed to snap photos or capture any
video of the hardware, an unusual rule for a press briefing.
Instead, the company had its own photographer take photos during
the Vision Pro demos. Every photo you’ve seen this week of
reporters sitting on a couch while wearing the headset were shot
by Apple.

Notably, the battery pack doesn’t appear in any of them. One
attendee chose to run the attached cable down the back of his
sweatshirt. In another shared image, of The Verge’s Nilay
Patel, the cable is clearly visible, but the photo is cropped to
avoid showing the battery pack. Chokkattu experienced this too; he
set the Vision Pro’s battery pack on the couch cushion next to him
during his demo, but in the photo Apple shared with us, the
offending pack is cropped out of the frame.

To Apple’s credit, they weren’t at all cagey about this when they took my picture using Vision Pro Tuesday. They asked if I’d like photos taken by their photographer (who used an iPhone 15 Pro), I said sure, and they suggested draping the battery cable behind my back. It’s not Apple being weird about the external battery; it’s that the external battery is weird. So of course their photography is going to de-emphasize it.

Almost every first-generation product has things like this* — glaring deficiencies dictated by the limits of technology. The original Mac had far too little RAM (128 KB) and far too little storage (400 KB single-sided floppy disks). The original iPhone only supported 2G EDGE cellular networking, which was unfathomably slow and didn’t work at all while you were on a voice call. The original Apple Watch was very slow and couldn’t last a full day on a single charge. The external battery pack — which only supplies 2 to 2.5 hours of battery life — is that for this first-gen Vision Pro. Also, the Vision Pro headset itself — without any built-in battery — is still too big and too heavy.

Paul Graham has a wonderful adage:

Don’t worry what people will say. If your first version is so
impressive that trolls don’t make fun of it, you waited too long
to launch.

* The original iPod is the exception that proves the rule. That little thing was, as Steven Levy’s excellent book aptly declared, perfect.

 ★ 

Lauren Goode, writing at Wired:

Apple seems to not want you to notice the battery. The external
battery pack barely appears on the product page on Apple’s
website, showing up only at the end of a photo gallery at the
bottom of the page. And in demo sessions this week, Apple told
journalists they were not allowed to snap photos or capture any
video of the hardware, an unusual rule for a press briefing.
Instead, the company had its own photographer take photos during
the Vision Pro demos. Every photo you’ve seen this week of
reporters sitting on a couch while wearing the headset were shot
by Apple.

Notably, the battery pack doesn’t appear in any of them. One
attendee chose to run the attached cable down the back of his
sweatshirt. In another shared image, of The Verge’s Nilay
Patel, the cable is clearly visible, but the photo is cropped to
avoid showing the battery pack. Chokkattu experienced this too; he
set the Vision Pro’s battery pack on the couch cushion next to him
during his demo, but in the photo Apple shared with us, the
offending pack is cropped out of the frame.

To Apple’s credit, they weren’t at all cagey about this when they took my picture using Vision Pro Tuesday. They asked if I’d like photos taken by their photographer (who used an iPhone 15 Pro), I said sure, and they suggested draping the battery cable behind my back. It’s not Apple being weird about the external battery; it’s that the external battery is weird. So of course their photography is going to de-emphasize it.

Almost every first-generation product has things like this* — glaring deficiencies dictated by the limits of technology. The original Mac had far too little RAM (128 KB) and far too little storage (400 KB single-sided floppy disks). The original iPhone only supported 2G EDGE cellular networking, which was unfathomably slow and didn’t work at all while you were on a voice call. The original Apple Watch was very slow and couldn’t last a full day on a single charge. The external battery pack — which only supplies 2 to 2.5 hours of battery life — is that for this first-gen Vision Pro. Also, the Vision Pro headset itself — without any built-in battery — is still too big and too heavy.

Paul Graham has a wonderful adage:

Don’t worry what people will say. If your first version is so
impressive that trolls don’t make fun of it, you waited too long
to launch.

* The original iPod is the exception that proves the rule. That little thing was, as Steven Levy’s excellent book aptly declared, perfect.

Read More 

From an updated footnote in Apple’s “How to Use the Blood Oxygen App on Apple Watch” support page:

The ability to measure Blood Oxygen is no longer available on
Apple Watch units sold by Apple in the United States on or after
January 18, 2024. These are indicated with part numbers ending
in LW/A.

Apple refuses to say so, but it seems clear that this is a software change. These new watch units still have the blood-oxygen sensor, but the sensor is disable by software. This workaround definitely does not apply to already-sold watches, even after those watches upgrade to future versions of WatchOS. The reason why is that the ITC injunction is an import ban. Apple is banned from importing watches that violate Masimo’s patents. Units that have already been sold aren’t affected by an import ban.

The software workaround is clearly distinguishing which watches can continue to use the blood-oxygen sensor and which can’t by checking the device identifiers or serial numbers or something. This is why it took Apple a few weeks to come up with this solution: they needed to retool production to produce units with distinguishable part numbers. It would have been trivial to just disable the sensor on all watches, old and new alike.

Apple also refuses to say so, but it seems clear that these new units will have the blood-oxygen sensors enabled in a future software update if and when they win on appeal or otherwise settle with Masimo. I’m pretty sure that’s just a question of when, but maybe it’s an if.

(Because the ban was instituted by the International Trade Commission, I believe Apple could tell Masimo to go fuck themselves if Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 were manufactured in America, because an import ban wouldn’t matter.)

 ★ 

From an updated footnote in Apple’s “How to Use the Blood Oxygen App on Apple Watch” support page:

The ability to measure Blood Oxygen is no longer available on
Apple Watch units sold by Apple in the United States on or after
January 18, 2024. These are indicated with part numbers ending
in LW/A.

Apple refuses to say so, but it seems clear that this is a software change. These new watch units still have the blood-oxygen sensor, but the sensor is disable by software. This workaround definitely does not apply to already-sold watches, even after those watches upgrade to future versions of WatchOS. The reason why is that the ITC injunction is an import ban. Apple is banned from importing watches that violate Masimo’s patents. Units that have already been sold aren’t affected by an import ban.

The software workaround is clearly distinguishing which watches can continue to use the blood-oxygen sensor and which can’t by checking the device identifiers or serial numbers or something. This is why it took Apple a few weeks to come up with this solution: they needed to retool production to produce units with distinguishable part numbers. It would have been trivial to just disable the sensor on all watches, old and new alike.

Apple also refuses to say so, but it seems clear that these new units will have the blood-oxygen sensors enabled in a future software update if and when they win on appeal or otherwise settle with Masimo. I’m pretty sure that’s just a question of when, but maybe it’s an if.

(Because the ban was instituted by the International Trade Commission, I believe Apple could tell Masimo to go fuck themselves if Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 were manufactured in America, because an import ban wouldn’t matter.)

Read More 

Mark Gurman and Edward Ludlow, reporting for Bloomberg:

Customers should buy pulse oximeters from Masimo or others
instead, [Masimo CEO Joe] Kiani said in an interview Thursday on
Bloomberg TV. “Apple is masquerading what they are offering to
consumers as a reliable, medical pulse oximeter, even though it is
not,” he said. “I really feel wholeheartedly that consumers are
better off without it.”

Apple said that Kiani’s claims are false and that its watch’s
blood oxygen feature is accurate, works very well for customers
and in some cases can save lives.

Tell us what you really think, Joe.

Masimo’s CEO said he hasn’t spoken to Apple personally about a
settlement, and that nobody from Apple has reached out about
coming to an agreement.

“There are court-ordered mediations that I cannot get into that
have been held before,” he said. “And there will be additional
meetings probably in the future.”

Kiani added that he doesn’t consider those meetings to be steps
toward settling litigation. Apple disputed Kiani’s
characterization that nobody from Apple has reached out, saying
that the company has held a mediation and that a future meeting
has been set.

One of the most frequent questions I’ve been getting from readers this week is basically, “Why the hell hasn’t Apple paid to settle this, or just bought the entire company?” I have no idea, but the above sounds like neither side is close to settling.

 ★ 

Mark Gurman and Edward Ludlow, reporting for Bloomberg:

Customers should buy pulse oximeters from Masimo or others
instead, [Masimo CEO Joe] Kiani said in an interview Thursday on
Bloomberg TV. “Apple is masquerading what they are offering to
consumers as a reliable, medical pulse oximeter, even though it is
not,” he said. “I really feel wholeheartedly that consumers are
better off without it.”

Apple said that Kiani’s claims are false and that its watch’s
blood oxygen feature is accurate, works very well for customers
and in some cases can save lives.

Tell us what you really think, Joe.

Masimo’s CEO said he hasn’t spoken to Apple personally about a
settlement, and that nobody from Apple has reached out about
coming to an agreement.

“There are court-ordered mediations that I cannot get into that
have been held before,” he said. “And there will be additional
meetings probably in the future.”

Kiani added that he doesn’t consider those meetings to be steps
toward settling litigation. Apple disputed Kiani’s
characterization that nobody from Apple has reached out, saying
that the company has held a mediation and that a future meeting
has been set.

One of the most frequent questions I’ve been getting from readers this week is basically, “Why the hell hasn’t Apple paid to settle this, or just bought the entire company?” I have no idea, but the above sounds like neither side is close to settling.

Read More 

Apple doesn’t have to make a platform-destructive money-grab policy change to ruin the Mac. They can ruin it simply by planting the seed of doubt that they *might*.

Brent Simmons, “Corporations Are Not to Be Loved”:

Apple doesn’t care about you personally in the least tiny bit, and
if you were in their way somehow, they would do whatever their
might — effectively infinite compared to your own — enables them
to deal with you.

Luckily, Apple has just provided us all with a reminder. Just like
the sixth finger in an AI-rendered hand, Apple’s policies for
Distributing apps in the U.S. that provide an external purchase
link are startlingly graceless and a jarring, but not
surprising, reminder that Apple is not a real person and not
worthy of your love.

I wrote yesterday about Apple damaging their brand and reputation with this policy. I’m friends — close friends, in many cases, perhaps especially in Brent’s case — with many longtime indie Mac developers. I’m up to at least half a dozen instances now where group chat discussions have turned to concerns that Apple might assert the same demand for a 27 percent cut of all Mac software. Meaning not just apps in the Mac App Store, but apps from outside the Mac App Store — even apps that are only available outside the Mac App Store. Even apps from developers who don’t have any apps in the Mac App Store. There’s now genuine concern that Apple is going to declare that they want a 27/12 percent revenue cut from all Mac software, full stop.

I’m disappointed by Apple’s decision to demand their commission from sales on the web linked from within iOS apps, but not surprised. But I can’t emphasize enough how flabbergasted many developers are — nor how offended. (Brent was too polite to point out that Apple’s external links policy is also a proverbial third finger.)

Prior to MacOS 10.12 Sierra, MacOS had three options in the Security & Privacy panel of System Preferences (as it was then named) for the sources of apps permitted to run: “App Store”, “App Store and identified developers”, and “Anywhere”. Identified developers means apps from outside the App Store that are cryptographically signed by both Apple and a developer with an Apple developer account. Starting with 10.12 Sierra, the “Anywhere” option was removed. You can still re-enable the ability to run unsigned software, but you need to run an administrator-authenticated command in Terminal (sudo spctl –master-enable).

So, practically speaking, commercial Mac software must be signed, and Apple controls signing. That means Apple could, technically, attempt to demand such a commission (along with the arduous monthly accounting of sales, and the profoundly intrusive option to demand an audit at any time).

I am convinced that Apple has no such intention. I think I understand how Apple views iOS (including its sibling derivatives iPadOS, tvOS, and now VisionOS) as an altogether different type of platform than the Mac. If it were up to Apple, the External Purchase Link Entitlement on iOS wouldn’t exist, because they’re only allowing external purchase links in apps because a court decision demanded it — and thus isn’t an indication of what they want to do with the Mac. The general-purpose-computing flexibility and power of the Mac is necessary, not just nice to have, or the way things have always been.

Back in 2010, when the iPad was just six months old (and ran “iOS”), I wrote a piece titled “The Future of the Mac in an iOS World”. The whole thing holds up and is worth a re-read (or first read, if you didn’t read it then). But I’ll quote the nut of it here:

For all the aforementioned growth in Mac sales — remarkable by
any measure, but especially so for a 25-year-old platform — the
iPad, just six months old, is already outselling the Mac. Here’s
the short version of the “Mac is doomed” scenario: iOS is the
future, Mac OS X is the past, and Apple, unlike most major tech
companies, is strongly inclined to abandon the past in the name of
the future.

You can’t really argue with that, can you? But the premise that
the end is near for the Mac presupposes quite a bit about the
near-term future of iOS. […]

The central conceit of the iPad is that it’s a portable computer
that does less — and because it does less, what it does do, it
does better, more simply, and more elegantly. Apple can only begin
phasing out the Mac if and when iOS expands to allow us to do
everything we can do on the Mac. It’s the heaviness of the Mac
that allows iOS to remain light.

When I say that iOS has no baggage, that’s not because there is
no baggage. It’s because the Mac is there to carry it. Long term — say, ten years out — well, all good things must come to an
end. But in the short term, Mac OS X has an essential role in an
iOS world: serving as the platform for complex,
resource-intensive tasks.

If there’s one thing I wish I had added to that description of the Mac’s essential role in the entire Apple ecosystem, it’s that it’s also the platform for whatever software developers can imagine and build, with no limits or rules other than the APIs — public or private — available in the system itself. And the only mistake I made in that column was thinking the Mac might have then only had a 10-year window of relevance remaining. The Mac today, at 40 years old,1 is if anything stronger and more essential than it was at 25. The move from Intel to Apple silicon is proof to my mind that Apple remains fully committed to the Mac. I now think it’s a forever platform, where forever is at least as far into the future as I can imagine. Decades, plural.

Essential to the Mac’s continuing relevance is that it is continuously evolving. Much has changed since 2010, and much will surely change between now and the Mac’s 50th anniversary in 2034. But one thing that can’t change without destroying it is its openness to software outside Apple’s control. The Mac is a PC. The others, to borrow a term, are post-PC devices. I am convinced that every executive at Apple who needs to understand that does, and that a scheme along the lines of iOS’s External Purchase Link Entitlement has never even been considered for the Mac. Everyone I know at Apple, from the trenches to the executive ranks, loves the Mac. Most of them went to work at Apple because of the Mac. They know that the Macintosh without Adobe, without Microsoft, without the indie developers who craft software that can only exist outside the Mac App Store, wouldn’t be the Macintosh at all. And there’s zero chance Adobe, Microsoft, or any of the indie shops I know would agree to any sort of mandatory revenue share, let alone a hefty one.2

But I don’t sell Mac software. Among those who do, not only do they not share my confidence that Apple would do no such thing — they’re genuinely concerned that it might be inevitable. “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows” is one of Bob Dylan’s best lines, and this week’s External Purchase Link Entitlement policy for iOS is a gust of foul-smelling wind so strong it demands a weather advisory.

Developer uncertainty regarding the viability of selling Mac software is the last thing needed for a platform that is already facing a dearth of new original native software. Apple doesn’t have to make a platform-destructive money-grab policy change to ruin the Mac. They can ruin it simply by planting the seed of doubt that they might.

Read More 

Mark Gurman:

Netflix Inc. isn’t planning to launch an app for Apple Inc.’s
upcoming Vision Pro headset, marking a high-profile snub of the
new technology by the world’s biggest video subscription service.

Rather than designing a Vision Pro app — or even just supporting
its existing iPad app on the platform — Netflix is essentially
taking a pass. The company, which competes with Apple in
streaming, said in a statement that users interested in watching
its content on the device can do so from the web. […]

The fact that Netflix isn’t even willing to support the iPad
approach suggests that it’s taking a wait-and-see stance with the
headset. It’s also a bit of a reversal for the company, which
said in July that it would support its iPad app on the Vision
Pro. Even then, though, Netflix didn’t plan to release software
specifically for the headset’s operating system, visionOS.

“Said in July” links to a report from Gurman himself, which states:

But the biggest streamer of all, Netflix Inc., will take a pass.
I’m told that the company has no current plans to develop a native
app for the Vision Pro. Of course, Netflix will still let its iPad
app run on the headset unmodified.

“Of course”!

Here’s the statement from Netflix:

“Our members will be able to enjoy Netflix on the web browser on
the Vision Pro, similar to how our members can enjoy Netflix on
Macs,” Los Gatos, California-based Netflix said in the statement.

Mac users sure do enjoy not being able to download Netflix movies or shows for offline viewing — you know, like in an airplane, one of the most obvious and common places where Vision Pro will be used.

Not having a native VisionOS app is one thing. Apparently having no current plans to make one is another. But it really feels like pure corporate spite — a pissing match — that Netflix is refusing the allow their iPad app to run on VisionOS. The iPad-app-on-Vision experience is actually pretty good, and for streaming apps in particular, ought to be fine. Not impressive, like the native VisionOS Disney+ app, but just fine. I’ll bet that Netflix is the only major streaming service without an app on VisionOS — iPad or native — on day one. Perhaps Netflix is using this as a negotiating tactic for something in return from Apple?

In addition to the fact that only being available through the web means no offline viewing, it might also mean that VisionOS users will not be able to launch Netflix from their home screens. I’m not sure if VisionOS Safari has an “Add to Home Screen” feature, but if it doesn’t, that’s going to be an annoyance for Vision Pro users who want to watch Netflix. Telling Siri to open “netflix dot com” might be the only way to get there from your home screen.

 ★ 

Mark Gurman:

Netflix Inc. isn’t planning to launch an app for Apple Inc.’s
upcoming Vision Pro headset, marking a high-profile snub of the
new technology by the world’s biggest video subscription service.

Rather than designing a Vision Pro app — or even just supporting
its existing iPad app on the platform — Netflix is essentially
taking a pass. The company, which competes with Apple in
streaming, said in a statement that users interested in watching
its content on the device can do so from the web. […]

The fact that Netflix isn’t even willing to support the iPad
approach suggests that it’s taking a wait-and-see stance with the
headset. It’s also a bit of a reversal for the company, which
said in July that it would support its iPad app on the Vision
Pro. Even then, though, Netflix didn’t plan to release software
specifically for the headset’s operating system, visionOS.

“Said in July” links to a report from Gurman himself, which states:

But the biggest streamer of all, Netflix Inc., will take a pass.
I’m told that the company has no current plans to develop a native
app for the Vision Pro. Of course, Netflix will still let its iPad
app run on the headset unmodified.

“Of course”!

Here’s the statement from Netflix:

“Our members will be able to enjoy Netflix on the web browser on
the Vision Pro, similar to how our members can enjoy Netflix on
Macs,” Los Gatos, California-based Netflix said in the statement.

Mac users sure do enjoy not being able to download Netflix movies or shows for offline viewing — you know, like in an airplane, one of the most obvious and common places where Vision Pro will be used.

Not having a native VisionOS app is one thing. Apparently having no current plans to make one is another. But it really feels like pure corporate spite — a pissing match — that Netflix is refusing the allow their iPad app to run on VisionOS. The iPad-app-on-Vision experience is actually pretty good, and for streaming apps in particular, ought to be fine. Not impressive, like the native VisionOS Disney+ app, but just fine. I’ll bet that Netflix is the only major streaming service without an app on VisionOS — iPad or native — on day one. Perhaps Netflix is using this as a negotiating tactic for something in return from Apple?

In addition to the fact that only being available through the web means no offline viewing, it might also mean that VisionOS users will not be able to launch Netflix from their home screens. I’m not sure if VisionOS Safari has an “Add to Home Screen” feature, but if it doesn’t, that’s going to be an annoyance for Vision Pro users who want to watch Netflix. Telling Siri to open “netflix dot com” might be the only way to get there from your home screen.

Read More 

Apple, in a statement to Chance Miller at 9to5Mac:

Apple’s appeal is ongoing, and we believe the US Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit should reverse the USITC’s decision. We
strongly disagree with the USITC decision and resulting orders.

Pending the appeal, Apple is taking steps to comply with the
ruling while ensuring customers have access to Apple Watch with
limited disruption. These steps include introducing a version of
Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 in the United States
without the Blood Oxygen feature. There is no impact to Apple
Watch units previously purchased that include the Blood Oxygen
feature.

Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 without the Blood
Oxygen feature will become available from apple.com starting 6am
PT on January 18, and from Apple Stores starting January 18.

Without the feature — not without the sensor, as Aaron Tilley of The Wall Street Journal reported in a story that still has not been corrected.

Apple.com’s product pages for Series 9 and Ultra 2 now have a prominent banner at the top that reads “Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 no longer include the blood oxygen feature.”

 ★ 

Apple, in a statement to Chance Miller at 9to5Mac:

Apple’s appeal is ongoing, and we believe the US Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit should reverse the USITC’s decision. We
strongly disagree with the USITC decision and resulting orders.

Pending the appeal, Apple is taking steps to comply with the
ruling while ensuring customers have access to Apple Watch with
limited disruption. These steps include introducing a version of
Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 in the United States
without the Blood Oxygen feature. There is no impact to Apple
Watch units previously purchased that include the Blood Oxygen
feature.

Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 without the Blood
Oxygen feature will become available from apple.com starting 6am
PT on January 18, and from Apple Stores starting January 18.

Without the feature — not without the sensor, as Aaron Tilley of The Wall Street Journal reported in a story that still has not been corrected.

Apple.com’s product pages for Series 9 and Ultra 2 now have a prominent banner at the top that reads “Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 no longer include the blood oxygen feature.”

Read More 

Apple, a court filing spotted by Florian Mueller at Games Fray:

Please take notice that on March 5, 2024 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard by the Court, at the
courtroom of the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, […] Apple
Inc. (“Apple”) will and hereby does move that this Court, pursuant
to the mandate of the Ninth Circuit, enter judgment ordering Epic
Games, Inc. (“Epic”) to pay Apple $73,404,326, plus additional
amounts Apple is incurring during this ongoing litigation, under
the indemnification provision of the Developer Program License
Agreement.

This is not simply about Epic having sued Apple and lost; it’s about the fact that this whole saga started with Epic’s Fortnite in-app payment processing stunt, blatantly violating the Developer Program License Agreement. This wasn’t like an edge case or technicality; Epic deliberately violated the clear rules of the DPLA as a publicity stunt to launch their antitrust lawsuit. File under “Fucking Around and Finding Out”.

Mueller writes:

Early into the litigation, Epic accepted that if it loses on its
antitrust claims (as it did), it owes damages. If Epic had
prevailed on antitrust, the contract clause wouldn’t have been
enforceable. […]

Apple does this as a matter of principle. They won’t leave an
amount in the tens of millions on the table. And their overall
treatment of Epic, such as not putting Fortnite back, is meant to
discourage other app makers from challenging Apple and from
breaching the DPLA.

It’s unsurprising but worth noting that Fortnite is seemingly never coming back to iOS, unless Epic sells the franchise to another company. iOS Fortnite players are like the children in an ugly divorce.

 ★ 

Apple, a court filing spotted by Florian Mueller at Games Fray:

Please take notice that on March 5, 2024 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard by the Court, at the
courtroom of the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, […] Apple
Inc. (“Apple”) will and hereby does move that this Court, pursuant
to the mandate of the Ninth Circuit, enter judgment ordering Epic
Games, Inc. (“Epic”) to pay Apple $73,404,326, plus additional
amounts Apple is incurring during this ongoing litigation, under
the indemnification provision of the Developer Program License
Agreement.

This is not simply about Epic having sued Apple and lost; it’s about the fact that this whole saga started with Epic’s Fortnite in-app payment processing stunt, blatantly violating the Developer Program License Agreement. This wasn’t like an edge case or technicality; Epic deliberately violated the clear rules of the DPLA as a publicity stunt to launch their antitrust lawsuit. File under “Fucking Around and Finding Out”.

Mueller writes:

Early into the litigation, Epic accepted that if it loses on its
antitrust claims (as it did), it owes damages. If Epic had
prevailed on antitrust, the contract clause wouldn’t have been
enforceable. […]

Apple does this as a matter of principle. They won’t leave an
amount in the tens of millions on the table. And their overall
treatment of Epic, such as not putting Fortnite back, is meant to
discourage other app makers from challenging Apple and from
breaching the DPLA.

It’s unsurprising but worth noting that Fortnite is seemingly never coming back to iOS, unless Epic sells the franchise to another company. iOS Fortnite players are like the children in an ugly divorce.

Read More 

Scharon Harding, reporting for Ars Technica:

Apple has developed a backup plan for if the Apple Watch Series 9
and Ultra 2 are import banned again. As it currently appeals the
US International Trade Commission’s (ITC’s) ruling that its
watches violate a patent owned by Masimo, Apple has come up with a
software workaround that strips its current smartwatches of their
controversial blood oxygen monitoring capabilities.

That’s a good summary of Apple’s workaround from a writer who understands what she’s talking about. Apple will disable blood-oxygen monitoring via software.

Compare and contrast with Aaron Tilley’s report for The Wall Street Journal, under the jacktastically-wrong headline “Apple to Remove Blood-Oxygen Sensor From Watch to Avoid U.S. Ban” (News+ link):

Apple is removing a blood-oxygen sensor from some of its
smartwatches to get around a patent dispute related to the
technology, a step likely to avoid further sales disruptions but
one that may raise questions about the company’s push into
health. […]

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, which is
responsible for enforcing import bans, on Friday approved
technical changes to the watches, including the removal of the
blood-oxygen sensor, according to a Masimo filing on Monday. A
decision on Apple’s request for a permanent stay on the U.S. ban
during its appeal is expected in the coming days.

Ars includes a link to Masimo’s filing; the WSJ does not. Needless to say, Masimo’s filing does not say that Apple is removing the blood-oxygen sensor from these watches, because they’re not. They’re just disabling the sensors via software for watches sold in the U.S. — the only country where the import ban applies.

This is no little mistake on Tilley’s and the Journal’s part. Disabling a feature via software is one thing, and not that big a deal. Designing, engineering, and manufacturing entirely different hardware models without the physical sensors would be extraordinary. That’s just not how Apple works — they’re not set up to change manufacturing like that. Plus, if Apple merely disables the sensor via software, they can re-enable it via a software update in the future, once the dispute is settled. If they were to start selling Series 9 and Ultra 2 watches that didn’t have the sensor, those watches would never gain the functionality, even after the dispute is settled.

Aaron Tilley isn’t just a tech reporter for the Journal: his entire beat is covering Apple. And he seemingly has no idea how the company functions, because if he did, he’d have quadruple checked this “they’re removing the sensors” take before publishing it. But here it is a day after publication and his report has yet to be corrected. Pure jackassery.

 ★ 

Scharon Harding, reporting for Ars Technica:

Apple has developed a backup plan for if the Apple Watch Series 9
and Ultra 2 are import banned again. As it currently appeals the
US International Trade Commission’s (ITC’s) ruling that its
watches violate a patent owned by Masimo, Apple has come up with a
software workaround that strips its current smartwatches of their
controversial blood oxygen monitoring capabilities.

That’s a good summary of Apple’s workaround from a writer who understands what she’s talking about. Apple will disable blood-oxygen monitoring via software.

Compare and contrast with Aaron Tilley’s report for The Wall Street Journal, under the jacktastically-wrong headline “Apple to Remove Blood-Oxygen Sensor From Watch to Avoid U.S. Ban” (News+ link):

Apple is removing a blood-oxygen sensor from some of its
smartwatches to get around a patent dispute related to the
technology, a step likely to avoid further sales disruptions but
one that may raise questions about the company’s push into
health. […]

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, which is
responsible for enforcing import bans, on Friday approved
technical changes to the watches, including the removal of the
blood-oxygen sensor, according to a Masimo filing on Monday. A
decision on Apple’s request for a permanent stay on the U.S. ban
during its appeal is expected in the coming days.

Ars includes a link to Masimo’s filing; the WSJ does not. Needless to say, Masimo’s filing does not say that Apple is removing the blood-oxygen sensor from these watches, because they’re not. They’re just disabling the sensors via software for watches sold in the U.S. — the only country where the import ban applies.

This is no little mistake on Tilley’s and the Journal’s part. Disabling a feature via software is one thing, and not that big a deal. Designing, engineering, and manufacturing entirely different hardware models without the physical sensors would be extraordinary. That’s just not how Apple works — they’re not set up to change manufacturing like that. Plus, if Apple merely disables the sensor via software, they can re-enable it via a software update in the future, once the dispute is settled. If they were to start selling Series 9 and Ultra 2 watches that didn’t have the sensor, those watches would never gain the functionality, even after the dispute is settled.

Aaron Tilley isn’t just a tech reporter for the Journal: his entire beat is covering Apple. And he seemingly has no idea how the company functions, because if he did, he’d have quadruple checked this “they’re removing the sensors” take before publishing it. But here it is a day after publication and his report has yet to be corrected. Pure jackassery.

Read More