Apple Newsroom, yesterday:

Apple’s strong antifraud infrastructure helps ensure that malicious developer and customer accounts are swiftly flagged and eliminated. In 2024, Apple terminated more than 146,000 developer accounts over fraud concerns and rejected an additional 139,000 developer enrollments, preventing bad actors from submitting their apps to the App Store in the first place.

Apple also rejected over 711 million customer account creations and deactivated nearly 129 million customer accounts last year, blocking these risky and malicious accounts from carrying out nefarious activity. That includes spamming or manipulating ratings and reviews, charts, and search results that risk compromising the integrity of the App Store.

This report isn’t something new that Apple is doing in the face of increased regulatory scrutiny over the exclusivity of the App Store — they’ve been issuing these reports since 2021. Nick Heer has a good post at Pixel Envy documenting how some of their numbers are seemingly all over the place, year to year.

What some App Store critics argue is that if any substantial amount of fraud, scams, or rip-offs occur through apps distributed through the App Store, that proves that there are no protective benefits of the App Store model. That’s nonsense. There are high-crime cities and low-crime cities, but there exist zero no-crime cities. The question is whether Apple is catching most — or even just “enough” — scammers. Scammy apps, pirated apps, fraudulent app reviewers. You name it. I’ve long suggested that Apple ought to employ a “bunco squad” to crack down on scammers, focusing first and foremost on successful ones. Better to catch one scam with 1,000 victims than 10 scams with one victim each.

I think they could still do better, but I actually think Apple has been doing a better job on this front in recent years. But if your measuring stick is “Are there any successful scams at all in the App Store?” there’s no way Apple is ever going to pass muster. And I think a lot of App Store critics are vastly, vastly underestimating how much fraud Apple is currently stopping that would sail right through if iOS adopted a Mac-like-style of software distribution. The main difference is that iOS is so much more of a juicy target than MacOS. The other is that I think many people underestimate how many software scams there are on MacOS that wouldn’t work on iOS.

Hell of a scoop from Mark Gurman, at Bloomberg:

The next Apple operating systems will be identified by year, rather than with a version number, according to people with knowledge of the matter. That means the current iOS 18 will give way to “iOS 26,” said the people, who asked not to be identified because the plan is still private. Other updates will be known as iPadOS 26, macOS 26, watchOS 26, tvOS 26 and visionOS 26.

Apple is making the change to bring consistency to its branding and move away from an approach that can be confusing to customers and developers. Today’s operating systems — including iOS 18, watchOS 12, macOS 15 and visionOS 2 — use different numbers because their initial versions didn’t debut at the same time.

Now that they’re on a consistent annual schedule, this supposed new version-numbering scheme makes a lot of sense. It’ll certainly be helpful to anyone trying to figure out what’s up-to-date or not, and it’ll make writing about older OSes much easier. Presuming Gurman is right, this is going to seem really weird at first, and then very quickly seem very natural.

One of the true oddities of Apple’s OS version numbering is that because they stuck with “10” as the leading digit of MacOS’s version numbering from Mac OS X 10.0 “Cheetah”¹ (2001) through MacOS 10.15 “Catalina” (2019), before finally turning the dial to 11 with MacOS 11 “Big Sur” (2020), a casual observer would presume that iOS (currently at 18.5) is older than MacOS (currently at 15.5) when in fact it’s the other way around.

Taegan Goddard:

For all the bluster and bravado, Donald Trump is losing. A lot.

Keep the faith.

Established industries don’t get disrupted all that often.

We at Ooni are lucky enough to have changed the game in pizza ovens over the past decade by rethinking them from ground up and in the process enabling the home pizza revolution.

From our deep knowledge in pizza dough we found our next category: the stand mixer.

Domestic kitchen stand mixers have stayed the same for nearly hundred years. There’s a very well established incumbent in the market who only really innovate in color trends.

We’re bringing spiral mixer technology reserved only for professional bakeries to your kitchen counter. The journey wasn’t trivial but we’ve created a product that has just the right features and best-in-class performance.

Michael Flarup:

Whatever we call it (Diamorph or otherwise), I’m just glad to see interfaces getting weird and wonderful again. We’re not going back. We’re going forward — with depth, with texture, and maybe even with a little joy.

Depth is good — humans innately understand three dimensions. Texture is good. We’ve lost so much over the last decade. I hope that’s where Apple is heading back.