Full Width [alt+shift+f] FOCUS MODE Shortcuts [alt+shift+k]
Sign Up [alt+shift+s] Log In [alt+shift+l]
37
Quick, what time is it? If that took you a bit longer than usual to tell the time on the Apple Watch’s new default Infograph face, you’re not alone: John Gruber finds it “far too busy” Jason Snell finds it “pretty and packed with features”, but misses hour numerals Zac Hall removes almost everything to improve legibility David Smith wrote his own complications (!) to improve contrast I’ve configured mine acceptably, but Utility is still far more legible for telling the time at a quick glance: Infograph, Utility Infograph suffers from two major issues: The center complications reduce the contrast between the dial and hands, often making the hands hard to locate. This is avoidable with customization, although the defaults should be much more conservative. It takes too much cognitive effort (and therefore time) to distinguish the current hour. This is simply a flawed design. It’s faster and easier to read analog time with the 1–12 numerals displayed on a watch, but many people prefer...
over a year ago

Comments

Improve your reading experience

Logged in users get linked directly to articles resulting in a better reading experience. Please login for free, it takes less than 1 minute.

More from Marco.org

Retreating to Safety

Ten years ago, Apple’s Phil Schiller surprised Apple enthusiasts and developers by walking out on stage at John Gruber’s The Talk Show Live WWDC event and giving an open, human, honest interview to a somewhat jaded community. I wrote this in response: Both Apple and Phil Schiller himself took a huge risk in doing this. That they agreed at all is a noteworthy gift to this community of long-time enthusiasts, many of whom have felt under-appreciated as the company has grown. […] Phil’s appearance on the show was warm, genuine, informative, and entertaining. It was human. And humanizing the company and its decisions, especially to developers — remember, developer relations is all under Phil — might be worth the PR risk. This started a ten-year run of interviews by Apple executives on The Talk Show every year at WWDC that proved to be great, surprisingly safe PR for Apple. No executive ever said something they shouldn’t have (they’re pros), no sensational or negative news stories ever resulted from them, and Apple’s enthusiastic fans and developers felt seen, heard, and appreciated. *     *     * For unspecified reasons, Apple has declined to participate this year, ending what had become a beloved tradition in our community — and I can’t help but suspect that it won’t come back. (A lot has changed in the meantime.) Maybe Apple has good reasons. Maybe not. We’ll see what their WWDC PR strategy looks like in a couple of weeks. In the absence of any other information, it’s easy to assume that Apple no longer wants its executives to be interviewed in a human, unscripted, unedited context that may contain hard questions, and that Apple no longer feels it necessary to show their appreciation to our community and developers in this way. I hope that’s either not the case, or it doesn’t stay the case for long. This will be the first WWDC I’m not attending since 2009 (excluding the remote 2020 one, of course). Given my realizations about my relationship with Apple and how they view developers, I’ve decided that it’s best for me to take a break this year, gain some perspective, and decide what my future relationship should look like. Maybe Apple’s leaders are doing that, too.

3 months ago 30 votes
Ten years of Overcast: A new foundation

Today, on the tenth anniversary of Overcast 1.0, I’m happy to launch a complete rewrite and redesign of most of the iOS app, built to carry Overcast into the next decade — and hopefully beyond. Like podcasts better than blog posts? Listen to ATP #596 for more! What’s new Much faster, more responsive, more reliable, and more accessible. Modern design, optimized for easily-reached controls on today’s phone sizes. Improvements throughout, such as undoing large seeks, new playlist-priority options, easier navigation, and more. What’s not Most features. Overcast is still Overcast! The audio engine. It’s the best part of Overcast, and still leads the industry in sound quality, silence skipping, and volume normalization. (More soon!) The business. I’m still a one-person operation, with no funding or external ownership, serving only my customers. My principles. I always want to make the best podcast app, and I’ll never disrespect your time, attention, or privacy. What’s gone Streaming. Most big podcasts now use dynamic ad insertion, which causes bugs and problems for streaming playback.1 Downloading episodes completely before they begin playback is much more reliable. Tapping a non-downloading episode will now open the playback screen, download it, then start playback. It works similarly to the way streaming did before, but playback begins after the download completes, not after a portion of it is buffered. On today’s fast networks, this usually only takes a few extra seconds. And in the near future, I’ll be adding smarter options and more control over selective downloading of episodes to further improve the experience for people who don’t automatically download every episode. What’s next The last few missing features from the old app, such as Shortcuts support, storage management, and OPML. These are absent now, but will return soon. More options for downloading and deleting episodes. Upgrading the Apple Watch app to the new, faster sync engine. (The Watch app is currently unchanged from the previous one.) And, of course, more features, including some of your most-requested features over the last decade. Getting this rewrite out the door was a monumental task. Thank you for your patience as I work through this list! Why? Most of Overcast’s core code was 10 years old, which made it cumbersome or impossible to easily move with the times, adopt new iOS functionality, or add new features, especially as one person. That’s why there haven’t been many new features or changes in years. You saw it, and I saw it. I wasn’t able to serve my customers as well as I wanted. For Overcast to have a future, it needed a modern foundation for its second decade. I’ve spent the past 18 months rebuilding most of the app with Swift, SwiftUI, Blackbird, and modern Swift concurrency. Now, development is rapidly accelerating. I’m more responsive, iterating more quickly, and ultimately making the app much better. Thank you all so much for the first decade of Overcast. Here’s to the next one. Dynamic ad insertion (DAI) splices ads into each download, and no two downloads are guaranteed to have the same number or duration of ads. So, for example, if the first half of an episode downloads, then the download fails, and it downloads the second half with another request, the combined audio may jump forward or back at the halfway mark, losing or repeating content. ↩︎

a year ago 86 votes
The Overcast Redesign: Part One

Overcast’s latest update (2022.2) brings the largest redesign in its nearly-eight-year history, plus many of the most frequently requested features and lots of under-the-hood improvements. I’m pretty proud of this one. For this first and largest phase of the redesign, I focused on the home screen, playlist screen, typography, and spacing. (I plan to revamp the now-playing and individual-podcast screens in a later update.) The home screen is radically different: Home screen, before (left) and after (right). Playlists now have strong visual identities for nicer and easier navigation. Each playlist has a customizable color, and a custom icon can be selected from over 3,000 SF Symbols to match modern iOS design and the other icons within Overcast. And playlists can be manually reordered with drag-and-drop. Recently played and newly published episodes can now be displayed on the home screen for quick access, much like the widget and CarPlay experience. Podcasts can now be pinned to the top of the home-screen list. Pinned podcasts can also be manually reordered with drag-and-drop. I’ve also rethought the old stacked “Podcasts” and “Played Podcasts” sections to better match people’s needs and expectations. Now, the toggle atop the podcast list switches between three modes: podcasts with current episodes, all followed podcasts, and inactive podcasts (those that you don’t follow and therefore won’t get any more episodes from, or haven’t posted a new episode in a long time). The playlist screen’s structure remains mostly the same, while refining the design for the modern era: Playlist screen, before (left) and after (right). Here, it’s more apparent that I’ve replaced the system San Francisco font with an alternate variant, San Francisco Rounded, to increase legibility and better match the personality of the app. I’ve also added highly demanded features: By far, Overcast’s most-requested feature is a Mark as Played feature. That’s now available as a checkmark button on episode rows, as well as a left-side swipe action. The second-most-requested feature is a way to view all starred episodes. Special playlists for Starred, Downloaded, and In Progress can now be created. The light and dark themes now each have a customizable tint color from the modern iOS UI-color palette, including these favorites from beta testers: And throughout the app, I’ve made tons of tweaks and bug fixes, including: Notifications and background downloads are now much more reliable. Episode downloads can now be individually deleted or re-downloaded. Links can now be opened in Safari. (under Nitpicky Details) Performance is now significantly better with very large playlists and collections. Fixed bugs with episode-duration detection, CarPlay lists, Mac-app sharing, and much more. So much is better in this update that I can’t even remember it all. Thank you so much to everyone who helped me beta-test this massive update. As always, Overcast is free in the App Store. Go get it!

over a year ago 59 votes
Ten years after we lost Steve Jobs

Losing Steve affected me more than it probably should have, given that I never met him or had any correspondence with him. But losing him was devastating — not just to my world, but the world. He was a sort of virtual father figure: I was always hoping that maybe Steve would notice something I did. We all wanted his attention and approval, and that drove us to do better work — even those of us who never worked at Apple. Nobody replaced him in this role. Nobody can. But as an outsider who had no personal relationship with him to mourn, it has been most depressing to consider how much of his work the world missed out on. He wasn’t taken from us after a long, complete life — he was taken in his prime. He had so much more to offer the world.

over a year ago 55 votes
The future of the App Store

After the dust settles from the developer class-action settlement, the South Korean law, the JFTC announcement, and the Apple v. Epic decision, I think the most likely long-term outcome isn’t very different from the status quo — and that’s a good thing. Allowing external purchases Here’s what I think we’ll end up with: Apple will still require apps to use their IAP system for any qualifying purchases that occur in the apps themselves. All app types will be allowed to link out to a browser for other purchase methods. Most apps will be required to also offer IAP side-by-side with any external methods.1 Only “Reader apps” will be exempt from this requirement.2 Apple will have many rules regarding the display, descriptions, and behavior of external purchases, many of which will be unpublished and ever-changing. App Review will be extremely harsh, inconsistent, capricious, petty, and punitive with their enforcement.3 Apple won’t require price-matching between IAP and external purchases. These few but important corrections reduce Apple’s worst behavior and should relieve most regulatory pressure. The result won’t look much different than the status quo: Most big media apps (qualifying as “reader” apps) won’t offer IAP, but will finally be allowed to link to their websites from their apps and offer purchases there. Many games will offer both IAP and external purchases, with the external choice offering a discount, bonus gems, extra loot boxes, or other manipulative tricks to optimize the profitability of casino games for children (commissions from which have been the largest portion of Apple’s “services revenue” to date). Most importantly, many products, services, and business models will become possible that previously weren’t, leading to more apps, more competition, and more money going to more places. External purchase methods will evolve to be almost as convenient as IAP (especially if Apple Pay is permitted in this context), and payment processors will reduce the burden of manual credit-card entry with shared credentials available across multiple apps. The payment-fraud doomsday scenarios argued by Apple and many fans mostly won’t happen, in part because App Review will prevent most obvious cases, but also because parents don’t typically offer their credit cards to untrustworthy children; and for buyers of all ages, most credit cards themselves provide stronger fraud prevention and easier recourse from unwanted charges than the App Store ever has. No side-loading I don’t expect side-loading or alternative app stores to become possible, and I’m relieved, because that is not a future I want for iOS. When evaluating such ideas, I merely ask myself: “What would Facebook do?” Facebook owns four of the top ten apps in the world. If side-loading became possible, Facebook could remove Instagram, WhatsApp, the Facebook app, and Messenger from Apple’s App Store, requiring customers to install these extremely popular apps directly from Facebook via side-loading. And everyone would. Most people use a Facebook-owned app not because it’s a good app, but because it’s a means to an important end in their life. Social pressure, family pressure, and network lock-in prevent most users from seeking meaningful alternatives. People would jump through a few hoops if they had to. Facebook would soon have apps that bypassed App Review installed on the majority of iPhones in the world. Technical limitations of the OS would prevent the most egregious abuses, but there’s a lot they could still do. We don’t need to do much imagining — they already have attempted multiple hacks, workarounds, privacy invasions, and other unscrupulous and technically invasive behavior with their apps over time to surveil user behavior outside of their app and stay running longer in the background than users intend or expect. The OS could evolve over time to reduce some of these vulnerabilities, but technical measures alone cannot address all of them. Without the threat of App Review to keep them in check, Facebook’s apps would become even more monstrous than they already are. As a user and a fan of iOS, I don’t want any part of that. No alternative app stores Alternative app stores would be even worse. Rather than offering individual apps via side-loading, Facebook could offer just one: The Facebook App Store. Instagram, WhatsApp, the Facebook app, and Messenger could all be available exclusively there. The majority of iOS users in the world would soon install it, and Facebook would start using leverage in other areas — apps’ social accounts, stats packages, app-install ads, ad-attribution requirements — to heavily incentivize (and likely strong-arm) a huge number of developers to offer their apps in the Facebook App Store, likely in addition to Apple’s. Maybe I’d be required to add the Facebook SDK to my app in order to be in their store, which they would then use to surveil my users. Maybe I’d need to buy app-install ads to show up in search there at all. Maybe I’d need to pay Facebook to “promote” each app update to reach more than a tiny percentage of my existing customers. And Facebook wouldn’t even be the only app store likely to become a large player on iOS. Amazon would almost certainly bring their garbage “Appstore” to iOS, but at least that one probably wouldn’t go anywhere. Maybe Google would bring the Play Store to iOS and offer a unified SDK to develop a single codebase for iOS and Android, effectively making every app feel like an Android app and further marginalizing native apps when they’re already hurting. Media conglomerates that own many big-name properties, like Disney, might each have their own app stores for their high-profile apps. Running your own store means you can promote all of your own apps as much as you want. What giant corporation would resist? Don’t forget games! Epic and Steam would come to iOS with their own game stores. Maybe Microsoft and Nintendo, too. Maybe you’d need to install seven different app stores on your iPhone just to get the apps and games you already use — and all without App Review to keep them in check. Most developers would probably need to start submitting our apps to multiple app stores, each with its own rules, metadata, technical requirements, capabilities, approval delays, payment processing, stats, crash reports, ads, promotion methods, and user reviews. As a user, a multiple-app-store world sounds like an annoying mess; as a developer, it terrifies me. Apple’s App Store is the devil we know. The most viable alternatives that would crop up would be far worse. Course correction The way Apple runs its business isn’t perfect, but it’s also not a democracy. I loved this part of Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’ decision in Apple v. Epic, as quoted by Ben Thompson’s excellent article that you should read: Apple has not offered any justification for the actions other than to argue entitlement. Where its actions harm competition and result in supracompetitive pricing and profits, Apple is wrong. I interpret “entitlement” without a negative connotation here — Apple is entitled to run their platform mostly as they wish, with governmental interference only warranted to fix market-scale issues that harm large segments of commerce or society. As a developer, I’d love to see more changes to Apple’s control over iOS. But it’s hard to make larger changes without potentially harming much of what makes iOS great for both users and developers. Judge Gonzalez Rogers got it right: we needed a minor course correction to address the most egregiously anticompetitive behavior, but most of the way Apple runs iOS is best left to Apple. If the South Korean law holds, IAP may not be required — but only in South Korea. With this exception, I expect the rest of these rules to be enforced the same way globally. ↩︎ Apple defines “reader” apps as “[allowing] a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video).” This includes many apps that Apple’s services compete with, such as Netflix, Spotify, and Kindle, that raise anticompetitive concerns among regulators and legislators when forced to give Apple 30%. ↩︎ App Review has higher-level queues for managerial review of controversial rules or edge cases, typically identifiable from the outside by an app stuck with “In Review” status for days or weeks, and often ending in a phone call from “Bill”. I’d expect any app offering external purchases to have a very high chance of being escalated to a slower, more pain-in-the-ass review process, possibly causing it not to be worthwhile for most small developers to deal with. I have no plans to add external purchases to Overcast for multiple reasons, including this — but mostly because, for my purposes, I’m satisfied with Apple’s IAP system. ↩︎

over a year ago 53 votes

More in programming

Apologies and forgiveness

The first in a series of posts about doing things the right way

20 hours ago 6 votes
Understanding Bazel remote caching

A deep dive into the Action Cache, the CAS, and the security issues that arise from using Bazel with a remote cache but without remote execution

21 hours ago 6 votes
Engineering excellence starts on edge

The best engineering teams take control of their tools. They help develop the frameworks and libraries they depend on, and they do this by running production code on edge — the unreleased next version. That's where progress is made, that's where participation matters most. This sounds scary at first. Edge? Isn't that just another word for danger? What if there's a bug?! Yes, what if? Do you think bugs either just magically appear or disappear? No, they're put there by programmers and removed by the very same. If you want bug-free frameworks and libraries, you have to work for it, but if you do, the reward for your responsibility is increased engineering excellence. Take Rails 8.1, as an example. We just released the first beta version at Rails World, but Shopify, GitHub, 37signals, and a handful of other frontier teams have already been running this code in production for almost a year. Of course, there were bugs along the way, but good automated testing and diligent programmers caught virtually all of them before they went to production. It didn't always used to be this way. Once upon a time, I felt like I had one of the only teams running Rails on edge in production. But now two of the most important web apps in the world are doing the same! At an incredible scale and criticality. This has allowed both of them, and the few others with the same frontier ambition, to foster a truly elite engineering culture. One that isn't just a consumer of open source software, but a real-time co-creator. This is a step function in competence and prowess for any team. It's also an incredible motivation boost. When your programmers are able to directly influence the tools they're working with, they're far more likely to do so, and thus they go deeper, learn more, and create connections to experts in the same situation elsewhere. But this requires being able to immediately use the improvements or bug fixes they help devise. It doesn't work if you sit around waiting patiently for the next release before you dare dive in. Far more companies could do this. Far more companies should do this. Whether it's with Ruby, Rails, Omarchy, or whatever you're using, your team could level up by getting more involved, taking responsibility for finding issues on edge, and reaping the reward of excellence in the process. So what are you waiting on?

4 hours ago 3 votes
Trying to Make Sense of Casing Conventions on the Web

(I present to you my stream of consciousness on the topic of casing as it applies to the web platform.) I’m reading about the new command and commandfor attributes — which I’m super excited about, declarative behavior invocation in HTML? YES PLEASE!! — and one thing that strikes me is the casing in these APIs. For example, the command attribute has a variety of values in HTML which correspond to APIs in JavaScript. The show-popover attribute value maps to .showPopover() in JavaScript. hide-popover maps to .hidePopover(), etc. So what we have is: lowercase in attribute names e.g. commandfor="..." kebab-case in attribute values e.g. show-popover camelCase for JS counterparts e.g. showPopover() After thinking about this a little more, I remember that HTML attributes names are case insensitive, so the browser will normalize them to lowercase during parsing. Given that, I suppose you could write commandFor="..." but it’s effectively the same. Ok, lowercase attribute names in HTML makes sense. The related popover attributes follow the same convention: popovertarget popovertargetaction And there are many other attribute names in HTML that are lowercase, e.g.: maxlength novalidate contenteditable autocomplete formenctype So that all makes sense. But wait, there are some attribute names with hyphens in them, like aria-label="..." and data-value="...". So why isn’t it command-for="..."? Well, upon further reflection, I suppose those attributes were named that way for extensibility’s sake: they are essentially wildcard attributes that represent a family of attributes that are all under the same namespace: aria-* and data-*. But wait, isn’t that an argument for doing popover-target and popover-target-action? Or command and command-for? But wait (I keep saying that) there are kebab-case attribute names in HTML — like http-equiv on the <meta> tag, or accept-charset on the form tag — but those seem more like legacy exceptions. It seems like the only answer here is: there is no rule. Naming is driven by convention and decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. But if I had to summarize, it would probably be that the default casing for new APIs tends to follow the rules I outlined at the start (and what’s reflected in the new command APIs): lowercase for HTML attributes names kebab-case for HTML attribute values camelCase for JS counterparts Let’s not even get into SVG attribute names We need one of those “bless this mess” signs that we can hang over the World Wide Web. Email · Mastodon · Bluesky

2 days ago 8 votes
The Angels and Demons of Nondeterminism

Greetings everyone! You might have noticed that it's September and I don't have the next version of Logic for Programmers ready. As penance, here's ten free copies of the book. So a few months ago I wrote a newsletter about how we use nondeterminism in formal methods. The overarching idea: Nondeterminism is when multiple paths are possible from a starting state. A system preserves a property if it holds on all possible paths. If even one path violates the property, then we have a bug. An intuitive model of this is that for this is that when faced with a nondeterministic choice, the system always makes the worst possible choice. This is sometimes called demonic nondeterminism and is favored in formal methods because we are paranoid to a fault. The opposite would be angelic nondeterminism, where the system always makes the best possible choice. A property then holds if any possible path satisfies that property.1 This is not as common in FM, but it still has its uses! "Players can access the secret level" or "We can always shut down the computer" are reachability properties, that something is possible even if not actually done. In broader computer science research, I'd say that angelic nondeterminism is more popular, due to its widespread use in complexity analysis and programming languages. Complexity Analysis P is the set of all "decision problems" (basically, boolean functions) can be solved in polynomial time: there's an algorithm that's worst-case in O(n), O(n²), O(n³), etc.2 NP is the set of all problems that can be solved in polynomial time by an algorithm with angelic nondeterminism.3 For example, the question "does list l contain x" can be solved in O(1) time by a nondeterministic algorithm: fun is_member(l: List[T], x: T): bool { if l == [] {return false}; guess i in 0..<(len(l)-1); return l[i] == x; } Say call is_member([a, b, c, d], c). The best possible choice would be to guess i = 2, which would correctly return true. Now call is_member([a, b], d). No matter what we guess, the algorithm correctly returns false. and just return false. Ergo, O(1). NP stands for "Nondeterministic Polynomial". (And I just now realized something pretty cool: you can say that P is the set of all problems solvable in polynomial time under demonic nondeterminism, which is a nice parallel between the two classes.) Computer scientists have proven that angelic nondeterminism doesn't give us any more "power": there are no problems solvable with AN that aren't also solvable deterministically. The big question is whether AN is more efficient: it is widely believed, but not proven, that there are problems in NP but not in P. Most famously, "Is there any variable assignment that makes this boolean formula true?" A polynomial AN algorithm is again easy: fun SAT(f(x1, x2, …: bool): bool): bool { N = num_params(f) for i in 1..=num_params(f) { guess x_i in {true, false} } return f(x_1, x_2, …) } The best deterministic algorithms we have to solve the same problem are worst-case exponential with the number of boolean parameters. This a real frustrating problem because real computers don't have angelic nondeterminism, so problems like SAT remain hard. We can solve most "well-behaved" instances of the problem in reasonable time, but the worst-case instances get intractable real fast. Means of Abstraction We can directly turn an AN algorithm into a (possibly much slower) deterministic algorithm, such as by backtracking. This makes AN a pretty good abstraction over what an algorithm is doing. Does the regex (a+b)\1+ match "abaabaabaab"? Yes, if the regex engine nondeterministically guesses that it needs to start at the third letter and make the group aab. How does my PL's regex implementation find that match? I dunno, backtracking or NFA construction or something, I don't need to know the deterministic specifics in order to use the nondeterministic abstraction. Neel Krishnaswami has a great definition of 'declarative language': "any language with a semantics has some nontrivial existential quantifiers in it". I'm not sure if this is identical to saying "a language with an angelic nondeterministic abstraction", but they must be pretty close, and all of his examples match: SQL's selects and joins Parsing DSLs Logic programming's unification Constraint solving On top of that I'd add CSS selectors and planner's actions; all nondeterministic abstractions over a deterministic implementation. He also says that the things programmers hate most in declarative languages are features that "that expose the operational model": constraint solver search strategies, Prolog cuts, regex backreferences, etc. Which again matches my experiences with angelic nondeterminism: I dread features that force me to understand the deterministic implementation. But they're necessary, since P probably != NP and so we need to worry about operational optimizations. Eldritch Nondeterminism If you need to know the ratio of good/bad paths, the number of good paths, or probability, or anything more than "there is a good path" or "there is a bad path", you are beyond the reach of heaven or hell. Angelic and demonic nondeterminism are duals: angelic returns "yes" if some choice: correct and demonic returns "no" if !all choice: correct, which is the same as some choice: !correct. ↩ Pet peeve about Big-O notation: O(n²) is the set of all algorithms that, for sufficiently large problem sizes, grow no faster that quadratically. "Bubblesort has O(n²) complexity" should be written Bubblesort in O(n²), not Bubblesort = O(n²). ↩ To be precise, solvable in polynomial time by a Nondeterministic Turing Machine, a very particular model of computation. We can broadly talk about P and NP without framing everything in terms of Turing machines, but some details of complexity classes (like the existence "weak NP-hardness") kinda need Turing machines to make sense. ↩

2 days ago 8 votes