John Siracusa:
Looks like Tahoe/Xcode beta 5 no longer lets me show my pre-Tahoe app icons in pre-Tahoe OSes. This is a bummer. I filed FB19437407 asking for the ability to do this.
I was also looking into how to do this. I had read that you could just keep your old icon in the .xcassets and use the same name for the new .icon file, and it would all just work: new icon on Tahoe and old icon on older versions of macOS. But I found that the old icon didn’t make it into the built app, and even the generated .icns file for backwards compatibility was low-resolution.
Avi Drissman:
By default, yes, actool will ignore .xcassets compatibility bitmaps that match the name of your app icon, and will instead substitute its own. However, if you use the super duper secret undocumented --enable-icon-stack-fallback-generation=disabled flag, it won’t. See here. This worked as of db4; I really hope they didn’t break it in db5.
This did not work for me with beta 5.
Václav Slavík found that it does work to separate names for the .iconset (for CFBundleIconFile) and .icon (for CFBundleIconName), not putting either in .xcassets, and this seemed to work for me, at least with his test project. But this approach didn’t work for Siracusa.
Václav Slavík:
There’s apparently something special about app icons stored in Assets.car, it’s not just the name, and that’s what is throwing a wrench into things.
Previously:
Update (2025-08-09): John Siracusa:
The approach used in the [new version of the] sample project referenced here did work for me.
It uses a shell script to call actool and PlistBuddy.
Asset Catalog (.car) Icon Composer Icons Liquid Glass Mac macOS 15 Sequoia macOS Tahoe 26 Programming Xcode
Steve Troughton-Smith:
“Are you merging iOS and macOS?” “…No! Of course not”
Yet seven years later it is incredibly clear that there is a point of convergence coming in the very near future where iPadOS and macOS look effectively identical and run basically the same apps — and at that point, why do you need two sets of everything? Yes, they both ‘feel’ different, and they draw different lines in the sand re capabilities (today). But that doesn’t mean you truly need two operating systems.
Matt Birchler:
Yesterday I wrote about how macOS and iPadOS apps are really merging into one unified experience. That was a quick post, but I wanted to hit on this again with some specific examples. The message was basically that while Apple hasn’t technically “merged” the operating system, they have merged the experience of actually using apps on each platform. Maybe in the early 2010s there were distinct app experiences built for the iPad and Mac, but that ship has long sailed. In 2025, Apple wants you to make Apple apps, and the experience of using those apps on each platform is the same. Here’s some examples.
It’s great that iPadOS can do more now and can also still be an older, simpler iPad if you want. But it feels like macOS has been held back for the last decade or so. The ceiling for desktop apps should be higher.
Max Oakland:
Making them look and act the same is bad design. They should reflect the machines they run on and the ways people use them.
Previously:
iPadOS iPadOS 26 Mac macOS Tahoe 26
David Heinemeier Hansson:
It’s a solid 40% faster than the M4 Max and 50% faster than the M4 Pro! Now some will say “that’s just because Docker is faster on Linux,” and they’re not entirely wrong. Docker runs natively on Linux, so for this test, where the MySQL/Redis/ElasticSearch data stores run in Docker while Ruby and the app code runs natively, that’s part of the answer. Last I checked, it was about 25% of the difference.
But so what? Docker is an integral part of the workflow for tons of developers.
[…]
[Multicore performance] Basically matching the M4 Max! […] To be fair, the M4s are faster in single-core performance. Apple holds the crown there. It’s about 20%.
[…]
It gets even better when you bring price into the equation, though. The Framework Desktop with 64GB RAM + 2TB NVMe is $1,876. To get a Mac Studio with similar specs — M4 Max, 64GB RAM, 2TB NVMe — you’ll literally spend nearly twice as much at $3,299! If you go for 128GB RAM, you’ll spend $2,276 on the Framework, but $4,099 on the Mac.
See also: Andrew E. Freedman.
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) Apple M4 Max Apple M4 Pro Docker Hardware Linux Mac macOS 15 Sequoia Programming Ruby
Marcus Mendes:
Since 2020, Japan’s Fair Trade Commission has investigated Apple and Google’s dominance in the mobile market. This week, the watchdog published a series of new guidelines that the two companies must comply with, chief among them allowing third-party app stores.
In a 119-page document issued this week, the Japan Fair Trade Commission established the Mobile Software Competition Act Guidelines, which are set to come into effect on December 18.
In essence, the guidelines state that Apple and Google can’t favor their apps over third-party competitors, either by leveraging user data natively collected by the operating system, or by unfairly delaying, rejecting, or hindering competitors’ apps’ presence or visibility in their respective app stores.
Open Web Advocacy (Hacker News, The Register, MacRumors):
Readers may recall that Japan recently passed the Smartphone Act, officially the Bill on the Promotion of Competition for Specified Software Used in Smartphones. Among its most important reforms is a direct prohibition on Apple’s long-standing ban on third-party browser engines on iOS.
[…]
This clause is crucial. It means that designated providers (i.e. Apple) must not only eliminate outright bans (like App Store Guideline 2.5.6), but must also refrain from practices that, while technically permitting browser engines, render their use impractical or commercially unviable.
[…]
The act also mandates choice screens for browsers among other items.
Previously:
Antitrust App Marketplaces iOS iOS 15 Japan Legal Web Browser
