Archive for September 2, 2025

Tuesday, September 2, 2025

Carbon Copy Cloner 7.1.3

Version 7.1.2:

CCC has a new “glass” icon that looks great on macOS Tahoe! Big thanks to our UI designer Enelia at Abacus Finch who was able to find a way to keep our beloved page curl with the new glass material.

[…]

Tahoe users: If you disable the CCC menubar icon via the new System Settings > Menu Bar > Allow in the Menu Bar interface, CCC cannot be aware of that setting. For the best experience, we recommend that you use the settings inside of CCC for controlling whether the CCC menubar icon is visible.

[…]

In lieu of a separate button, you can now hold down the Option key while clicking the Start button if you would like to have CCC rescan the entire source and destination (i.e. suppress Quick Update). Additionally, you can hold down the Control key to perform an ad hoc Backup Health Check.

[…]

Added yet another workaround for Apple’s restriction on access to the current WiFi network name for the macOS Sequoia 15.6 update. CCC uses the WiFi network name only in support of the option to limit a scheduled task to running when the system is connected to a specific WiFi network.

Version 7.1.3:

CCC will now more effectively dissent requests to unmount the source volume snapshot when the task is actively using that volume for the duration of a task event. Requests to unmount that snapshot are pretty rare, but that can happen if free space on the source volume is very low, or during a logout event. This change resolves the errors that would ensue in those cases when the source is unmounted while we’re using it.

Previously:

Google to Require Developer Verification for Android Sideloading

Abner Li (Hacker News):

To combat malware and financial scams, Google announced today that only apps from developers that have undergone verification can be installed on certified Android devices starting in 2026.

This requirement applies to “certified Android devices” that have Play Protect and are preloaded with Google apps. The Play Store implemented similar requirements in 2023, but Google is now mandating this for all install methods, including third-party app stores and sideloading where you download an APK file from a third-party source.

It sounds like this is checking the person behind the developer account rather than checking the content of the submitted apps.

Sominemo:

I’m struggling to see the benefit of this new policy. While it’s presented as a security measure, the requirement to fill out these forms seems like a trivial barrier for actual malware creators, who will easily abuse the system. The real impact will be felt by legitimate developers who either value their privacy or don’t want to be tied to Google’s centralized ecosystem.

My primary concern is the potential for mismanagement, which could disproportionately harm independent developers. We’ve already seen how Google’s automated systems can randomly ban established developers from Google Play with little to no feedback. A system like this, which grants Google even more oversight, could easily make this problem worse.

Rui Carmo:

The new Android security measures are an interesting piece of revisionist thinking—“developer verification” is now set as the gatekeeper for sideloaded apps in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand by September 2026, with what looks like full side-loading lockdown coming 2027.

Regardless of the malware angle, this seems to effectively kill side-loading on Android in the near future, making it as hobbyist-hostile as iOS and very likely spelling doom for open ecosystems like F-Droid (which I rely upon to customize every Android device I get my hands on).

Rosyna Keller:

What’s the problem with Google becoming a CA for all apps that want to interface with Google Play Services?

Steve Tibbett:

Apple has shown that they’ll use that capability to enforce policy decisions, guess the Android folks don’t want anyone being able to do that.

Sameer Samat:

Sideloading is fundamental to Android, and it’s not going anywhere. As we said in our blog, our new developer identity requirements are designed to protect users and developers from bad actors, not to limit choice. We want to make sure that if you download an app from a developer, regardless of where you get it, it’s actually from them. That’s it.

[…]

We are working on a flow for devs, hobbyists, etc that won’t interfere with your workflow.

Terence Eden (Hacker News):

No rational user would install a purported battery app with that scary list of permissions, right? Wrong!

[…]

There is no UI tweak you can do to prevent users bypassing these scary warnings. There is no amount of education you can provide to reliably make people stop and think.

[…]

Given that sideloaded Android apps are clearly a massive vector for fraud, it obviously behoves Google to find a way to secure their platform as much as possible.

[…]

This is quite obviously a bullshit powerplay by Google to ensnare the commons. Not content with closing down parts of the Android Open Source Project, stuffing more and more vital software behind its proprietary services, and freezing out small manufacturers - now it wants the name and shoe-size of every developer!

[…]

I remember The Day Google Deleted Me - we cannot have these lumbering monsters gatekeeping what we do on our machines.

Hugo Tunius (Hacker News):

When Google restricts your ability to install certain applications they aren’t constraining what you can do with the hardware you own, they are constraining what you can do using the software they provide with said hardware. It’s through this control of the operating system that Google is exerting control, not at the hardware layer. You often don’t have full access to the hardware either and building new operating systems to run on mobile hardware is impossible, or at least much harder than it should be. This is a separate, and I think more fruitful, point to make.

kristov:

I think the conversation needs to change from “can’t run software of our choice” to “can’t participate in society without an apple or google account”. I have been living with a de-googled android phone for a number of years, and it is getting harder and harder, while at the same time operating without certain “apps” is becoming more difficult.

For example, by bank (abn amro) still allows online banking on desktop via a physical auth device, but they are actively pushing for login only via their app. I called their support line for a lost card, and had to go through to second level support because I didn’t have the app. If they get their way, eventually an apple or google account will be mandatory to have a bank account with them.

My kid goes to a school that outsourced all communication via an app. They have a web version, but it’s barely usable. The app doesn’t run without certain google libs installed. Again, to participate in school communication about my kid effectively requires an apple or google account.

See also: Louis Rossmann (Hacker News).

Previously:

iTorrent Removed via Notarization Due to Sanctions

Ernesto Van der Sar (Hacker News, MacRumors, Slashdot):

Under EU law, Apple is required to give its users more freedom to install apps that are not listed in the official App Store. This allows for easier access to software that’s typically prohibited by Apple, including the popular iTorrent BitTorrent client. The iTorrent client built a steady user base over the past year, but that came to an abrupt end when Apple decided to revoke the developer’s alternative distribution rights.

[…]

In July, several users complained that they were unable to download iTorrent from AltStore PAL. Initially the cause of the problem was unclear but the app’s developer, XITRIX, later confirmed that Apple itself had stepped in.

Apparently, Apple had revoked the developer’s “alternative distribution” right, which is required to publish apps in alternative stores, including AltStore PAL.

Jess Weatherbed (Hacker News):

In a statement to The Verge, Apple spokesperson Peter Ajemian said, “Notarization for this app was removed in order to comply with government sanctions-related rules in various jurisdictions. We have communicated this to the developer.”

Apple did not reach out the developer before revoking the app and took more than a month to provide any explanation.

I did some quick searches and was not able to find any specific information about countries sanctioning BitTorrent or any recent changes that might have prompted Apple’s actions.

Rick Findlay:

The app’s developer says the move was carried out without notice, without explanation, and with no way to appeal, effectively cutting off access to a legal torrenting tool that had been gaining popularity across Europe over the past year.

Ryan L. Clancy:

The technology behind torrenting is lawful, and you can use it for legitimate purposes. However, its misuse can lead to severe penalties. Torrenting copyrighted material, for example, can lead to fines and potentially even jail time.

Riley Testut:

Really hard to run a marketplace when apps can disappear randomly without our control and we can’t do anything about it 😓

Kuba Suder:

I don’t like this vision of computing where some governments can decide what apps you’re allow to run on your device…

Previously:

Colombia Investigates App Store

Hartley Charlton:

The Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (SIC) announced the probe yesterday (via MobileTime), stating that its Delegation for the Protection of Competition had reached a preliminary conclusion that Apple may have engaged in exclusionary practices that restrict free competition in the Colombian market.

The SIC case is focused on two primary concerns. First, the agency alleges that Apple contractually prevents developers from creating or operating alternative app stores on iPhones and iPads, ensuring that all software distribution takes place exclusively through the App Store.

[…]

The second issue involves Apple’s handling of in-app purchases. The SIC said developers are compelled to use Apple’s proprietary In-App Purchase system, which applies commissions of 15% to 30% on each transaction. Apple also allegedly prohibits developers from informing users of cheaper alternatives outside the app, a practice known as anti-steering.

Previously: